GUTSHOT: Court Case

[Jonboy]

There is an article in the Times today on the opening of the 'Gutshot' court case.

They are giving the jurors a 'crash' course in poker so they 'know their fish and their flops from their flush and their folds', apart from that, and a few opening statement quotes, there is not a lot else other than the classic skill/luck balance debate. (Oh ... and apparently 1 million britons spend at least a £1,000 a year on poker??)

I don't know how long it is expected to last, but is there anywhere on the web that has updates? Failing that can Tikay get the intrepid beagle to bribe the jury keep us informed.

Personally I think his will have long reaching implications for live poker in the UK, including Cincinatis (sp.) and DtD. Although Rob might be a bit peeved if it is ruled that poker doesn't require the full gaming licence after spending £X squillion pounds, and hours of his time trying to secure it!!

Jon.

[tantrum]

I just hope Gut Shot' Lawyers know what they are doing...

[boldie]

I just hope Gut Shot' Lawyers know what they are doing...

Well, apparently they failed miserably against the guy from the GC who claimed that "Because the cards are shuffled it is automatically a game of luck and not skilled" So I am not that hopefull.

[ripple11]

Lets hope Mr. Hellmuth isnt called as a witness.....

" if there weren't luck involved, I guess I'd win every one"

[Sheriff Fatman]

Well, apparently they failed miserably against the guy from the GC who claimed that "Because the cards are shuffled it is automatically a game of luck and not skilled" So I am not that hopefull.

Most sporting events commence with the toss of a coin.  Perhaps football, rugby, tennis, cricket, etc should also be licensed by the GC.

(Not a dig at boldie, btw, just a comment on the ridiculous argument he has quoted).

[boldie]

Well, apparently they failed miserably against the guy from the GC who claimed that "Because the cards are shuffled it is automatically a game of luck and not skilled" So I am not that hopefull.

Most sporting events commence with the toss of a coin.  Perhaps football, rugby, tennis, cricket, etc should also be licensed by the GC.

(Not a dig at boldie, btw, just a comment on the ridiculous argument he has quoted).

I agree with you...it is a ridiculous argument BUT apparently the lawyers for Gutshot didn't even rip it to shreds

[tantrum]

Just read a report from the gutshot website; I must say the lawyers are not bad;

Well, apparently they failed miserably against the guy from the GC who claimed that "Because the cards are shuffled it is automatically a game of luck and not skilled" So I am not that hopefull.

Hmm not really; quoting from the article in a gutshot:

Now came the turn of Zeesham Dhar to cross examine Mr Kirkup for the defense.


“Would you accept Mr Kirkup, would you agree that there are various definitions in the 1968 Act but there is nothing in the act that refers to card games in Section 52? It refers to games of chance for winnings and winning but there is no reference to card games. It includes references to games of combined chance and skill as determining whether a game is one of chance…but there is no reference to cards as such?”

Staying on the theme Zeesham Dhar continued, “You concluded simply that poker combined chance and skill and it was gaming. By that definition Scrabble would be a game of chance would it not? The pieces are selected at random and under section 52 Scrabble would be constituted as a game of chance.”

Mr Kirkup answered, “I have never known of Scrabble being played for money….”

“Monopoly? How you move around the board is subject to chance, the throw of the dice, after that it is up to the player to make a decision whether to buy that property or not?

Tennis and the golf were mentioned with Mr Kirkup at first insisting that golf (a game yet to be accepted as an Olympic sport) was a game of pure skill but after some pressing by the defense Mr Kirkup, the witness for the prosecution, did concede that there was an element of chance in most games.

“Would you agree therefore that games that demonstrated even massive amounts of skill combined with small amounts of luck would fall under the act?”

“I’m not quite sure how to answer that.''

and some saucy suggestions:

The defense immediately resumed cross examination of the prosecution witness. Zeesham Dhar explained that ‘AIM Ltd,’ an independent detection agency had been commissioned by Mr. John Butler, Director of Compliance at RANK (who own Grosvenor Casinos – five of them in London) to carry out covert enquiries into Gutshot. Henry Kirkup had apparently received a copy of the ‘AIM’ report on 19 December 2004. Zeesham Dhar asked Mr. Kirkup to have a look at the report.

“To put it tactfully, there were several other interested parties that might have pushed the prosecution in the ‘right’ direction?” Zeesham Dhar continued, “I call this a report but it looks more like ‘AIM’s brief was not simply to ‘report’ but to collect evidence.”

Zeesham Dhar went on to say that there would be links between the Gaming Board and the Casinos (and pointed out that he did not want to imply anything sinister in that association) but asked if there was a distinction between reporting and actively collecting evidence for a prosecution…he then asked…

[boldie]

Just read a report from the gutshot website; I must say the lawyers are not bad;

Well, apparently they failed miserably against the guy from the GC who claimed that "Because the cards are shuffled it is automatically a game of luck and not skilled" So I am not that hopefull.

Hmm not really; quoting from the article in a gutshot:

Now came the turn of Zeesham Dhar to cross examine Mr Kirkup for the defense.


“Would you accept Mr Kirkup, would you agree that there are various definitions in the 1968 Act but there is nothing in the act that refers to card games in Section 52? It refers to games of chance for winnings and winning but there is no reference to card games. It includes references to games of combined chance and skill as determining whether a game is one of chance…but there is no reference to cards as such?”

Staying on the theme Zeesham Dhar continued, “You concluded simply that poker combined chance and skill and it was gaming. By that definition Scrabble would be a game of chance would it not? The pieces are selected at random and under section 52 Scrabble would be constituted as a game of chance.”

Mr Kirkup answered, “I have never known of Scrabble being played for money….”

“Monopoly? How you move around the board is subject to chance, the throw of the dice, after that it is up to the player to make a decision whether to buy that property or not?

Tennis and the golf were mentioned with Mr Kirkup at first insisting that golf (a game yet to be accepted as an Olympic sport) was a game of pure skill but after some pressing by the defense Mr Kirkup, the witness for the prosecution, did concede that there was an element of chance in most games.

“Would you agree therefore that games that demonstrated even massive amounts of skill combined with small amounts of luck would fall under the act?”

“I’m not quite sure how to answer that.''

and some saucy suggestions:

yes...comparing Poker to scrabble and monopoly is the right way to go. As you often hear normal people say "I am really good at monopoly I am" This is exactly the sort of stuff I was hoping they wouldn't do.

Comparing it to golf is much better but when you start off comparing it with monopoly and scrabble you have set the tone for your own argument and it's definetly not one that would impress me.

[ripple11]

Thanks for the link tantrum,,,,,the full report makes very interesting reading.

[Tractor]

Yes very interesting indeed, I hope they win this case.
GL GUTSHOT

[tantrum]

boldie- it is really irrelevant whether the defence will compare the poker to scrabble or golf; the scrabble was a good analogy as you are 'dealt' random letters and then you must create the words from what you are dealt with, so following prosecution's argument - scrabble would be a game of chance with some element of skill.

[boldie]

boldie- it is really irrelevant whether the defence will compare the poker to scrabble or golf; the scrabble was a good analogy as you are 'dealt' random letters and then you must create the words from what you are dealt with, so following prosecution's argument - scrabble would be a game of chance with some element of skill.

yes and I'd just about agree with that. I read the gutshot report on the first day and got the feeling that it's somewhat biased..which is to be expected and fair enough.
the problem I have with the scrabble and monopoly analogy is that people don't view it as games of skill (less so in the case of scrabble then in the case of monopoly) I therefore have a problem with it.
the analogy works fine, however whether it will convince the jury that poker is not a game of luck but a game of skill remains to be seen IMO.

I really hope the gutshot wins this one but I don't think this is the right way to go about it.
Also the conspiracy theory "We are singled out, poor us" doesn't work on me. It's either within the law or it's not, the rest of bollox in my opinion and that's the part they have to convince the jury on.

Anyways, I will be watching and reading all the reports and rooting for Gutshot all the way no matter how they decide to go about defending themselves.

[Wardonkey]

I have 2 questions.


Is a jury the best group of people to decide the skill/luck arguement?


If we accept that poker is gambling, and then decide that there is a large element of skill. Should poker then be treated differently by the law than games of pure chance?. Why and in what way?

[FlyingPig]

Can someone please explain this case to me? I didn't know the Gutshot was being taken to court, and I am involved in Law

Who is taking who to court, and why?

Every game, sport or otherwise will have some element of chance, randomness, luck about it. Cup draws; Referees not seeing things; Weather: all of these are beyond control in any sport. So all have that element.

Can we put the just up against proffesional poker players HU and see who wins? If it is a game of luck, then it would be an equal split? Haha vert scientific, about time the old bailey came into the 21st centurt!

[boldie]

I have 2 questions.


Is a jury the best group of people to decide the skill/luck arguement?


If we accept that poker is gambling, and then decide that there is a large element of skill. Should poker then be treated differently by the law than games of pure chance?. Why and in what way?

That's the question indeed. I, for one, hate the jury system. I don't think it should be used in complex cases at all. I actually don't believe it should be used in any cases but that's the way it is I guess.

Ofcourse poker is gambling. anything you put money on is essentially gambling. (The stockmarket is another example of gambling in my opinion).
I also think it should be treated the same as games of pure chance...or there shoudl atleast be a set of rules which governs games of chance mixed with skill.

I am not saying it should only be played in casino's but the GC should have a set of rules with regards to games like poker and there should be some sort of regulation on poker clubs. I don't think anybody has a problem with that. The problem seems to be that the GC either is unwilling or unable to regulate pokerclubs and to issue licenses, I think this is where the real problem is.