GUTSHOT: Court Case

[Wardonkey]

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!

Gutshot is being prosecuted by the Crown for alleged violations of sections of the 1968 gaming act. However it looks as if a private investigation by Rank, who own Grosvenor may have been instrumental bringing the prosecution.

Poker is not mentioned specifically in the act and the legal arguement boils down to weather or not poker is a game of pure chance, a mixed game of chance and skill or a game of skill. There is plenty of info on Gutshot's website.

[Weblomaniac]

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.

Bingo..... I think you hit the nail on the head there Boldie

My preferred outcomes would be either:

1) Poker is seen as different to Casino games of pure chance, like roulette, and it is deemed that Poker Clubs are therefore exempt from requiring a Gaming License.

or

2) Poker is seen as a game of combined skill and chance and requires a license, but that license is neither as expensive or has as strict criteria to fulfil as a full Gaming License, and it is legislated that the GC in consultation with the poker industry should define and implement a new type of license specifically for cardrooms and implement it within a clearly defined timeframe. And all existing cardrooms can continue to operate until the new license application procedure is in place.

Now lets just hope the jury read this posting as part of their crash course in poker and come to a sensible conclusion.

[Wardonkey]

Why should a 'poker license' be less restrictive than a 'gaming license'?

[Gryff]

Imagine if gutshot win? You have unregulated cardrooms all over the place, with unbound potential for ripping people off and dodgy dealings.

[ifm]

Imagine if gutshot win? You have unregulated cardrooms all over the place, with unbound potential for ripping people off and dodgy dealings.

We already have that!

[Stone]

I wonder if the GC lawyers might try to muddy the waters by claiming that some variants of Poker are more skillfull that others, hence chance can have a bigger impact.

Having recently been trying out Triple Draw 2-7 on stars, wild game. Even following the guru Negranu's advice, I'm having big swings. Its very enjoyable though just like gambling!!

 

[Weblomaniac]

Why should a 'poker license' be less restrictive than a 'gaming license'?

I'm not saying a poker license should be less restrictive, infact the license should be more restrictive than a full Gaming License. I'm saying it should be cheaper and easier to obtain. My logic, which is probably flawed, runs like this.

You play casino games in a casino. The casino always has a statistical edge. What you are doing is almost totally luck based, it is that statistical edge that makes the casino rich.

In a poker club you play poker versus other player, NOT the against the poker room. They have no edge, they merely provide the infrastructure/facility to allow you to play poker against others. Therefore it is fair that they charge a fee / rake / whatever.

So... if the games in a casino could be judged for arguements sake to be 95% luck 5% skill and a license costs £50 squillion then it might be fair to consider that a game where the skill is perhaps 40% and luck 60% (and don't flame me on those stats, I've just plucked them from the air) should not have as expensive a license or as strict criteria because there is less luck involved and therefore the poker room is not "rigged" in the same way that a casino is.

An innocent punter may not be aware that their odds are so poor in a casino and therefore it could be argued that they should be afforded better protection in the form of licensing at a casino.

OK so it maybe a bit of an incoherent stream of conciousness more than pure logic, but it hopefully explains why I think regulation in the form of a "lite" license would probably be OK.

[tantrum]

Imagine if gutshot win? You have unregulated cardrooms all over the place, with unbound potential for ripping people off and dodgy dealings.

I think you mix two different issues here; regulating cardrooms and applying Gaming Act to poker, both are two different things.  
We have unregulated cardrooms at the moment, and so far people do not complain about them.  All places that provide poker games are not regulated, they exist thanks to unclear laws regarding card games, and gutshots case at the moment will force the gaming licensing to clarfiy the issue.  Of course this will have nothing to do with well being of the punters but rather of the interests of big casinos/ councils and so forth.

[Wardonkey]

Does an unskilled poker player have more chance of winning at poker or roulette?

Why is skill important in this arguement? (The ethical arguement not the legal one)

[tantrum]

Insert Quote
Does unskilled poker player have more chance of winning at poker or roulette?

why does it matter?

[The Baron]

Does an unskilled poker player have more chance of winning at poker or roulette?

Why is skill important in this arguement? (The ethical arguement not the legal one)

I wonder if the Billy Baxter case will be brought up. Probably not in this case but maybe more likely in the US version?

[Wardonkey]

Insert Quote
Does unskilled poker player have more chance of winning at poker or roulette?

why does it matter?

I'm asking the questions!

[LLevan]

So far it would appear that a lot has been made of the fact Rank acquired the services of AIM Ltd. to investigate the Gutshot. IMO all casinos would prefer to take a rake that to charge an hourly rate for poker so how can it be in the casinos interest to get the Police to charge the owners of the Gutshot for contravening sections of the Gaming Act. Surely their best course of action would have been to lobby Parliament to get the Gaming Act changed to include provisions for Poker whereby it would be defined as to what the maximum charge for playing Poker in any establishment can be.

[AndrewT]

The big difference between poker and casino games is this.

With casino games, you are gambling against the house. They give odds on an event happening, players put bets on, then the house pays out winning bets from their own pocket. This is no different to a bookmaker, and so casino owners are subject to as stringent legislation as bookmakers.

With poker rooms, the house does not get involved in any gambling - they simply provide the area/tools for players to gamble with each other. If you're not getting involved in the actual gambling, why on earth should you need a licence?

[tantrum]

Quote from: tantrum on Today at 03:10:12 pm
Quote
Insert Quote
Does unskilled poker player have more chance of winning at poker or roulette?

why does it matter?

I'm asking the questions!

ah sry