GUTSHOT: Court Case

[tantrum]

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?

To pay big fees to your local council?

[boldie]

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?

that is actually a fair point. But I would like to see pokerclubs regulated by some sort of system. Not everyone should be allowed to set up a pokerclub just because they feel like it in my opinion. there should be a certain set of rules and guidelines they have to adhere to.

[Wardonkey]

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?

What are the purposes of the license?

Why does it make a difference if the houses money is at stake?

[AndrewT]

I should have written 'why on earth should you need a gambling licence?' but it's too late to change now.

The Gutshot are being prosecuted under the assumption that running a poker room is the same as running a casino, when it quite clearly isn't. It's more like running any other business where you accept money for providing a service, none of which are subject to as stringent and expensive licensing regulations as casinos are.

[Weblomaniac]

I should have written 'why on earth should you need a gambling licence?' but it's too late to change now.

The Gutshot are being prosecuted under the assumption that running a poker room is the same as running a casino, when it quite clearly isn't. It's more like running any other business where you accept money for providing a service, none of which are subject to as stringent and expensive licensing regulations as casinos are.

  Wish I could have put it as clearly and concisely myself.

[Wardonkey]

I should have written 'why on earth should you need a gambling licence?' but it's too late to change now.

The Gutshot are being prosecuted under the assumption that running a poker room is the same as running a casino, when it quite clearly isn't. It's more like running any other business where you accept money for providing a service, none of which are subject to as stringent and expensive licensing regulations as casinos are.

If we accept that gambling is potentialy destructive in any form, then why should poker players not be afforded the same protection as roulette players?

[Tractor]

Stupid question but if Derek (gutshot) is found Gulity what are the penalties likely to be?

[Moskvich]

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?


What are the purposes of the license?

Why does it make a difference if the houses money is at stake?

I'd guess (though it is only a guess) that it's partly to protect the gambler - so that the casino doesn't itself decide to gamble by taking on bets that it can't actually pay out. ie if someone wants to stick a million on number 5, then you need to have at least 36 million in the bank to be able to take that bet. In poker the money is all the players', so the financial rules and restrictions don't apply.

[Wardonkey]

What are the purposes of the license?

Why does it make a difference if the houses money is at stake?


I'd guess (though it is only a guess) that it's partly to protect the gambler - so that the casino doesn't itself decide to gamble by taking on bets that it can't actually pay out. ie if someone wants to stick a million on number 5, then you need to have at least 36 million in the bank to be able to take that bet. In poker the money is all the players', so the financial rules and restrictions don't apply.

A valid piont, casinos are required to hold large finacial reserves, these are calculated using the casino's maximum bet on the st8 up of a roulette table. I forget the exact formula but it's something 50,000 times the max bet.

This however is not the only reason for regulation and licensing.

[boldie]

Stupid question but if Derek (gutshot) is found Gulity what are the penalties likely to be?

I'm guessing a fine and shutting down of the club.

[tantrum]

i think it is a criminal offence so - jail

[AndrewT]

If we accept that gambling is potentialy destructive in any form, then why should poker players not be afforded the same protection as roulette players?

Gambling licensing is around in order to protect people from themselves?

I'd be interested in seeing the section of the gaming licence that requires a casino owner to walk up to one of his patrons and say 'I think you've had a little too much roulette this evening sir - it's time to go home'.

[Moskvich]

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.

I have my doubts as to whether the question of whether it is strictly within or outside the law is necessarily going to be the overriding one here. The references to scrabble etc are presumably intended not just to show that poker is a game of skill, but also to suggest to the jury that it's something played by normal people with their mates, unlike roulette for example, which is essentially played just for money and conjours up images of desperate people trying to claw back the rent at 6 in the morning. And also to show that the casinos just want to keep their hands on the revenues from a game which doesn't necessarily belong in a casino environment.

People in general have a fairly cynical attitude towards the intentions of big business - juries are no exception, and a barrister friend tells me that Snaresbrook juries are notorious for letting people off for doing things that might be technically outside the law but which they regard as basically being part of everyday life. Particularly in terms of the steroetypical Essex-style entrepreneurship. They may simply not be very interested in a crime that hurts no-one but a casino corporation.

[Wardonkey]

If we accept that gambling is potentialy destructive in any form, then why should poker players not be afforded the same protection as roulette players?

Gambling licensing is around in order to protect people from themselves?

I'd be interested in seeing the section of the gaming licence that requires a casino owner to walk up to one of his patrons and say 'I think you've had a little too much roulette this evening sir - it's time to go home'.

There are many restrictions in place to protect those prone to problem gambling. Including the membership system,self barring, a ban on credit facilitie, regulation of the cash desk including maximum withdrawls from bank accounts and other sources.

They do not extend to physically stopping the player from playing, but they do put the brakes on. These systems are not in place in unregulated card rooms.

'Protection of the vulnerable' is one three main aims when it comes to gambling legislation. The other two are to 'keep the criminal elment out of the gaming business', and to 'ensure that the games are run fairly'.

One can argue that there are many factors that affect gaming legislation but these are the stated goals. I do not see why they should be applied to a casino but not a cardroom.

[ericstoner]

I think if Derek Kelly loses this case, he's gonna do a bunk and get involved in the Spanish poker scene down Marbella way.