Gutshot lose Court case Skills fight... Derek Kelly found Guilty!

[LLevan]

From reading through that link it would appear that the Commission are adamant that all poker clubs are not running within the law and if they decide to use The Gutshot case as a test case then I can see many of the new clubs being raided by the police and further prosecutions taking place. This is sad for poker as a whole and will only force to send poker underground with various old style spielers opening up where in the past there was very little security and cheating was rife. Surely this goes against everying the Commission was set up for according to their own website.

[MrsLime]

Backgammon and rubber bridge clubs have operated in London for a long time. Why is poker different? I know rubber bridge clubs had their own battles but they won by claiming it was a skill game. If it didn't matter that there was a large luck element for those games why did it matter for poker? Was the fact that bridge and backgammon clubs were not competing with casinos a factor?

the difference is that to win at bridge or backgammon (or chess, or scrabble), you have to at least know the rules

the same does not hold for poker

[tantrum]

Actually if one reads the Gaming Act 1968 S. 2 Part I

2 Nature of game
(1)     Subject to the following provisions of this section, no gaming to which this Part of the Act applies shall take place where any one or more of the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say—
(a)     the game involves playing or staking against a bank, whether the bank is held by one of the players or not;
(b)     the nature of the game is such that the chances in the game are not equally favourable to all the players;
(c)     the nature of the game is such that the chances in it lie between the player and some other person, or (if there are two or more players) lie wholly or partly between the players and some other person, and those chances are not as favourable to the player or players as they are to that other person.

(2)     (...)

One can interpret this section in a various ways, but one would have to argue hard that poker could be excluded from that section or bridge and other games could be well included. 

How one can interpret section 2(b)?
(b)     the nature of the game is such that the chances in the game are not equally favourable to all the players;

and section 2(c)?

one shall think how to interepret the game of chance vs game of skill.  If one would interpret 'chances' as a probability then how poker favours one player over the other? casino games have an edge over the gamblers, In poker though the way cards are dealt - mathematically- sooner or later each player will be dealt pair of Aces, sooner or later each of the player will hit their straights and flushes.  So how the chances favour one player over the other?


I think the argument in court was slightly misleading, as this section talks specifically about the game in which chances favour one player over the other. Can this be said about the poker?  Each game has an element of chances, even the chess, but the issue is are those chances favour one player over the other in the same way as a roulette or slot machines have an edge against its players.  I personally think that poker is not one of those games. 

the main reason why this argument was taking place in the court is that the sections 3 and 4 of the GA 1968 talk about levy and charging for  the games that section 2 refers to.  Derek was charged under I think section 3 or 4 of the act:

Gaming Act 1968:
'Section 3
3 No charge for taking part in gaming
(...)
Section  4 No levy on stakes or winnings

Without prejudice to the generality of section 3 of this Act, no gaming to which this Part of the Act applies shall take place where a levy is charged on any of the stakes or on the winnings of any of the players, whether by way of direct payment or deduction, or by the exchange of tokens at a lower rate than the rate at which they were issued, or by any other means.


So in order to see if there was a crime commited one must establish if Section 2 applies to the poker.

[boldie]

Man I'm glad I'm not a lawyer..then I would actually have to read that sort of bollox (no offense tantrum)

[tantrum]

bollox or not, this is a gist of the case.  Does not matter what one thinks, what matters is what is written in the statute and whether one can apply the section to the alleged crime.

[AndrewT]

My reading of it is:

2(b) - The luck element of the game is weighted in favour of a certain player (or players)
2(c) - The same as 2(b), except it explicitly talks about the case of players playing against each other, and not against the house.

Therefore, for poker, 2(b) doesn't apply because it is superceded by 2(c), and 2(c) doesn't apply if the shuffle/deal is fair to all players.

Doesn't it seem that the whole luck v skill thing is a total red herring?

[lazypoker]

Do you have a link to the Gaming Act 1968?

[Royal Flush]

This is sad for poker as a whole and will only force to send poker underground with various old style spielers opening up where in the past there was very little security and cheating was rife.

Or just into the casinos where its safe and regulated.....

[dik9]

Do you have a link to the Gaming Act 1968?

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All%20Primary&PageNumber=1&BrowseLetter=G&NavFrom=1&activeTextDocId=1395940

[tantrum]

My reading of it is:

2(b) - The luck element of the game is weighted in favour of a certain player (or players)
2(c) - The same as 2(b), except it explicitly talks about the case of players playing against each other, and not against the house.

Therefore, for poker, 2(b) doesn't apply because it is superceded by 2(c), and 2(c) doesn't apply if the shuffle/deal is fair to all players.

Doesn't it seem that the whole luck v skill thing is a total red herring?

No it is not.  And my understanding of the act is similar to yours, so tbh I think the defence missed a point in trying to prove that poker is a game of skill with elements of luck, as the Act only refers , in my eyes, to the games in which one or more players have an edge (luck/chance) over the other players


I think there is a newer act on gambling (1995) which I haven't look into, but the prosecution brought the case under the Gaming Act 1968, S. 2/3/4 I think so there is no point looking into other acts. 

Quote from: LLevan on January 19, 2007, 12:18:58 pm
This is sad for poker as a whole and will only force to send poker underground with various old style spielers opening up where in the past there was very little security and cheating was rife.

Or just into the casinos where its safe and regulated.....

I think you will find that if the cardrooms were to become illegal, the consumer will have no protection. In many states in the USA poker is illegal and players go to the illegal joints where they risk their money and safety.  Making something illegal doesn't prevent it from not happening.

[tantrum]

I think the new Gambling Act reppealed the old one.

Gaming
S. 6    Gaming & game of chance
 
 
    (1) In this Act "gaming" means playing a game of chance for a prize.
 
 
    (2) In this Act "game of chance"-
 
 
0.   (a) includes-
 
0.   (i) a game that involves both an element of chance and an element of skill,
 
0.   (ii) a game that involves an element of chance that can be eliminated by superlative skill, and
 
0.   (iii) a game that is presented as involving an element of chance, but
 
0.   (b) does not include a sport.
 
    (3) For the purposes of this Act a person plays a game of chance if he participates in a game of chance-
 
 
0.   (a) whether or not there are other participants in the game, and
 
0.   (b) whether or not a computer generates images or data taken to represent the actions of other participants in the game.
 
    (4) For the purposes of this Act a person plays a game of chance for a prize-
 
 
0.   (a) if he plays a game of chance and thereby acquires a chance of winning a prize, and
 
(b) whether or not he risks losing anything at the game.


i can't see how poker can be excluded from that one.

[thetank]

Or just into the casinos where its safe and regulated.....

I think you will find that if the cardrooms were to become illegal, the consumer will have no protection. In many states in the USA poker is illegal and players go to the illegal joints where they risk their money and safety.  Making something illegal doesn't prevent it from not happening.

I think the point is that in these states you speak of, they don't have Gala's, Grosevenor's and Rendevouz either.

The situation in this country is not really comparable.

[Djinn]

This from tantrum's post about the New act, which surely is the most relevant piece of legislation to the whole debate:

(2) In this Act "game of chance"-


0.   (a) includes-

0.   (i) a game that involves both an element of chance and an element of skill


If this is the definition, poker is indeed a game of chance.  It might be equal chance, i.e. no advantage inherent in the game which gives any one player an edge over another, but definitions are definitions and if it's been defined in this way, they're out of luck pursuing the old line of defense.

In fact, if this Act is currently applicable, then I have no idea why they spent court time trying to prove that poker is "a game that involves both an element of chance and an element of skill" because they were just defining poker as a game of chance, which presumably places them under the jurisdiction of the Gaming Commission.

Or am I missing something?

[lazypoker]

The press statement from the Gaming Board which I posted earlier said "The 1968 Gaming Act has always been clear, poker is gaming, it is a game of skill and chance combined." yet, now I have read it, I disagree and it is a red herring that it is a game of skill and chance combined. Section 2 defines the nature of the game and it cannot include poker because the chances for all players are the same.

2. Nature of game.— (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, no gaming to which this Part of this Act applies shall take place where any one or more of the following conditions are fulfulled, that is to say—
(a)the game involves playing or staking against a bank, whether the bank is held by one of the players or not;
(b)the nature of the game is such that the chances in the game are not equally favourable to all the players;
(c)the nature of the game is such that the chances in it lie between the player and some other person, or (if there are two or more players) lie wholly or partly between the players and some other person, and those chances are not as favourable to the player or players as they are to that other person.

Part (c) is the tricky one as it could be misinterpreted but essentially it says "where the chances are not the same for all players".

Maybe subsequent versions include poker but the press statement said that poker was illegal without a license according to the 1968 version.

[doubleup]

This from tantrum's post about the New act, which surely is the most relevant piece of legislation to the whole debate:

(2) In this Act "game of chance"-


0.   (a) includes-

0.   (i) a game that involves both an element of chance and an element of skill


If this is the definition, poker is indeed a game of chance.  It might be equal chance, i.e. no advantage inherent in the game which gives any one player an edge over another, but definitions are definitions and if it's been defined in this way, they're out of luck pursuing the old line of defense.

In fact, if this Act is currently applicable, then I have no idea why they spent court time trying to prove that poker is "a game that involves both an element of chance and an element of skill" because they were just defining poker as a game of chance, which presumably places them under the jurisdiction of the Gaming Commission.

Or am I missing something?

The key section is:

"a game that involves an element of chance that can be eliminated by superlative skill"

This means that the argument about skill is irrelevant.

The new Act doesn't come fully into force until later this year, but as I have posted before, it's clear that poker will be gaming under the new Act, so whatever happens in the Gutshot case is irrelevant