Jury To Rule On Nature Of Poker...

[alanstats 0]

If that green wasn't waxed like a brazillian model, Roy McCavoy wins that US Open every time. Instead, he holes out for a crowd pleasing 13. Talk about a bad beat then serious tilt.

[ahosang 0]

I'm really hoping this prosecution is unsuccessful. Good luck to Derek, Barry and everyone at Gutshot.

[Abbaddabba 0]

You can claim that blackjack is a game of skill too.One that cant be beaten following the conventional rules. But skill certainly determines how much or little you lose.The same is true for a lot of live poker games. These underground card rooms often have absurd rake structures, making it effectively unbeatable a lot of the time. Much worse than in casinos.10% max 5 in smaller games is not uncommon. 10% max 10 isnt exactly rare either. Ive actually seen 10% no cap in a 5/5NL table.Casinos are usually 5% max 5 at worst. The games need to be regulated more than anything, to help save retarded gamblers from themselves.This place at least sounds reasonable. 10% fee for a sit n go is fine. But tournaments usually arent the big money makers... 10% fee is standard. They are mainly used as a draw to get people in the cash games.

[finztotheleft 0]

I agree with Dogpatch, 11 to 1, Big Slick, etc that it is mostly skill but with an element of luck that all competitions have.Poker's problem, in this lawsuit, is that the article said if there is any element of luck involved, it will be ruled a game of chance. That doesn't seem to leave much room for the arguement that all games of "skill" (sports, or chess and quizes as mentioned are skill games in the article) have an element of luck.It would be awesome if the "poker/skill" arguement won. Maybe that could show an international precedent for the US unbanning online poker. Slim chances, I know, but I'm hoping for some miracle here.

[psujohn 0]

I don't see how you could possibly come to any conclusion other than it's a mixed game of skill and luck.Consider that the vast majority of players won't see enough hands in their lifetime to constitute "the long run".

[exec771 0]

Think abt pool u can brk and 9 ball can go in u win, every pro wld tell u its a matter of luck for tht to happen but it does, and ppl win like tht. Thats similar to ur aa kk autobust case, and even in tht scenario some gr8 players get away frm KK at times. So to call it a game of chance is absurd, obv luck factor is higher in poker than alot of other sports.

[A_Bullets_A 0]

Poker obviously has elements of both skill and luck. We all know there is luck involved, but the more skilled players will come out ahead in the long run. In any sport or game competitors will often shake hands before a match and say, "good luck". So that means luck is a part of many competions. We know that. But, does that mean there is no skill involved? Of course not.

[rochyfish 0]

oh dear http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6267603.stmBut at least the UK Govt aren't trying to stop us playing online poker as well!

[Scanner313 0]

The games need to be regulated more than anything, to help save retarded gamblers from themselves.

Why? Is there no such thing as personal accountability and responsibility anymore? I couldn't give a crap about the dope who can't control himself and loses his life savings. I can control myself, and I shouldn't have to be restricted from doing something I enjoy just because that dope couldn't handle it.The premise that gambling regulation is intended to protect the gambler is assinine! Every person who walks into a casino is well aware that they are automatically at a disadvantage to the house. They choose to risk their money knowing that the odds are they are going to lose more than they win. So how is the regulation protecting them? The system is already fixed to take their money.