|
|
| Author |
Message |
PigPen
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
Posts: 856
|
 Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 2:28 pm Post subject: N. Carolina: poker is game of chance |
 |
|
Appeals court upholds ruling that poker is game of chance
"Although skills such as knowledge of human psychology, bluffing, and the ability to calculate and analyze odds make it more likely for skilled players to defeat novices, novices may yet prevail with a simple run of luck," wrote judge Ann Marie Calabria. "No amount of skill can change a deuce into an ace."
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070501/APN/705011707
and from http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/569827.html
Calabria, with fellow appellate judges Martha Geer and Barbara Jackson in agreement, harkened back to a 1953 state Supreme Court ruling on whether a certain variety of pool was a game of chance where the high court wrote: "The test of character of any kind of game ... is not whether it contains an element of chance or an element of skill, but which of these is the dominating element that determines the result of the game."
"We determine that chance predominates over skill in the game of poker, making that game a game of chance...." Calabria wrote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
flafishy
Joined: 30 Nov 2004
Posts: 211
Location: Broward County, FL
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Good. Hopefully, that'll get the PPA off that stupid argument so that they can devote their time to some work that might actually be fruitful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
taz115
Hzamm9rd, Yo!!!
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 8428
Location: Edmonton, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From the thread in General:
| Buddy48783 wrote: | Gotta love that they agreed with the guy who referred to one hand he saw on TV that had a 91 percent chance of winning but lost. I think we should always base the "long term" and statistics off single events.
What a crock.
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/article/8815 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mchilger
ITH Founder and Poker Author
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 5804
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
One argument they tried to support that poker had skill was that anyone could beat Tiger Woods in one hole of golf, but over 18 holes he would come out on top every time. I think that argument actually sounds valid and makes sense. Of course, the courts say that the players, for the most part, are in control of their own destiny in golf while in poker the turn or river can cause you to lose with which you have no control over - pretty good argument for the courts.
Matthew |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bugsbunny
Wascally
Joined: 07 Apr 2004
Posts: 7626
Location: Drinking Carrot juice
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mchilger wrote: | One argument they tried to support that poker had skill was that anyone could beat Tiger Woods in one hole of golf, but over 18 holes he would come out on top every time. I think that argument actually sounds valid and makes sense. Of course, the courts say that the players, for the most part, are in control of their own destiny in golf while in poker the turn or river can cause you to lose with which you have no control over - pretty good argument for the courts.
Matthew |
But the players have control over whether or not they even see the turn or the river. If there was no betting in poker and all hands went to showdown the yes, it would all be luck who won at any given time. But betting and controlling the size of the pot is part of the game as well. Most hands (other than in no foldem hold'em) never get to showdown.
Bridge is also a game where luck predominates. It's all chance what cards you're going to get dealt. Next move should be to try to get playing the futures market outlawed as being a game of chance.
| Quote: | Richard Thornell (“Thornell”), a North Carolina Alcohol Law Enforcement
officer, was the only witness to testify for the State. Thornell, who stated
that he has played poker for more than 39years, testified that while there
was skill involved in poker, luck ultimately prevailed. He testified that he
had seen a television poker tournament in which a hand with a 91% chance to
win lost to a hand with only a 9% chance to win.
|
And on the basis of this poker was ruled a game of chance, even though:
| Quote: | The evidence, as presented by these witnesses, establishes that poker is
both a game of skill and chance. All witnesses appeared to agree that in a
single hand, chance may predominate over skill, but that over a long game,
the most skilled players would likely amass the most chips.
|
| Quote: | We have held that an inquiry regarding whether a game is a game of
chance or skill turns on whether chance or skill predominates. State v.
Eisen, 16 N.C. App. 532, 535-36, 192 S.E.2d 613, 615-16 (1972). In State v.
Stroupe, the North Carolina Supreme Court considered whether a certain type
of pool was a game of skill or chance. 238 N.C. 34, 38, 76 S.E.2d 313, 317
(1953). The Stroupe Court stated the applicable test as such:
[T]he test of the character of any kind of a game of pool as to
whether it is a game of chance or a game of skill is not whether it contains
an element of chance or an element of skill, but which of these is the
dominatingelement that determines the result of the game, to be found from
the facts of each particular kind of game. Or to speak alternatively,
whether or not the element of chance is present in such a manner as to
thwart the exercise of skill or judgment. |
| Quote: | In golf, as
in bowling or billiards, the players are presented with an equal challenge,
with each determining hisfortune by his own skill. Although chance
inevitably intervenes, it is not inherent in the game and does not overcome
skill, and the player maintains the opportunity to defeat chance with
superior skill. Whereas in poker, a skilled player may give himself a
statistical advantage but is always subject to defeat at the turn of a card,
an instrumentality beyond his control. We think that is the critical
difference.
For the reasons stated above, we determine that chance predominates over
skill in the game of poker, making that game a game of chance
|
The biggest problem, IMO, was that the court looked at poker as only one hand. And it's true that, on any given hand, chance plays a large part (that's why most hands are folded preflop) it's also true that over time skill predominates over luck. This is true even in a single hand, although luck plays a larger part there. But on any given (random) hand where a skilled and unskilled player are matched up the skilled player will, on average, hold an edge. He'll start with better holdings and postflop will outplay his opponent, sometimes winning even when he doesn't actually have the best hand.
Full decision can be found here:
http://groups.google.com/group/tpjournal/msg/964956076345fb18 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jeffnc
Mason's Favorite
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 7222
Location: NC, USA
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mchilger wrote: | | One argument they tried to support that poker had skill was that anyone could beat Tiger Woods in one hole of golf, but over 18 holes he would come out on top every time. I think that argument actually sounds valid and makes sense. Of course, the courts say that the players, for the most part, are in control of their own destiny in golf while in poker the turn or river can cause you to lose with which you have no control over - pretty good argument for the courts. |
Not really. Basically they are choosing bits and pieces to determine in favor of the outcome they wanted to begin with. Either that or they're completely stupid, and I have a hard time believing they're really stupid.
Ask any golfer who can put an 8 iron within 5 feet of the hole every time, and then dunks it in the water at the 12th hole at Augusta, if gusts of wind are luck or not. Ask Tom Kite if hitting his ball into a bird on its way to the green is luck or not. Ask any players if luck-of-the-draw tee times give them a lucky advantage when they get great weather and players at other times get horrible weather.
Why is the World Series of baseball 7 games? There is a very good reason for it that should be intuitively obvious.
So basically, those judges are corrupt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bugsbunny
Wascally
Joined: 07 Apr 2004
Posts: 7626
Location: Drinking Carrot juice
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
janeg
Regina Canada
Joined: 04 Oct 2004
Posts: 5112
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river
|
| Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
In the stock market, aren't people allowed to make buys that are solely based on the index going up or down? Isn't that very similar to poker? A skilled investor may get it wrong on any one day but makes money over the long run. A novice may get lucky one day but lose over the long run.
In fact, stock market may be more risky than poker for novices. Maybe the arguments should be risk driven and not luck driven. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tichodromia
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 334
|
| Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
nice to know things have moved on from the Scopes monkey trial as far as scientific rigour goes....about 5 inches further on it seems....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
