There is serious talk that a class action lawsuit will be taken to bring back both poker and blackjack to the American people to play over the INTERNET as they will be ruled games of skill as opposed to games of luck My next question now is if that in fact becomes law will the players here that voted on the side of luck vs skill will they be allowed to play or will they be breaking the law as they will be using LUCK to win...... Hurry up and change your vote before it's to late :joker: Joep
What are the chances? Is there any precedent(s) that would give this a reasonable chance to succeed? If not, it doesn't seem to me to have much of a chance - not being a lawyer of course. Hate to get my hopes up only to have them crushed like a bug.
This quote is from the Supreme Court case regarding games of skill Groetzinger v. Commissioner, (480 U.S. 23; 107 S. Ct. 980 (1987): “If a taxpayer devotes his full-time activity to gambling and it is his intended livelihood source, it would seem that basic concepts of fairness demand that his activity be regarded as a trade or business just as any other readily accepted activity, such as being a retail store proprietor or, to come closer categorically, a casino operator or an active trader on the exchanges.” Another comparison was made to trading Meredith v. Commissioner (TC Memo 1984-651), an active trader of securities was also defined as a gambler. To quote the ruling, “one may gamble in stocks while another may gamble in dogs.” Finally, citing Fuld v. Commissioner (139 F.2d 465 (1943)), 26 section 1236 USCS Interpretive Notes and Decisions says, “Taxpayers purchasing and selling securities for themselves for speculation may constitute a ‘trade or business’ for reporting taxes on profits derived from such dealings.” Both of these focus on tax law more than criminality...but it's a start.
Toolman1: re supreme court: luck/skill. I don't know how many years ago, (pokernut, please jump in,) Calif. state and it had to be a federal court ruling that DRAW POKER was determined to be a game of skill and exempt from illegal lottery status. Thus, the proliferation of poker rooms in Calif. But only for draw poker. So long ago, I don't know why draw was deemed more skillful than 7 or 5 card stud. And it was ruled long before holdem took off. So there is precedent. Now, Norm! If the class action suit wins on the basis of skill. Then certainly it's skill. Whatever we can get. But variance by its name, doesn't smell as sweet. Only sweet luck smells so sweet.
In 1986 William E. Baxter Jr. vs. the United States (IRS). It was the judge's ruling that Baxter's poker winnings should be classified as "earned income" contrary to its previous classification of "unearned income" which was taxable up to 70 percent. In this ruling the judge stated that poker was a game of skill not luck. Thus, in the process, providing equal tax status to those earning a living as professinal poker players. 1987 Supreme Court case on draw poker either in Cal. or La. not sure of which. There was also a case in 2002 but I can not recall the name but a federaI court that ruled that poker was a game of skill. But I know of none concerning BJ, Joep since you brought it up please tell us when the case on BJ was tried and the court that determined that BJ was a game of skill.
Pokernut: TY. TY. For the infor and update. But, I beg YOU,(even if you're not that commentator) whose leading the charge for the Poker Players, but you have organizational contacts and knowledge of interest groups interested in overturning this jammed through legislation, PLEASE post it. Heard one brief radio blurb out of hundreds on the counter action. If those of us, interested here, don't know where to band together,(or don't want to. God Forbid,) then let's just give it up and nary a word be uttered about it again. Travel, travel, room, entry, etc into your EV. Comp Kings and Queens! How long before that catches up. They are quick to change the games. You and I have already seen the restructuring of comp programs. Get 10 per cent off of anything over a grand. Come on. The boys have caught up.
This is the organization most poker players including pro's have joined to help in the fight. http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/
Here are some thoughts: 1) What's done is done. Some ask "Why don't you join the Poker Players' Alliance and try to help fight this?" I answered that it's too late. The PPA and other pro-internet-gaming groups made their feelings known, and they were ignored. It was a nice try, but no positive results were yielded. We have to face the facts here. Namely, regular on-line players are not as big or vocal a group as the Christian Right, nor do politicians particularly fear pissing us off or losing our votes. We can scream until we're blue in the face, but our cries will fall upon deaf ears. If this new law ever gets changed or repealed, it will be the doing of American corporations such as Harrah's, not regular-Joe on-line players. 2) The future of online gambling, if any, rests with American gaming corporations. If anyone can save us, it's corporations like MGM, Boyd or Harrah's. They have the money, influence, and clout to get this law turned around, especially if they can legitimize this rogue industry and give way to government regulation. Now that the new laws have been passed, they will never be completely overturned -- even if the Democrats eventually take the House, Senate, and Presidency. Few politicians will support bringing back the old days of unregulated offshore sites taking billions out of our economy. If there is any hope of getting legalized online poker in the US, it's in the possibility of getting legalized online poker in the US. 3) Trust least those who are proud of breaking the law. Sites that are complying with US law and closing out American players are the safest. Why? They all have a long-term survival plan, and obviously cheating US customers isn't conducive to surviving long-term. Why comply with US law if you're just going to turn around and do something even worse? It's the ones that are electing to play on that really scare me. These sites are closing their eyes and taking a sink-or-swim attitude. Some may prosper for it, but others will fail. If these sites aren't afraid to give the middle finger to the most powerful government on earth, they also won't be afraid to swipe your money if things start to turn sour. Beware. 4) Neteller ain't so tough. Way before this legislation hit, the state of Maryland ordered Neteller to stop doing business with its residents. Guess what? Neteller complied. If Neteller will bow to pressure from a small U.S. state, what will it do when threatened by the federal government? I have a feeling that, if push comes to shove, Neteller will quietly exit the U.S. market. However, they will stay with their U.S. customers for as long as possible. 5) The sponsorship gravy train has been derailed. Expect to see far fewer sponsored players in tournaments, especially given that this internet gambling ban will result in a tighter advertising/marketing budget for most sites. The biggest names like Hellmuth should stay aboard, but expect most of the B-list names to be cut soon.
Annie Duke, Mike Sexton and the PPA speak out on MSN, scroll down to online poker. http://moneycentral.msn.com/cnbc/tv/cnbcvideohighlights.aspx
not giving up I'm not ready to give up, as long as a smart bunch of guys and gals as on this site keep brainstorming. The internet casinos need to get together also. Anything is possible unless we give up. Everyone, just keep posting ideas. No such thing as a dumb idea. I understand that Missouri casinos cannot eject card counters because the gaming commision considers counting a SKILL. The casinos are allowed to take protective measures, such as frequent shuffles. I'll try to get more info on this subject. Could lead to BJ being declared a skill. tgun
The poker case where skill was ruled was the poker case of William E Baxter Jr. who was just this year inducted into the Poker Hall Of Fame. The blackjack case was in New Jersey where the State Supreme Court ruled that blackjack is a game of skill and that any patron in a NJ casino who was using his skill to beat the game, ie. Card Counting, Shuffle Tracking or any other forms of skill that could be applied to the game could not be asked to leave by the casino's. The casino fought long and hard to overturn this ruling, the only thing that they are able to do is counter measures against skilled players. Some of their tactics which a few of us recently had used against us in Atlantic City on a game called Bonus Bet blackjack was they literally dealt only one 1 deck out of 8 to us.The ploopies who were at the game were going nuts and wanted a reason for this being done.The pit told them to ask us. They never thought we could beat this game so they dealt to us,but in less than 8 hours we beat them for 20 thousand.They rescinded our comp rooms and pulled all the comp dollars earned from the play. We later found out that the lost comp dollars were only lost at that casino and not any any of it's sister properties.This property has a ton of casino all over the country. Strange that it was only pulled at that property. The game was actually pulled off the floor a short time later. The boys from BJT strike again Joep
ploopy ? Joep wrote "The ploopies who were at the game were going nuts and wanted a reason for this being done.The pit told them to ask us. What is ploopy ?
Strange that you didn't mention the casino by name - was it Ha*****? When did this happen Joe? How come I didn't get invited?
No More Clues Fgk 42 this advantage play took place in May of 2005 It was at former Park Place Ent. property now known as a Harrahs property The game was featured in 2 different casinos that were connected. No more hints Now for the reason you weren't invited I don't believe you existed yet at BJT. So how could we invite you. If something like this happens to appear again how can you be reached ? Joep
Normie: Correct on NJ. I somehow forgot about that. Wasn't Hyland the test? So, ya'll there's two cases...one draw poker....one NJ law on BJ(without mechancial devices) that form a basis for pushing"our"(can I say that) cause. Nelson Rose...help.
Uston v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc. (NJ 1982) I am sure you are referring to Uston v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc. (NJ 1982). The court determined that casinos were not authorized to exclude card-counters, reasoning that the Gaming Act gave the gaming commission exclusive and plenary authority to set the rules and methods of play of casino games and that the gaming commission had not authorized the exclusion of card-counters as a countermeasure. And in New Jersey: When property owners open their premises to the general public in the pursuit of their property interests, they have no right to exclude people unreasonably. Such owners do have the right and duty to exclude those who disrupt the ‘regular and essential’ operations of the premises. The plaintiff in this case does not fit that category. Mr. Uston was not disruptive in the casino and no way interfered with the regular functioning of the casino. Therefore, the plaintiff possesses the usual right of reasonable access to the defendant’s casino. But nowhere in this court case did the judge rule that BJ was a game of skill.
