Judge rules that poker isn’t gambling under federal law

[wysimdnwyg]

20. I say those definitions don't fit poker

Yes, there is some overlap, but when considered over a statistically significant time period (that period will vary greatly depending on the difference in skill level of the players), the outcome of poker is mostly due to skill.

Consider not the obvious hands (I have AA, you have KK, in which case I win 80% of the time, or I have AA and you have 72, in which case you fold 99% of the time), but the middle of the road hands. If you have JT of spades and the flop is AT3 with two spades, what do you do? Do you bet out? Do you check to see if I bet (implying I have an ace)? If I DO bet, do you call, hoping to catch your flush? How do you know I have an ace? What are the odds I have an ace? What are the odds you'll hit your flush? What if the next card is a face card, making it possible I have a straight? All of these questions and many more are considered by a skilled poker player, while a less skilled player just sees a paired ten and a flush draw.

Put me against a player with a low skill level, and I will take his money most of the time. While the outcome of this hand, or even this session, is uncertain, the outcome over the long haul is much more certain. It's how I've been able to get my friends to pay for my trips to casinos for years, and lately I've used their money (that I won playing poker) to buy a set of chips and a table for my new house.


So yes, you could say there is some uncertainty, you are playing for stakes (although I disagree with the "game of chance" bit), there certainly is some risk, and many people engage in reckless or hazardous behavior while playing (see that 1% of the time you play 72 against my AA). But none of those really apply when considering poker over a long period of time. I know with 100% certainty that I am better than a guy with whom I play poker (call him "Dean&quot . While Dean may win one evening, I know I will take his money more often than not.