Take the 2-minute tour ×
Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I just read a NY Times article which claims that a US Judge ruled that poker is a game of skill and not one of chance.

In a ruling that goes to the heart of what it means to play poker, Judge Jack B. Weinstein tossed out the conviction and vacated the indictment of the man who ran that gambling business. The judge’s reason: poker is more a game of skill than a game of chance, so game operators should not be prosecuted under the federal law the prohibits running an illegal gambling business.

Did this happen?

share|improve this question
    
Note this is a different question to "Is Poker a Game of Skill?" –  Mew Dec 22 '12 at 11:08
    
Chris, I've changed your question to reflect this. You were asking for the same evidence twice. –  Sklivvz Dec 22 '12 at 12:25
    
strictly speaking, the judge only ruled that the game of poker is both a game of skill and chance but that it is not "chancy enough" to qualify as a felony under federal gambling laws. –  Michael Edenfield Dec 25 '12 at 14:54

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Yes.

Judge Jack B. Weinstein concluded that, under US Law:

Poker is Predominated By Skill Rather than Chance

In his ruling, in United States of America against Lawrence Dicristina, he explains the evidence from the prosecution and defendant, who both agreed that poker has a significant amount of skill and a significant amount of chance. They agreed that the top players would eventually tend to come out ahead.

They differed as to how many would be ahead (e.g. if you were slightly better than another player, you may eventually do better than them, but still lose out due to the "rake").

They differed as to how long it would take to get ahead, and how long should be considered relevant. (Should the fact that a single hand is predominantly chance be considered, or the fact that after several dozens of hours played, the game is predominantly skill?)

The judge quotes precedence that

[t]he rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them.

He draws on that rule of lenity to determine that this (rather meaningless, in my opinion) question should be decided in the defendant's favour.

Both the defendant’s and the government’s interpretations of the statute are plausible. It is unclear from the text and legislative history of the IGBA whether every state gambling offense would permit a federal conviction. See Part VI, infra. It is equally uncertain whether, in enacting the statute, Congress foresaw that poker businesses would be prosecutable under it. See Part VII, infra.
In light of these ambiguities, the rule of lenity requires that the defendant’s interpretation be adopted, and his conviction be dismissed. His acts did not constitute a federal crime.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.