NEWS: Poker on Trial

CULTURE: Poker on Trial

The verdict is expected this week. British courts in East London are asked to decide finally whether the game of poker is that of skill or chance, or even a combination of both. The verdict will have serious implications for gamblers throughout the UK, but most immediately on Derek Kelly of Gutshot who has repeatedly broken the law hosting poker games without a license.

Kelly maintains that he has not violated any laws as poker is a game where skill is paramount and luck is only involved to the extent it is in any sport, i.e. a lucky shot in basketball, or golf. Gutshot's defense requires that poker no longer be defined as a casino game but be expanded to a sport or game of skill in its own rite, in the manner of chess or scrabble.

However for Kelly to win this decision, jurors would have to decide that poker is a game of skill and that the element of luck is so trivial that it bears little to no affect on the game's outcome.

The real complication here is not whether poker is a game of skill or chance at all. Anyone who has played a committed game of poker, whether professional or amateur, knows that any given game might result in a lucky outcome but for sustained winning a player needs to be skilled. "Play the player not the cards" did not become a cliché for no reason. The real problem is that poker is a game where the reward is not a trophy but cash. For those addicted to gambling, the distinction is a serious one, one tantamount to making the object of the game alcohol for alcoholics. The gambling laws are there to protect those who suffer this addiction from themselves. Were the jury to return with a verdict that redefined poker as a game of skill, it would still have to require that the object of the game not directly involve money for this to be fairly outside the jurisdiction of Britain's Gambling Act.

For those who would argue that all professional sports involve money, there is merit to this argument. However, when a professional athlete walks out onto the field he is doing so for an agreed upon income, he doesn't have the ability to bet his kid's college savings on his performance. There is probably a way to make poker bare more resemblance to sports like billiards and chess, but to do so would require that the chips involved no longer represent a sum of money. Doing this might remove an aspect of the game that poker fans truly enjoy.

As much as I love poker, I must say its a 50/50 mix. YOu need good cards (luck) but alos have to be able to bluff and read others along with knowing statisticsconcerning hands (skill)

luck of the draw certainly plays a part in poker, but I think it's more about skill than about luck. the scrabble analogy works better than the chess one. in chess you always start with the same pieces on the board. part of knowing how to play poker is in, like the man said, "know when to hold em/ know when to fold em'

even if poker is decided to be a game of some skill or even more skill than luck, it'll still be regulated because of the huge amounts of money involved. and betting is still betting whether it be on sports or on dice.

In poker tournaments, the payoff is determined at the beginning. So in that aspect, it is like professional sports athletes. Also, don't pro athletes have incentives(more money) for better performance and winning?

That's a tough call. You don't necessarily need good cards if you can play the other players well enough. I've seen hands won by the guy with a mixed suit duece and three in the pocket, and nothing in the river. Of course, that kind of skill is incredibly rare, and even then I'd say that there was a lot of luck involved.

I dunno, I'd say it's more skill than luck, but it's still a lot of luck. 60/40, maybe?

it's totally about skill. if it's not, how do the same people get to the final table at the poker championships? seems like a no-brainer to me.

There are lots of games which are totally skill based. I've played Go for several years but playing vs a pro I'd lose every game, by a wide margin, no matter how many games. I've almost no idea how to play poker but I have been dealt a royal flush once.

Brialliant! That's all I can say, after thinking about it I am more inclined too say it's more skill then luck. But what do I know, haha. nobzey

well then, if it's skill, let me know... gonna make one more thing to add to the list of "things i suck at"

There are lots of truisms, including...better lucky than good?

Yes, there can be skill in playing a game of chance. Some more than others.

When he says there are no games of pure skill, chess is a poor example - it has no random elements built into the game. Other examples of skill would be something like horseshoes - unless you're playing in a hurricane...maybe the wind would be strong enough.

I have nothing against honest gambling (honest house, non-cheating players).

Poker is a game of luck and skill. You can't reasonably deny either part. If the UK has a law about games of chance, and laws about games of skill, I'd still have to say that poker is not a pure skill game, falling into the chance category.

PS, I'll play Ticket to Ride for money.

Wasn't that Gary Player ?? And it should be 'practise', as it's the verb.

[/pedant]

Poker is TOTALLY about skill. Sure there's luck involved as there are in many, many games. But, I have played poker enough to know that a person dealt a bad hand can bluff a person with a good hand into folding. That's not about luck. That's about skill.

Nicely written article.

An odd comparison; poker has a deck of shuffled cards. Chess has a number of pieces in view of both players.

Gambling is becoming a big problem in the UK, and the labour government seems intent on deregulating the gambling industry even more.

There seems scope for some more regulation which is aimed at spotting and helping people with problems. Limiting the options for gambling, such as by restricting casinos, is pointless when there are so many other easier options.