| Wisconsin Bingo Supply We Carry a Full Line of Bingo Supplies River Bend Shopping Center 7516 W. Oklahoma 414/327-5100 |
| Wisconsin Edition |
Pennsylvania Court Rules Poker Is a
Game of Skill
In the first important legal decision of 2009, a trial judge in Pennsylvania
dismissed criminal gambling charges against the operator of a garage
poker room and his girlfriend dealer, holding that Texas Hold ‘em is a game
of skill.
Columbia County Judge Thomas A. James, Jr., filed his written Opinion on
January 14, 2009. Walter “Buzz” Watkins and Diane A. Dent had been
charged with 20 counts of violating Pennsylvania’s anti-gambling statutes.
Prosecutors alleged they unlawfully solicited and allowed “persons to
collect and assemble for the purpose of unlawful gambling.”
Judge James dismissed all charges.
Buzz had set up poker tables in a rented garage. The only game spread
was no limit Hold ‘em. Antes were $1 or $2. There apparently was no rake
or drop. Instead, winners were expected, but not required, to tip the
dealer—the larger the win the bigger the tip.
In August and September 2008, an undercover vice cop sat in on several
of the games. Charges were filed in September.
Judge James had to decide whether Buzz and Diane could be guilty of the
crimes charged.
The case was made somewhat easier because both the state and
defendants agreed, “that the controlling issue is whether Texas Hold ‘em is
‘unlawful gambling’ under the Crimes Code.” The Pennsylvania statutes,
like many in the U.S., have no definition of “gambling.”
So, the first thing Judge James did was to turn to dictionaries. These were
not much help.
Next, he looked at prior case law. Pennsylvania courts, like almost all
others, have held that gambling has three elements: “consideration,
chance, and reward.” “Thus,” the Judge wrote, “the controlling sub-issue is
whether Texas Hold ‘em is a game of skill or a game of chance or, if both,
does skill trump chance or vice-versa.”
There are disputes about how much skill is necessary to make a game not
gambling. Judge James adopted the majority test: “If skill predominates, it
is not gambling.”
Courts have developed many different tests for skill. Judge James decided
to apply these four, whether: 1) each player has sufficient data available to
make informed choices; 2) each player possesses and has the opportunity
to exercise skill; 3) skill sufficiently governs the outcome; and 4) the
standard of skill is known to all players.
Judge James’ conclusion could be extremely important, because it is the
first case to look at recent literature and current scientific studies. Judge
James cited articles from 2007 and 2005, including from the Gaming Law
Review, of which I am co-editor-in-chief. He looked at the many “how-to”
books, including the 2008 edition of Mike Caro’s Caro’s Secrets of Winning
Poker. And he examined a statistical study of online poker published by
academics in Sweden.
Virtually every author and expert agreed, of course, that “in the long run,
good players will win money and bad players will lose money.”
According to the Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania Press Enterprise, Buzz thinks
the whole thing was a waste of money, especially the undercover cop.
“The funny part is, there was no need to send him in there. I get three or
four police officers who play regularly in our games now.”
© Copyright 2010. Professor I. Nelson Rose is recognized as one of
the world’s leading experts on gambling law and is a consultant
and expert witness for players, governments and industry. His
latest books, Internet Gaming Law and Gaming Law: Cases and
Materials, are available through his website, www.
GamblingAndTheLaw.com.
Game of Skill
In the first important legal decision of 2009, a trial judge in Pennsylvania
dismissed criminal gambling charges against the operator of a garage
poker room and his girlfriend dealer, holding that Texas Hold ‘em is a game
of skill.
Columbia County Judge Thomas A. James, Jr., filed his written Opinion on
January 14, 2009. Walter “Buzz” Watkins and Diane A. Dent had been
charged with 20 counts of violating Pennsylvania’s anti-gambling statutes.
Prosecutors alleged they unlawfully solicited and allowed “persons to
collect and assemble for the purpose of unlawful gambling.”
Judge James dismissed all charges.
Buzz had set up poker tables in a rented garage. The only game spread
was no limit Hold ‘em. Antes were $1 or $2. There apparently was no rake
or drop. Instead, winners were expected, but not required, to tip the
dealer—the larger the win the bigger the tip.
In August and September 2008, an undercover vice cop sat in on several
of the games. Charges were filed in September.
Judge James had to decide whether Buzz and Diane could be guilty of the
crimes charged.
The case was made somewhat easier because both the state and
defendants agreed, “that the controlling issue is whether Texas Hold ‘em is
‘unlawful gambling’ under the Crimes Code.” The Pennsylvania statutes,
like many in the U.S., have no definition of “gambling.”
So, the first thing Judge James did was to turn to dictionaries. These were
not much help.
Next, he looked at prior case law. Pennsylvania courts, like almost all
others, have held that gambling has three elements: “consideration,
chance, and reward.” “Thus,” the Judge wrote, “the controlling sub-issue is
whether Texas Hold ‘em is a game of skill or a game of chance or, if both,
does skill trump chance or vice-versa.”
There are disputes about how much skill is necessary to make a game not
gambling. Judge James adopted the majority test: “If skill predominates, it
is not gambling.”
Courts have developed many different tests for skill. Judge James decided
to apply these four, whether: 1) each player has sufficient data available to
make informed choices; 2) each player possesses and has the opportunity
to exercise skill; 3) skill sufficiently governs the outcome; and 4) the
standard of skill is known to all players.
Judge James’ conclusion could be extremely important, because it is the
first case to look at recent literature and current scientific studies. Judge
James cited articles from 2007 and 2005, including from the Gaming Law
Review, of which I am co-editor-in-chief. He looked at the many “how-to”
books, including the 2008 edition of Mike Caro’s Caro’s Secrets of Winning
Poker. And he examined a statistical study of online poker published by
academics in Sweden.
Virtually every author and expert agreed, of course, that “in the long run,
good players will win money and bad players will lose money.”
According to the Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania Press Enterprise, Buzz thinks
the whole thing was a waste of money, especially the undercover cop.
“The funny part is, there was no need to send him in there. I get three or
four police officers who play regularly in our games now.”
© Copyright 2010. Professor I. Nelson Rose is recognized as one of
the world’s leading experts on gambling law and is a consultant
and expert witness for players, governments and industry. His
latest books, Internet Gaming Law and Gaming Law: Cases and
Materials, are available through his website, www.
GamblingAndTheLaw.com.