I was bored for a few min at work, and had an argument with a friend over skill v luck in poker, so I was looking up case law.
I came across some interesting posts that compared poker to golf.
Much of the plaintiffs in such cases argue "long run" in poker of skill vs luck. But none do a decent job in proving that the court should look at "long run" to determine whether poker is luck or skill. Without this proof, the courts return to the odds of a single hand, and poker doesn't stand a chance.
My argument would first convince the courts they MUST look at long run, as any game of skill shows. No game of skill that I am aware of tests the competitors and announces a winner in such a narrow scope... why? because there is too much chance in those narrow scopes, even in games of skill. A golf championship is not decided over a single swing of the clubs with a "who's closest" decision. It is decided over 4 days, 72 holes, 200+ swings. Why? There are factors of luck in a single swing of the club. Wind. The way the blades of grass are bent. Etc. Chess champions are not crowned on the basis of a single move. Often not even a single game. Baseball games dont' end after 1 pitch. Shoot, not even a game, but a single at-bat looks at wider scope. Batters get at least 3 pitches.
Once we successfully argue that the courts must look at the longer term we might be able to argue that skill becomes the predominant factor. Until then, we're doomed to get raided.
Just my thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Great post Nate. Great analysis.
Unfortunately, it's a facade in our justice system to assume judges have a decent sense of impartiality. The Supreme Court has problems getting over basic ideological foundations, regardless of how impartial they may sound in their confirmation hearings, looking at their long-term views by how they view cases shows that they rarely change their mind on basic stances.
In North Carolina and in many other places across the south, poker is still grouped as a gambling game played in a casino and that's an ideological plank that the current state judges won't soon overcome. Conservative electorates are putting these judges in office, and their core beliefs on gambling and poker aren't likely to change even when faced with an impeccable argument.
Ultimately, poker will be legalized not in the courts but within the legislature, just as the lottery came about. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like this can occur any time in the near future.
-Chris
Post a Comment