Poker ruled a skill-based game and not "gambling" under IGBA federal statute

TheEngineer

TheEngineer

PPA VP of Player Relations
Silver Level
Joined
May 22, 2012
Total posts
3,444
Chips
0
Poker ruled a skill-based game and not "gambling" under IGBA federal statute

In U.S. v DiCristina, a federal judge today ruled that poker is a game of skill & not illegal gambling as defined by IGBA! PPA provided an amicus brief and expert witnesses. Check out the ruling at http://www.scribd.com/doc/103482098/...ion-08-21-2012

Highlights from Judge Weinstein’s Opinion:

Page 8:
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.

Page 57
While questions of burdens of proof generally apply to factual matters, the rule of lenity, in essence, places a burden of proof on the government with respect to statutory interpretation. In order to prevail, the government must show that it is more probable than not that the meaning that it relies upon is the appropriate interpretation of the statute. A state of equipoise on the issues requires favoring the defendant’s view. See id. at 513-14 (stating that, where two competing definitions of a critical statutory term are equally plausible, “the tie must go to the defendant”). The government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance standard any factual propositions that underlie its interpretation of the statute.

Page 73:
Scant reference was made to poker. This may be because, at the time, Mafia involvement in poker games was limited. United States v. Roselli, 432 F.2d 879, 886 n.8 (9th Cir. 1970) (noting that poker is not “traditionally associated with organized crime”).

Page 100:
The addition of a separate definition of gambling in a distinct section of the IGBA in the final version of the statute suggests a design adopting a distinct federal definition of gambling. No explanation for this change could be found in the legislative record.

Page 100:
The text, structure, and history of the IGBA fail to satisfactorily establish that the government is correct in its interpretation of the statute. Because “a reasonable doubt persists about a statute’s intended scope,” the rule of lenity applies. Moskal, 498 U.S. at 108; see also Part IV(B), supra. The defendant’s narrower, more persuasive construction is adopted.

Pages 102-03:
Poker is, for the purposes of this case, an elephant—or perhaps an eight hundred pound gorilla—that Congress would have been unlikely to ignore. The fact that card games like poker, pinochle, gin rummy, and bridge were so widely played by law-abiding individuals in noncriminal settings may explain its omission from the IGBA. As Sherlock Holmes would describe the clue, it is the dog that didn’t bark. See generally Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Silver Blaze, inThe Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes 1-38 (Random House 2012) (1894).

Page 110-111:
Contrary to the government’s argument, chance (as compared to skill) has traditionally been thought to be a defining element of gambling and is included in dictionary, common law, and other federal statutory definitions of it. See Part V(A)(2)-(3), (B), supra. The influence of skill on the outcome of poker games is far greater than that on the outcomes of the games enumerated in the IGBA’s illustrations of gambling. While a gambler with an encyclopedic knowledge of sports may perform better than others when wagering on the outcome of sporting events, unlike in poker, his skill does not influence game play. A sports bettor is better able to pick a winning team, but cannot make them win. In poker, by contrast, increased proficiency boosts a player’s chance of winning and affects the outcome of individual hands as well as a series of hands. Expert poker players draw on an array of talents, including facility with numbers, knowledge of human psychology, and powers of observation and deception. Players can use these skills to win even if chance has not dealt them the better hand. And as the defendant’s evidence demonstrates, these abilities permit the best poker players to prevail over the less-skilled players over a series of hands.

Page 112:
Whether the ambiguities in the statute are the result of inadequate drafting or of a conscious choice, born of political compromise, to leave issues for the courts to resolve, they must be construed in favor of the defendant. Under either the definition of gambling as proposed by the defendant or that proposed by the plaintiff:
[A]ll provisions of the federal . . . statute are coherent; no provisions are redundant; and the statute is not rendered utterly absurd. From the face of the statute, there is no more reason to think that [one definition is more correct than the other]. Under a long line of our decisions, the tie must go to the defendant.
Santos, 553 U.S. at 514 (plurality op.). In order to constitute an illegal gambling business under the IGBA, as at common law, the business must operate a game that is predominately a game of chance.

Page 112:
The government must demonstrate that it is more probable than not that poker is predominated by chance rather than skill. It has failed to do so.

Page 118:
The average poker player is not so highly skilled as to take advantage of an advanced player’s techniques and knowledge; yet skill, when sufficiently honed, makes the difference between winning and losing in poker. See Fig. 2-3, supra, and accompanying text. As in bridge, the champions who can consistently demonstrate that skill underlies success in the game are few. Dr. Heeb has shown persuasively that skilled players will predominated over the less skilled in a relatively short time.

Page 118:
The rule of lenity places the burden of proof on the government. It has failed to show that it is more likely than not that chance predominates over skill in poker. Dr. Heeb’s studies and conclusions are found to be accurate and persuasive by this court, which heard andanalyzed all the evidence. Even were the expert testimony to have left the court in a state of equipoise, the rule of lenity requires that it find in favor of the defendant.

Page 119:
Because the poker played on the defendant’s premises is not predominately a game of chance, it is not gambling as defined by the IGBA. That the statute was targeted at limiting the influence of organized crime, and organized crime groups have operated poker games beginning in the years since its passage, does not retroactively change the statute’s scope. “The statute should not be extended . . . simply because it may seem to us that a similar policy applies, or upon the speculation that if the legislature had thought of it, very likely broader words would have been used.” McBoyle, 283 U.S. at 27.

Page 120:
Neither the text of the IGBA nor its legislative history demonstrate that Congress designed the statute to cover all state gambling offenses. Nor does the definition of "gambling" include games, such as poker, which are predominated by skill. The rule of lenity compels a narrow reading of the IGBA, and dismissal of defendant's conviction.
 
TheEngineer

TheEngineer

PPA VP of Player Relations
Silver Level
Joined
May 22, 2012
Total posts
3,444
Chips
0
Here's the PPA press release:

PPA Applauds Federal Court Ruling that Poker is a Game of Skill and Not Illegal Gambling

Washington, DC (August 21, 2012) –The Poker Players Alliance (PPA), the leading poker grassroots advocacy group with more than one million members nationwide, today lauded a federal court’s ruling that poker is a game of skill and is not illegal gambling under the Illegal Gambling Businesses Act (IGBA).

The decision of Judge Jack Weinstein of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is the first federal court decision on whether poker is a game of skill rather than gambling. The court resoundingly ruled it a game of skill. The ruling stated that, “Neither the text of the IGBA nor its legislative history demonstrate that Congress designed the statute to cover all state gambling offenses. Nor does the definition of ‘gambling’ include games, such as poker, which are predominated by skill.”

“As we worked for years defending players against vague gambling laws, we have patiently waited for the right opportunity to raise the issue in federal court. Today’s federal court ruling is a major victory for the game of poker and the millions of Americans who enjoy playing it,” said John Pappas, executive director of the PPA. “Judge Weinstein’s thoughtful decision recognizes what we have consistently argued for years: poker is not a crime, it is a game of skill. As the judge’s opinion aptly notes, poker is an American pastime that is deeply embedded in the history and fabric of our nation and his decision sets aside the notion that the vague laws render the game criminal.”

PPA played a central role in the case. In coordination with the defendant’s lawyer, PPA provided the arguments and briefs and extensive expert testimony. Lawyers representing the PPA wrote the principal briefs and presented the principal oral arguments. Judge Weinstein’s opinion relied heavily upon the information the PPA provided the court.

“Judge Weinstein gave the government an opportunity to prove that poker was a game of predominant chance, but even federal prosecutors could not provide an expert of any kind that could conclude that chance predominates over skill in poker. We could not be more pleased with the outcome of today’s decision,” continued Pappas.

In addition, Judge Weinstein relied substantially on the absence of clear guidance in federal law on the question whether poker is illegal gambling. The decision therefore reinforces that now is the time for Congress to enact a fair and reasonable regulatory model that protects players and generates tax revenues. The PPA continues to work towards that end.

For a copy of the U.S. vs. DiCristina case ruling and PPA’s initial amicus brief, please click here.

PPA’s Litigation Support Network has been involved in a string of legal victories by providing expert witnesses, preparing arguments for trial, and filing amicus briefs with the courts. For more information on these cases and a copy of the judge’s order, please visit www.theppa.org.

About The Poker Players Alliance
The Poker Players Alliance (www.theppa.org) is a nonprofit membership organization comprised of over 1,000,000 online and offline poker players and enthusiasts from around the United States who have joined together to speak with one voice to promote the game and to protect poker players' rights.
 
xdeucesx

xdeucesx

Bar Master
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Total posts
7,139
Awards
3
Chips
21
thanks engineer!


so what does this do for our future prospects in the U.S>?
 
D

doomasiggy

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Total posts
1,915
Chips
0
lol @ how dumb the govt's witness was

I believe that the proper metric for determining success at a session of poker is whether or not a player profits from playing the game.

:rolleyes:

Seriously, how is this guy an economist? His argument is as dumb as saying that you only need a sample size of one when determining reproductive rates.
 
N

Navonod

Rising Star
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Total posts
16
Chips
0
OK, i'm not savy on legal matters. How does this affect state laws? If it is ruled to not be a federal violation does that mean that it could still be a state violation or does federal supercede state on matters like this one?
 
A

always2away

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Total posts
254
Awards
1
Chips
0
Wow

Did the Feds step in a big pile of doo-doo. I especially liked the part where they discussed how they simply could have let the State prosecute under state law and they would have been successful, but noooooo, the Feds had to try and support their BS about how gambling laws included poker.

I am old and pessimistic. I do not believe for one second that the Feds will not continue their assault on poker in their quest for tax dollars.
 
A

always2away

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Total posts
254
Awards
1
Chips
0
Federal vs State law

Only Federal law that is in comportment with THE CONSTITUTION and TREATIES can supersede State law. Otherwise, any lawful stuff not outlined by the Constitution is left over to the individual States for them to decide how they want to handle it.

The States all agreed to adopt the Constitution.

An example of how this is true is the 2nd amendment. SCOTUS recently held, yet again, that the right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right. Therefore, an individual State is prohibited from making and enforcing a law that says individuals cannot bear arms, because the Federal law (from the Constitution) would supersede the State law.
 
Charade You Are

Charade You Are

you can call me Frost
Silver Level
Joined
May 9, 2008
Total posts
2,446
Chips
0
About time some logic prevailed in this fight.

Had to look up IGBA: In 1970, as part of the Organized Crime Control Act, Congress passed the Illegal Gambling Business Act. The statute was aimed at syndicated gambling. Congress determined that large-scale, illegal gambling operations, like casino-type activities, including games such as black jack, financed organized crime, which, in turn, has a significant impact on interstate commerce. As such, section 1955 is a direct exercise of Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce and, specifically, the activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

PPA played a central role in the case. In coordination with the defendant’s lawyer, PPA provided the arguments and briefs and extensive expert testimony. Lawyers representing the PPA wrote the principal briefs and presented the principal oral arguments. Judge Weinstein’s opinion relied heavily upon the information the PPA provided the court.

Great news and a great big THANK YOU to the PPA for all its efforts. Nice to see a good result. :tee:

Which reminds me, I think it's time to renew my membership.
 
Charade You Are

Charade You Are

you can call me Frost
Silver Level
Joined
May 9, 2008
Total posts
2,446
Chips
0
Being a federal ruling, does this help with exempting poker from the UIGEA as a game of skill?
 
P

paymefoolsfool

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Total posts
76
Chips
0
If the feds have anything to say this will go all the way to the supreme court before the end expect a long ride
 
P

PokerBratPro

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Total posts
4
Chips
0
Hope they give U.S more sites to play on , and let us profit ,
its not gambling ... its math lol
 
E

emirlidan

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Total posts
811
Awards
1
Chips
0
I am a little confused can anyone explain exactly what this means for us players

edit: a dumbed down version of OP's post would do the job
 
R

RealChaser74

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Total posts
42
Chips
0
Well it looks like the settlement with FTP/PS might have been what the gov was waiting on. I am hoping that this is a step in teh right direction and we can get back online into some real games soon.
 
LarkMarlow

LarkMarlow

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 26, 2009
Total posts
14,664
Awards
1
Chips
1
NYTimes article; http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/n...-skill-than-of-chance-a-judge-rules.html?_r=1

Of note is that the judge threw out a verdict of guilty.

Thanks, dj. From the article [bold mine]:

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.
“The most skillful professionals earn the same celestial salaries as professional ballplayers,” he wrote in the exhaustive 120-page ruling that detailed the history of poker in the United States.

I'm impressed.
 
Charade You Are

Charade You Are

you can call me Frost
Silver Level
Joined
May 9, 2008
Total posts
2,446
Chips
0
Thanks for the link DJ.

Would like to know why the jury found him guilty. Didn't they have the same info the judge did?
 
dj11

dj11

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Total posts
23,189
Awards
9
Chips
0
My guess would be that the prosecutor made his case based on the law, and then the judge over ruled the law itself.
 
Charade You Are

Charade You Are

you can call me Frost
Silver Level
Joined
May 9, 2008
Total posts
2,446
Chips
0
My guess would be that the prosecutor made his case based on the law, and then the judge over ruled the law itself.

I didn't see it that way. The judge didn't throw out the law, he just ruled that it didn't apply to poker as a game of skill. That argument must have been made in the trial--no?

I'll take a wild guess--like many people, they hear the word poker and any sort of logic or reason flies out the window.

That might just be it.
 
E

emirlidan

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Total posts
811
Awards
1
Chips
0
Well I always thought it was illegal to host your own games as in I can't own a bar and host a holdem tournament at my bar?

and to me that sounds like what the owner was doing

maybe I was just ignorant and should have researched this more
 
W

whytegold

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Total posts
57
Chips
0
HAHA!!!! Great update and Awesome News for us US playerS!!! Just 1 step closer to playing the 1R1A micros on PS!!! :)
 
R

ruffcut68

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Total posts
424
Awards
1
Chips
11
Awesome .. hope to see US players back on all sites soon.
 
Related Gambling Guides: AU Gambling - CA Gambling - UK Gambling - NZ Gambling - Online Gambling Top 10 Games Poker Rules - Poker Games
Top