account suspended for a FREE money orb!!

poker is a game of chance.

If it wasn't they wouldn't shuffle the cards before dealing them.

There is skill involved is knowing what to do with the cards, but if all the players are of equal ability then its a complete game of chance again.

According to the law, poker is a game of chance. End of story. Thank you come again.

Poker is specifically mentioned in the federal law, so there's no chance of getting it allowed in SL until the law gets changed. There are plenty of RL groups working on getting poker legalized both online and off.

According to federal law, poker is a game of chance. There's nothing LL can do about that. For games not specifically mentioned in the law that involve both skill and some random element, the law (and therefore the LL policy) is vague. Representatives of Linden Lab have made decisions on specific games that allow some of the games to be played for money now. You can disagree with those decisions all day long, but comparing them to poker is completely useless since poker is specifically against the federal law.


This part of your response is just silly. Strife's response is really irrelevant. He is not a Linden Lab employee and has no more insight into the inner workings of the LL enforcement group than any of the rest of us. They are actively applying logic in the enforcement of the policy, and taking great care to make careful evaluations of games before saying that a game can be allowed. Some Lindens that respond to Abuse Reports are very uninformed about what is allowed and what isn't, but that's a separate problem. Saying that LL is facilitating and assisting the operation of slot machines is so inaccurate that it borders on slander. (you need to have credibility and believability on the issue to be accused of slander)


No kidding.

Zyngo and DMC are SL versions of Slingo, a real life game. I've been told by more than one person that it's always the first and last game that they play when they go to Atlantic City. You can go to Slingo.com to find out more about Slingo, Inc.


Here again, you've gone off the deepend and started spouting conspiracy theory. And Slingo isn't a slot machine game. Slot games cannot be influenced by player decisions after the game begins. Slingo is heavily influenced by player decisions. (at least according to it's programmers, players, operators, LL, and real life gaming authorities)

Sorry if this comes across as rather blunt, but all this debate is kind of pointless. SL is owned by LL - they make the rules of the world. It is a private company, and they can decide whatever they want, based on their priorities and their legal issues. They have been advised by their legal experts what should and shouldn't be allowed, and have added in their own needs for the world (which includes policing ability, etc).

We residents have a choice whether to play SL or not. If we do not like their rules, we can cash out. Demanding that LL change the rules, based on whatever premise, is pointless - they make the rules - it's their world.

Absolutely not true Kalderi. There have been many instances in LL's history over the years that show resident (paying customers) outrage being a catalyst for corporate change. I say if you don't like what they are doing then make your voice heard, document some viable solutions and get community support. Then navigate through the corporate red tape and get a audience with a decision maker.

Taps the ceiling and screams " YES the person above is correct ! " Too many times infact.

That's how it works now. However, I first learned of SL from a WSJ article a year ago that said that the IRS was looking into the issue of taxing virtual assets, e.g., land. God forbid they actually go that far! Sheesh. But they are legitimately worried that folks can hide assets (money) in virtual worlds.

Hopefully, if they DO tax inworld assets, they'll have a very high limit under which you're excused. Otherwise the damn paperwork will kill the whole thing!

Bingo. They're just covering their legal asses. Oops, forgot a 't' back there!

Their written policy is internally inconsistent, doesn't mean what they say, and doesn't match what they enforce. Sort of like a software demo!

And, what the cartoon dog says ... +1. Gotta love that cartoon dog -- only, not literally!

If all the players are of equal skill, then ANY game is a game of chance -- either that or it's deterministic (like tic-tac-toe, which always ends in a draw). In contrast, there is no skill involved in roulette, where the outcome is entirely chance regardless of experience.

Poker is considered gambling because it IS gambling. But it's not really a game of chance, not in the long run. Neither is Backgammon. Neither is Bridge. Neither is Football. But chance plays a large role in all, in the short run.

These are legal distinctions, not technical ones. zzzzzzz

Do you shuffle the cards?

Then there is an element of chance. Two players of equal skill will have a different "luck of the draw"

Its even possible for someone completely unskilled to get a hand that will beat the world's greatest poker player.

Compare this to Chess, the pieces are always lined up in the same way when you start the game.

Even your example Tic Tac Toe, it is possible to beat a child every single time, the conditions of the game are the same, only the players choices differ.

In poker there is always a chance that child will get dealt 4 aces.

I think in issues like how SL runs - whether a particular feature should be implemented or not, that may be the case (although I can think of Voice, ID Verification, and possibly other examples for cases where the outrage of the vox populi has been roundly ignored - in fact I can't think of a RECENT outrage that made any real significant difference in the long run.... maybe I am too new here)

But I suppose if people really think that enough people claiming that poker is a game of skill and that LL should allow it in-world will get LL to change their minds.... well, nobody can stop them, right? The success of that project isn't one I'd bet on, though.

True, but this is not the main element in deciding how much money changes hands and who ends up with the most money.


Having the best hand does not guarantee winning the pot.


Of course, there is a difference. However, the player to play first has a decided advantage between two players of similar level. And this is chosen how? *By chance* Therefore, Chess is a game of chance, and wagering on it would be illegal if the only criteria were whether chance is an element.


The player with the best hand often does not win the pot. Even when it does win the pot, the pot is far, far smaller when played unskillfully.

I don't dispute that there are differences between games that have chance built-in, like poker, bridge, and backgammon, versus games with deterministic rules, like chess. But to say that these are games of chance *rather than* skill is misleading. And it's all beside the point, because poker is explicitly listed as a gambling game for legal purposes.

It's a *legal* distinction, not a technical one. There is a wide range of skill versus chance in games. At one end we have games that involve no chance at all, where the first player doesn't have an advantage (or there is no "first player". Then we have games where there is little chance other than selecting who goes first, but the first player has a decided advantage (like chess). Then we have games where chance is a large factor in each "move" or "play", but skill far outweighs chance even in a relatively short run, like bridge, backgammon, and poker. (I'm talking about backgammon as played for money, using the doubling cube.) Next are games that are largely chance but skillful play can minimize the damage or even turn a small profit if played with extreme skill, like blackjack. Next are games that are largely chance but can be bet wisely or stupidly, making a big difference in how much money you lose in the long run, like roulette. And then there are games that are completely chance, where the a complete idiot has the same chance as the world's leading expert, like roulette.

Is there a clear line in there where we go from "gambling" to "not gambling"?

No. The element of chance is just one of many considerations. A big one, but not definitive. I stand by my claim that poker is in the same "skill vs. chance" category as bridge and backgammon. I admit it takes more education to be even a poor bridge player, but that's beside the point -- the issue isn't how hard the game is to learn, it's whether it's legally considered gambling or not.

The legal distinction is the one that matters here. Otherwise, we'd have to put chess in the same category, or else we'd need to have some research that quantifies chance (goodness knows how) and draw a line. In that case, I bet we'd find some interesting surprises, such as the possibility that bridge has a higher chance/skill ratio than poker!

so then...if clicking an orb and getting free $ by luck is gambling..then ...clicking a chair and waiting for 10 mins to recieve FREE $ should be gambling too! uhoh no more camping!

funny, many grandmasters prefer to play black, it's a trade off of moving first and being able to see what's likely and responding with something that will likey make it difficult. and even when the first games first move is decided by chance (which gives no clear advantage either way) the following games aren't (some exchange sides, some allow the winner to pick, some the loser, I prefer the first or the last).... can you tell I play chess?

Ok any money was paid? If not its not gambling

I have searched for the answer and cannot find it so its easier to ask here.. Are Zingo machines also illegal?

(edited your post for brevity)

Poker has far more an element of chance than chess. As you mention the only element that changes in Chess setup is who goes first. Besides that the game is set up the same way every time. Thus you either go first or second. Every time you go first your options are the same. Every time you go second your options are the same. The variance is the actions of your opponent

In Poker however the number of possible combinations at the start of any hand is quite Large, Theres thousands of potential combinations. (potentially millions based on the variant, http://www.durangobill.com/Poker_Probabilities_5_Cards.html)

And while the best hand does not win every time an astounding hand has an incredible advantage over a weak one, thus including a considerable amount of chance.

The term "luck of the draw" didnt apear in a vacuum. And luck has quite often been associated with Poker. Ask Mr. Hickok.

A game of chance can include a lot of skill. But for someone to realistically claim that a game with such an unpredictable spread of possible hands is not a game of chance is really missing the concept of what chance is.

For Chess to resemble Poker in this area you would have to put all the pieces into a hopper, mix them up and then one at a time line them up on the board. In such a way that the arrangement of pieces differed based on the juggling of the hopper.

As for Poker being specifically included for legality- its pretty simple. Poker is designed around betting. Even when you play for fun, you simulate a wager. It was gambling first, developed at a time and place where the legality of gambling wasn't restricted in the way it is today.

It differs in that way from Chess or anything of the sort.

Somebody who hung out at the place for two hours and never had a random dollar tossed at em I guess. " ZE MONEY BALL IS A SCAMMM!!! I WILL BLOW ZE WHISTLE ON DIS DEVICE AND HAVE ZE LINDENS REMOVE IT!" I doubt Fluffy Linden or somebody was wandering around looking for illegal stuff. I cant imagine some RL municipality filing gambling charges over a money ball that doesnt fall under gambling guidelines, ( no wagering involved). HEY LINDENS, GIVE HER BACK HER MONEYBALL!!!

I guess I don't understand this thread but that is nothing new. There are many things I don't understand. If a person is suspended for breaking a LL rule then I suggest they take it up with Linden Lab. You can get a million opinions in the forums but they don't really mean anything do they?

thats not the point.

So what your saying is:
"Since we are mere residents and not members of the Linden party, nothing we say on the forums has any substance. Its pointless, meaningless chatter analogous to the static which we hear on an AM radio when no station is present."

Nahhhhhhhh, I disagree with that assessment my dear Susie. The forums are the venue of the common folk who pay the bills. What 'we the people' say means more than anything. If a Linden, whos in the power to make decisions and changes, wants to know what the people really want, all this Linden need do is stop by the forums and take a look around. Doesnt seem like they do this often enough, but Im sure it happens all the time. If a restaurant puts creamed spiney blowfish on its menu every day, but few people order it, and the ones that do complain, would they continue buying blowfish, or listen to the customers? Well, if they have any sense, they would either stop buying it or MOVE THE PLACE TO JAPAN! Those with good business sense listen. YOU MATTER, and your opinion MATTERS MOST IMPORTANTLY!

OP, can we has status update?