Can we please have some clarification on wagering?

My apologies if this isn't the right place to bring this up, but I can't really see anywhere else to ask about this..

I suspect the Lindens are hearing a lot of this right now, but given the dramatic impact the new wagering rules are likely to have in-world, they appear to be very poorly defined.

The largest amount of confusion seems to come from this:

[games will be banned that] (1) (a) rely on chance or random number generation to determine a winner, OR (b) rely on the outcome of real-life organized sporting events,

Firstly, exactly how are you defining "using chance to determine a winner"?
Yes, a money ball is a very clear cut example that just uses a random number to pick a winner. Clearly, under the new rules, those are banned.

However, according to the definition of the rules as they are stated here, Tringo and Slingo are NOT banned under the new rules. They use random numbers to generate game pieces, which users then apply to a game of skill/luck. According to the definition of the rules here, however, it doesn't matter how much luck is involved. All that matters is the game doesn't just randomly pick a winner - and neither Tringo nor Slingo do that.

However, to further the confusion, LL then lists a bunch of games that apply to these rules:

This includes (but is not limited to), for example, Casino Games such as:

o Baccarat
o Blackjack
o Craps
o Faro
o Keno
o Pachinko
o Pai Gow
o Poker
o Roulette
o Sic Bo
o Slot machines

Except at no point is it made clear whether these are examples of where betting on RL things in SL would be banned (such as betting L$ on the outcome of an RL poker game), or whether it means that these games would all be banned in SL.

If it is the latter, then we already have a major inconsistency. Sure, slot machines essentially just randomly pick a winner, but it's a pretty extreme stretch to say that any poker variant other than straight draw is a game that randomly determines a winner.


So, basically the question is, how much randomness are games allowed? Which is it? Any game that uses a random number generator and involves money is banned? or is it only the randomly-pick-a-winner ones, as the policy currently appears to state?

Specifically, it would be very nice to hear whether the following games will be allowed, and if not, why they would violate the new policy.
Tringo
Slingo
Texas Hold 'em poker
Blackjack
Video Poker (with card holding/discard by user)
Chess (with wagering by players)
Slot machines (featuring holds/nudges, other player skill related features)
Roulette

Apologies once again if this isn't the optimal place to post this question, but clarification would be much appreciated.

Thanks,
Random

The rule doesn't say think have to rely *just* on random chance to determine the winner.

/me, who doesn't SL for gambling, isn't arguing the point. Just saying how I read the blog post.

Well, the exact wording is "games that rely on chance or random numbers to determine a winner", and they later say that anything not falling into that category is exempt.


The problem is this is an unclear definition. By definition, any game involving skill does not rely only on chance or random numbers to determine a winner. The confusion arises because it is not made clear - are the banned games those that involve ONLY chance or random numbers to determine a winner, or those that involve ANY amount of chance or randomness, regardless the other factors, such as skill, that are involved.

For clarity, let me suggest some examples, all in different categories.

Slot Machines or Exploder Balls
These are 100% luck, 0% skill. Clearly these are banned under the new rules.

Tringo, Poker or Blackjack
These are partially luck, partially skill.
Are these banned? Yes, randomness factors in, but it does NOT necessarily determine the winner.

Chess or Go, with wagering
These are 100% skill 0% luck, or, to put it another way, entirely deterministic games.
It seems that games of this type should be entirely legal under the new policy.

I'm not an SL gambler either - I enjoy the occasional game of Tringo, but have never found the big casinos very appealing. It just seems that for such a major policy change, the wording is very unclear, and it would be nice to know where things stand.

um... Poker and Blackjack are banned. They say so in the list...

A couple of places I've seen have set their sploders to pay all when it went off. Would that still be illegal? This is not good. Maybe time to discontinue the real $$ to L$ exchanges and charge everyone so much a month and issue so many L$ a week.

you are right, its not very clear at all.


I dont get why Bingo is legal most places in the US, and to a degree so is playing Poker for money... but they claim that poker and blackjack would be banned, even though they take some skill, its not entirely chance.

Hmm, okay, reading it again, yeah. I think it is fairly clear that the list of games is referring to in world versions of the games. There's still a little ambiguity in the way it's written as to whether they mean those games in SL or betting in SL on the outcomes of RL versions of those games, but I'll take it as the former.

The problem here though is that neither Poker nor Blackjack fit the definition of a game where the winner is determined by chance. Chance has a PART in it, but does not 'determine the winner' by any means. So basically, they say in one sentence that only games in which 'chance or randomness determines the winner' are banned, but then go on to list examples of banned games that do not fit that definition. Sure, if they'd said 'games where chance or randomness PLAYS A PART in determining the winner' it'd make sense, but they didn't, and it doesn't.

Looks like anything involving money + any amount of randomness is out the window then, I guess. Byebye Tringo

Still seems a very odd way to define things. I mean, I know in anything like this there are always going to be borderline cases. It's very hard to make a policy fit every case exactly, but a number of questions spring to mind.

If I made a poker game that used no randomness at all - say, a really really really big lookup table of deck orders, which were cycled through in a non-linear, but deterministic sequence, and some kind of very complex formula not involving random numbers to deal cards out.. again, deterministic, but too long and complex to predict/memorise

well. There y'go.. a non-random poker game, but still too complex to predict what cards you or anyone else might get.
Of course, I suspect while that might be following the letter of the law, it would still violate the spirit, and I'm not suggesting I'd do anything like that. it just strikes me as rather weird to differentiate between games with or without any element of chance.

I hope I'm not coming off as really grumpy sounding about this, or anything, as it doesn't really affect me at all. I don't own any gambling stuff, and aside from the occasional round of Tringo (which I never win anyway), I don't gamble in SL. I'm just surprised that something that's going to make such major changes to so much of SL (we all know how many casinos there are) has been worded in such a way as to leave all these questions open.

It's pretty clear to me.

It is a violation of this policy to wager in games in the Second Life (R) environment operated on Linden Lab servers if such games:

(1) (a) rely on chance or random number generation to determine a winner, OR (b) rely on the outcome of real-life organized sporting events,

AND

(2) provide a payout in

(a) Linden Dollars, OR

(b) any real-world currency or thing of value.

This includes (but is not limited to), for example, Casino Games such as:

o Baccarat
o Blackjack
o Craps
o Faro
o Keno
o Pachinko
o Pai Gow
o Poker
o Roulette
o Sic Bo
o Slot machines

It also includes Sports Books or Sports Betting, including the placing of bets on actual sporting events against a book-maker or through a betting exchange.
Linden Lab will actively enforce this policy. If we discover gambling activities that violate the policy, we will remove all related objects from the inworld environment, may suspend or terminate the accounts of residents involved without refund or payment, and may report any relevant details, including user information, to authorities and financial institutions.

They're saying, pretty flat out, that these things are not allowed in SL.
Period.

It doesn't matter if chance isn't the ONLY aspect of winning as long as it is PART. It doesn't say it's gotta be the only part.

How many times have you played poker or blackjack with a beginner and said "You lucky bastard"?


Regardless of semantical arguments, they are saying, explicitly, that Poker, Blackjack, Slots yaddayadda are not allowed.

The questions aren't open. I'm not sure how much more explicit they can make it.

The games on the list are a violation. End of story.

does it say that Tringo and SLingo are allowed?

I must have missed that -

I only read it as not using those as an example.

Tringo and SLingo both involve chance.

I'm agreed in how you're reading it. that does seem to be what they mean. The problem is what they MEAN is not what they SAID. I think you're rather oversimplifying the issue here.

What they say is:

"1) (a) rely on chance or random number generation to determine a winner, OR (b) rely on the outcome of real-life organized sporting events,"


...
"This policy only applies to wagering games that meet the criteria listed above. If your game or contest does not meet the above criteria, it is not restricted under this policy"

Therefore all games where the winner is NOT determined by chance or random number generation are exempt. Hopefully we can agree on that?

Now the issue, once again, is HOW DO YOU DEFINE whether in any given game the winner is determined by random number generation or chance

The definition they use is that 'the winner is determined by random number generation or chance'. That is the ONE and ONLY definition they give for banned games (leaving aside the betting on RL things issue). This would therefore exclude all games where there were any factors involved other than random numbers or chance.

Slots and Exploders are games where 'the winner is determined by random number generation or chance'. That's the exact definition of those games. You pay your money, a random number is generated, and you either win or you don't. That's it. Might as well bet on the roll of a die, because that's basically what you're doing.

My point stands however that their wording does NOT cover the likes of Tringo, Poker and Blackjack. In those games you pay your money, some random events happen, and then you use skill to make the best of what random game pieces you have recieved. Random numbers or chance DO NOT determine the winner. They may contribute to deciding who wins.. they may also not. It is entirely possible to get dealt a lousy poker hand, or tringo pieces, and still win. Very clearly then, these do not fall into the category of 'winner determined by random numbers or chance'

It's pretty standard practice when banning something to make the definition fit everything that would be included in the ban. If they want to ban all games involving chance, then they should actually say that, with a wording such as '..games involving the wagering of money where any element of chance or randomness is involved in determining the winner'

At this point I'm not trying to argue that blackjack, poker, tringo, etc aren't covered by the ban. It's pretty clear they are. But quite frankly the wording is appalling for a major piece of policy covering a large number of users, and if they want to prevent gambling on SL, they've left a strangely massive loophole insofar as it's clearly legal to bet on games of Chess, Checkers, Go, Connect 4, Mancala, or any other deterministic game.. and as I said earlier, it's perfectly feasible to make a version of Tringo, Blackjack, Poker, or any other game that is entirely non-random from a technical point of view, but still sufficiently unpredictable that people can't 'scam' it. Doubtless the Lindens wouldn't let someone get away with that, but according to their own policy it's entirely legal. This is why it's very very important that major policy changes should be well defined and unambiguous, and this one was neither.

I'm going to drop out of this thread now, as it seems the issue has been cleared up, and I can't see anything more coming out here than arguments over wording. Before I go though, let me re-iterate.. I'm not arguing about what is banned and what isn't. It seems very clear now that any gaming on SL involving both money, and any element of chance, however small is outlawed. Fine, no problem. I just wish the Lindens had actually said that in the first place.

Just another step to take the fun out of everything we do. I'm not much of a gambler, but I do enjoy a poker game now and then, and I have a great number of friends who I enjoy playing with. LL just tore down some of the communities of people whom I enjoyed the most. I have a feeling LL has bitten off more than they can chew on this one, and SL has just lost alot of money and alot of residents. I personally hope this backfires in thier face and SL is forced to rethink thier approach on this. It is not fair to penalize ppl who live in places where gambling is absolutely legal.. Thats my 2 cents.

If A and B are playing a game of chess and C, D, E and F wager on the outcome, how does skill come into play at all for those betting?

Also, if the outcome was 100% based on skill of those playing then you wouldn't be able to wager anything, because the outcome would be known before the game even starts. Chance and luck play a very significant role in determining what game people would bet on.

If LL stays true to form asking for clarification is going to be akin to beating your head against a brick wall. They were stone silent on 'broadly offensive behavior', what makes you think this will be any different? However, i do agree with whoever said they may have bitten off more than they can chew this time..but I wouldnt expect a reversal of policy. More than likely this is going to rock the current economy to the core..and what remains (if anything) of the SL we know in the aftermath is anyone's guess right now.

Okay, I know I said I was going to duck out of this, but would you care to explain how, exactly, luck or randomness figures into a game of Chess or Go?

I never mentioned the scenario of anybody other than the players wagering on the outcome, that's a whole different kettle of fish...
As it happens though, in that scenario, there is no random number generator involved, nor even luck. Merely the gambler's knowledge of the player's skill versus their opponent.

So.. again, it may be something the Lindens don't want people to bet on, but.. no random numbers, no betting on real world events, therefore it should be entirely legal in SL to bet on a in-world chess game which you're not a participant in, according to their policy.

If chess was 100% skill then there is simply no need to even play the game. You're more skilled at chess than I am? Ok, you win, we don't even have to play because there is no *chance* that you'd slip, giving me an advantage, in spite of your better skill. Clearly, things don't actually work out like that.

It's perfectly possible for a less experienced player to win from a more experienced one.

According to you a horse/dog race would be 100% skill too... the fastest horse/dog wins. It's not gambling at all, no way .

That's not true.
If you've ever played chess against someone who is about as skilled as you are you make the same number of mistakes (on average over the course of several games) and thus you'll win some and you'll lose some.

If you have a slightly higher skill (ever seen chess rankings? You start with 1000 points, when you win you get "some" points and when you lose you lose "some." "Some depends on the difference in rank between you and an opponent, you gain/lose the most when you play someone near in rank to yourself, but gain very few against someone you trump and lose very few when you lose to someone who trumps you (vice versa, you beat someone ranked higher you gain an a**load of points and they lose them))....

If you have a slightly higher skill than your opponent you'll win more often than they do, but you still slip up once in a while. You're analogy takes it to the extreams of black and white, the perfect player (Bobby Fischer) vs. your average 10 year old. The 10 year old can't win.

In this respect--and recognized by the International Olympic Committee--Chess is a sport and falls under the 2nd catagory of wagering.

Only if the wagering is done on a chess game taking place in RL. As I read it, if two avatars are playing chess in-world, betting (by them or by onlookers) would not fall under the ban.

Now I have heard everything! - That Chess is a game of chance. Yeah I guess if you view it as a chance that someone will screw up, then it is. But in the whole context of this discussion, we are talking about "chance" in the statistical probability sense.

Someone said this a while back (paraphrasing):


First Age play (they leave)- Check!
Then gaming (they leave) Check!
Then escorts (they and thier customers leave)
All other broadly offensive activities (all those avs leave)

Who is left? The builders and artists but no one to sell to and they leave to.

Last one out, please turn off the lights. : (

The wording kinda DOES cover it when they say "These include poker and blackjack."

I'm just curious... are you saying that chance plays no part in poker and blackjack?
That luck has nothing to do with it?

If the answer is no, then the game relies on chance to determine a winner, doesn't it?

The most skilled player in the world doesn't stand a chance against a lucky bugger who keeps pulling blackjacks.

Skill is the biggest factor, but if you catch a skilled player on an off-day and you're having a crystal clear mind day then it's a lucky win, not one based on better skills because any other day you wouldn't win.

I'm nitpicking about the 100% skill, not whether it's a game of chance or not .

I think we are getting off topic (and there are bigger issues here) but just to follow-up your point cause I just can't help it, lol, - if someone is having a "off day" this is a skill consideration (or lack thereof) and not "chance" in the statistical sense.

I think it would be a great idea if we could get a Linden to SPECIFICALLY advise us on each of the in world games. I realize it would take up time, but we need this as land owners if we are to be held responsible for our actions. Don't tell me I violated a nebulous rule, I want specifics.

I need to know SPECIFICALLY if Slingo/Tringo/Devil May Care is now on the banned list so I can remove the games from my land. I respectfully ask the first Linden to read this post to advise us all so we can be better informed citizens.

Thankyou for getting this back on track. That's basically what I was looking for in this thread.

We can argue until the cows come home about what they said, what it means, how they intended it to be taken, and so on. But the very fact that some people are saying it's crystal clear, while others are saying it makes no sense at all indicates that there most certainly is confusion over the whole issue, and it would be really nice to have the Lindens clarify by stating more specifically what, exactly is banned. How much chance has to be involved for a game to be banned.

I don't really want to go too far down the 'chess as a game of chance' path here, as IMO it's a frankly ridiculous conversation. If they REALLY want to define something like chess as a game of chance, sure, they can. It's their world.. though I would say that if chess is gambling, then they'd better ban vendors too. After all, you rent your vendor space for money. Maybe you'll sell a lot, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll make a profit, maybe you won't.. If you're buying from a vendor, maybe you'll get something worth the money you paid.. or maybe you won't.
If you really want to push it that hard, you can define basically anything as gambling. Pretty much everything in life involves factors that are unpredictable. You can't 100% guarantee your stipend will come through each week.. is that gambling? The value of the L$ can fluctuate.. does that mean owning them is gambling? Is paying to place an ad for your club gambling? you don't know if you'll get enough visitors to make it profitable to do so...

Personally, I don't really care what they choose to ban or not in terms of wagering. For all I care they could ban all games involving cylindrical prims with orange textures played by people with a G in their names. All I want to know is exactly what is, and what is not allowed under the new policy.

Your examples are excellent.


Agreed.


These are banned since there is an element of chance.


I doubt they would be, judging from LL's blanket description and enforcement of paying to play games.


Don't hold your breath.. Is it "broadly offensive"?

If you pay to play, then it's against the policy.