Does Poker actually violate the wagering policy?

(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,

Poker relies on random number generation to determine the cards, not the winner. The highest cards dealt out by the random number generators don't necessarily win. Neither does the highest hand necessarily win.

Yes, poker is specifically mentioned on the list, but it doesn't really fit the definition given.

If it's on the specificly named List of Banned games, then i would say Yes, Otherwise, i have always considered Poker More of a Game of Skill than one of Chance, but the chance Element is still a Large part. Were it Me Compiling the List of games to be banned, i would say poker would be ok, But, Unfortunately, I'm Not, and we are restricted to LL's interpretations.

Angel.

Having played loads of poker in RL (but never in SL) I know that luck has little do with who wins when averaged out over many hands or games. It could be that LL were referring to "Video Poker" (which is somewhat different) or maybe that none of the LL policy makers has ever played any serious amount of poker in their lives.

I'd personally err on the side of caution and avoid it, especially as it's mentioned explicitly on the list.

Pi.

I think you'll get away with it around your house but in a public place it will be frowned upon. I know some people are arguing that games like Texas Hold 'em should be excluded from onling gambling rules on the basis that it's a game of skill but I believe that argument is still ongoing.

Which Part of 'wagering' do You not Understand?

I understand the arguments but it was specifically named as one of the banned game examples, so I think it's pretty clear that it is in fact banned despite any arguments no matter how true they are. In LL's exact words..


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

I think the OP understands the policy better than you. In summary it's:

(Relies on [chance/random number OR outcome of RL event] to determine the winner) AND (provides a payout in one form or another)...

Pi.

But see, then that means that LL's new policy contradicts itself. Because Poker does not fall under both rules.

Read the policy again, genius

Poker falls under the UIGEA. I agree that it's a game of skill, but both the feds and several states have decided that it's gambling more than skill - heck, it's a felony in Washington to play poker online. LL's policy is an attempt to comply with that law, so I'd have to say that poker is illegal under the policy. If a rule can be read more than one way, it's going to be read in a way that best covers LL's butt with the authorities.

The only way to get around this policy long term will be to get the UIGEA repealed and work on the various states to legalize online poker. Once that happens, maybe LL will allow it back in SL, although it will probably be subject to some sort of regulation. Who knows? At any rate, there is a national effort going on to work around or repeal the UIGEA. Even if you don't gamble online, either in SL or on other sites, it should scare you that the government wants to come into your home and regulate what you do with your own money on your own time when you are hurting nobody else. What are they going to regulate next? How about large online communities where US dollars can be converted to ingame currency and used to purchase and sell various ingame items? It's a type of exchange of money for intangible services and goods that could easily be exploited by people looking to launder money. There were legislators arguing that nline poker could be a threat to national security because al Queda could use it for fundraising and transfers. Like Osama bin Laden is sitting in a cave somewhere knocking out $10+1 sit-n-gos on PokerStars.

It's worth thinking about it when it's time to vote. I've called and written my representatives and I know where they stand on the issue.

Excellent point.

Pi.

Its a game of skill when you can actualy read eachothers tells by being in person, but even then theirs random chance involved when your hand is either crap or not, and roughly how good a hand the other guy has.
Its a game of chance when all you have are the cards you have Vs what the other cards the other player may have. (and thats not even counting the reality that many of thoes games are rigged to start with)

Poker would be gambling

It violates the wagering policy becuase its Poker.

People think of the TOS/CS like the Consititution or a legal document.

I dont think we should. Its not enforced that way.

Maybe instead consider the TOS/CS more like a road map.

Drawn by a blind person.

At night.

Since the cards are supposedly randomly dealt, it is considered a random game of chance by the government. Yes, I know skill is involved. Still doesn't change how the government sees things.

Considering the adage that you can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t, poker does involve a significant degree of luck. Regardless, the government considers it gambling, so pay-to-play poker goes poof.

Pretty Diffinitively Giannia, There is your Answer, YES Poker actually violates the wagering policy, it's specificly named as banned.

Angel.

I like the inclusion of Pachinko there. I mean, we all knew that SL's physics engine behaved pretty much randomly before, but...

Online poker requires skill too, and one doesn't need to be there in person to spot tells. Go to any poker site and read up on them

Pi.

Poker is most definitely a skill game, and thus, LL is contradicting its own policy. Is there any chance involved? Of course, just as in Scrabble there is a small amount of luck involved (if you only get crappy, low-point letters, you won't do well no matter how good your vocabulary is, yet I don't know anyone who wouldn't classify Scrabble as a skill game rather than a gambling game). On the whole, poker is a game of math and the ability to read other players--even online; were it not, we would not have professional poker players who win consistently over time.

It's unfortunate that LL (and the US government) decided to lump in poker with other games of chance. I think it is also unfortunate that those residents who are thrilled about the ban don't understand that most quality poker in SL is played not in the big, laggy, ugly casinos, but in very nice poker rooms (like Summit or Four Deuces). Some of those same residents will also miss the contributions of serious poker players like myself to the SL economy. In my short SL life (4 months), I have spent thousands and thousands of lindens that I've won playing poker tournaments. Poker playing has allowed me to purchase land, a home, furniture, clothing, scripts and animations I would have otherwise balked at paying US dollars for. And given what has happened to land prices recently (as well as the number of residents I know who are thinking of leaving SL now), I'd say the sweeping removal of any game the Lindens have decided are chance games rather than skill is doing more harm than good.

Poker was ruled a game of chance by a South Carolina court (an english court as well). Congressman Robert Wexler has a bill in congress now to exclude Poker and other games of skill from the UIGEA:

http://www.pocketfives.com/3AE9F72B-84F1-4219-88E2-9A4E1CF53FCD.aspx

Barney Frank has a bill in congress called the IGREA (Internet Gambling Regulation & Enforcement Act) which will repeal the UIGEA and allow for licenced online casinos in the US:

http://www.igamingbusiness.com/article-detail.php?articleID=14147

Additionally a company called IMega is suing the US Attorney General to suspend enforcement of the UIGEA, a hearing is set for September 4th:

http://www.onlinecasinonews.com/ocnv2_1/article/article.asp?id=14116

Earlier this month the additional regulations for the UIGEA were supposed to be released, they missed the deadline but said they would release the regulations soon (I personally think they will wait until September to see if the UIGEA will indeed be overturned).

So if you are bummed out about no poker, don't worry too much, there is alot of hope for getting the law changed now. If you live in the US you can write your Senators and Congressperson and let them know how you feel about the issue.

Oh and if you want to vote for Ron Paul for president he wants to eliminate the IRS, that will take care of that whole taxation issue in SL too..

One question Guido, who is going to license the SL casinos if Frank's bill is made law?

Ok yes there is a debate about whether Poker is a game of skill or not but as Sarah pointed out when she quoted from the blog, it's on the banned list. So even if that bill gets passed to allow Poker to be played online, you'd still need LL to agree to it too.

Here is the full text of the bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2046

"To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for the licensing of Internet gambling facilities by the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and for other purposes."

`(f) Approval of License- The Director shall grant licenses under this subchapter if, in the Director's sole discretion, the applicant meets the criteria set by the Director and is generally fit to engage in the business of Internet gambling.

--

I am not the biggest fan of the Barney Frank Bill. I like Robert Wexler's bill better. Barney Frank spoke out against the UIGEA saying "It's a regulation of the internet, as such, I don't like it." He then comes out with a bill entitled "Internet Gambling REGULATION and Enforcement Act".

I don't like the bill because it seemingly allows the Director to decide at his sole discression who gets a licence and who doesn't (oh, that's not just asking for corruption), it also reinforces the UIGEA in may areas, it does not abolish it. Also there is no set price for a licence. I can almost 100% guarantee the average person will be priced out of the market and only Harrah's, Mandalay, Boyd Gaming will be able to afford one I predict..

Indeed I am utterly convinced that is what the UIGEA was all about. The major gambling companies in the US had no regulated way of getting into the market. They therefore lobbied congress to pass the UIGEA to eliminiate any competition for when a regulated environment did occur. Once it is regulated the 1st gaming companies to open up shop will be Harrah's ect. Harrah's paid Bill Frist $50,000 to sneak the bill into the Safe Port Act (He couldn't sneak it into a defence spending bill a month earlier). When the UIGEA passed Harrah's stock jumped $2 billion in value. The people who owned Harrah's at the time were selling the company, so in effect the owners of Harrah's walked away with over $2 billion in their pocket. This is the real reason for the UIGEA, corporate protectionism, not consumer protectionism.


Here is Robert Wexler's Skill Gaming Bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2610

The skill in poker lies solely in gauging the statistics from what is in your hand and what is visible on the table. Then add your power of observation of the clues given by the other players behavior. Those have nothing to do with the cards themselves, which are totally randomised when the game starts. Thus poker is gambling from the start, then what you do with your cards is ruled by your experience, knowledge of statistics and power of observation.

Ban it!

Someone already beat you to it. Of course you could value free-will and self-determination and decide that you have no right to regulate the behavior of free individuals. Or of course you can adopt a communist or fascist ideology and decide to ban everything you disagree with. I prefer the former.