Zyngo, is it gambling or not?

This. In the early eighties the top 5 largest casino operators in the UK lost their gaming licences.One was a well known American company,croupiers wore cotton tails, LOL.
To cut a long story short "They broke the spirit of the gaming act" end of story and went back with their tails between their legs.

So if we kept reporting the machines, would they have any deniability?

Unless you send a written complaint into Linden Lab's legal department with a copy to the Office of the United States Attorney General, yes. If enough people did so pointing out that these were essentially online slot machines, and that they clearly violate Linden Lab's published policy against wagering and games of chance, it might get them concerned enough to shut them down. As long as it is not flagged with the appropriate authorities to create a written record of Linden Lab's practices conflicting with it's promulgated policy, it would still feel they have plausible deniability.

When a friend of mine actually sent an email to Linden Lab implying that perhaps she should bring it to the attention of her local congressmen, senators and the USAG's office she actually got a direct response email from the Ken Dreifach who was Deputy General Counsel of Linden Lab at the time. His attempts to defend the practice were pretty laughable and clearly indicated he didn't have the slightest clue how some of these games actually work. Since she didn't actually want to get Linden Lab in any trouble she let it end with that pitiful email response, but if she had pursued the matter further it is not beyond the realm of possibility that she could have orchestrated a gridwide ban of Zyngo, Jaded Jokers, Devil May Care and all the other SL slot machines which currently can be found all over the grid.

Does it really matter? Won't these gamblers just move on to another method?

I use an alt to play Zyngo at a long running games place. It is located on its own private region so affects no other land owners or residents.

Yes, it's a pretty simple game but there is some skill involved. I play for fun but the fact is my alt pushes a few hundred extra L$ to me every week. I give my alt no funds so if it runs low on 'play money' it has to play the free play machines to raise some more.

Gambling? Ain't costing me a penny and is generating some income. Doesn't sound like gambling to me.

Here's something else to consider. I started in SL a little under a year ago, got bitten by the land bug and have been reclaiming a mainland region from ad farms, junk builds, ban line hell and other nastiness. I still don't own the entire region but I have paid in excess of US$1,000 (REAL $ not L$) over the last year to get where I am.

What is that land worth now? With bots not touching anything over L$1/sq m it's worth damn all. I didn't buy the land to make a profit and I plan on staying there, but if I had to cash out I sure as hell wouldn't recoup my investment. That was a gamble.

I don't care for much of what goes on in the Adult continent. Do I bitch and complain about it? No, I just don't go there. Nobody is forcing me and the people who do go there are (should) be all adults and quite capable of making their own decisions. They certainly don't need me to 'save' them.

As far as I'm concerned it's the same with Zyngo and similar machines. I'm an adult and quite capable of making my own decision about my entertainment.

To the original poster and supporters: What do *you* do in SL? Maybe I don't like what you do. Should I start campaigning to ban that activity? What right do I have to do that?

Now ask yourselves that same question.

Rime

You're preaching to the choir regarding the belief that decisions to gamble should be left to us as adults (I was an avid Texas Hold'em Poker player when it was allowed on the grid) but you are also completely missing the point.

The Linden Lab policy against gambling isn't based on some kind of moral stance that it is taking. It is no coincidence that it was implemented at the time that the United States Department of Justice was supposed to promulgate regulations to banks and financial institutions about how to comply with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. It was a risk management decision to protect Linden Lab from being named as a blocked recipient for funding through banks and financial institutions under UIGEA. Just imagine what would happen if Linden Lab lost almost all means of receiving payment from residents and other parties which was a possible scenario if Linden Lab did not adopt a policy to prohibit gambling.

Enforcing that policy to the letter however is something it currently does not feel compelled to do which is why long acknowledged games of skill like poker are banned, but funny looking slot machines like Zyngo that require the skill level of a chimp are not explicitly banned and are tolerated.

What method would that be? If Linden Lab simply acknowledged that the skill exemption is a fiction under its policy then there is no other method that could be used that would not be violation for the policy. It's really simple. If a game requires a wager and random chance has an influence on the outcome it's banned.

The reason Zyngo is allowed probably just means that the right person bended over at the right time for the right Linden.

A friend used to play Poker in SL too, till after a few IM/local chat stuff ups he worked out he was playing against the houses alts.

If it came across as preaching I apologize. I was merely voicing my opinion to balance those of the "I don't like it so you should not do it" faction.

While Zyngo is allowed under Linden Labs ToS then I shall enjoy the opportunity to play.

With what's at stake for LL it'd have to be a favor with Philip himself, or someone Philip is willing to bet the business for. No random Linden would have that authority.

When M took power I assumed he'd kill zyngo. Maybe he's still afraid to offend Philip.

Or maybe LL is so dependent on gambling income that killing it for real would amount to shutting down or scaling way back. If that's the case it may be worth the risk. Still, I don't think M would have agreed to work for them with that hanging over the business.

One wonders what power Aargle Zymurgy has over LL.

i think video poker should be allowed too, just as zyngo is. i mean, you have to pick the right cards to hold to possibly beat the game. they're both just games of skill, right?

Wrong. Video poker is not the same as real poker. Real poker is player versus player. There is also a fair amount of reading players. In real life you have the advantage of reading body and facial language but a lot of reading also goes into player hand history, style, position on the table, bet sizing and patterns and reactions to bet sizing and patterns.

Lol. I love it when people go all conspiracy theorist about collusion at the poker table. There is no way your friend could have "worked out" that he was playing against the house alts. The house doesn't need to do anything like that. The house makes it's money regardless of player outcomes from the rake and stands to lose far too much and gain far too little by instigating collusion. This is why online poker sites actually have reporting protocols and investigate hand history to prevent attempts at collusion. Most important of all, collusion simply doesn't yield any predictable payoff in Texas Hold'Em and can actually result in huge losses because there is no way to know what another person in between has as hole cards. Collusion could easily end badly if the two colluding players have KK and 77 and the person in the middle has AA or even 88 and is loose and flops trips. Professional poker player and 11 WSOP bracelet winner Phil "the Brat" Hellmuth sums it up very nicely in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpMELRn8_l0

I am just indignant that there is one that is an exception when it is a gambling game. I am not out to police anyone and actually find that law rather laughable but then that is the same country that tried to ban alcohol.

The law is aimed at the kinds of gambling that are historically associated with vice. That's why poker, slots, sports betting is prohibited. When Zyngo has been around enough that organized crime gets its hands in Zyngo, people start losing their houses on Zyngo gambling losses, and Kenny Rogers writes a famous song about Zyngo ala "The Gambler," then law enforcement will turn its eye to Zyngo.

The Second Life policy is stupid because it's written to follow a law that's stupid. How does one quantity the amount of skill vs. chance from game to game? It's an entirely subjective call. (And by the way, I don't know about every state court, but many courts ruling on gambling laws have found that poker is predominated by chance rather than skill. Linden Lab's decision to classify poker as a game of chance wasn't Linden Lab's original idea; it's going along with legal precedent.) The reason Zyngo continues in Second Life is probably because the feds are never going to crack down on Zyngo.

I would say a player's ability to consistently make a 6 to 7 figure income playing professionally is one way of quantifying that in the long run skill dominates over chance. There is nothing subjective about that observation either.Can you cite some case law? Because I can, and the court rulings were not based on logic. Take Joker Club LLC v. Hardin from North Carolina for example where in the court's opinion it acknowledged that it was unable to determine whether whether skill or chance predominated in poker, so although it cited the "predominate-factor" test standard, it abandoned it and basically made up its own test and ruled that poker is not a game of skill merely because there is an inherent element of chance.

In general I have found every state court ruling that has held that poker is not a game of skill cites a "predominate-factor" test standard, but never actually applies a real predominate factor test by using established findings of game theorists and statisticians. Instead these courts follow the illogical pattern of the North Carolina case, i.e. that any inherent element of chance, regardless of what role it plays in the outcome compared to the skill of the poker player, equals chance predominating skill. They often say incredibly ignorant things about poker which are simply factually untrue.

When you look at cases where state judges apply an actual predominate factor test based on game theory and statistics you get results like those in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Walter Watkins and South Carolina v. Chimento where the courts have ruled that poker is a game of skill.

As a matter of federal law poker has been recognized as a game of skill for over 2 decades, which is why professional poker players are allowed to report their winnings as earned income and are allowed to write off their losses as tax deductible (William E. Baxter Jr. v. United States).

Of course notwithstanding any of this, it is highly improbable that Linden Lab's decision to classify poker as gambling (it never classified it as a game of chance as its policy makes no exception for games of skill as long as there is an inherent element of chance) would be based on any state court rulings you could cite since online gambling falls under federal law (the case I cited and its ilk are all regarding offline poker) under the commerce clause which would effectively preempt any state laws about online gambling. It is instead based on the incredibly vague wording under the UIGEA of what constitutes unlawful internet gambling.While I agree that the UIGEA is a stupid law, it doesn't follow at all that Linden Lab's policy, which seeks to protect it from being targeted as a site operator of unlawful internet gambling under the UIGEA by banks and financial institutions, is stupid. QFT

I only said that many courts were ruling that poker was a game of chance rather than skill. I didn't say that the rulings were based on logic or made any sense.

the 'skill' portion of video poker comes in choosing which cards to hold and which to toss. my point was, that makes no more sense as a skill game than zyngo does - which is choosing which square to turn over in what order, when those options are available per line. ie: no skill.

on the other hand, there are odds at play for both games, and that is where some sort of 'skill' might enter the arena... certainly more in poker than zyngo. with so much chance at play with zyngo, it seems ridiculous to call it a 'skill game'. yet they do. so why not video poker also?

Because

1. There is no actual skills exemption under the policy;

2. The motivation of the policy is to protect Linden Lab from possible legal consequences of allowing easily recognized gambling games, which may include poker, under the UIGEA (and the Wire Act).

3. Zyngo, while essentially a slot machine variant, is superficially different enough from traditional slot machines so that Linden Lab doesn't believe it will attract the attention of the Department of Justice or compliance departments of banks and financial institutions (unless someone starts a campaign to bring it to their attention).

/me invests in a Zyngo Hall. all old ladies welcome!

"God sent me to piss the world off." - Eminem

My recollection is that that particular part of the UIGEA isn't vague at all, but simply says that if it's considered gambling in any of the participants' jurisdictions, then it's considered gambling for the purposes of the UIGEA. In other words, it defers to state law. It's impractical for LL to limit gambling just to users who at that particular time are in a state where it's allowed. Hence they're going to take the approach that they should be as restrictive as the most restrictive state (ignoring other flaws in LL's process).

I haven't double checked this; feel free to correct me if this is wrong.

It seems to me that Linden Lab, when acting in legal matters, acts with very, very low risk. Linden Lab's legal department may have very well received some specific direction from the FBI (even if unofficial) as to what the FBI may pursue or not. If they are so openly allowing Zyngo, I'd bet they have had an FBI agent or other official take a look at it and get the preliminary word that the feds aren't interested in Zyngo.

It does use federal, state and tribal law as the basis for determining whether an act constitutes unlawful internet gambling, but the problem is that you'd be hard pressed to find any such law which explicitly makes placing a bet on the internet illegal except for intrastate internet gambling because with regards to gambling through the internet they were all drafted with the commerce clause in mind. Many state laws explicitly exclude acts that would otherwise be considered unlawful gambling if part of the activity takes place outside of the state or overseas. In other words its vague because it relies on existing laws, which in turn are either vague about what might constitute unlawful internet gambling or explicitly exclude interstate internet gambling.

You'd probably lose that bet. First of all anything less than an advisory opinion or no action letter from a law enforcement agency would be completely worthless from a lawyer's point of view. Advisory opinions and no action letters are generally published by the law enforcement agency when they are issued. Any kind of letter like that would have been picked up on the radar of the various groups lobbying against the UIGEA, such as the Poker Players Alliance and iMEGA and would have then been widely disseminated by them over the internet, and would have been in turn seen by people like me who check up on this stuff on a monthly basis. It would also most likely be issued by the United States Attorney General's office, not the FBI.

I remember reading that in 2006 the FBI was actually invited to examine the casinos in SL and did but I can't remember if that story came from Linden Lab or was even substantiated by it. Regardless, it was before the passage of the UIGEA and if I remember correctly the FBI had no comment. They probably simply had no clue what it was, logged on for a bit, looked around, said

and left.