Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Judge rules that poker isn’t gambling under federal law [View all]kurt_cagle
(534 posts)5. Actually makes sense
Certainly chance is involved at the level of what you are dealt, but over a sufficient number of hands, there is a clear strategy that is used by professional poker players that can make the difference between winning and losing, which is not so much the case with other games - roulette, black jack, slots, etc. In many respects the reasoning is similar to that involving a stock trader - the movement of the stock market is chaotic - while you can observe patterns that recur, those patterns are seldom either guaranteed or necessarily even deterministic. A stock investor is in essence making a bet based upon observation, analysis and human psychology. Given the parallels, the judge was probably correct in making his ruling.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
37 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Dictionary definition and legal definition are not always the same thing.
AtheistCrusader
Aug 2012
#27
The "free" bit is usually read as "free to impose a puritanical way of life on others."
harmonicon
Aug 2012
#11