I am considering opening a poker club in New york city. My questions
are as follows:
What is the general legality of playing poker in New York city?
What is the legality of operating a club in nyc where players were
charged a 'rake' from each poker pot?
What is the legality of operating the same club where players were
instead charged 'time' every 30 minutes to sit at a poker table in the
club, but the house took no money from the poker pots?
What is the legality of having a poker tournament where players paid a
fee to enter the tournament, and a prize pool was given to the winners
after the house took out a fee?
If such a tourney is illegal, how is having a bridge tournament or
other similar event with a cash prize to the winner legal?
I am an attorney, references to specific statutes/cases definitely appreciated.
It would be helpful I believe to start research with this link
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=3350#comments
This is the kind of stuff I'm looking for, however as the club would
be in New york city only New York law matters to me. If you can pls
find me one or two cases such as the pool or backgammon case within
the last 35 years or so in New York. Then I will be quite happy with
your work. Poker Site for USA - US Online Poker - us poker sites::
related transactions so the actual legality of online poker has not changed. Dikshit will appear in a New York court today. December 13
http://www.compatiblepoker.com/usa.phpHOME |
Jennifer Tilly: Celebrity Poker Player @ PokerallStar.com::
poker player, Jennifer Tilly was born September 16, 1958, in Harbor City, California. She then decided to head to college in Los Angeles rather than New York.
http://www.pokerallstar.com/jennifer-tilly.htmlHOME |
Also ive been told that the issue was litigated in new york about 30
years ago with backgammon where the court ruled it was not a game of
chance, but of skill.
That might be exactly what im looking for if u can find it.
<"illegal to play poker" "new york">
<://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=%22illegal+to+play+poker%22+%22new+york%22>
<"new york" poker law>
<://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=%22new+york%22+poker+law>
<"poker club" "new york" legality>
<://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=%22poker+club%22+%22new+york%22+legality>
<"private clubs" "new york" poker>
<://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=%22private+clubs%22+%22new+york%22+poker>
< In State v. Stroupe, 238 N.C. 34, 76 S.E.2d 313 (1953), a case
involving the legality of the game of pool, the Supreme Court stated:
It would seem that the test of the character of any kind of a game of
pool as to whether it is a game of chance or a game of skill is not
whether it contains an element of chance or an element of skill, but
which of these is the dominating element that determines the result of
the game, to be found from the facts of each particular kind of game.
Or to speak alternatively, whether or not the element of chance is
present in such a manner as to thwart the exercise of skill or
judgment.
Id . at 38, 76 S.E.2d at 316-317.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nc&vol=appeals%5Cappeals1220%5C&invol=collins
If this ruling is applied to poker, it can be argued that poker is a
game of skill. One of the unique characteristics of poker is the
opportunity that players have to bluff. This means regardless of what
cards have been dealt, a skilful bluffer can still win a game. A poker
player can therefore overcome the chance element of the dealing of the
cards.
Three-card monte is a game of skill.
In Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Sheryl Parker ruled that three-card
monte, the reigning street hustle, is a "game of skill" that cannot be
regulated under the state's gambling laws.
http://www.city-journal.org/dev/html/4_4_soundings.html
Backgammon was successfully defended as a game of skill in Portland,
Oregon (1981). Tournament director and writer Ted Barr was charged
with promoting gambling. Barr enlisted the help of among others,
former World Champion Paul Magriel.
The main point of the issue was the effect of the dice of the game.
"Even after rolling, you may have as many as 30 or more options.
Judge Stephen S. Walker agreed. He found Barr innocent of promoting
gambling, concluding that "backgammon is not a game of chance but a
game of skill."
The Alabama Supreme Court (1976) also decided that backgammon was a game of skill.
http://www.edcollins.com/backgammon/backgamb.htm
In 1911, California's attorney general (Harold Sigel Webb) ruled that
closed poker (draw poker) was a game of skill and beyond antigambling
laws. But open poker (stud poker) was a game of chance and therefore
illegal.
http://www.14g.com/poker/knowledge/history_of_poker/
The US District Court of Las Vegas on February 23, 1965 ruled that Gin
Rummy is a game of skill.
http://www.gamecolony.com/gin_rummy_game_skill.shtml
In California, re Allen, 59 Cal.2d 5, 377 P.2d 280, held that the game
of bridge is a game of skill, not a game of chance.
The case involved ?a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf
of a defendant who was arrested and charged with a violation of
section 22 of article 2 of Los Angeles County Gambling Ordinance No.
461. The section provided: ?A person shall not knowingly permit any
game prohibited by this ordinance to be played, conducted, or dealt,
in any house or other premises, owned by, rented by, or in the lawful
possession of such person.? Section 21 of article 2 provides, in
part: ?A person shall not deal, play, carry on, open, cause to be
opened, or conduct any game of chance played with cards, dice, or
other device for money, checks, credits, or other thing of value.?
The Court had no difficulty in finding bridge was widely recognized as
predominantly a game of skill. The Court said: ?The term ?game of
chance? has an accepted meaning established by numerous adjudications.
Although different language is used in some of the cases in defining
the term, the definitions are substantially the same?. It is the
character of the game rather than a particular player's skill or lack
of it that determines whether the game is one of chance or skill. The
test is not whether the game contains an element of chance or an
element of skill but which of them is the dominating factor in
determining the result of the game. I
Tibbetts v. Van de Kamp, 271 Cal.Rptr. 792, 222 Cal.App.3d 389 (1st
Dist. Ct. Appeal, 1990) held that Texas Hold?em was not a stud poker
game and therefore, under Section 330, could be played at the Oaks, a
licensed cardroom.
"A game is not to be regarded as one of skill merely because that
element enters into the result in some degree, or as one of chance
solely because chance is a factor in producing the result. The test of
the character of a game or scheme as one of chance or skill is, which
of these factors is dominant in determining the result?? People v.
Settles, 29 Ca App Supp 2d 781, 78 P 2d 274 (Appellate Department,
Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, 1938.)
In Bell Gardens Bicycle Club v. Dept. of Justice, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 730
36 Cal.App.4th 717 (Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7,
California, July 11, 1995.Rehearing Denied Aug. 1, 1995. Review Denied
Oct. 26, 1995) the issue was the legality of ?jackpot? poker. In 1989
the California attorney general notified licensed cardrooms, which
were offering jackpots, of his opinion that jackpot poker was unlawful
because it violated California constitutional and Penal Code
proscriptions against lotteries. Various state officials sued a
number of the licensed cardrooms seeking to have the jackpot declared
illegal.
In ?jackpot? poker the ?house? withholds money from pots in lawful
poker games to fund the ?jackpot,? which is won and then split among
several players in a game when a specified rare hand is beaten by a
better rare hand.
The case finally reached the California Court of Appeals in 1995. The
appellate court held that the jackpot feature is an illegal lottery
under Penal Code section 319 given the predominance of the element of
chance in winning a jackpot. The Court distinguished this from the
legal game of poker under section 330. The analysis of skill versus
chance in this case went to the question of whether the jackpot
feature could avoid the status of being held to be a lottery, not to
whether the game of poker itself is legal or illegal on the basis of
skill predominating over chance.
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/california-lotteries-gambling.htm> Poker Player :: Articles :: Poker Sportsmanship::
Dr. Paulys New York Poker Blog. Maudies Poker Blog. LasVegasVegas - Vegas Blog / Poker Blog come: legality of online and live action poker, TV ratings
http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/viewarticle.php?id=2546HOME |
Researcher was very quick and seemed willing to be thorough. When
answering legal questions however, needs to focus more on jurisdiction
and legal authority (cases and statutes). Information from
newspapers/articles from other jurisdictions not helpful to specific
legal enquiry. Overall solid job however.
You do a good job substantiating your conclusions near the end of the
article, but in the early part there are some conclusions with no
references. You make two statements which I would like to see a case
for:
1) For poker to be legally played it would have to be shown that poker is
a game of skill and not a game of chance and therefore not gambling.
2) In contrast bridge is considered a game of skill so bridge
tournaments are allowed.
It's really one question. Can you refer me to some case where they
applied the 'is this game of skill or chance test'? I don't care if
its bridge or tennis or what, but I'd love to see a case where they
considered the question.
Thanks
 Nobody understands...any help please?
 50 points for someone willing to do this!!!!!!!!!!?
|
Legality of Poker in New York City