Gutshot Poker case goes to Court day 3
Day 03 - 12th January, 2007
The Gutshot poker trial is getting plenty of coverage in the media, and regardless of the eventual outcome it is certainly succeeding in bringing the question of whether poker is a game of luck, skill or both into the arena of public conversation. Whilst the majority of people studying the case closely are those who play poker or are otherwise involved in the poker industry, there is a large group of observers who are looking forward to the final verdict with interest.
One such group consists of landlords and publicans who would be interested in staging poker games and tournaments on their premises if they were legally allowed to do so without obtaining a special licence. Right now, the Gaming Act of 1968 allows them to offer games of pure skill (quiz machines, chess, etc.) so if the jury at Snaresbrook Crown Court find that poker is also a game of pure skill, we can expect poker games to spring up in a huge number of pubs and clubs.
Whilst the prosecution this week has stated that poker is a game determined partly by chance because the cards of shuffled before each hand is played, the same accusation could be brought to bear against a number of game generally accepted as ones of skill. If the wind can change direction or speed after a golfer tees off, does that mean that the game is no longer one of pure skill? Or, as one astute observer commented, is the game of Scrabble one of chance, not skill, because the letters are drawn at random from a cloth bag?
Some would argue that scrabble is not played for money, but the point is not one of money here - it is on of principle. The question at the heart of this case is whether a fairly small chance element in a game means that it cannot be described as one of skill, even if skill is by far the determinant of the outcome.
The jury will no doubt consider this and other conundrums as the trial continues.
Page Last Updated: 26/06/2008 15:13:07
