Is this a game of chance? Not the way I play it...

[lovingboth]

Part of me is surprised about yesterday's decision in relation to the commercial hosting of poker games without a licence.

Just because a game involves an element of chance does not make it one without skill.

An example given of 'pure skill' is quiz machines - yet the machine picks the questions to ask at random from a fixed selection of supposed difficulty. If you happen to be 'dealt' the 'right' questions, i.e. ones you already know the answers to, you win. If you're dealt the 'wrong' ones, then you lose.

The setters of the questions for Who Wants to be a Millionaire thought knowing the size of a google was worth £1m - I knew this at primary school! They also think questions about soap operas are easy, but I typically won't have a clue about the answer. Does this make me skillful or not?

So I'm sure this one will go to appeal, not least as I am sure I remember a decision relating to Backgammon going the other way in the late 70s/early 80s. Yet that turns out to be currently considered a game of luck by the Gaming Commission. To which I can only say 'Would they like to play for money?'

Another amazing discovery is that they think 'French Roulette' (single 0 on the wheel) has effectively died out in Britain and been almost totally replaced by 'American Roulette' (0 and 00 on the wheel = double the house's advantage). Instead of insisting that casinos offer both, or even banning the American version, they've acquiesced in this theft.

Comments

[vampwillow]

When I first saw that case coming to court a few weeks back I could see he was on a definite hiding to nothing as the court case was specifically about the about "Texas-hold 'em" version of poker which is, by definition, pure luck and not skill. In other versions of poker, where the player can change the cards in their hand, there is clearly an element of skill in deciding which, if any, cards to hand in for replacement. In "hold-'em" though the player has no choice in the cards whatsoever as they are dealt out and can't be changed. The only "skill", if one could even try to call it that, is in deciding not to play (and given you'd have to ante up to get dealt cards in the first place even that is debatable)

The concept that Backgammon is 'luck' whilst Chess continues to be 'skill' is, indeed, wrong though ...

[purplerabbits.livejournal.com]

I would personally prefer that any laws about gambling apply to any game where players put in increasing amounts of money - as that is what will trigger and encourage gambling addiction.

But then gambling is the only area where I feel pretty puritanical.