It has been declared that poker is a game of luck, not skill, in Pennsylvania. Judge Robert Freedberg announced that while some skill is required to play poker, it is predominantly a game of chance. This implies that all of the poker players who make a good living from playing poker have just been incredibly lucky, incredibly consistently.
This 2-1 ruling reversed a January 2009 ruling that stated poker was more a game of skill than luck. The Poker Players Alliance has stated that it is “disappointed” with the ruling, and that there is a strong chance of an appeal.
This particular debate was sparked by an incident involving a couple who ran a series of small-stakes poker games from their garage. Walter Watkins and Diane Dent were caught out when a state trooper, who had attended a few games undercover, broke a game up and prosecuted the individuals under Pennsylvania illegal gambling laws. The couple refused to plead guilty and took the case to court feeling their case was strong because under Pennsylvania law “for a game to constitute gambling, it must be a game where chance predominates rather than skill.” The couple’s case therefore rested on whether their poker games were classified as games of chance or skill.
The case was initially thrown out by trial judge Thomas James who said it was clear to him after evidence was presented that poker was a game of skill. The state then appealed this and the Superior Court went on to overrule the verdict 2-1 last week.
Judge Freedberg’s decision was made after studying the following cases: a 1904 New York case, a 1911 Missouri case, 1919 Nevada case, a 1927 Oregon case, a 1928 Utah case, a 1935 Kansas case, a 1971 Washington case, a 1995 New York case, and a 2007 North Carolina case.
Judge Robert Colville, the one voter who disagreed, argued that while poker may not be predominantly a game of skill he did not think it had been proved to be a game of chance either: “The Commonwealth failed to present any evidence which, if accepted as true, would prove that the games played at the Appellants’ Texas Hold’em Poker tournaments were games where chance predominated over skill. In other words, the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proof at the hearing.”
The case will now be taken to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court where a more favourable outcome for the couple, and poker, is wanted.