New York federal court rules that poker is a game of skill

In August 2012, a New York federal court held that and ca𒆙nnot be punished under the Illegal Gambling Business Act. The judge in the court discussed various statistꦦical evidence and research data to come to the conclusion that poker is a game of skill separate from gambling.

Though the binding value of the judgment in terms of other gaming Acts or in the Indian context is in doubt, it is without question that the elaborately analyses statistical and other expert evidence relating to𝔍 gambling before reaching the verdict. This will set a precedent in all courts across the globe including Indian courts to seriously consider the great degree of skill involved in the game of poker and exclude it from the ambit of gambling.

Since there is a and degree of skill involved in card games like rummy and poker, the elaborate and exhaustive opinion by federal judge Weinstein, taking into account testimonie𝓰s of expert statisticians and economists, will have a great deal of persuasive value on Indian ﷽and other courts in deciding the fate of poker.

Experts believe th🦹at this is the first step in the skill v. chance debate concerning poker. It is learnt that the US government has not ruled out the possibility of appealing against this decision. However the well reasoned judg🐼ment shall still make an impact on the gaming industry across the globe.

Note: 1. A copy of the United States of America v. Lawrence Dicristina decision can be accessed .

2. The column by Professor I. Nelson R🤡ose titled “Court Rules that poker is a game of skill but…” published earlier on this post has been taken down due to confusion relating to publication rights. The column will be published in a print issue of iGaming Business. Interested readers can read the same in the print issue of the magazine. Inconvenience if any is deeply regretted.

3. A research paper published in leading journal NUJS Law Review regarding the Indian position and debate on poker and games▨ of skill may be of interest to readers and can be accessed However, the paper was published before the US federal court and Madras High Court decisions (pending appeal in the Supreme Court) and hence may not reflect ꩲthe latest developments.