A Brooklyn judge dealt a winning hand to card players across the nation Tuesday, ruling that poker is mostly a game of skill, not luck, and is therefore legal under federal law.
The 120-page decision by Federal Judge Jack Weinstein folded the conviction of Lawrence Dicristina, of Staten Island, who admitted to running Texas Hold?em contests.
It marked the first time a court ruled poker cannot be considered illegal gambling and could bolster the case to legalize Internet poker.
?While players? actions are influenced by chance events, their decisions are based on skill,? the judge wrote. ?By bluffing, for example, players can overcome the power of chance and win a hand despite holding inferior cards.?
But under the judge?s ruling, poker dens would still be considered gambling under New York law, which defines the activity as any game that has some dependence on luck, while the federal statute says gambling is mostly dependent on luck.
Still, poker enthusiasts went all-in when celebrating the game-changing decision.
John Pappas, director of the Poker Players Alliance, which helped in Dicristina?s defense, called the ruling ?a major victory for the game of poker and the millions of Americans who enjoy playing it.?
He added: "Poker is an American pastime that is deeply embedded in the history and fabric of our nation and his decision sets aside the notion that the vague laws render the game criminal."
The case was a rare example of a prosecution of a poker room that didn't involve any other illegalities, providing a good test-case, insiders said.
A defense expert provided powerful evidence that skillful players consistently win over time, while poor ones consistently lose. Evidence included additional research that also supported that finding.
With the deck stacked against them, prosecutors provided an expert who failed to contradict those conclusions.
The judge also rejected the government's argument that other illegal gambling games - like sports betting or blackjack - involve an element of skill. He found that poker is the only example where the role of expertise is higher than 50%.:cheers
The 120-page decision by Federal Judge Jack Weinstein folded the conviction of Lawrence Dicristina, of Staten Island, who admitted to running Texas Hold?em contests.
It marked the first time a court ruled poker cannot be considered illegal gambling and could bolster the case to legalize Internet poker.
?While players? actions are influenced by chance events, their decisions are based on skill,? the judge wrote. ?By bluffing, for example, players can overcome the power of chance and win a hand despite holding inferior cards.?
But under the judge?s ruling, poker dens would still be considered gambling under New York law, which defines the activity as any game that has some dependence on luck, while the federal statute says gambling is mostly dependent on luck.
Still, poker enthusiasts went all-in when celebrating the game-changing decision.
John Pappas, director of the Poker Players Alliance, which helped in Dicristina?s defense, called the ruling ?a major victory for the game of poker and the millions of Americans who enjoy playing it.?
He added: "Poker is an American pastime that is deeply embedded in the history and fabric of our nation and his decision sets aside the notion that the vague laws render the game criminal."
The case was a rare example of a prosecution of a poker room that didn't involve any other illegalities, providing a good test-case, insiders said.
A defense expert provided powerful evidence that skillful players consistently win over time, while poor ones consistently lose. Evidence included additional research that also supported that finding.
With the deck stacked against them, prosecutors provided an expert who failed to contradict those conclusions.
The judge also rejected the government's argument that other illegal gambling games - like sports betting or blackjack - involve an element of skill. He found that poker is the only example where the role of expertise is higher than 50%.:cheers
