The DiChristina Ruling: Surveying Reactions
Posted On June 30, 2018
Theres been no small amount of words written this week regarding Judge Jack Weinsteins ruling in US vs DiChristina. A ruling which opined that at least within the narrow context of one particular federal law poker is predominantly a game of skill and not one of chance. As might be expected, the ruling has evoked strong responses on both sides of the issue, along with substantial confusion among those with a more casual interest in poker, the law, or both. To save you some time and clicks, Ive collected some of the more important & interesting reactions to the ruling below.United States v. DicristinaA Win for Poker Players (with an Asterisk)This entry from the crAAKKer blog leads the list because its probably the best breakdown and analysis of not only what the decision means in a technical sense, but also in the larger legal and political sense.
If you only read one article about the DiChristina decision, make it this one.Cliffs: The title sums it up. Mike thinks the decision is a win for poker players, and could hold up on appeal, but also believes the limited scope of the decision ultimately limits its impact. Read the article here. Attorney Maurice VerStandig on Significance of Ruling That Poker is a Game of SkillAnother piece that focuses primarily on the legal aspects and implications of the decision, this article from PokerNews.com. Provides a good recap of Weinsteins ruling along with healthy dose of analysis regarding the legal implications for poker players.
Cliffs: VerStandig concludes that the rulings impact will be far-reaching, but subtle. As he tells it, the primary usefulness of the ruling for poker advocates will be to provide ammunition for fighting legal battles in climates where poker is assume to be, but not specifically define as, gambling.
Read the whole thing here. Skill Kills Lady LuckGreat article from the Game Theory blog over at the Economist.com that quickly breaks down the decision and provides a clean, laypersons explanation of the arguments in favor of poker as a game of skill.
Cliffs: Not really a ton of analysis here
But still worth read for how well it crystallizes key points of case, decision and likely impacts for poker. Click to visit. Does it matter that a judge thinks theres skill in poker?Good Q&A from Vin over at CasinoCityTimes that provides a summary of the decision and walks through some of the more common questions interested readers have about US vs DiChristina. If youre unclear on the immediate implications of decision, you should feel pretty up to speed after this quick read. Vin’s basic position is that ruling isn’t going to change game rules overnight, but could have significant influence in long-term. Give it a read here. No More Bluffing Unabashedly pro-poker opinion piece run by the New York Times from the always-articulate James McManus.
McManus is clearly fan of game, and he offers a nice primer for those looking for compact argument as to why poker should be considered apart from other forms of gambling.
Science of Poker
Those looking for in-depth legal analysis should prefer one of the above articles, but those looking for a piece to forward to their friends and family should definitely give the McManus piece a read. Knowing When To Fold Em: Science of Poker For those interested in skill vs chance aspect of the DiChristina decision. Jennifer Ouellette has a nice rundown of some of the relevant issues in her post on the Scientific American blog.
While not a direct analysis of the evidence in the DiChristina case per se, there are still plenty of interesting, relevant tidbits to be found.Cliffs: Ouellette believes poker is more of a skill game than not. Experienced poker players may find some of material bit redundant, but it’s an excellent post share with uneducated or undecided. Whole post is here.Misdeal on Internet poker gamblingAn anti-poker editorial of shockingly low quality considering the general reputation of the source. Put it on list only because it’s instructive general mindset and thought process of groups that oppose online poker regulation. Apparently believes continuing to classify poker as game of chance. Is only thing standing between us and end of world. Or something like that. Read and comment (constructively) here.