Sorry it’s been quiet here of late, I’m in the middle of a very busy week. If you’re looking for a good read, you could do worse than CrAAKKer’s analysis of the implications of the recent United States v Dicristina federal court ruling that held poker to be a game of skill. Virtually everything I’ve read about the prospects for online poker in the US, the DOJ remission process, etc. has been poisoned by either wistful thinking or deliberate pessimism, so it was a breath of fresh air to find CrAAKKer’s staid and well-informed assessment of what the ruling does and does not mean:
This decision is also important because it is the first court of consequence to issue a ruling that will have any precedential effect. To date, the handful of court “wins” for poker have all been issued by state district courts whose decisions have no binding or persuasive effect on other courts. Every appellate court to date has ruled against the “poker is a skill game” argument. But federal district courts occupy a unique spot in the legal authority realm. Federal district court decisions of consequence are “reported” (officially published) and can be cited as authority in other cases just like appellate court decisions. These district court decisions are not binding on other courts as an appellate decision would be, but they are often looked to as persuasive authority by appellate courts confronted with developing areas of the law. Having a thorough, well-crafted judicial opinion on the merits of the “poker is a skill game” argument on the books, so to speak, lends a certain gravitas to the argument which can bolster that argument if and when it is considered by other courts.
The author’s conclusion seems to be that this is a symbolically important win, but it’s limited in scope and won’t have a lot of immediately practical implications. Not exactly what you wanted to hear, perhaps, but probably a lot closer to the truth than what you may have read elsewhere.