on the news, a man was rnning a low stakes poker club without a liscense. he argued that the law says you dont need a licsense for a game of skill, but only for a game oof luck. the jury somehow decided poker was a game of luck. rubbish. why do you think you get proffesional poker players then? or are they just professionally luckY?
Poker is 40% luck 60% skill in my experience. and a lot of fun too in 3 years i think i am $40 up. down to the last 4 in my tournament now.
same one. pokerroom.com i play free most of the time, real money now and then. you start with 1000 play dollars, i'm up to 180,000 now. if only it was real money...
There is/was a very big court case based entirdly on proving whether poker is a game of mainly skill or mainly luck - it is a very imoportant issue as to the legality of running a poker club - i am not sure if the case has finished or not but the defendants are saying poker is 80% skill based on being able to read other players. So when someone bluffs is that based on luck or skill - he hardly has good lucky cards in his hand. On the same front a hand that cannot lose, you need skill to maximise the amount other people may lose to you, that is the hardest thing of all. IMO poker is a game of skill and poker rooms should be allowed without being licensed abd subject to gaming board regulations.
Paddy, I think this is what you are talking about. Just decided not a game of skill http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6267603.stm
Thanks mate - wrong decision IMO - but i have no problems either with poker clubs being regulated by the gaming board and under license.
I used to play a lot of online poker but eventually came to realise it's a bl00dy big scam, certainly not random cards IMO. I've seen more 4 of a kind v full house hands in 24 hours of online poker than I ever have in my time playing it face to face. Way too many, and usually I'm the one with the full house Nice cut for the house every time that happens
