Lavery: ‘Game of Skill’ Argument was Lie Perpetrated by Online Poker Companies

“The ‘game of skill’ argument to support the legality of poker was a lie perpetrated by Online Poker companies to deceive consumers into depositing money on their gambling Internet sites,” said Chicago-based Gambling Law attorney Mark Lavery in an interview with Forbes.com Tuesday.  

Lavery was reacting to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision to reverse a ruling by a lower court’s ruling in regard to the case U.S. v. Lawrence DiCristina.

Representative Joe Barton (R-Tex) has cited that case in his efforts to legalize online poker at the federal level.  The argument up to this point has been that poker is a game of skill, not a game of chance, and therefore poker is not gambling.

”I think this decision renders the skill argument a dead letter for loophole gambling like online poker and the so-called emerging ‘Daily Fantasy Sports’ craze,” Lavery said.  “This ruling should not have an Impact on the Internet Poker Freedom Act.  That bill tries to legalize what is illegal gambling in almost all states —  online poker.”

Poker Players Alliance executive director John Pappas responded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision almost immediately.  

”Today’s decision by the Second Circuit Court, while unfortunate, only adds to the growing call for federal clarity on the definition of gambling,” Pappas said.  “The Second Circuit clearly did not dispute the district court’s finding that poker is a game of skill. This is a key point distinguishing poker from the types of gambling games that Congress and state legislatures have often tried to prohibit.”

- Patrick Flanagan, Gambling911.com