BG's gambling status
Albert Steg
question of whether or not bg is considered "gambling." Various people
have given their views on a personal level.
What about the legal level? I seem to recall a numberof years ago reading
(here?) that a court in Florida had found in favor of a bg club that
hosted tournaments with $ prizes, ruling that there was sufficient skill
involved in the play of the game to excuse it from the (illegal) "game of
chance" category. I'm probably garbling the account (I'm no lawyer). Does
anyone else recall this?
It's never been *quite* clear to me whether my $ game chouettes in Harvard
Square were "illegal" or not. We're always discreet in making payments,
though.
There was a shameful incident here in Cambridge a couple years ago when
federal agents busted a few old men playing low-stakes poker in a local
Greek-American community center in Central Square. They closed the whole
damn place for a few weeks, I think. At the same time, down the block,
convenience stores are seducing members of the same community into buying
sucker's-bet scratch cards and lottery tickets. It really smacked of the
government-as-mobster, squelching and gambling concern where they didn't
get their cut of the action.
Has anyone ever heard actual cases of backgammon coming under legal fire
as a gambling pursuit?
Albert
Gryphon
<snippety snip, snip>
> Has anyone ever heard actual cases of backgammon coming under legal fire
> as a gambling pursuit?
>
> Albert
I have not. Backgammon, despite being a game played with dice, is at
least 80% skill by most of the estimations that I've heard, meaning that
a higher rated player, experience being equal, will win 80% of the
time. Poker, while being a game of chance/skill also, is closer to a
50-50 split. I don't know how much closer it is, but I do know that it
takes incredible guile to win regularly at poker.
Ryan "The Gryphon" Kelly
http://www.angelfire.com/sd/kilroy
EdmondT
>50-50 split. I don't know how much closer it is, but I do know that it
>takes incredible guile to win regularly at poker.
>
>
WRONG!!
Good poker players beat their opponents just like backgammon players. If the
same seven folks play poker all the time, the same two almost always win.
Poker has an element of chance like backgammon, but there are many more hands
in a given time.
Rodrigo Andrade
>as a gambling pursuit?
Yes. It's a classic example. Back in the 80's Ted Barr was tried in Oregon
for conducting gambling activities, which is illegal in that State, when he
only ran a backgammon tournament. Some backgammon authorities (Magriel was
one, does anyone know of another?) appeared on court to testify on Barr's
favor, and, to keep a long story short, it was proven that backgammon is a
game of skill.
RODRIGO
Chuck Bower
Albert Steg <as...@tiac.net> wrote:
>Recent discussion in the "Snowie vs. Fritz" thread has addressed the
>question of whether or not bg is considered "gambling." Various people
>have given their views on a personal level.
>
>What about the legal level? I seem to recall a numberof years ago reading
>(here?) that a court in Florida had found in favor of a bg club that
>hosted tournaments with $ prizes, ruling that there was sufficient skill
>involved in the play of the game to excuse it from the (illegal) "game of
>chance" category. I'm probably garbling the account (I'm no lawyer). Does
>anyone else recall this?
(snip)
>Has anyone ever heard actual cases of backgammon coming under legal fire
>as a gambling pursuit?
I've heard of three, but I can't give many details. The most publicized
(I believe) was in the early 80's in Oregon. Ted Barr (author of books
and articles on the game at that time) was involved, possibly as a defendent.
Magriel was called in and DID testify. I think the BG side won, but...
Later there was a case in Minnesota. BG lost. Also I've been told
that one reason you don't see Canadian tournaments is that BG has gotten
in trouble there as well. This is rumor (coming from me) but maybe others
can give more details.
I believe Albert has hit on something potentially big, and much
more than from just an historically interesting angle. Very recently the
US government passed a law banning gambling over the internet. I don't
know all of the specifics (interpret as "I haven't read the law) but I
believe its intent was to stop sports betting over the internet which
has become a pasttime for some, if not common. There the "bookies"
are located outside the US in the Carribean and/or South and Central
America, I believe. (There was an article on this in "Sports Illustrated"
recently--I think in the spring of this year.) A player uses his/her
credit card to set up a debit account and then makes bets through the net.
If backgammon is considered gambling, then this law could possibly
be used to prosecute money BG over the net. PLEASE don't interpret this
comment to mean that I am in favor of such action! I don't believe that
backgammon is gambling in my definition of "gambling". I don't make
the laws, nor do I interpret, enforce, or prosecute. But some people
do so zealously, and they don't have to be right, they just have to convince
a judge (and/or jury) that they are, and voila! innocent people get punished.
Usually the interpretation of "gambling" has to do with the luck element.
In games where only luck (and cheating) exist, this is pretty easy. In games
where only skill is involved, ditto. But in games where both luck and skill
are present (previously mentioned BG, poker, bridge,...) then things get
murky. Factor in the government not getting their share of the take (as
Albert related) and things can get ugly.
Chuck
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
c_ray on FIBS
Richard McIntosh
Florida is the third, I think)? I would like to read them, and I'll
format them and post the URLs if they're not already available on-line
and if copyright permits.
Regards,
Richard McIntosh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BackGammon By the Bay Backgammon Deli
http://www.backgammon.org/bgbb/ http://www.straight8.com/bg.deli
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Wong
> Recent discussion in the "Snowie vs. Fritz" thread has addressed the
> question of whether or not bg is considered "gambling." Various people
> have given their views on a personal level.
My personal view is that it is not, but I won't bother trying to justify it :-)
> What about the legal level? I seem to recall a numberof years ago reading
> (here?) that a court in Florida had found in favor of a bg club that
> hosted tournaments with $ prizes, ruling that there was sufficient skill
> involved in the play of the game to excuse it from the (illegal) "game of
> chance" category. I'm probably garbling the account (I'm no lawyer). Does
> anyone else recall this?
I don't know about a Florida case, but Edward Collins has a copy of an
article about a similar arguments in the 70s and 80s in Alabama and Oregon at:
http://www.inficad.com/~ecollins/backgamb.htm
This is probably as good a place as any for me to rant a little bit about a
pet peeve... it seems to be a widely held misconception that games can be
divided into two categories: those of chance, and those of skill. I get
this impression from some people (not you) posting articles in this thread
and others, and even Judge Walker in the case referred to above ("backgammon
is not a game of chance but a game of skill"). This is NOT the case at all.
Trying to partition games into those of chance and those of skill is like
trying to divide people into two sets: those that are tall, and those with
long hair. The problem is that the two criteria are entirely independent.
Some games have very little skill or chance content (noughts and crosses --
that's tic-tac-toe to Americans); some involve more skill without adding
significant chance (chess or draughts -- checkers to Americans); some have
large chance elements with very little skill (roulette, lotteries); and some
include significant amounts of both (bridge, poker, Scrabble, Monopoly,
Mah Jong, and backgammon).
Another point that often seems to be overlooked is that single games, or
short matches, are poor indicators of skill in virtually any game. "Luck"
(uncertainty would be a better word) is a significant factor in any result,
even those games characterised as purely skillful -- otherwise, you'd get
the same outcome every time a pair of players had a game, wouldn't you?
What would be the point of playing them more than once? Short matches of
any game are only vague indications of skill -- for instance, the short
chess match between Kasparov and Deep Blue is certainly inconclusive. I
happen to believe that Kasparov is the superior player of the two, for
various reasons, but that's another story. As a backgammon example, a couple
of weeks ago I played a 7-point match as part of a tournament against a
player I consider to be strong (he took lessons from Magriel in the 70s,
proofread The Book before it was published, and played at Monte Carlo in
the 80s and reached the quarter finals). It turns out that I won 7 to nil,
but that doesn't mean very much. I am fairly certain he is a better player,
and the score would reflect that fact if we were to play a sufficiently long
match.
The last thing I want to mention is that in any game, the only thing that
differentiates a more skillful player from a weak one is that she makes
less mistakes. "Luck" (as in uncertainty in the result of a game, not
probabilistic elements that contribute to the rules of the game) plays
a significant role in when these mistakes occur. In chess, it seems
likely that if both players play without making any mistakes whatsoever,
the result would be a stalemate -- but it may be possible that white can
force a win. If so, then wouldn't you agree that chess is purely a game
of chance: after all, the result is determined by the choice of who plays
white!
Cheers,
Gary.
--
Gary Wong, Department of Computer Science, University of Arizona
ga...@cs.arizona.edu http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~gary/
MLeifer
>Can anyone give citations to any of the cases (Oregon, Minnesota, and
>Florida is the third, I think)? I would like to read them, and I'll
>format them and post the URLs if they're not already available on-line
>and if copyright permits.
Edward Collins discusses the Oregon Case at
http://www.inficad.com/~ecollins/backgamb.htm
Ira Hessel
mle...@aol.com (MLeifer) wrote:
> >Can anyone give citations to any of the cases (Oregon, Minnesota, and
> >Florida is the third, I think)? I would like to read them, and I'll
> >format them and post the URLs if they're not already available on-line
> >and if copyright permits.
> >Richard McIntosh
>
I believe that here was a case in NJ Atlantic City?? where Magriel Testified
The Judge asked him after a whole lotta testimomy if the fate of a tourney
depended only on the last roll- a hit or miss for the win in the
finals-sadly he said yes. I think he should have said that if the players
played better that then it would never would have come to that
The Judge barred the Tourney in a town where they have this huge Gambling
complex where the average player has NO CHANCE-your odds are better in BG
Now they have a all these lotteries where the rake is well over 50%-GO FIGURE
I
EdmondT
to find a principaled argument that playing BG for money is not gambling.
To me, gambling does not include only those games (roulette) played for money
which are dependent just on luck. Poker, betting on football, horse racing all
involve both skill and luck, and everyone considers them gambling.
I am sure that if anyone set up a international poker tournement with cash
prizes to the winner, it would be considered gambling, and I can't see how BG
is different.
Chuck Bower
EdmondT <edm...@aol.com> wrote:
>While I would prefer that the authorities leave us alone, I find it very hard
>to find a principaled argument that playing BG for money is not gambling.
>
>To me, gambling does not include only those games (roulette) played for money
>which are dependent just on luck. Poker, betting on football, horse racing
>all involve both skill and luck, and everyone considers them gambling.
(snip)
Hold on a second. I don't consider any of these gambling (and doesn't
the word 'everyone' also include me?). I can also argue (I think) that by
your definition, chess is also gambling. Unfortunately I have NEVER attended
a chess tournament, so quite possibly my perception of how they are operated
is wrong. But try this:
How are opponents chosen in a chess tournament? Is it by draw? If so, then
you can get a bad draw (bad LUCK). Gambling! OK, is it by rating?
Experience? Here you can construct scenarios where luck comes in as well.
Suppose you are sitting down at a critical match, a pipe above you bursts
spraying you with water (but not your opp). Your concentration is thrown
off and you never recover. Bad break? If you anwer 'yes', then I conclude:
Gambling!
These arguments may sound ridiculous, but I am trying to emphasize that
if you contend that ANY element of luck is sufficient to define an endeavor
as "gambling" then ALL OF LIFE IS GAMBLING.
Actually, there is another element which is sometimes considered which
has yet to be mentioned: active participation. I believe in most states
it is allowable to make a wager against an opp when playing a golf match.
(Of course you are required to report your winnings to the IRS!) If you
are watching a golf match and make a wager on the outcome, THAT is illegal
(I think). Reason: when watching you have no active participation (short
of screaming during the backswing of the player you bet against). In the
eyes of high and mighty, betting on a golf match that you are not participating
in is equivalent to betting on horses or betting on football or... GAMBLING!
Shame, shame, shame. Call up Lucifer and make a reservation.
Roulette has been mentioned as a gambling game here. Pure chance, right?
Actually there have been books written (one has the weirdo title--"Eudaemonic
Pie"--which I almost certainly mispelled) which explain how to make the
player a favorite! (In theory these systems work. Read the books.)
Of course the casinos consider these methods "cheating", just like counting
at blackjack.
How about craps? Does anyone have a (serious) argument on how this game
can be considered non-gambling (i.e. NOT pure chance), other than by physically
controlling the dice (and all but the least scrupulous call this cheating)?
EdmondT
>the word 'everyone' also include me?).
If you don't consider betting on football or horse racing "gambling" than you
have adopted a definition of the word so at variance with socieity's that you
are no longer in any real conversation about it. Of course if betting on the
pony's is not gambling, then BG would not be.
>Suppose you are sitting down at a critical match, a pipe above you bursts
spraying you with water (but not your opp).
>These arguments may sound ridiculous, but I am trying to emphasize
>ALL OF LIFE IS GAMBLING.
>
This is the same problem. You have chosen a definition of gambling which makes
everything gambling. What purpose does the word have then?
>another element which is sometimes considered which
>has yet to be mentioned: active participation.
Poker involves "active participation" and it is (by the definition the rest of
the world uses) gambling. So active participation does not define this either.
>Actually there have been books written (one has the weirdo title--"Eudaemonic
Pie" which explain how to make the
player a favorite! (In theory these systems work. Read the books.)
NO ONE who could beat a roulette table would be stupid enough to write a book
about it.
>How about craps? Does anyone have a (serious) argument on how this game can
be considered non-gambling
No one thinks craps is not gambling. What is your point?
Rodrigo Andrade
profits from lottety, not from backgammon tournaments.
RODRIGO
e r g y @best.com Paul Ferguson
edm...@aol.com writes:
>NO ONE who could beat a roulette table would be stupid enough to write a book
>about it.
>
Bass (sadly, now out of print) is a very entertaining story about a bunch of
Santa Cruz physicists and other crazies who pushed early microprocessor
technology to the limits to beat the unbeatable game. It's a fascinating read.
//fergy
Laury Chizlett
<ga...@cs.arizona.edu> writes
<snip, lots)
> In chess, it seems
>likely that if both players play without making any mistakes whatsoever,
>the result would be a stalemate -- but it may be possible that white can
>force a win. If so, then wouldn't you agree that chess is purely a game
>of chance: after all, the result is determined by the choice of who plays
>white!
I -think- this is wrong. There are better maths people than I posting
here, but I seem to remember that in games of perfect information, such
as chess, it is provable that there is a forced win for one of the
players: the trouble is, no one knows whether it is for Black or White
(though almost certainly it is White). Stalemate is a red-herring here,
always ocurring through an error by the player with more resources - the
forced win would avoid any such disaster.
In BG, if the players threw away the dice, and were allowed to call
their own rolls, then it would have the same status as Chess with a
forced win for one of the players. In this case it is (as is likely in
Chess) whoever plays first ("Um, I think I'll take double sixes,
partner; your go".. and so on).
This completes the delightful paradox posed by Gary; that Chess, being
probably a forced win for White, is dictated by chance (whoever picks
the White pawn from the other's closed fist), whereas BG is transformed
by the dice into a game of skill!
-- ^ To Liverpool St
^ Station & City
Laury | ^ | 1.5 miles
________________________| |
TRP Ridley Rd Street Market |__
35 Colvestone Crescent __________________ _ | | Dalston
London / / | |__| Kingsland
E8 2LG / / |A10 | Station
________________/ / | |
Tel: 0171 923 0244 Colvestone Cres / | |
Fax: 0171 923 1471 ____________________/ | |
35
EDIT e-mail address before replying, by taking out REMOVE
John Graas
some BG experts testified in the early 80's. It was my understanding
that BG was determined to be a game of skill, and thus not affected by
"games of chance" laws.
But... I've got a new question for the group. How about the (to be)
new law about gambling over the 'Net?? It is my understanding that
the Fantasy BB/FB sites will not be able to collect fees and
redistribute such as prizes. How does this affect GG's tournaments?
etc.?
jdg
as...@tiac.net (Albert Steg) wrote:
>Recent discussion in the "Snowie vs. Fritz" thread has addressed the
>question of whether or not bg is considered "gambling." Various people
>have given their views on a personal level.
>
>What about the legal level? I seem to recall a numberof years ago reading
>(here?) that a court in Florida had found in favor of a bg club that
>hosted tournaments with $ prizes, ruling that there was sufficient skill
>involved in the play of the game to excuse it from the (illegal) "game of
>chance" category. I'm probably garbling the account (I'm no lawyer). Does
>anyone else recall this?
>
>It's never been *quite* clear to me whether my $ game chouettes in Harvard
>Square were "illegal" or not. We're always discreet in making payments,
>though.
>
>There was a shameful incident here in Cambridge a couple years ago when
>federal agents busted a few old men playing low-stakes poker in a local
>Greek-American community center in Central Square. They closed the whole
>damn place for a few weeks, I think. At the same time, down the block,
>convenience stores are seducing members of the same community into buying
>sucker's-bet scratch cards and lottery tickets. It really smacked of the
>government-as-mobster, squelching and gambling concern where they didn't
>get their cut of the action.
>
>Has anyone ever heard actual cases of backgammon coming under legal fire
>as a gambling pursuit?
>
>Albert
**** Remove _nospam_ from e-mail address to respond. ****
Dan Scoones
wrote:
:Recent discussion in the "Snowie vs. Fritz" thread has addressed the
:question of whether or not bg is considered "gambling." Various people
:have given their views on a personal level.
:
:What about the legal level? I seem to recall a numberof years ago reading
:(here?) that a court in Florida had found in favor of a bg club that
:hosted tournaments with $ prizes, ruling that there was sufficient skill
:involved in the play of the game to excuse it from the (illegal) "game of
:chance" category. I'm probably garbling the account (I'm no lawyer). Does
:anyone else recall this?
Here is a relevant extract from Easy Money by David Spanier (Penguin
Books 1987):
"...between 1738 and 1744 six games and one class of game were made
illegal: ace of hearts, faro, basset, hazard, passage and all games
played with dice except backgammon."
As far as I know this has never been reversed and presumably forms
part of the common law in this country (Canada) as well.
On the other hand, why make waves? If you're playing a chouette for $
in a cafe, it would seem prudent to settle up later...
Cheers,
Dan Scoones
To reply via email, remove 1 from my address
Chuck Bower
EdmondT <edm...@aol.com> wrote:
(snip)
(in referenece to my comments about arguing that chess is a game of chance:)
>You have chosen a definition of gambling which makes
>everything gambling. What purpose does the word have then?
(snip)
(and it really was me who said:)
>>Actually there have been books written (one has the weirdo title--"Eudaemonic
>>Pie" which explain how to make the player a favorite! (In theory these
>>systems work. Read the books.)
>NO ONE who could beat a roulette table would be stupid enough to write a book
>about it.
Quiz for the interested newsgroup reader. How many errors can you find in
this sentence? Occasionally I write something to the newsgroup and wish I
could take it back (but not as often as when I write something and YOU wish
I would take it back ;) Maybe Edmond now feels like I sometimes do....
(I further interrogated:)
>>How about craps? Does anyone have a (serious) argument on how this game can
>>be considered non-gambling...
>
>No one thinks craps is not gambling. What is your point?
So let's see: In two posts I see the words "everyone" once and "no one"
twice (once capitalized for emphasis). Now if Edmond had said "no one in his
right mind..." I might just be forced to agree! But I was asked "what is your
point?" which makes me feel I didn't do a very good job making it. Before I
try again, I suggest the confused reader see Gary Wong's post on this subject.
Since he agrees with me, I can only say that Gary must be a very smart guy! ;)
Let's assign a number from 0 to 100 to every game, depending on the luck
vs. skill factor. Games like chess and golf will be very close to 0 (but maybe
not exactly zero, as argued by both Gary and me). Games like craps are very
close to 100 (but even here you can make bets which vary in house edge and
therefore some skill is helpful). Four player contract bridge, poker, and
backgammon are examples of games which fall well away from both zero and 100.
Hopefully you realize I am not REALLY assigning a hard number. I don't
think this can be done in most cases. But hopefully you get the idea. Now,
somewhere on this scale you put a line and say "if a game is above this line,
I define it: GAMBLING." Below this line the game is NOT gambling. Where
should I (or Edmond or Congress) put the line?
Tough question? Maybe. I put my line closer to 100 than most. I believe
that there is significant skill available (and enough to offset the house
rake) in games like horse racing, sports betting, and blackjack. Of course
you must be quite skillful in these games to overcome the house advantage,
but I believe it can be done. Therefore I place my line high enough that
these fall into the NON-gambling portion. But that is just me. I suspect if
you asked a lot of people (and now I am assuming they understand my 0-100
scale) you would get a lot of different answers.
So, my point is: how do you define gambling? I don't think EVERYONE
does it the same way. Surely NO ONE will argue that, will he???
Gary Wong
> While I would prefer that the authorities leave us alone, I find it very hard
> to find a principaled argument that playing BG for money is not gambling.
>
> To me, gambling does not include only those games (roulette) played for money
> which are dependent just on luck. Poker, betting on football, horse racing all
> involve both skill and luck, and everyone considers them gambling.
>
> prizes to the winner, it would be considered gambling, and I can't see how BG
> is different.
Your argument sounds entirely reasonable, but I'm not sure how _any_
competition would not be considered gambling under those criteria
("...involve both skill and luck..."). The trouble is, as I mentioned
in a previous article, that in general there is no way to distinguish
between elements of chance that are a deliberate part of the game (a
shuffled deck of cards in poker; the dice in backgammon; the choice of
who plays white in chess) and unavoidable uncertainty in the result of
the game ("experimental error", if you like). The outcome of _any_
non-trivial game is uncertain. So, should a reward to the winner of
every non-trivial game be considered gambling? Is paying $1 for a
golf shot where you win a car if you hit a hole-in-one gambling? How
about paying to guess the number of jellybeans in the jar, when the
closest guess wins the jar? One could argue that those are both
purely games of skill with no deliberate element of chance introduced,
but there's definitely a large amount of uncertainty in the outcome!
In my opinion, which I don't attempt to justify (and probably can't),
both of those games are "gambling" to a larger extent than paying to
enter a knockout tournament of backgammon with the entry fees being
divided among the winners is. None of those examples should be
illegal in my opinion, but I'm sure lawmakers have better things to do
than listen to me...
Casual_Observer
Circa 1992 Random House Webster's Says:
gam-ble (gam'buhl) v. <-bled, -bling> n.
v.i.
1. to play at a game of chance for money or
other stakes.
2. to stake or risk something of value, as
money, on the outcome of something
involving chance; bet.
v.t.
3. to lose or squander by betting (usu. fol.
by away): He gambled all his hard-earned
money away in one night.
4. to wager or risk (something of value);
stake: I'll gamble my life on his honesty.
5. to take a chance on; risk: We're gambling
that our new store will be a success.
n.
6. any matter or thing involving risk or
hazardous uncertainty.
7. a venture in a game of chance for stakes,
esp. for high stakes.
[1150-1200; ME gamenen to play (OE gamenian), with
substitution of - LE for -en; see GAME 1]
Derived words
--gam'bler, n.
Sounds like many of our daily experiences fall
into this definition.
Good Luck figuring it out!
Have a Great Day,
Richard
Tom Keith
game of chance
A game of skill in which the main skill is hoping.
Translate this to backgammon, and you might ask: Do you
spend more concentration and effort rolling the dice or
moving the checkers?
Hmmm. Close call.
Tom
Albert Steg
Useful distinctions about the luck element in $ games from golf to craps
have been suggested, as well as a vital point about "involvement" in the
game itself (betting on the outcome of a race is different from entering a
footrace hoping to win the purse).
The fact that some people can regard poker as gambling while others do not
reinforces my sense that "gambling" describes the state of mind of a
player, not the objective parameters of a game. I have an anti-gambling
book entitled _Gamblers Don't Gamble_ (Michael McDougall, 1939) that
suggests the nature of the beast. Do owners of Casinos, the "House", or,
in the case of state governments, "gamble" when they open their tables to
blackjack, craps, scratch cards, or lotteries? In an important sense,
no. So long as the "laws" of physics, the maths of probability, and the
depths of their reserve funds function properly, the "House" is never in
danger of losing money.
If I go down to Harvard Square, armed with an expert level of
understanding of money play as well as the assurance that in playing for
$5-$10 per point I am not risking my mortgage payments or even my ability
to go see _Saving Private Ryan_ again (as opposed to _Pi_, which sucked in
a big way), I would probably be described as a recreational bg player, one
who is willing to venture some disposable income on a pastime in the hopes
of bringing in some extra disposable income. I'm wagering on a game, but
it doesn't have the heat of "gambling" behind it. It's fun! An
intellectual pursuit with a *zing* to it.
On the other hand, if I've ventured off from home, charged by my wife with
the task of buying a loaf of bread and some olive oil with our last
greenback, and I stop by Harvard Square with the desperate hope that if I
could only double my purse I could afford a dry martini on the way home, I
would be on top of the world, well, I'm a gambler. I know my opponent is
stronger than I am, but in a single game...anyone could win! The gambler
is invested in winning *now* -- while the "non-gambler" aims to win on
aggregate at the end of the year.
One person can have a gambler's attitude toward backgammon, or blackjack,
or even the weather (don't betting establishments in Britain offer odds on
almost *anything*?), while another can drive down to the local casino
content to play with and lose $100 on the roulette table and feel that the
money was as "well spent" as it would have been at the opera.
Of course, government cannot legislate against a "state of mind". It's
shameful, though, that state lotteries, especially scratch cards, prey so
heavily upon those for whom the game is definitely gambling.
Albert
GLC1173
>While I would prefer that the authorities >leave us alone, I find it very hard
>to find a principaled argument that playing >BG for money is not gambling.
Then I'll give you one - as a lawyer.
Here in North Carolina, the legal definition of "gambling" requires that the
game involve more luck than skill. Case law here says that such games as chess
(no luck) would be all skill - and thus not gambling; games such as poker are
more luck than skill - and thus are gambling.
Being that backgammon involves substantial skill - beyond just knowing the
rules, I don't see a North Carolina court construing it as "gambling."
============================================
HOPE ISN'T A TOWN IN ARKANSAS;
IT'S A SEMEN-STAINED BLUE DRESS.
EdmondT
about it.>
> Quiz for the interested newsgroup reader. How many errors can you find in
this sentence?>
You think the point of these discussions is proper sentence formulation? What
about the ACTUAL POINT of the post, which is that there is no way to 'beat' a
roulette table, and that no one who actually could do so would be dumb enough
to write about it?
> Let's assign a number from 0 to 100 to every game, depending on the luck vs.
skill factor. [snip] Now, somewhere on this scale you put a line and say "if a
game is above this line, I define it: GAMBLING." Below this line the game is
NOT gambling. Where should I (or Edmond or Congress) put the line?
This assumes that the governmental decision about gambling is based on the
luck/skill distinction. I don't think it is.
I am an attorney too, and people should know that the laws vary from state to
state on this, but I think the following principles are generally accurate:
1. The government is concerned about commercial gambling, not individual
gambling. They would arrest people who started a commercial enterprise of
poker, but not 5 guys who play every week.
2. They don't care about minor gambling from non-profits. They don't arrest
people at a typical Church Bingo game, but would not tolerate one setting up a
state wide lottery.
3. Their goal is not to set up a perfectly logical system, and I assure you
they would not "make a list of all games and rate them from one to 100". They
want a system that is enforceable and roughly carries out the legislative
purpose. Although we've been talking about it alot on this board recently, I
think if you asked most Americans, they would not view the government's
position on gambling as a significant issue.
Chuck Bower
Chuck Bower <bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu> wrote:
> Roulette has been mentioned as a gambling game here. Pure chance, right?
>Actually there have been books written (one has the weirdo title--"Eudaemonic
>Pie"--which I almost certainly mispelled) which explain how to make the
>player a favorite! (In theory these systems work. Read the books.)
>Of course the casinos consider these methods "cheating", just like counting
>at blackjack.
Although I am not a teacher, I can sympathize with them after my
experiences with the repurcussions(sp?) of the above statement. I can imagine
a teacher giving his/her pupils a spring-break homework assignment to
read a book (let's say "Moby Dick") and then querying them upon their
return and getting a spectrum of answers:
1) I read it.
2) No, I didn't read it last week because I already read it before.
3) Oops, I fogot.
4) I read the "Cliff's Notes" instead.
5) I didn't read it, but I checked out the video from the library and
watched it.
6) I didn't bother reading it, because I've read Kinsey, and Masters
and Johnson, so I already know about THAT.
7) (silence)
8) I didn't read it, and I'm proud of that. It's got to be a stupid
book with a title like that. And furthermore, you are stupid for
giving out such an idiotic assignment.
Which was closest to your answer?
Since fergy (the Duchess?) says that this book is out of print,
and assuming neither your library nor your local used bookstore has
a copy, I guess I should clear up this "Eudaemonic Pie" thing.
The book is about a group of misfit physicists (oxymoron?) who
try and use classical mechanics to beat roulette. The ball is moving;
the wheel is moving; but both are slowing down. Predict where the
two intersect. (Not quite this simple, but that is the gist of
their "experiment".) I don't think they came up with the idea, or
at least others have thought it up independently. I believe Edward
Thorp (yes, of the Thorp(e) Count) wrote about it in "Gambling Times"
magazine, but I think he also got the idea from someone else. There
may have been another, earlier book ("Eight Against the Bank"??) which
also wrote about it, but now I am really scratching deep into my
unreliable memory.
I think they (the "Pie" folks) never made money in the casino, BUT
they wrote a book! That's always worth a shot. You don't have to be
"right" to write a book. Just find enough suckers to buy it! So I
think this may help answer the question: "If someone figured out how
to beat roulette, wouldn't they be stupid to write a book about it?"
BTW, the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to consider
their method "cheating". They used stopwatches, etc. to turn their
trick. At blackjack, card counters use only their minds, so I don't
feel this is cheating (but the casinos do, because THEIR definintion
of cheating is anything that gives the player the advantage!) And
yes, I have read Ken Uston's account of his collaborating with the guy
who had a computer in his pocket and entered the cards with his toes.
But developing such "dexterity" should incline the judges to let them
off easy... BTW, I think the "Pie" method doesn't work in Europe
because there you must place your bet BEFORE the ball is placed in
motion. In the US, you can place a bet until the ball leaves the
rail. And this would be a good way for the US casinos to eliminate
the "problem" if it ever became one (which I'm guessing it hasn't).
e r g y @best.com Paul Ferguson
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu writes:
> BTW, the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to consider
>their method "cheating". They used stopwatches, etc. to turn their
>trick.
Yes, the casinos absolutely consider this cheating. They were wearing
computers, transmitters, receivers, switches, batteries, and other electronics
in their shoes and clothing (which, in their late 70's/early 80's technology,
were prone to catching fire). It's amazing none of them were maimed, or
worse, caught by casino security.
The physics involved is actually pretty complex, and it is amazing that they
were able to do what they did at that time. I don't believe they ever made a
lot of money, but then again, if they had, they might not be anxious to tell
the world about it. They were more interested in seeing whether it could be
done. Doyne Farmer, one of the "crazy physicists" later went on to develop
software that attempted to exploit the stock market using the then emerging
field of chaos theory.
The book is interesting on two levels -- as an adventure in trying to "beat
the house", and as a book about teamwork.
>BTW, I think the "Pie" method doesn't work in Europe
>because there you must place your bet BEFORE the ball is placed in
>motion. In the US, you can place a bet until the ball leaves the
>rail. And this would be a good way for the US casinos to eliminate
>the "problem" if it ever became one (which I'm guessing it hasn't).
>
This is exactly the opening they exploited. Given today's technology, I have
to believe there are people out there still trying to do this.
//fergy (not the duchess...)
Chuck Bower
EdmondT <edm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>NO ONE who could beat a roulette table would be stupid enough to write a
>>>book about it.>
>> Quiz for the interested newsgroup reader. How many errors can you find in
>>this sentence?>
Let me see. Above I observe three greater than signs (>>>) and then
later two greater than signs (>>) with NO author reference. Maybe lawyers
do things differently, but I would very much like to see names associated
with these quotes. In fact, the >>> was Edmond and the >> was this c_ray
guy, who happens to be me. I'm not (usually) ashamed of what I have said,
and I NEVER hide from it. But credit for quotes seems to be the last thing
on some people's minds...
>You think the point of these discussions is proper sentence formulation?
As in grammer? No. I'm talking about content, just like you seem to be.
So, I'll stick to the subject. (Hey, my grammer is lacking quite often, and
for me to question someone else's would be hipocritical, which is one of my
pet peaves. A hipocrite who complains about hipocrisy...; now that really
boggles my mind.) How about doing a little research (which last time I
looked was an integral part of a lawyer's training) and checking into the
references I gave rather than pontificating. Does this chest-pounding,
title-airing really work in your world?
>What
>about the ACTUAL POINT of the post, which is that there is no way to 'beat' a
>roulette table, and that no one who actually could do so would be dumb enough
>to write about it?
And now you have "hit the nail on the head" once again. You keep using
these dogmatic, unequivocal, and seemingly (in your world) undeniable,
undebatable phrases: NEVER, NO ONE, EVERYYONE, NO WAY,... Is this really
the way things are done in the lawyer's world? I sure hope not because
I know several lawyers (including my father and brother and many friends)
and I'd sure hate to think that this is what they base their logic on. Sad
indeed if good minds are wasted on such illogical tenants.
(then this ghost-writer, c-ray conjectured:)
>> Let's assign a number from 0 to 100 to every game, depending on the luck vs.
>> skill factor. [snip] Now, somewhere on this scale you put a line and say
>>"if a game is above this line, I define it: GAMBLING." Below this line the
>>game is NOT gambling. Where should I (or Edmond or Congress) put the line?
>
>This assumes that the governmental decision about gambling is based on the
>luck/skill distinction. I don't think it is.
>I am an attorney too,
Oops! Now I see that I have erred in debating a "legal" topic with an
AUTHORITY! If you had only told me this earlier I would have kept my mouth
shut. Afterall, how could I, a simple commoner (in terms of the ways of
law) ever have enough knowledge, intelligence, or wisdom to question
someone in high AUTHORITY? Sarcasm? Indeed! You have nailed one of my
pet peaves, as could be discerned by reading one of my posts from yesterday.
Put out your logic in clear terms for all to see. Your cloth, robe, wig,
sash, or whatever you think should intimidate is only provides me fuel. If
you are truly an emporer, make sure you are wearing clothes...
>and people should know that the laws vary from state to
>state on this, but I think the following principles are generally accurate:
>
>1. The government is concerned about commercial gambling, not individual
>gambling. They would arrest people who started a commercial enterprise of
>poker, but not 5 guys who play every week.
AGAIN, you speak in ABSOLUTE terms. Did you not read Albert's post, or
did you read it and not believe it? It happens in many places (including
Indiana, BTW) where penny-ante games are broke up by authorities for no other
reason than the letter-of-the-law. Hopefully this is a rare incident, but
it does happen. Do we just sweep this under the rug? Meanwhile some judges
and FOP (fraternal order of the police) members conduct their own gambling
games. Hipocrisy? You be the judge. (Pun possibly intended.)
>2. They don't care about minor gambling from non-profits. They don't arrest
>people at a typical Church Bingo game, but would not tolerate one setting up a
>state wide lottery.
>
>3. Their goal is not to set up a perfectly logical system, and I assure you
>they would not "make a list of all games and rate them from one to 100".
I believe you. But should your "assurance" make me feel better? Should
I be relieved that legislators don't think in simple quantifiable terms, but
base their decisions on "feelings" or downright illogical prejudices? Oh,
excuse me. I forgot that most legislators are lawyers and therefore
AUTHORITIES. Need I remind you that legislators (politicians) don't have
the cleanest record when it comes to sincerity, believability, or integrity?
The fact that they don't put things in quantifiable terms (0 to 100 scales)
doesn't exactly strike fear in this heart.
How about dropping the titles, authoritarianism, absolutisms, and other
smoke-screens and letting reason and logic decide the issues?
Gary Wong
> Let's assign a number from 0 to 100 to every game, depending on the luck
> not exactly zero, as argued by both Gary and me). Games like craps are very
> close to 100 (but even here you can make bets which vary in house edge and
> therefore some skill is helpful). Four player contract bridge, poker, and
> backgammon are examples of games which fall well away from both zero and 100.
>
> Hopefully you realize I am not REALLY assigning a hard number. I don't
> somewhere on this scale you put a line and say "if a game is above this line,
> I define it: GAMBLING." Below this line the game is NOT gambling. Where
> should I (or Edmond or Congress) put the line?
>
> that there is significant skill available (and enough to offset the house
> rake) in games like horse racing, sports betting, and blackjack. Of course
> you must be quite skillful in these games to overcome the house advantage,
> but I believe it can be done. Therefore I place my line high enough that
> these fall into the NON-gambling portion. But that is just me. I suspect if
> you asked a lot of people (and now I am assuming they understand my 0-100
> scale) you would get a lot of different answers.
>
> So, my point is: how do you define gambling? I don't think EVERYONE
> does it the same way. Surely NO ONE will argue that, will he???
I won't argue that, no :-) I'm afraid I don't have a good definition. Yours
is about the best I've heard, but it's still not perfect. It's definitely
a huge improvement over the laws in Oregon as mentioned in the article
referred to previously: "risking something of value upon the outcome of a
contest of chance". It's not clear what is meant by a "contest", but from
my point of view, their definition would not rule out investing on the
stock market as gambling -- perhaps not even taking out an insurance policy!
Your definition is much better, because it recognises that games make up
an entire spectrum involving varying amounts of skill and uncertainty. The
problem of finding a suitable metric to quantify those concepts with is
certainly tricky, but even if we had one, we are left with a couple of issues
that might still need to be settled.
Firstly, are we measuring the skill in the _game_ or in the _players_? The
game of Nim would be an interesting example. Any skilled player could look
at a position and instantly tell whether it's a winning or losing one.
Therefore, a game between skilled players would be entirely a game of chance
(in deciding who moves first). A game between one skilled player and one
novice would definitely be a game of skill -- the skilled player would be a
huge favourite. But between two beginners, it becomes a game of uncertainty
again! Is betting money on a game of Nim to be considered gambling for some
players, and not for others? Whether you are skilled or not, the
categorisation of the game depends on your opponent!
Another problem is that if a game has a slight skill and large chance
content, then playing a long match of those games turns into one of large
skill and slight chance. Suppose we're playing a money game, and late in
the bearoff, you double and I take. After the game, you tell me you believe
it was a drop and offer to pay me a point and the cube to play it as a prop.
If it's late enough in the game, you can imagine it being a definite game
of chance with very little skill involved -- so, playing the prop once for
money would definitely be a gamble. But if we played it out enough times,
then by the strong law of large numbers, the result will almost surely
converge to a win for whoever was right about the take/drop decision -- pure
skill! So, a match that started out as a gamble gradually turns into skill
if we play it enough!
Let me finish with a story with a moral. (I hope it has a moral, though I'm
not entirely sure what it is).
It's getting late into the evening in Springfield. Homer and Barney sit
hunched over a backgammon board in Moe's, just having started a series of
games at $5 a point. They roll the bones. They slide the chequers. They
turn the cube. They drink the Duff. An hour later, Barney burps and gammons
Homer with the cube at 4 for the fifth time in a row. Homer checks the
score and realises he's $200 down on the deal. He tells Barney he's had
enough and wonders how to break the news to Marge that he's lost this week's
grocery money and Bart's birthday present. He's about to leave when...
"SIT DOWN, HOMER!" Chief Wiggum barks. "I see you've been betting money
on 5 games of backgammon. I note on my handy reference chart that 5 games
comes to 62 on the Bower Luck-O-Meter -- which is over the legal limit of 15
imposed by the state of (mumblesnarf). Indeed, it would take 13 games of
backgammon to accumulate enough skill content for your activity to be regarded
by the law as a game of skill. Now, you two get back there and play another
8 games for the same stakes before I arrest you both for illegal gambling!"
Is Chief Wiggum's behaviour enforcing the letter of the law? Quite
possibly, if that's where you want to draw the boundary between a game of
chance and a game of skill. Is it enforcing the spirit of the law? Not
according to my interpretation. Is forcing them to _continue_ playing
for more money in order to render their game one of skill upholding social
responsibility? I don't see how ANYBODY (uh oh, that word again) could
think so...
Gary Wong
> In article <wtn29dm...@brigantine.CS.Arizona.EDU>, Gary Wong
> <ga...@cs.arizona.edu> writes
> <snip, lots)
> > In chess, it seems
> >likely that if both players play without making any mistakes whatsoever,
> >the result would be a stalemate -- but it may be possible that white can
> >force a win. If so, then wouldn't you agree that chess is purely a game
> >of chance: after all, the result is determined by the choice of who plays
> >white!
>
> I -think- this is wrong. There are better maths people than I posting
> here, but I seem to remember that in games of perfect information, such
> as chess, it is provable that there is a forced win for one of the
> players: the trouble is, no one knows whether it is for Black or White
> (though almost certainly it is White). Stalemate is a red-herring here,
> always ocurring through an error by the player with more resources - the
I don't know enough about chess to say whether white can force a win if
she makes no mistakes (I'm almost certain it's an open question, but
perhaps somebody solved it and nobody bothered to tell me.) But I'm sure
that perfect information is not sufficient to establish a forced win for
either player: after all, noughts-and-crosses (tic-tac-toe) is a game
of perfect information, but neither player can force a win without the
other making a mistake.
> In BG, if the players threw away the dice, and were allowed to call
> their own rolls, then it would have the same status as Chess with a
> forced win for one of the players. In this case it is (as is likely in
> Chess) whoever plays first ("Um, I think I'll take double sixes,
> partner; your go".. and so on).
>
> This completes the delightful paradox posed by Gary; that Chess, being
> probably a forced win for White, is dictated by chance (whoever picks
> the White pawn from the other's closed fist), whereas BG is transformed
> by the dice into a game of skill!
Wow... I didn't think it through that far, but I'm glad you did :-) I think
you just came up with a nice counterexample to disprove the hypotheses that:
1) increasing the element of chance in a game reduces the element of skill;
and 2) it's possible to distinguish between _uncertainty_ (having two players
play a "skillful" game and being unable to predict the outcome in advance) and
_luck_ (the skillful player making better moves and still losing). The fact
that both these hypotheses are untrue does not appear to be appreciated by
current gambling laws.
EdmondT
1. You never once respond to my points;
2. Instead you discuss my grammar, use of absolute terms,use of quotations,
suggest I do more research, make fun of my profession, etc.
3. The actual discussion (it was about gambling -- remember) is in no way
enhanced by the post.
WILD GUESS .....
You are an academic.
Edmondt
Chuck Bower
EdmondT <edm...@aol.com> wrote:
>Three quick points about your posting:
>
>1. You never once respond to my points;
>
>2. Instead you discuss my grammar, use of absolute terms,use of quotations,
>suggest I do more research, make fun of my profession, etc.
>
>3. The actual discussion (it was about gambling -- remember) is in no way
>enhanced by the post.
>
>WILD GUESS .....
>
>You are an academic.
(snip quotes by unnamed sources)
To whom does 'you' refer?? It is customary (and, IMO, proper) to
attach a name when quoting. Has this courtesy gone by the wayside?
In the heat of my flaming, I feel I may have generalized regarding
lawyers and public officials. I apologize for that to most of the lawyers
and Congressmen [ ;) ] reading this newsgroup. There are a lot of
honest lawyers, and hopefully even a few good Congressmen. As far as
other sparks that flew, particularly at a specific individual, I stand
on my position.
Having said that, maybe the reason my late posts had little content
on the subject was because I already made clear my rationale (or at
least I thought I had made myself clear in two previous posts). To
summarize: gambling is not easy to define. I told how I define it.
No need to repeat what I said previously. I haven't changed my mind.
Not surprisingly, my answer to the 'academic' question above is a
standard canned one--please define "academic"!
As to what started all of this in the first place, I gave a reference
to a book which detailed how to beat roulette. Edmond responded haughtily
and in absolutisms that it was impossible. Apparently he felt no need
to give my reference or my opinion any credence.
That is a problem with newsgroups. You can say anything you want,
true or not, and there is little or no retribution. Well, when someone
publically blows off something I say with little or no thought (but with
a lot of absolutism, pomposity, and authoritarianism) then it sets me off.
That is what happened.
Now, class, please turn in your book reports...
Chuck
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
c_ray on FIBS ^
^
^
(a fine ACADEMIC institution! oops, no definition....)
John Greenwood
>In article <wtn29dm...@brigantine.CS.Arizona.EDU>, Gary Wong
><ga...@cs.arizona.edu> writes
><snip, lots)
>> In chess, it seems
>I -think- this is wrong. There are better maths people than I posting
>here, but I seem to remember that in games of perfect information, such
>as chess, it is provable that there is a forced win for one of the
>players: the trouble is, no one knows whether it is for Black or White
>(though almost certainly it is White). Stalemate is a red-herring here,
>always ocurring through an error by the player with more resources - the
>forced win would avoid any such disaster.
It is not clear to me if by "such as chess" you mean it simply as an
example of a perfect information game and that all perfect information
games are thought to be a forced win for one side, or you mean only
perfect information games like chess have a forced win ( ie only a
subset of all perfect information games of a chess-like character,
whatever that might imply)
I think you meant the former, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Tic TacToe is a perfect information game but is certainly not a forced
win for either player.
---
John Greenwood
John Greenwood
> It's getting late into the evening in Springfield. Homer and Barney sit
>hunched over a backgammon board in Moe's, just having started a series of
>games at $5 a point. They roll the bones. They slide the chequers. They
>turn the cube. They drink the Duff. An hour later, Barney burps and gammons
>Homer with the cube at 4 for the fifth time in a row. Homer checks the
>score and realises he's $200 down on the deal. He tells Barney he's had
>enough and wonders how to break the news to Marge that he's lost this week's
>grocery money and Bart's birthday present. He's about to leave when...
> "SIT DOWN, HOMER!" Chief Wiggum barks. "I see you've been betting money
>on 5 games of backgammon. I note on my handy reference chart that 5 games
>comes to 62 on the Bower Luck-O-Meter -- which is over the legal limit of 15
>imposed by the state of (mumblesnarf). Indeed, it would take 13 games of
>backgammon to accumulate enough skill content for your activity to be regarded
>by the law as a game of skill. Now, you two get back there and play another
>8 games for the same stakes before I arrest you both for illegal gambling!"
If the law was against playing a game of chance for money they should
be properly charged for 5 offences! If the law was against playing a
match of chance for money, then .....
---
John Greenwood
ches...@feist.com
as...@tiac.net (Albert Steg) wrote:
> Recent discussion in the "Snowie vs. Fritz" thread has addressed the
> question of whether or not bg is considered "gambling." Various people
> have given their views on a personal level.
>
> What about the legal level? >
I know I am a Johnny-come-lately to this thread, but it is a matter I have
given considerable thought to over the years. In my State (Kansas), it is a
crime to "make a bet". "Bet" is defied in terms of a game of "chance"
(sorry, don't have the exact wording of the statute in front of me at the
moment).
The only reasonable interpetation is that it must be 100% chance in order to
be a violation. Criminal statutes, after all, must be strictly construed
against the government.
There is some element of chance in almost any form of human endeavor. As a
tournament chess player, I can confirm that there is chance even in chess.
For example, my opponent once played a line I had just been studying the
night before. It was pure dumb luck on my part, as otherwise I wouldn't have
had a clue how to respond to this particular opening. Another example: I
like to play the Sicilian Dragon as Black. But if I happen to be paired
against an opponent who is an expert in this opening, and he is a stanger and
I have no way of knowing this in advance, I will probably get trounced. It
would be bad luck. I could give other examples, but you get the idea.
I firmly believe that the intent of the gambling statutes is to prevent
wagering on games of pure chance, like flipping a coin. Anyone who
prosecutes a backgammon player does so out of ignorance. Of course, the poor
guy (or gal) who gets prosecuted may not have the resources to defend himself
properly, in which case he may elect to avoid the danger of prosecution.
--
Jerry Weaver
http://www.feist.com/~chessart/
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
EdmondT
>wagering on games of pure chance, like flipping a coin.
I don't agree. I think the intent of the statutes is to prevent games like
poker being played as a business, and poker involves much skill.