I started reading and expected ‘A jury in Colorado has acquitted a man who organized poker tournaments at a local bar on charges of illegal gambling, apparently agreeing with his defense that authorities should be focussing on real crime and not knocking down doors for no good reason.’

Instead the reason blood and thunder raids in normal neighbourhoods were unjustified is because poker is ‘a game of skill, not chance’.

It’s lucky they haven’t caught anyone playing spin the bottle.

Paramilitary raids are used on such things not because the chosen targets pose a significant risk to police officers, but because they generally don’t.

There are a handful of very smart people who can beat the house by counting cards at blackjack. But the casinos will ban you as soon as they catch on to you.

With poker, the house takes a rake, but once that’s out of the way, all the chips brought to your table are going to be split up one way or another among the players.”

Add video poker to the list of beatable games. If you can find a 10/7 jacks or better game and play perfect basic strategy, you can squeeze out about a 1% return.

That said, what is Texas Hold’em? Anyone want to play so I can learn?

thanks for making me laugh after Cynical added to my depression!

No, no — it’s therapeutic!

… or dog owners, or minors taking naked pictures of themselves, or dads driving their kids on cold deserted Minnesota highways, or people just sitting in their bedrooms in a bad neighborhood, or mayors of Maryland towns, or …

Damn, you’re right Marty, it is depressing. :(

“I play cribbage, and it most certainly isn’t a game of chance.”

Oh, I agree.

Especially not the way they played it at the Seniors’ Lodge where I used to volunteer. ;)

(The 5s had a way of gradually disappearing for several hands until reappearing like magic all together in one hand.)

actually, the Gestapo had the courtesy to knock.

really.

In my world, answers other than “B” would disqualify a person from being an officer. In the real world, the correct is “E”.

I bet that that sort of thinking would get you in danger of being declared a section 8 in the armed forces…

Horses and sports, maybe. But not slots or table games. They’re pure chance, and the house has the odds. You can become a millionaire by playing table games or slots regularly, but only if you start out a billionaire.

There are a handful of very smart people who can beat the house by counting cards at blackjack. But the casinos will ban you as soon as they catch on to you.

With poker, the house takes a rake, but once that’s out of the way, all the chips brought to your table are going to be split up one way or another among the players.

“The fact that professional poker players even exist (as opposed to, say, professional slots or roulette players) is proof that the game is driven more by strategy and skill than by luck.”

As a guy who has spent a lot of time in casinos and a lot of time around gamblers I would say that this is not entirely true. There are plenty of professional gamblers who rely on horses, sports, table games, poker, and slots all together to make their money. Honestly, outside of the online arena there are probably more professional “gamblers” then there are professional poker players.

http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2007/11/criminilization-of-cribbage-cont.html

I play cribbage, and it most certainly isn’t a game of chance. There is some chance involved, but I’d say over 70% of the game is strategy (card counting, probabilities of card combinations in your hand, probabilities of card combinations in opponent’s hand, probabilities of card combinations when players are playing their cards in clockwise order, predicting human nature to be greedy for points or not looking for larger combinations thus setting them up so you can score, etc.)

You’d need every ambulance in the state to cart out the cardiac arrest patients after the cops made their entrance.

or, recreational drug users. or, gun enthusiasts. or, real milk enthusiasts. or, people viewing porn on the internet. or, medical marijuana dispensaries. or, people selling alcohol without a license. or, kids changing their high school’s web-site. geez, this gets depressing.

Mark Twain’s 1867 either essay or short story, depending on whether it actually happened or not, “Science VS Luck:

At that time, in Kentucky (said the Hon. Mr. K——-); the law was very strict against what is termed “games of chance.” About a dozen of the boys were detected playing “seven up” or “old sledge” for money, and the grand jury found a true bill against them. Jim Sturgis was retained to defend them when the case came up, of course. The more he studied over the matter, and looked into the evidence, the plainer it was that he must lose a case at last—there was no getting around that painful fact. Those boys had certainly been betting money on a game of chance. Even public sympathy was roused in behalf of Sturgis. People said it was a pity to see him mar his successful career with a big prominent case like this, which must go against him.

But after several restless nights an inspired idea flashed upon Sturgis, and he sprang out of bed delighted. He thought he saw his way through. The next day he whispered around a little among his clients and a few friends, and then when the case came up in court he acknowledged the seven-up and the betting, and, as his sole defense, had the astounding effrontery to put in the plea that old sledge was not a game of chance! There was the broadest sort of a smile all over the faces of that sophisticated audience. The judge smiled with the rest. But Sturgis maintained a countenance whose earnestness was even severe. The opposite counsel tried to ridicule him out of his position, and did not succeed. The judge jested in a ponderous judicial way about the thing, but did not move him. The matter was becoming grave. The judge lost a little of his patience, and said the joke had gone far enough. Jim Sturgis said he knew of no joke in the matter—his clients could not be punished for indulging in what some people chose to consider a game of chance until it was proven that it was a game of chance. Judge and counsel said that would be an easy matter, and forthwith called Deacons Job, Peters, Burke, and Johnson, and Dominies Wirt and Miggles, to testify; and they unanimously and with strong feeling put down the legal quibble of Sturgis by pronouncing that old sledge was a game of chance.

“What do you call it now?” said the judge.

“I call it a game of science!” retorted Sturgis; “and I’ll prove it, too!”

They saw his little game.

He brought in a cloud of witnesses, and produced an overwhelming mass of testimony, to show that old sledge was not a game of chance but a game of science.

Instead of being the simplest case in the world, it had somehow turned out to be an excessively knotty one. The judge scratched his head over it awhile, and said there was no way of coming to a determination, because just as many men could be brought into court who would testify on one side as could be found to testify on the other. But he said he was willing to do the fair thing by all parties, and would act upon any suggestion Mr. Sturgis would make for the solution of the difficulty.

Mr. Sturgis was on his feet in a second.

“Impanel a jury of six of each, Luck versus Science. Give them candles and a couple of decks of cards. Send them into the jury-room, and just abide by the result!”

There was no disputing the fairness of the proposition. The four deacons and the two dominies were sworn in as the “chance” jurymen, and six inveterate old seven-up professors were chosen to represent the “science” side of the issue. They retired to the jury-room.

In about two hours Deacon Peters sent into court to borrow three dollars from a friend. [Sensation.] In about two hours more Dominie Miggles sent into court to borrow a “stake” from a friend. [Sensation.] During the next three or four hours the other dominie and the other deacons sent into court for small loans. And still the packed audience waited, for it was a prodigious occasion in Bull’s Corners, and one in which every father of a family was necessarily interested.

The rest of the story can be told briefly. About daylight the jury came in, and Deacon Job, the foreman, read the following:

VERDICT:

We, the jury in the case of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. John Wheeler et al., have carefully considered the points of the case, and tested the merits of the several theories advanced, and do hereby unanimously decide that the game commonly known as old sledge or seven-up is eminently a game of science and not of chance. In demonstration whereof it is hereby and herein stated, iterated, reiterated, set forth, and made manifest that, during the entire night, the “chance” men never won a game or turned a jack, although both feats were common and frequent to the opposition; and furthermore, in support of this our verdict, we call attention to the significant fact that the “chance” men are all busted, and the “science” men have got the money. It is the deliberate opinion of this jury, that the “chance” theory concerning seven-up is a pernicious doctrine, and calculated to inflict untold suffering and pecuniary loss upon any community that takes stock in it.

“That is the way that seven-up came to be set apart and particularized in the statute-books of Kentucky as being a game not of chance but of science, and therefore not punishable under the law,” said Mr. K——-. “That verdict is of record, and holds good to this day.”

Your SWAT unit has been briefed on a warrant service where you’ll be raiding a group of friends for playing cards

you should …

A. Listen to your favorite workout song to get your adrenaline jacked up for the raid.
B. Ask why you’re risking your life and the lives of the card players for something so trivial, given that you and your fellow officers have a weekly game.
C. Ask for schematics of the house so you can plan your entry in the most exciting way possible.
D. Make sure you clear your story in advance with other officers in the event of a mishap.
E. A, C, and D.

In my world, answers other than “B” would disqualify a person from being an officer. In the real world, the correct is “E”.