Texas Hold 'Em Trifecta

For those who argue that poker is a game of skill, not a game of chance, the opening weeks of 2009 brought courtroom victories in Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Colorado. Although these rulings by local trial courts cannot set precedent in any jurisdiction, they reflect a potentially important trend: an increasing willingness to view poker as a skill-based contest that is not covered by state gambling laws.

• In Commonwealth v. Dent, No. 733 of 2008, Columbia County (PA) Court of Common Pleas, the defendants faced criminal charges for conducting Texas Hold 'em games in a garage. Judge Thomas A. James, Jr., ruled that Pennsylvania's ban against "unlawful gambling" applies only to activities that involve the traditional definition of gambling: where a player hazards "consideration" to win a "prize" based on "chance." Relying on academic analyses of poker, Judge James concluded that poker involves both chance and skill, but that "skill predominates." He dismissed the criminal charges.
• In 2006, South Carolina police arrested 20 players in a weekly Texas Hold 'em game in Mount Pleasant, near Charleston. Though most of the poker players paid fines to resolve the charges, five went to trial before Municipal Court Judge J. Lawrence Duffy.State v. Chimento, Nos. 98045DB, et al., Mount Pleasant (SC) Municipal Court. After hearing "expert" testimony from Mike Sexton, a professional poker player, and from a college statistics professor, Judge Duffy found that "Texas Hold 'em is a game of skill." That opinion, however, was not enough to win an acquittal for the defendants. Professing uncertainty over the correct standard for the definition of gambling under South Carolina law, the judge found the defendants guilty anyway.
• Expert testimony also played a central role in the defense of Kevin Raley of Windsor, Colo., who was arrested with 30 other Texas Hold 'em players in a bar. After hearing testimony from the same statistics professor who testified in South Carolina, a jury in Fort Collins, Colo. acquitted Raley, who argued that poker is a "bona fide contest of skill" that is exempt from Colorado's anti-gambling statute.

The Pennsylvania and South Carolina cases are strong candidates for appeal. In all three cases, the Poker Players Alliance provided support to the defendants as part of its campaign for legalization of poker.