4 ms·
The 'skill vs chance' test for illegality makes no sense to me. With all sports, there's luck involved as well as skill. So by betting on them, you are at the m
by joosters 11y ago
The 'skill vs chance' test for illegality makes no sense to me. With all sports, there's luck involved as well as skill. So by betting on them, you are at the mercy of luck too. Even a game of chess might involve luck - a player might have a terrible headache, or get distracted at a key point in the game.
Surely the test, if it is to be used at all, should outlaw games where there is no skill involved at all (e.g. roulette, lotteries)
- bluecalm 11y ago>>Surely the test, if it is to be used at all, should outlaw games where there is no skill involved at all (e.g. roulette, lotteries) Yeah but I have issue with the criteria in the first place. What are arguments for banning purely luck based games but not skill based ones?
- xlm1717 11y agoIt does do that. Roulettes are generally banned. Of course, since the State makes the laws, the State can also decide when to make exceptions, as is the case in Nevada and Atlantic City, for example. And the State can also make exceptions to benefit itself, as is the case in state-sponsored lotteries.