3 ms·

I agree. Others here are making arguments as to why they think this is akin to gambling, but there is a specific legal definition of gambling (at least here in

I agree. Others here are making arguments as to why they think this is akin to gambling, but there is a specific legal definition of gambling (at least here in the U.S.) -- "A person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome." [1] This is not a contest of chance, and there is no future contingent event. Other participants future actions within this event do not count as a "future contingent event." [1] http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/gambling/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/gambling/

shawabawa3 10y ago
> This is not a contest of chance It's absolutely a contest of chance. There's no skill at all, you're betting on the probability nobody else will bid in the next 15 seconds. If this is considered a game of skill I have no idea how you could defend sportsbetting or poker being gambling
- bigtunacan 10y ago
  I agree there is no skill involved, but it is not a contest of chance either. Assuming the house is not cheating and using shill accounts (which does happen, but IS illegal) then the last person to continue bidding wins. So in that regard it is by definition not chance. You just continue to bid until no one else bids and then you win.
- ryporter 10y ago
  Not knowing what your opponent will do does not make it a game of chance. For the purpose of defining gambling, the component of chance must be exogenous to the participants.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > For the purpose of defining gambling, the component of chance must be exogenous to the participants. There are many different legal definitions of gambling (even in the US -- each state that regulates gambling has at least on definition of its own, as well as the feds, and the same jurisdiction may have different definitions in different laws) but the one you posted upthread requires only that the future contingent event on which one participant is at risk be out of control of that participant, not that it must be "exogenous to the participants".
smallnamespace 10y ago
> Other participants future actions within this event do not count as a "future contingent event." This is the crux of your argument, but your link doesn't seem to address it. Do you have another source?

shawabawa3 10y ago

> This is not a contest of chance It's absolutely a contest of chance. There's no skill at all, you're betting on the probability nobody else will bid in the next 15 seconds. If this is considered a game of skill I have no idea how you could defend sportsbetting or poker being gambling

bigtunacan 10y ago
I agree there is no skill involved, but it is not a contest of chance either. Assuming the house is not cheating and using shill accounts (which does happen, but IS illegal) then the last person to continue bidding wins. So in that regard it is by definition not chance. You just continue to bid until no one else bids and then you win.
ryporter 10y ago
Not knowing what your opponent will do does not make it a game of chance. For the purpose of defining gambling, the component of chance must be exogenous to the participants.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > For the purpose of defining gambling, the component of chance must be exogenous to the participants. There are many different legal definitions of gambling (even in the US -- each state that regulates gambling has at least on definition of its own, as well as the feds, and the same jurisdiction may have different definitions in different laws) but the one you posted upthread requires only that the future contingent event on which one participant is at risk be out of control of that participant, not that it must be "exogenous to the participants".

smallnamespace 10y ago

> Other participants future actions within this event do not count as a "future contingent event." This is the crux of your argument, but your link doesn't seem to address it. Do you have another source?