Defining Poker

I know you think you know what poker is – especially if you have been playing it for more than a half-century, as I have. But it is one thing to think you "know it when you see it" (as one U.S. Supreme Court justice said regarding pornography, which failed to satisfy those looking for a precise definition, and brought the justice some derision), and another to put a definition into writing that will avoid any legal disputes.

The legality of certain gambling games, and how each should be defined, is a frequent subject for courtroom battles. Here are some topical questions: What constitutes a lottery game, as authorized by the law of a given state? If a video terminal is used for playing a game, does that change the character of that game? How should the game of "bingo" be defined, and how much bearing does a law have on it that was passed many decades before bingo was invented? I really dislike seeing a lot of money and effort spent on litigation of such issues stemming from legislators passing badly worded laws or never updating old laws. I hope this does not happen too much with our game of poker.

Let's talk about poker and decide what qualifies a game to be "poker" and what does not. We will start by looking at who would want to get under the poker umbrella of a law accepting poker, and whether they should be admitted.

The first "applicant" for the poker category would undoubtedly be casino games that call themselves poker, such as Caribbean stud poker and video poker. These are casino gambling games that use the ranking of poker hands to determine wager winners. Anyone drawing up a law to approve or regulate poker should be precise in it, such that it does not apply to casino gambling games based on poker hands. It is clear that the essence of poker is competing against other players (and not the house).

We should be aware that it is possible to have a "casino gambling game" in which the house is not competing against the player, meaning it is unaffected by the outcome of the game. In such a game, a person (or even a coalition of people) will accept bets, just as the house would be doing in a typical casino game. One sees this in games like blackjack, for example, in which the players take turns acting as the house, or one player acts as the house for that session. The players are charged a fee for the opportunity to participate, and the house does not derive any monetary income that varies with the result. Such a method could, of course, be used for one of the casino gambling games based on poker. So, the way that a casino gambling game is excluded from a poker law should not be based solely on whether or not the house has a financial interest in the game.

Perhaps we could say, "Casino gambling games based on poker have not been made permissible by this law." Unfortunately, it is not completely clear what constitutes a casino gambling game. (Poker is a gambling game that is often played in casinos, so using these words is a bit ambiguous.) We should define poker in such a manner that a casino gambling game cannot qualify, no matter who actually conducts the game.

I think these concepts form the essence of poker: First, the players compete only against each other. Second, they have one or more personal cards that only they can see. Third, a player wins whatever is at stake by either making a wager that no one is willing to match or showing a hand after the betting is over that is the most valuable, as determined by a ranking system that assigns a value to a hand based on the frequency of its occurrence. My suggestion is to write a definition of poker that incorporates these three concepts. Here is an attempt: "Poker is a card game in which each player can bet that his own hand is of a higher rank than that of any other player, and he wins whatever is at stake by either making an unmatched bet or showing the most valuable hand after the betting is over."

Do the players have to use a physical deck of cards, or can the cards be simulated? I do not know anyone who is willing to say that "internet poker" is not poker. Yet, such poker has its own set of governing laws. But in my opinion, players in the same physical location should be able to play in a poker game in which the "cards" are generated by a computer, as long as playing poker would be legal if physical cards were dealt by a flesh-and-blood dealer. Internet poker derives its character from the fact that players in different locations are able to play in the same game, and not from the fact that the cards are simulated in some fashion.

Does a poker deck need 52 cards for the game to be considered "true poker"? I think a stripped deck (one in which the lowest-ranking cards have been removed, such as deuces through sixes) is definitely poker. Remember that the joker, or even two jokers, is used in some poker forms. If you can add cards, you can subtract them, as well.

Would the game still be considered poker if you used fewer than five cards? I don't think so. For example, when I was in Kathmandu in '92, we played an Indian game called "flush" that's a lot like poker. The betting was in some ways similar to poker, and there were hand rankings like straights, flushes, and trips. But you got only three cards. For me, poker is the traditional American game in which the best five cards are used to determine the ranking of hands.

I am sure that regular readers know why I have chosen to write this column. Now is the tim e to take advantage of the wave of poker popularity and write some sensible poker laws. To write good laws, one must know exactly what the law covers. "I know it when I see it" did not work for porn, and will not work for poker.

Bob Ciaffone has authored four poker books, Middle Limit Holdem Poker, Pot-limit and No-limit Poker, Improve Your Poker, and Omaha Holdem Poker. All can be ordered from Card Player. Ciaffone is available for poker lessons: e-mail [email protected]. His website is www.pokercoach.us, where you can get his rulebook, Robert 's Rules of Poker, for free. Ciaffone is the cardroom director for ChecknRaisePoker.com.