Judge Rules Poker Illegal Under Virginia Law

While former World Series of Poker Main Event champion Greg “Fossilman” Raymer might have the skills to win major poker tournaments, even his skills weren’t enough to convince a Virginia judge that poker was entirely a game of skill. Raymer gave a short demonstration while testifying in a Virginia courtroom last week as part of an attempt to show that poker was a game of skill, rather than one of chance.

The case, which was presided over by Judge Thomas Shadrick, concerned a number of poker halls that were closed down in the city of Portsmouth – including the Poker Palace, an establishment operated by Charles Daniels. The Poker Palace and several other rooms were shut down in 2010 under charges of illegal gambling.

Since there was no disputing that players were partaking in poker games at the Poker Palace, Daniels instead decided to fight the lawsuit on grounds that poker wasn’t covered by Virginia anti-gambling laws. He and his lawyer, Marvin Miller, sought to challenge the closure of the Poker Palace by essentially arguing that the gambling law was too vague, and that poker couldn’t reasonably be subject to the law as worded.

That’s where Raymer came into play. In a 15-minute demonstration, the former champion described the numerous different skills necessary to play poker successfully, as well as the many ways in which a strong player could have an advantage over a weaker player.

In addition, Miller laid out an argument that the law was unreasonably vague. Because the law prohibited activities on wagering on a contest where the outcome is “uncertain or a matter of chance,” Miller argued that it could apply to numerous activities which clearly weren’t intended to be outlawed, such as futures trading. Only certain gambling activities, such as bingo, were excluded from the law.

However, Judge Shadrick wasn’t convinced by the arguments – at least not entirely. In his ruling, Shadrick said that while poker does involve skill, each individual hand has an uncertain outcome and is thus subject to chance. In addition, he stated that the law was not unconstitutionally vague, saying that an average citizen could understand the intent of the law.

While the ruling may or may not be appealed, it’s possible that simply having a ruling on the case may help Virginia poker players. Now that poker has clearly been defined as being illegal under the current law, efforts by legislators to carve out an exception for poker may possibly move forward.