The "Gambling" Debate.

[CloneHat]

It's like a slot machine that you can match up with practice.

 

[ranmaru]

Gotta know how you can protect your own tournaments from people thinking it's gambling.

 

[JPOBS]

Tournaments are gambling because you're putting down money up front. Skill vs. luck doesn't have anything to do with it.

i disagree with this idea.

"Putting money down up front", is realistically just you paying an entrance fee to participate.

Its no different that paying an entry fee to participate in ANYTHING.

my question to you would be, if the prize was a trophy, but you still had to pay an entry fee to participate (hence "putting money down upfront") does that still mean you're gambling?

What if there was no prize at all, you're just paying to participate in a sport. is that
gambling?

It's like a lottery but with skill instead of luck.

its nothing like a lottery at all. The control of whether you win or lose is not lost to you as soon as you sign up (which is analogous to buying the lottery ticket)

also this sentence itself is silly and an oxymoron. its like you're saying "This is like a sphere except its a cube instead of spherical"

 

[Jam Stunna]

i disagree with this idea.

"Putting money down up front", is realistically just you paying an entrance fee to participate.

Its no different that paying an entry fee to participate in ANYTHING.

my question to you would be, if the prize was a trophy, but you still had to pay an entry fee to participate (hence "putting money down upfront") does that still mean you're gambling?

What if there was no prize at all, you're just paying to participate in a sport. is that
gambling?

But you're not just paying an entry fee, that money goes directly into the prize pot. If we were paying an entry fee to win a trophy, then fine, we're not gambling. But that's not what we're doing; you are putting money down, up front, that goes into a pot so that you can possibly win more money later. That's gambling.

 

[JPOBS]

But you're not just paying an entry fee, that money goes directly into the prize pot. If we were paying an entry fee to win a trophy, then fine, we're not gambling. But that's not what we're doing; you are putting money down, up front, that goes into a pot so that you can possibly win more money later. That's gambling.

but the only reason that is the case is because we are a grassroots community and therefore we can't AFFORD to just have a prize system.

A simple example is MLG. Unless im mistaken, the MLG prize pot ISNT just a pool of all the "mney put up front" by the players. Isn't it a legitimate prize pot because MLG (and their sponsers) are simply offering cash payouts to the winners?

By your logic, MLG tournaments are not gambling, because the entrance fee is not the prize money, and the two are mutually exclusive.MLG's prize money is essentially, a glorified "trophy" which you've already agreed isnt gambling. So what you're saying is that the players who enter MLG are "putting money down up front to possibly win more later" but a the same time, they arent gambling because their money isnt going directly to the prize pot. So which one is it?

So, if the only difference between "gambling" and not gambling is the fact that your money goes to essentially become the prize (because we have no other means of creating a prize unfortunately), then, i honestly think thats semantics, and quite negligible.

 

[MattDotZeb]

Saturday Night Fight 3 at the University of Rhode Island was canceled when an employee noticed a giant pile of bills on the table and believed it to be illegal gambling / pot.

More info here:

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=2069130&postcount=627

Low Tiers:
1st: Cort
2nd: KDJ
3rd: N64

Teams:
1st: Rush Hour (Marcus+KDJ)
2nd: Team Ginyu Force (Unknown + Krazy Jones)
3rd: Ninja Turtles (Eve + Hayato)

I ****ing miss those days...

 

[Jam Stunna]

but the only reason that is the case is because we are a grassroots community and therefore we can't AFFORD to just have a prize system.

A simple example is MLG. Unless im mistaken, the MLG prize pot ISNT just a pool of all the "mney put up front" by the players. Isn't it a legitimate prize pot because MLG (and their sponsers) are simply offering cash payouts to the winners?

By your logic, MLG tournaments are not gambling, because the entrance fee is not the prize money, and the two are mutually exclusive.MLG's prize money is essentially, a glorified "trophy" which you've already agreed isnt gambling. So what you're saying is that the players who enter MLG are "putting money down up front to possibly win more later" but a the same time, they arent gambling because their money isnt going directly to the prize pot. So which one is it?

So, if the only difference between "gambling" and not gambling is the fact that your money goes to essentially become the prize (because we have no other means of creating a prize unfortunately), then, i honestly think thats semantics, and quite negligible.

You just said it: MLG tournaments are not gambling. Your everyday local tournament (usually) is.

Whether or not Smash tournaments is gambling or not has nothing to do with the game itself, but the conditions under which money is awarded. A free tournament is not gambling. A tournament where the prize amount is predetermined is not gambling. A tournament where ten people put $10 in to form a $100 pot that will be split is gambling.

 

[JPOBS]

You just said it: MLG tournaments are not gambling. Your everyday local tournament (usually) is.

Whether or not Smash tournaments is gambling or not has nothing to do with the game itself, but the conditions under which money is awarded. A free tournament is not gambling. A tournament where the prize amount is predetermined is not gambling. A tournament where ten people put $10 in to form a $100 pot that will be split is gambling.

I see..:afrainbo:

 

[-ACE-]

It's gambling. We're just lucky the cops don't give a **** or there aren't many people snitching. I hope it never happens, trust me, but smash tournaments are straight gambling. Stupid thread, there is no debate. You have a certain amount of control over the outcome of the match. This amount of control (that you have over the outcome) is more than that of poker, but it is also dependent on numerous variables, and thus no straightforward rules can be attached to it.

 

[ZoSo]

From a legal standpoint, for an activity to be considered gambling, three factors must be present: Consideration, prize, and chance.

1) Consideration usually means players must pay something of value to be eligible to participate.

2) Prize includes not only money, but anything of value.

3) Chance means the outcome is not determined by skill.

Ergo, it's not gambling.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Whether or not Smash tournaments is gambling or not has nothing to do with the game itself, but the conditions under which money is awarded. A free tournament is not gambling. A tournament where the prize amount is predetermined is not gambling. A tournament where ten people put $10 in to form a $100 pot that will be split is gambling.

Why does this distinction even matter?

The prize pot being predetermined doesn't change the fact that players are

"wagering money or something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods."


No where in there does it make any sort of reference to how the "additional money and/or material goods." are awarded.


Technically, ANYTHING in which competitors have to give something up in order to compete for a prize is gambling. But of course, that puts A LOT of things under gambling (chess tournaments, tennis competitions, MLG, ect all included). So to prevent this, you arbitrarily decided that the way the pot is formed should determine whether or not something is gambling. While this does catch the most obvious forms of gambling (games involving chips, slots, ect, ect) it also arbitrarily decides that SOME tournaments are gambling, while some others aren't?

 

[Jam Stunna]

Well okay, if that distinction bothers you, then I withdraw it. But even by that definition, tournaments are still gambling.

 

[ranmaru]

Well okay, if that distinction bothers you, then I withdraw it. But even by that definition, tournaments are still gambling.

I don't think he wants you to simply withdraw, but to continue to defend your point.

 

[Jam Stunna]

It's a minor thing to disagree on, and we agree on the main point of the thread, that Smash tournaments are a form of gambling.

For the record though, I do think that the way that a prize pot is formed is an important aspect of any event.

 

[ZoSo]

Smash tournaments AREN'T gambling, though. It's not a game of chance, which is part of the legal definition of gambling.

 

[hungrybox]

I'm liking this discussion.

 

[ChivalRuse]

This is going to get into semantics very quickly. It all depends in how loose your definition of gambling is. It's more like gambling than chess or going to work. It's less like gambling than betting on sports or poker.

I think there's a lot of random variation in that you can "win" by either being one step ahead of your opponents or several steps behind them, like RPS.

I would argue that putting money on the line for a chess competition is neither more nor less a form of gambling than smash. While there is not really an RPS factor in chess, there is still the idea of being "steps" ahead of or behind your opponent. Also, the issue of time management results in something of a "random" factor, since you can never know "for sure" if your move is the best or even going to lead to a victory. If you don't manage your time well, you can end up blundering, which generally loses the game. Although "mistakes" are more easily identifiable in chess than in smash, there are still no absolutes, thus you can never guarantee a win, so I would say chess is not less of a form of gambling.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

I got in pretty decent trouble for running a tourney here on campus because they considered it gambling.

I still don't think it is. But ik police do.

 

[ranmaru]

There's gotta be something to prevent a tournament from getting shut down like that. D:<

 

[Palpi]

The theme park/carnival thing PC jona said is slightly wrong because they have licenses to run those games that could be considered gambling.

 

[Pi]

if you break it down
it is comparable to commonly accepted forms of gambling

but instead of the variable being 'random' in the same way that a shuffled deck is, or a dice roll is
the 'random' element is the choices your opponent makes

to jv5 stock someone, anyone, would be heavily reliant on guesses, and decisions made by your opponent, which are out of your control.

the 'skill' element of melee, is knowing how to cover as most options as you can, or the most commonly chosen options (IE. when you dair someone near the edge, chances are they are going to roll away from it)

but at the end of the day it still comes down to did you guess correctly?

so while typical forms of gambling have a truly inhuman random element added to them, melee too has a form of RNG, that being the mind & fingers of your opponent

 

[xXx-NoobKing-xXx]

... as long as your balls don't touch.

 

[Black Mantis]

Apparently, you can't do mm's at all mlg because it's considered gambling.

 

[Dr.Brawl]

In a sense it is like gambling. You take a large amount of money and place it into a pot, then play a series of games, based mostly on skill, and then you split the top amount by certain divisions to the winners.

However with gambling, and it's most known form poker, it is mostly random, for example you might get pocket Aces pre flop, but there isn't any chance that you could win the hand. Someone with the hand 7 2 could hit a two pair on the turn and River and win. Where as smash isn't as random. There is a certain amount of skill associated with smash. Sure there are points where someone may SD and gives the set away, but still there is more a skill associated with smash.

 

[tarheeljks]

From a legal standpoint, for an activity to be considered gambling, three factors must be present: Consideration, prize, and chance.

1) Consideration usually means players must pay something of value to be eligible to participate.

2) Prize includes not only money, but anything of value.

3) Chance means the outcome is not determined by skill.

Ergo, it's not gambling.

i disagree w/your definition of #3. this talk of luck vs skill is largely a red herring imo. does anyone disagree that gambling signifies risk in essence? as i said earlier, the fact that players possess some control over the outcome does not eliminate the risk. when you pay $5 to enter a tournament there is a "chance," and a large one at that for most of us, that you will not get your money back. so basically i'm asking how you can not be gambling when you are putting money down with the potential, but not the guarantee, to win more money.

as far as legality goes, this is not an issue b/c this would most certainly be considered a "game of skill." if this isn't about legality, then another question is-- why does it matter if playing tournies is "gambling." are we talking about ethics or something?


edit:

However with gambling, and it's most known form poker, it is mostly random, for example you might get pocket Aces pre flop, but there isn't any chance that you could win the hand. Someone with the hand 7 2 could hit a two pair on the turn and River and win. Where as smash isn't as random. There is a certain amount of skill associated with smash. Sure there are points where someone may SD and gives the set away, but still there is more a skill associated with smash.

i agree that smash doesn't have the same element of randomness as poker, but (at the risk of derailing) if you are suggesting that poker is all luck then i will offer to play you heads up for a few thousand hands sometime .


edit2: i would agree completely with the notion that playing poker and entering "skill" tournaments are different types or degrees of gambling

 

[Jam Stunna]

Smash tournaments AREN'T gambling, though. It's not a game of chance, which is part of the legal definition of gambling.

There are recognized forms of gambling that don't require chance, like wagering on sporting events.

And since its been brought up, I'll agree with tarheeljks that while poker certainly has a large luck element to it, it's not a game of chance.

 

[HelpR]

in the loosest sense of the word, smash tournaments are a form of gambling, most definitely.

However, the type of gambling it is is quite important.

Most gambling falls under luck based gambling. This is gambling where the outcome is usually out of your control, and any and all skill involved is either not present, or is being exerted by a 3rd party.

smash tournaments falls under skill based gambling, as most video game tournaments do, and honestly, there isn't anything wrong with that.

Most states do not have video game tournaments outlawed, but there are some where, due to very general and poorly worded laws, they are illegal, and most college campuses use the 'it's illegal so GTFO' as an excuse to kick people off the premises when any sort of illicit activity is occurring.

There are many types of gambling of course, a raffle is a rather egregious example of luck based gambling, which should be illegal (And probably is, when cash is involved as a prize) but no one cares about it because it covers an extremely niche and hard to police group. Tournaments SHOULD be the same way.

Point is, if you're running a tournament, keep the money out of sight. seriously.

 

[ranmaru]

Hmmm, but wouldn't the illegality of gambling be put in stone to prevent a person from losing thousands of dollars due to an addiction to the MERE CHANCE of winning? (odds probably being way more than chance of winning a melee/brawl tourny, but if you PRACTICE you can win. The chance depends on you)

Although, the LEGAL part probably wouldn't be that reason. Like others said, probably because it can't be taxed, but it would be said that MORALLY that would be the case?

 

[-ACE-]

From a legal standpoint, for an activity to be considered gambling, three factors must be present: Consideration, prize, and chance.

1) Consideration usually means players must pay something of value to be eligible to participate.

2) Prize includes not only money, but anything of value.

3) Chance means the outcome is not determined by skill.

Ergo, it's not gambling.

1. Obviously you're putting money into the pot

2. How does the prize have to include more than money? By this standard alone poker should not be considered gambling. I'm guessing some people might say pride/bragging rights but that's not tangible or measurable in worth so I it's not really worth mentioning here imo.

3. This is a play on words. Yes, skill is involved, just like in poker, but skill isn't everything. Upsets happen, people have good bad days, etc. You're putting money in the pot and you have no idea who is going to win it. That's gambling. Fighting takes skill, and you never really no who is going to win a fight (although in extreme examples you have a pretty good idea). It is not solely determined by skill.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

I think he was saying that the prize can include something other than cash. Like diamonds or a world series bracelet.

 

[Divinokage]

You can try to shape your future however you always have no idea what's going to happen. The fear of the unknown is always there so in anything you try to do, there will be risks and chances. Can you really control when a phantom hit (Phantom Rest, darc lol) is gonna to happen for example? Can you control hitting through shields ftw?

The certainty and control we believe we have is an illusion.. how do you know you won't **** up when you are deep within the brackets? You can't know that.. all you can do is fight the opponent head on and whatever happens after well.. it happens lol. A lot of things are gambles.. when you take risks... so, Idk I guess it depends on the "law" lol.

 

[HDL]

For those of you saying that tournaments/MMs are gambling because there is a degree of risk/chance, consider this:

There are no guarantees in life, only calculated guesses.​

Going by the logic some people have used, you could say that living life itself is gambling. Are you really going to make the assertion that every single thing you do in life is gambling, on the grounds that there is some risk/chance involved? Clearly that doesn't make any sense. There is a chance that tomorrow I will go outside and get hit by a car, but that doesn't make it likely. I have full control over the precautions that I take, and sure there's a chance that a drunk driver will veer off road, but that doesn't make the act of walking near a road or crossing the street "gambling." It's just one of life's many uncertainties.

When it comes to things like this, I always use definitions as a basis for my own beliefs. To be sure, I checked multiple sources, and they typically boiled down to something along these lines:

Gamble: To place money on the line (to put at stake) in a game of chance.

I personally do not consider Melee a game of chance. Like I said, there are all sorts of uncertainties in life, just because you don't have 100% control over what's going to happen doesn't mean you're gambling. There is always a degree of risk because we don't live in a perfect world. But that doesn't necessarily make it a game of chance. Those who win in Melee do it mostly because they have the skill and knowledge necessary to perform at a high level. Chance and uncertainty undoubtedly play roles, but their roles are minor when compared to the level of control that exists.

There is nothing about how prizes are awarded in the definition of gambling, and I have not seen anything anywhere in any type of competition or game to make such an implication.

Side bets might be considered gambling though, given that the people putting money at stake have to rely on chance and not their own skill. I never really thought about this one much, though, so I haven't reached my own conclusion yet. Like someone said, betting on the sun rising in the morning is like betting on the player more likely to win. There's not as much chance involved, but you still don't control the outcome yourself, so it's a little tricky. Now I'm not sure what to think.

 

[boardsmash]

It isn't gambling if i know i can beat u all

 

[Prince_Abu]

It isn't gambling if i know i can beat u all

off!!!!!!!

 

[hungrybox]

bumptity bump?

this was getting really interesting

 

[Dark Hart]

3. This is a play on words. Yes, skill is involved, just like in poker, but skill isn't everything. Upsets happen, people have good bad days, etc. You're putting money in the pot and you have no idea who is going to win it. That's gambling. Fighting takes skill, and you never really no who is going to win a fight (although in extreme examples you have a pretty good idea). It is not solely determined by skill.

Wait... so upsets are luck? Axe ****** with Pika at APEX was luck? PP beating M2K in 2 sets was luck?

I'm normally with you, Dave, but you seriously can't believe that.

 

[Prince_Abu]

hungrybox do u like qdoba or chipotle or chipotlray