Argument in South Carolina before the state Supreme Court over whether poker is illegal gambling took an unexpected turnwhen prosecutors reversed their stance and conceded that casual poker, such as the penny ante home game, is not illegal gambling. The state still holds that organized gambling for profit is illegal. The turn of events is designed to make the state’s previous argument — that all poker is illegal — look less farcical. South Carolina is hoping that by focusing on the particular acts at hand in the immediate case, and the more “seriously” organized games generally, it can convince the Supreme Court that at least certain forms of poker should be deemed illegal.
This appears to be a dangerous strategy. Where do you draw the line between casual and non-casual? Is conceding that some forms of poker are legal detrimental to the broader argument? By conceding that the penny ante home game is legal, is the state ultimately conceding that all poker is legal? Related, it is fair to assume that the players are more skilled in the higher limit, more organized games. If this is so, then the state effectively is arguing that the games with more “skill” are the ones that should be illegal while the all-in non-skill friendly fests are legal. Strange. Valid? We should have the answers fairly soon.