Sen. Young has introduced SB 434 which legalizes the weekly poker game. If you want to play craps with your buddies, however, it’s still a crime. And cheating at either would be a new crime.
The legislation defines “private, low stakes card game” as being one played with physical cards, not open to the public, taking place at a particular residence not more than four times per month, and involving individual wagers that do not exceed twenty dollars. Current law provides that “a person who knowingly or intentionally engages in gambling commits unlawful gambling” which is generally a Class B misdemeanor. (Gambling is defined (partially) as “risking money or other property for gain, contingent in whole or in part upon lot, chance, or the operation of a gambling device but does not include participating in bona fide contests of skill, speed, strength, or endurance.”) With the new legislation, it would be a defense to a charge of gambling that the game was a private, low stakes card game.
There are probably any number of criticisms and potential tweaks for this legislation or our public policy approach to gambling generally, but making this defense only available to card games and not, say, dice games jumps out at me as arbitrary.
The bill also defines “cheating” as meaning “to alter the selection of criteria that determine (1) the result of gambling; or (2) the amount or frequency of payment in gambling.” It specifically includes the use of marked cards as cheating. The legislation would create the new crime of “cheating at gambling” which is a Class A misdemeanor. It would not be a defense to the crime that the game was a private, low stakes card game. Which makes some sense — if the game is rigged, it’s basically stealing.
So on months that have five of a particular day, you’d better make sure you’re not playing cards. Or at least play them at someone else’s house that time.
I would love to see the police enforce this law., I know some officers that play poker every Saturday night.I assume you could play with chips and leave the money in your wallet.As for cheating I know a couple of places in Indy if you cheat your body might show up in a dumpster We need. undercover cops to enforce this law if it passes,
In my hometown in northwest Noble county, the mayor, the fire chief and other city officials had a poker once a week. More of the city’s business got done there than at a city council meeting.
Gambling information” means: (From the entire Bill)
(1)?a communication with respect to a wager made in the course of professional gambling; ?or
(2)?information intended to be used for professional gambling.
(g)?“Interactive computer service” means an Internet service, an information service, a system, or an access software provider that provides or enables computer access to a computer served by multiple users. ?The term includes the following:
)?A service or system that provides access or is an intermediary to the Internet.
“Operator” means a person who owns, maintains, or operates an Internet site that is used for interactive gambling.
Looks like the legal gambling cartel (LOL) might be behind this bill. Oh well the police will ignore poker games in peoples homes.
Talk show host, Arsenio Hall who had a segment, about things that appeared mysterious. He called that segment, Things That Make You Say Hmmm…The Anderson and Shebyville Casinos (saw a commercial) patrons) can now play dice and card games. Hmmm.
Almost an aside, but California long distinguished card games such as poker, which were legal at licensed card rooms, from casino like games as long as the participants were not “playing against the house”. Clearly not the “logic” behind SB 434 but, I’d suggest, a reasonable approach to legislation that would achieve a similar result to SB 434.
There’s a very short story by Mark Twain that’s relevant and probably public domain at this point, so I’ll paste it here:
THE GALAXY, October 1870
MEMORANDA.
BY MARK TWAIN.
SCIENCE VS. LUCK.
At that time, in Kentucky (said the Hon. Mr. Knott M. C.), the law was very strict against what it termed “games of chance.” About a dozen of the boys were detected playing “seven-up” or “old sledge” for money, and the grand jury found a true bill against them. Jim Sturgis was retained to defend them when the case came up, of course. The more he studied over the matter and looked into the evidence, the plainer it was that he must lose a case at last — there was no getting around that painful fact. Those boys had certainly been betting money on a game of chance. Even public sympathy was roused in behalf of Sturgis. People said it was a pity to see him mar his successful career with a big prominent case like this, which must go against him.
But after several restless nights an inspired idea flashed upon Sturgis, and he sprang out of bed delighted. He thought he saw his way through. The next day he whispered around a little among his clients and a few friends, and then when the case came up in court he acknowledged the seven-up and the betting, and, as his sole defence, had the astounding effrontery to put in the plea that old sledge was not a game of chance! There was the broadest sort of a smile all over the faces of that sophisticated audience. The judge smiled with the rest. But Sturgis maintained a countenance whose earnestness was even severe. The opposite counsel tried to ridicule him out of his position, and did not succeed. The judge jested in a ponderous judicial way about the thing, but did not move him. The matter was becoming grave. The judge lost a little of his patience, and said the joke had gone far enough. Jim Sturgis said he knew of no joke in the matter — his clients could not be punished for indulging in what some people chose to consider a game of chance, until it was proven that it was a game of chance. Judge and counsel said that would be an easy matter, and forthwith called Deacons Job, Peters, Burke, and Johnson, and Dominies Wirt and Miggles, to testify; and they unanimously and with strong feeling put down the legal quibble of Sturgis, by pronouncing that old sledge was a game of chance.
“What do you call it now!” said the judge.
“I call it a game of science!” retorted Sturgis; “and I’ll prove it, too!”
They saw his little game.
He brought in a cloud of witnesses, and produced an overwhelming mass of testimony, to show that old sledge was not a game of chance, but a game of science.
Instead of being the simplest case in the world, it had somehow turned out to be an excessively knotty one. The judge scratched his head over it a while, and said there was no way of coming to a determination, because just as many men could be brought into court who would testify on one side, as could be found to testify on the other. But he said he was willing to do the fair thing by all parties, and would act upon any suggestion Mr. Sturgis would make for the solution of the difficulty.
Mr. Sturgis was on his feet in a second:
“Impanel a jury of six of each, Luck versus Science — give them candles and a couple of decks of cards, send them into the jury room, and just abide by the result!”
There was no disputing the fairness of the proposition. The four deacons and the two dominies were sworn in as the “chance” jurymen, and six inveterate old seven-up professors were chosen to represent the “science” side of the issue. They retired to the jury room.
In about two hours, Deacon Peters sent into court to borrow three dollars from a friend. [Sensation.] In about two hours more, Dominie Miggles sent into court to borrow a “stake” from a friend. [Sensation.] During the next three or four hours, the other dominie and the other deacons sent into court for small loans. And still the packed audience waited, for it was a prodigious occasion in Bull’s Corners, and one in which every father of a family was necessarily interested.
The rest of the story can be told briefly. About daylight the jury came in, and Deacon Job, the foreman, read the following
VERDICT.
We, the jury in the case of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. John Wheeler et al., have carefully considered the points of the case, and tested the merits of the several theories advanced, and do hereby unanimously decide that the game commonly known as old sledge or seven-up is eminently a game of science and not of chance. In demonstration whereof, it is hereby and herein stated, iterated, reiterated, set forth, and made manifest, that, during the entire night, the “chance” men never won a game or turned a jack, although both feats were common and frequent to the opposition; and further more, in support of this our verdict, we call attention to the significant fact that the “chance” men are all busted, and the “science” men have got the money. It is the deliberate opinion of this jury that the “chance” theory concerning seven-up is a pernicious doctrine, and calculated to inflict untold suffering and pecuniary loss upon any community that takes stock in it.
“That is the way that seven-up came to be set apart and particularized in the statute books of Kentucky as being a game not of chance but of science, and therefore not punishable under the law,” said Mr. Knott. “That verdict is of record, and holds good to this day.”
That does not surprise me at all. The card player who can count and figure the odds in a card game should win more often.
As for. M Young District 35 has I70 that runs thru his district a A great place for a casino.,even pull in gamblers
from Pittsburg and Brownsburg, Could be Young is just trying to crush the illegal gambling.So they all go to the casinos With dice and card games and sports betting, I am betting a new casino will be built off of I70 and they will waive the horse racing,