Xbox Live 360.com. Games and Games.

In the past few weeks, a lot of sites have had coverage of BringIt.com, a new site purporting to allow you to wager on games like Halo 3 and Madden NFL 10. I've talked about some systems like this before, and one fact still seems to be lost in the shuffle: the legality of these sites is questionable at best and consumers should proceed with caution. I've reviewed the BringIt.com terms and FAQs (though I have not registered for nor tried the functionality of the site), and to illustrate my point, I'm going to use my home state of Texas as an example. BringIt.com says it is perfectly legal in my state, but a simple review of the Texas gambling statutes indicates otherwise, though the risk is much higher for the website than for the gambler. Let me again preface this by saying that this is simply my opinion on the matter, and it is possible that the purveyors of BringIt.com have received an attorney general opinion which they base their business upon in some or all states. More importantly, none of this post should be considered to defame or disparage the owners or attorneys for BringIt.com, it's simply a disinterested arms length commentary on the system in question, of which BringIt.com is a prime example.

For those unfamiliar, a good summary of Texas gambling laws exists here. On the face of it, anyone participating in the site is a gambler, and the site itself is a bookmaker. There are a number of ways this violates the letter and spirit of the Texas laws. First and foremost, by collecting bets, the site is almost certainly a bookmaker by statute. And this activity is almost certainly the offense of gambling, defined as being committed when someone 'makes a bet on the partial or final result of a game or contest or on the performance of a participant in a game or contest.' And more importantly, it satisfies the test for gambling in Texas, since the answer woudl certainly be yes when asking 'does it encourage the gambling instinct?' (see Callison v. State, 172 S.W.2d 772, 774.)

More importantly, Texas has an explicit prohibition to internet gambling, which is defined as multiple people using multiple computers to play a game and bet on the outcome. In my view, this spells out exactly what we have here, and that sentiment is clearly echoed in a 1995 Texas Attorney General Opinion. This system is no different than the third question presented, using a bulletin board to facilitate online card games.

While this may look one sided, there are often exemptions in the law. So, is there an exemption, though, that the site can rely on? The 'social game' exemption is certainly inapplicable because BringIt.com is making money on the transaction. The exclusion of awards for certain contests of skill from the definition of 'bet' basically only includes certain kinds of prizes for contests, not one on one 'challenges' that are wagers by another name.

This, of course, ignores the fact that many EULAs and TOS (both for the games and for services like Xbox Live) may explicitly bar this kind of behavior. To that end, not only could the consumer be penalized, but BringIt.com could be presented with a suit not unlike the Glider case, and we all know how that turned out.

That's not to say the whole site has no legal factors in Texas. I have some questions to the legality of the online element, but land-based cash game tournaments have been legally run in Texas, with MLG events and QuakeCon being two of the most well known. Assuming the rules are being followed appropriately, at least the multiplayer bracket portion might be legal in Texas.

Of course, this opens the larger question: If there's on state with these kind of questionable issues, what about the other 38 the site allows play in? And what about the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which bars most of this activity nationwide regardless? And is the site complying with the IRS rules regarding reporting of winnings? I don't want to nay-say the concept, but it certainly leaves me with questions based on my own analysis. Granted, I would greatly prefer a unified Federal stance on online gambling both legalizing and regulating the industry, and I would certainly support sites like this were the legal landscape clearer in that regard. For now, however, I would certainly proceed with caution.

In this week's Law of the Game on Joystiq, I discuss MMORPG gambling.

Read on!

On this week's Law of the Game on Joystiq, I discuss the potential application of gambling to the Guitar Hero franchise.

Read more.

Worlds in Motion has an article up detailing a new surge in the efforts to legitimize real money transactions in MMO games. Generally, the idea is a good one, as RMT can provide the players what they want, as demonstrated through the vibrant black market, while the legitimization gives the developers what they want. In fact, RMT based games are widely successful in other parts of the world. However, given the current state of US gambling laws, increased RMT in MMO games where gambling exists could put the MMO providers on thin ice. Second Life has already seen attention for gambling, and other worlds may not be far behind.

The tricky issue to deal with is the conversions between the virtual goods or currency and real currency. This is something I've discussed at length in my SSRN Papers. From a broad perspective, if a game either lacks gambling or lacks RMT, then there should be no cause for concern. However, when both elements are present, it becomes more problematic. Second Life (while gabling was still permissible), for example, as a direct currency exchange, could be viewed no differently than online casinos. In fact, even if gambling were using a more barter-like system, where, for example, weapons were wagered in fights, there could be a gambling issue assuming the weapon has a real world value, for example, from the ability to buy or sell it for real currency. The even more complex situation arises where the market price can fluctuate, especially given the prospect of reporting winnings or losses for tax purposes.

Obviously, this issue could take a number of turns depending on what the developers end up implementing in future games. It will be interesting to see if more developers place outright bans on wagering to avoid the issue entirely.

I thought many of the readers out there might be interested in the Metanomics 2007 programs going on in Second Life. They are hosting a number of speakers, including my former professor Bryan Camp from the Texas Tech School of Law.

Those interested in the study of Metanomics should try to attend some of their seminars. For the uninitiated, their FAQ gives the following overview:

“Metanomics” refers to the study of the business and policy aspects of the “metaverse” of virtual worlds. Metanomics can focus on issues arising within virtual worlds, such as how developers manage the economy of a game world (like World of Warcraft), or how residents of virtual worlds manage and regulate business. Metanomics also includes the study of how real-world businesses can use virtual worlds as part of their strategy, and how real-world law and regulation might apply to virtual-world activities. Finally, metanomics includes the use of virtual worlds as laboratories in which to study real-world business or policy issues.

Metanomics can take an "immersionist," "augmentationist," or "experimentalist" perspective. Immersionist metanomics attempts to understand business and policy issues from entirely within the virtual world in question, with little reference to the outside world. Augmentationist metanomics views the metaverse as simple an addition (augmentation) to the real world, and examines how its appearance affects business practice and regulatory policy. Experimentalist metanomics uses the metaverse as a laboratory in which to conduct controlled experiments that can tell us something new about the real world (such as eliminating capital gains taxes actually does increase investment and productivity).

[Thanks to Robert Bloomfield for the tip!]

Prior posts on this site about Tournament.com and Kwari have both raised some eyebrows about my particular interpretation of the UIGEA as it relates to games of skill and games of chance. As such, I thought this would be an appropriate time to discuss both types of games, and the reasoning behind my conservative approach to the UIGEA.

Put simply, there are three types of games in the world: games of pure chance, games of pure skill, and games somewhere in between that employ both elements of chance and skill. There are readily available examples of all of them. Lotteries, roulette, and bingo are games of pure chance. All in all, no matter what system you think you're using to select your winning numbers, it's pure luck. You cannot affect the odds of which number will be picked. To be a true "pure" skill game, there must be no chance involved whatsoever, and to that end there are very few, prime examples being chess, checkers, and othello. In any of these games there is no chance element as every move and rule is pre-defined and determined by the rules. After all, rolling a dice, drawing a card, or spinning a spinner are all "chance" elements, even if they are not always treated that way under the law. Between the two extremes lay a spectrum of other games with varying degrees of chance and skill weighing upon the outcome, be they board games or casino games or video games. As such, some games which can be played in either way to be classified as one or the other. Blackjack is typically lumped into the games of chance, even though a card counter would argue otherwise. Poker has been classified both ways. Competitive board gaming, such as Scrabble or Monopoly, would likely be classified as skill since the chance element is so minimal. Of course, these interpretations also vary by county, and the major difficulty with the internet is addressing these games on a multi-national level.

This brings us to the difficult proposition of classifying video games, the vast majority of which I believe fall into the "in between" category. Granted, arcade games are likely games of pure skill, Galaga or Donkey Kong or House of the Dead for example. However most anything else has some chance element to it in a multiplayer context, even if it is minor. The most relevant example would be spawning. In a FPS that has respawning, spawns are the luck of the draw. While many people claim FPS games to be pure skill, there is no amount of skill that can alter the result of spawning in someone's crosshairs. Similarly, in any RTS map, say Starcraft, that has unequal resources at the starting point, there is an element of chance. In a similar fashion, the terrain from a given spawn point may give some players an advantage. The most often cited counter argument is Counter-Strike, where there is no real "spawning." However, even Counter-Strike can have a random element to it if either team is filled out with random players. Even the most skilled players will be severely disadvantaged round after round if their team is arbitrarily filled up with an inept hodgepodge of other gamers. It would be the equivalent of filling out an NFL team with random fans who happen to be in attendance at the game and making them play. Thus, only in the event where both teams are controlled can Counter-Strike be a true "skill" game.

Skill games are not defacto illegal under the UIGEA. In fact, it's rather ambiguous on that matter. When laws are ambiguous, the courts are free to look at elements like legislative history, and one of the key issues the UIGEA hoped to address was online poker. As such, I have been erring on the side of caution in my analysis. Why? Poker has fairly equal elements of chance and skill (skill which includes reading your opponents, an element absent from Blackjack). If poker is covered, then arguably, anything short of a pure skill game could be lumped into the UIGEA if the courts so decide (absent the Skill Games Protection Act). Moreover, the overwhelming sentiment in the US congress seems to be anti-gambling, and thus I would be inclined to surmise that future legislation or interpretation would follow this same thought process. Accordingly, most of my articles have erred on the side of caution in pointing out chance elements that could push certain games into the UIGEA domain. As such, the articles reflect the direction I think the law can go rather than how I would personally interpret it or how I hope it would go. I hope that serves to clarify the two above referenced analyses.

Your "buy in" is the purchase of ammo. Your health bar is your wager. You lose money for damage taken, and gain money for damage inflicted. This is the basic concept behind the first true "gambling" First Person Shooter, Kwari, and it seems like a mild adaptation of the basic concept in poker to a completely new game and genre. This is truly a game of skill that you wager upon.

However, while the concept is a step beyond the model employed by sites such as Tournament.com, the legality is still questionable in the United States. As I've pointed out before, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act ("UIGEA") was created, at least in part, with online poker particularly in mind. Hence, the Skill Game Protection Act ("SGPA") is proposed to specifically exempt games for skill, which includes poker, from the UIGEA. However, the SGPA hasn't passed, and so therefore it is reasonable to assume that the UIGEA still encompasses games of skill until the courts say otherwise, even though the UIGEA is quite ambiguous on the matter.. As such, even though Kwari is purely a skill game, it may be covered. But, the overwhelming ambiguities in the UIGEA may provide Kwari with a loophole, or the SGPA would almost certainly exempt Kwari from the UIGEA.

There's also a bigger tax implication for players. If you are a master of Kwari and can walk away with thousands of dollars a month, is it ordinary income or gambling winnings? I think the argument can certainly be made that winning in Kwari is no different than what, say, Tiger Woods wins in golf or what any other professional athlete is paid. On the other hand, poker winnings are gabling winnings in the eyes of the IRS. The classification of Kwari winnings could easily go either way, and mean a significant difference in taxable income depending on the result.

[Via Joystiq]

Back in late April I finished an article titled A Tale of Two Worlds: New U.S. Gambling Laws and the MMORPG. That article has been published in the now available August edition of the Gaming Law Review. I must admit that some of the substantive MMORPG analysis is a bit simplistic (mostly in defining the volume of real money transactions as they relate to World of Warcraft), in part due to to audience considerations, but the legal analysis is quite thorough. While my SSRN revisions are still under review, the paper is available to those who may have access to the journal through academia or other means.

For those interested, here is the reference information:

Abstract

Full Citation:
Mark Methenitis. Gaming Law Review. 2007, 11(4): 436-439. doi:10.1089/glr.2007.11404.

Gaming Law Review, Volume 11, Number 4


[UPDATE: Just to clarify, the simplification was in the following regard: I assumed, for the purpose of the paper, that Blizzard's ban on real money transactions was completely effective, rather than just mostly effective. The concept of the "black market" complicated the comparison to a high degree and would have easily doubled the length of the paper. It also plays to a greater assumption that Blizzard will, in all likelyhood, continue to crack down and may eventually wholly eliminate real money transactions, even those on the "black market" type level.]

As I continue to play catch up from my hiatus, I have been hit by a bit of an irony. During my time away, I did submit the finalized version of "A Tale of Two Worlds: New US Gambling Laws and the MMORPG," which will be appearing in this month's Gaming Law Review. Of course, a mere few days later, Virtually Blind reports that Second Life has issued a clear "ban" on in game gambling, making some of the examples I used in the paper moot.

While I do agree with Virtually Blind's Benjamin Duranske that the revised policy statement is far clearer than the previous, I can't go as far as to call this a true "ban." The revised statement leaves many loopholes that I'm certain will be exploited in the days, weeks, and months to come. The policy states that games cannot "(1)(a) rely on chance or random number generation to determine a winner, OR (b) rely on the outcome of real-life organized sporting events, AND (2) provide a payout in (a) Linden Dollars, OR (b) any real-world currency or thing of value."

First, the statement really makes no claims at all with respect to games of skill. In fact, Second Life poker wouldn't violate this policy under many interpretations of "relying on chance." Whether it would be interpreted this way under the UIGEA is an entirely different debate (without an answer at this point), but more than likely poker would not violate the Second Life policy. The same could be said for any other game of skill that could be integrated into the grid. I suspect it will only be a matter of time before someone builds a Quake Zero betting system that plays through Second Life.

The second loophole is actually one that was mentioned in the article, being that only betting on the outcome of "real-life organized sporting events" is banned. Thus, if your event is either not real life, not organized, or not a sporting event, it is excluded. Virtually Blind mentioned the Oscars or Survivor (although Big Brother would be more timely at the moment). But there are a large number of other excluded events. MMO-based sporting events (in Second Life, World of Warcraft or elsewhere) would not be "real-life" events, so they would be excluded. This means that theoretically you could bet on PvP matches. The definition of "organized" will likely be pushed, probably in drawing a line between "professional" or "league" play. However, the most critical designation may be "sporting." What is defined as a sport? Is Major League Gaming a sport? I know of people who would argue on both sides of that debate. This restriction is by no means as comprehensive as it appears.

Perhaps the biggest loophole is in the "payout in (a) Linden Dollars, OR (b) any real-world currency or thing of value" clause. First, as Virtually Blind points out, the phrasing doesn't seem to restrict gambling in virtual items "of value." This, taken broadly, means that a simple casino chip system implemented in Second Life could circumvent the restriction. The only restrictions are on betting with Linden Dollars or real world currency or items of value. Thus, any virtual good that can be bought, gambled with, and resold for value would not be included. While actual chips might be argued to be the equivalent of currency, a system that operates in a similar manner without using chips may skirt the rules. Moreover, as Play No Evil's Steven Davis points out in comment 1, the use of a pachinko style system would skirt the restriction. For those unfamiliar with Japanese gambling, pachinko is a game in which you play with, earn or lose metal ball bearings. Having played the game while in Japan, it's much like a cross between a slot machine, a pinball machine, and a video game. These ball bearings can be redeemed for prizes. Among the prizes are a tokens that are, in the parlor, worthless, but if you take them to a booth nearby, they can be exchanged for cash. A similar model could be employed in Second Life as a means to bypass this policy.

While this new policy does help in some respects, it is still probably inadequate to deflect the pressures the UIGEA is placing on the system. Whether these loopholes were intentional or the result of an oversight will not impact the government's investigation, which seems to be an inevitability at this point.

Full opinion available here.

As could have been predicted based on other verdicts, the California game legislation has been struck down, in whole. While the court never reached the labeling requirement, it struck down the act as a whole under a strict scrutiny test. For those not familiar, strict scrutiny requires that a government use the least restrictive means of accomplishing their goal, narrowly tailor their legislation to the issue, and have a compelling government interest in the regulation. The court commented on two of these elements.

On having a compelling interest, the court stated:
Although Judge Posner's comments emphasize the need to proceed carefully in restricting a minor's exposure to violence, the Act nevertheless passes the first requirement of strict scrutiny as the government has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors. The state can legitimately restrict speech if such a restriction is narrowly tailored and will prevent or significantly decrease the likelihood of antisocial and aggressive behavior in minors—not merely how a minor thinks of violence.


On least restrictive means, the court stated:
To pass the strict scrutiny test, therefore, the state must demonstrate that the industry labeling standards, either alone or combined with technological controls that enable parents to limit which games their children play, do not equally address the state's interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of children.

In conclusion, the court states:
The legislature does have the power, despite Brandenburg, to enact legislation that limits a minor's First Amendment rights if the legislation can be shown to truly protects a minor's psychological and physical well-being and is narrowly drafted to pass strict scrutiny. However, at this point, there has been no showing that violent video games as defined in the Act, in the absence of other violent media, cause injury to children. In addition, the evidence does not establish that video games, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, internet sites or other speech-related exposures. Although some reputable professional individuals and organizations have expressed particular concern about the interactive nature of video games, there is no generally-accepted study that supports that concern. There has also been no detailed study to differentiate between the effects of violent videos on minors of different ages.

What does this all mean? The issue is twofold. First, the court finds that the labeling requirement may not actually achieve the goals set forth by the government. Second, the court finds that there is not substantial and compelling evidence that games really influence minors independently of other entertainment media.

I imagine the most compelling question left is whether the New York legislature will abandon the issue in the wake of yet another video game regulation being struck down. While the California case wouldn't be binding on New York in its current state, it still seems likely that a similar result would be reached.

[Via GamePolitics]

According to a news release issues today, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has executed warrants related to the manufacture of mod chips that are designed to "allow users to play illegally obtained, pirated and/or counterfeit software on video game consoles including Sony's Playstation 2, Microsoft's XBOX and XBOX 360, and Nintendo's Wii." A gallery of the seized chips can be found here.

As many may know, mod chips that allow users to circumvent the anti-piracy technology in consoles are covered by the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, while a small exemption was allowed for libraries for archival purposes.

The mod chip issue has always been a rather tricky one. On the one hand, mod chips created for the express and limited purpose of circumventing copy protection shouldn't be allowed on the market. When a product has no legal purpose, that is generally the case. On the other hand, there are plenty of legitimate uses for mod chips, and to that end, the ones designed for those purposes, be that homebrew software or improved media capabilities, should be allowed to exist in the stream of commerce. Think of a mod chip like a knife. A knife can be used for the legitimate purpose of cutting open a box or chopping a vegetable, but it can also be used for the illegitimate purpose of stabbing an innocent person. Perhaps the better approach is to target the software pirates rather than the mod chip manufacturers, but by and large, the mod chip makers are probably easier to find.

It will be interesting to see which direction this ongoing "investigation" moves. I can only hope that ICE does not inadvertently harm those who were not participating in targeted software protection circumvention. It seems that the case with some technology related seizures is a lack of understanding of the technology leading to a less than accurate application of the law.

Tournament.com has opened its doors, allowing players to wager real money on matches of Counter Strike and Half Life 2 Deathmatch, with Day of Defeat to follow soon. The site's FAQ points to what will be the issue for their viability going forward:


2. What are "games of skill"?
Games of skill, such as those we provide here, are games where the result and outcome are decided purely by the skill of the players involved and not by any element of chance or luck.
Unlike games of chance, skilled gaming is legal in most parts of the world and is determined by the skill of the participants.

While the statement is true, that many jurisdictions do not restrict games of skill, the US stands as a nebulous question in this regard in the wake of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act without the passage of the Skill Games Protection Act.

The questions facing Tournament.com are likely twofold.

1. Are the games they are allowing wagering on "subject to chance"?
2. Are the players "amateur athletes"?

Either of these could place the Tournament.com system well within the crosshairs of the UIGEA. Unfortunately, the answer to either question is convoluted at best.

Subject to Chance

The "subject to chance" language was most likely added to combat online poker, and as most people know, while there is a skill to playing poker, it is still subject to the luck of the draw. Anyone who's played has probably had a run of bad hands in a row, and that's just how the game can go. On the converse, you can also have a run of good hands in a row.

First person shooters can have the same effect. Everyone has had one of those rounds where you just spawn in the wrong place every single time. Or one of those rounds where you just seem to get every kill. Or in a game like Counter Strike, there's always the chance that you get stuck with a horrible team. Or you're the one dragging behind on an excellent team.

In the grand scheme of things, I would place most FPS games in about the same chance strata as online poker, and given that, they would fall in the UIGEA unless the SGPA passes.

Amateur Athletes

The classification of gamers as athletes is still widely debated. Dictionary.com defines an athlete as: a person trained or gifted in exercises or contests involving physical agility, stamina, or strength; a participant in a sport, exercise, or game requiring physical skill.

To me, a gamer is, by that definition, an athlete, even though it is not in the traditional vision of an athlete. For that matter, if you consider professional billiards players or archers or marksmen or curlers athletes, then a gamer is much the same. These are sports of precision rather than brute force or extended stamina.

Why does this matter? Well the UIGEA references "includes any scheme of a type described in section 3702 of title 28." This refers to the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which reads:

Sec. 3702. Unlawful sports gambling
It shall be unlawful for -
(1) a governmental entity to sponsor, operate, advertise,
promote, license, or authorize by law or compact, or
(2) a person to sponsor, operate, advertise, or promote,
pursuant to the law or compact of a governmental entity,

a lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling, or wagering
scheme based, directly or indirectly (through the use of
geographical references or otherwise), on one or more competitive
games in which amateur or professional athletes participate, or are
intended to participate, or on one or more performances of such
athletes in such games.

In short, it is illegal to bet on sports online. Therefore, if these games are considered "sports" online, and then it would be illegal to bet on them. Since Athlete is undefined in the act, it comes to the "common meaning" of the term, which arguably does include gamers.

These are just my humble estimations on the matter. Tournament.com or any similar site would need to retain counsel to examine their individual situation more closely. Of course, the Skill Games Protection Act may change the playing field, so to speak, of online gambling. We will have to wait and see.

In the wake of a bit of a gambling scandal in Second Life, two new points of concern have been once again made very public.

1. Second Life is not an inherently secure gambling platform, and as such, both the player and the house should be exceedingly wary of the integrity of the game.
2. Linden Labs, while claiming to "ban gambling," has done nothing of the sort, and needs to start worrying that the Feds may soon come calling.

Second Life Gambling Security

Gambling, at its core, is only as valuable as the integrity of the game. If the house is cheating, the player shouldn't play. If the player is cheating, the house shouldn't be letting the player play. In either case, when the integrity is placed into question from one side or the other, the game loses. Second Life has to be one of the few places where the integrity of the game itself is questioned more often than it is validated.

Here is just a short list of reasons why Second Life is not a good place to be involved in gambling:
1. There is no oversight of the house.
2. There is no oversight of the player.
3. The security is only as good as the scripter, and often, that isn't very good.
4. There is no real grievance system.
5. There is no way to assure payout.

To be honest, a player never knows if the house is paying out what it should, when it should, and without releasing information to other parties. On the flip side, the house never knows if the player has found a way to scam the system, short of an incident like this. Imagine if FrostyFox had, rather than take $200,000 up front, taken $500 per day for a few months. Would Bob Perry have even noticed, or if he did, would he have just considered it within the acceptable margin of error? As much as everyone likes to believe in the honesty of others, this should be example enough to make some people think twice.

Linden Labs UIGEA Wake Up Call

It was not that long ago when the reports of the Feds visiting Second Life made their way into the blog-o-sphere. And for a while it seemed that maybe Linden had taken the matter seriously. But this new story just shows that Linden's efforts were far more hollow than they appeared. It is hard to fault them, as the methods described to fly under the radar, and because no companies have yet felt the wrath of the UIGEA, but Linden (and potentially other game developers) need to take notice before the Feds decide to dictate the outcome. And unfortunately for the MMO developers, the Skill Game Protection Act won't do anything for in-game slots or other games of chance, even if they are cloaked within a game of skill.

As we approach the 270 day deadline to construct the finding tracking system, we may be inching closer to the first enforcement of the UIGEA. The question remains, however, when that enforcement will spread to the MMO world. If the status quo continues, the answer may be sooner than you think.

Law of the Game noted rumors of a proposal to exempt games of skill from the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act last week. That bill has materialized as H.R. 2610 "The Skill Game Protection Act." As the text is now available, some analysis can proceed. The relevant portion of the bill reads:

(f) As used in this section, the term `bets or wagers' does not include operating, or participation in, poker, chess, bridge, mahjong or any other game where success is predominantly determined by a player's skill, to the extent that--

`(1) the game provides for competition only between and among participants, and not against the person operating the game; and

`(2) the operator is in compliance with regulations issued pursuant to section 5368 of title 31, United States Code.'.

There are three critical points in this act in terms of inclusion:
1. success is predominantly determined by a player's skill
2. competition only between and among participants
3. [competition] not against the person operating the game

In the simplest terms, it has to be a game won by skill, bet on by players, and the house must not have a seat at the table.

As I often like to do, I'm going to set forth some examples of what is and isn't allowed under this proposed legislation.

Allowed:
1. A system where players could wager on the outcome of the next round of, say, Halo.
2. A system where players paid to enter a tournament, with the winner or top few spots taking the money paid in.
3. A system that allowed people to wager on the results of PvP combat in an MMORPG (round or tournament), so long as the betters were all combatants.
4. A system that let people bet on the result of a a race in, for example, Forza 2.
5. Wagering on the outcome of a round of Mario Party you are participating in. (This is the most questionable, as there are so many chance elements in Mario Party. However, I believe that the game is more skill than chance, so I think application would work here.)

Not Allowed:
1. Betting on the outcome of a game you're not playing. For example, I couldn't put cash on a player to win the next round of Halo as an observer.
2. Betting on someone else to win when you're playing. (This is a traditional gambling issue. If you're playing poker, you can't put money on the guy 2 seats down the table. It would eliminate the integrity of the game.)
3. Betting on the outcome of a Player vs. Computer match, i.e. betting as to whether a player character could beat a high level creature in a coliseum.
4. It does not legitimize gold farming or other MMORPG profiteering, as those are generated in a player vs. computer (environment) model.
5. Betting on anything primarily determined by chance, i.e. blackjack within an MMORPG.

Of course, this is just revision one of the bill, and all of this may change, or they bill may never pass at all. However, it does pose some interesting possibilities.