Opinion ID: 1704640
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: video lottery is a game of chance

Text: One element which distinguishes a game of chance from a lottery as we have defined it, is that a game of chance encompasses less pervasive games which involve one or several players as opposed to a large number. Another distinction is that in a lottery, skill, choice or control of the player has no place. A token or ticket is purchased by the participant with no idea of the potential result. The participant buys a ticket and takes a chance; whether the participant is a winner or a loser is completely a matter of fate. In games of chance other than lotteries, the player has some conscious control over his input. For instance: [I]n a game such as craps for money, or roulette, the participant can make his bet selectively and base that selection upon a calculation of ascertainable odds. Even on a punch board operation, the player may choose the area on the board where his choice may be dictated by a hunch or guess. State v. Beane, 52 Ohio Misc. 115, 118, 370 N.E.2d 793, 795 (1977). These distinctions place video lottery in the category of a game of chance as contemplated in our constitution. In video lottery, there is only one participant playing the machine; there is no ticket or token sold or drawing held in its usual sense, and there are choices available to the participant in playing the game, which choices affect the outcome. The State vigorously argues that the hold strategy built into the machine program for video poker and blackjack removes all elements of skill and relegates the outcome to pure chance. In the first place, the regulations of the Lottery Commission seem to impeach that position. A.R.S.D. 48:02:08:03(1) states that: Video games that are not affected by player skill shall pay out a minimum of 80 percent and not more than 95 percent of the amount wagered.
Video games that are affected by player skill, such as video draw poker and blackjack, shall pay out a minimum of 83 percent and no more than 96 percent of the amount wagered. Secondly, the hold strategy may substantially eliminate the element of skill as a factor, but does not remove all elements of choice; its object is to maximize winnings for the player, not to eliminate all choices save one. A player does not have to follow the hold strategy; he can make another choice and still win something. For example, in the game of video poker, if a player is dealt a two, three and ten of hearts and a five and six of another suit, the hold strategy will advise to discard the five and six to try for a flush. The odds of success are one in sixteen. The player would have the choice, however, to discard the ten and try for a straight (one chance in thirteen). The flush would result in greater winnings but the odds of hitting the flush would be higher. Although over an enormous period of time a player following the hold strategy would maximize his wins and winnings, a player with limited funds and limited playing time may decide to follow the more conservative choice. Even in the games of keno and bingo, which do not involve the hold strategy, the player by conscious input selects numbers or cards which he may base on guess or hunch as the game progresses. All of the video games currently offered feature this element of choice. It is this element which allows the player to interact with the machine and makes the game a contest between person and machine, however illusory and one-sided the contest may be. It is this element which introduces concepts of variable odds and wagering which are not present in a lottery. In the recent case of U.S. v. Dobkin, 188 W.Va. 209, 423 S.E.2d 612 (1992), the court addressed the question of whether video poker machines violated a statutory provision prohibiting lotteries. [27] The court flatly stated: However, W.Va.Code 61-10-11 [1939] is not violated ... because such machines have no relation whatsoever to a lottery or a raffle. Dobkin, 423 S.E.2d at 615. We are firmly convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that video lottery is not a lottery as contemplated under our constitution but is a game of chance which is prohibited by Article III, § 25. Were we to adopt the State's definition of lottery (any plan, scheme, game, or enterprise which contains the elements of prize, chance, and consideration), the legislature would be empowered to sanction just about any form of gambling heretofore so vigorously suppressed by constitutional provisions, statutes, and the courts. The State's argument turns the public policy against gambling inside out by contending that the people have empowered the legislature to sanction any form of gaming which contains the three elements. Theoretically, slot machines would be constitutionally authorized, [28] as would all other forms of gaming heretofore prohibited as lotteries by the organic law. The 1986 amendment was an exception to the general prohibition against gambling. The intent of the people in adopting that amendment was not to give the legislature carte blanche power to authorize any form of gaming which contains the elements of prize, chance, and consideration. The sole power granted was to authorize a state lottery, not state games of chance.