This could be big for the future of legalized online poker, or it could be meaningless.

Basically, here's what happened:

In 2011, a guy (Lawrence DiCristina) was busted in New York for running an underground poker room.

He was charged with a federal crime -- violating the Illegal Gambling Business Act (IGBA) of 1955.

DiCristina was convicted. He appealed the verdict and claimed that poker isn't gambling, so therefore he couldn't have been running an illegal gambling business.

The PPA got involved and helped this guy out, since they have been jerking off to the whole "poker isn't gambling" tactic of getting online poker legalized for years.

Today, a federal judge threw out the conviction (agreeing that poker isn't gambling), and John Pappas of the PPA instantly got a huge erection.

The judge wrote:

Neither the text of the IGBA nor its legislative history demonstrate that Congress designed the statute to cover all state gambling offenses. Nor does the definition of "gambling" include games, such as poker, which are predominated by skill. The rule of lenity compels a narrow reading of the IGBA, and dismissal of defendant's conviction.

The indictment is dismissed. The jury verdict is set aside.
You can find a really lengthy document about the situation here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103482098/...ion-08-21-2012

The most important parts of the document are the "Introduction" and "Conclusion" sections, respectively at the beginning and end.

This might be a landmark case for online poker, or it could be a meaningless decision by one judge that will be ignored or contradicted later.

Naturally, the PPA is all excited that their years of banging their heads against the wall with this "poker isn't gambling" nonsense is finally paying off.

I'll talk about this on radio tonight.