text:
Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is part of the series on the
United States
Supreme Court
The Court
Decisions
Procedure
History
Court Building
Current membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch
1 seat vacant
Retired Associate Justices
John Paul Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor
Anthony Kennedy
David Souter
All members
List of all justices
by court
by seat
by time in office
by education
List of Chief Justices
List of Associate Justices
Specialty lists
All nominations
Unsuccessful nominations
Nominations late in presidency
Court demographics
Justices who served in Congress
Ideological leanings of justices
Court functionaries
Clerks
Reporter of Decisions
Marshal of the Court
Supreme Court Police
Other countries
Law Portal
v
t
e
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest federal court in the United States and the only court specifically established by the Constitution of the United States, implemented in 1789.
This article is concerned with the process and procedures used by the modern court. For general discussion of the court's jurisdiction and composition, see Supreme Court of the United States; for discussion of the court's present and historical accommodations, see United States Supreme Court building; for discussion of the history of the court, see History of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Contents
1 Terms and sittings
2 The Court's authority to hear cases
2.1 Appellate jurisdiction
2.2 Original jurisdiction
3 Selection of cases
4 Hearing cases
4.1 Filing briefs
4.2 Oral arguments
5 Forming opinions
5.1 The conference: assignment of opinions
5.2 Circulating draft opinions and changing of views
5.2.1 Tied votes and lack of quorum
5.3 Announcement of opinions
6 Reporting and citation of cases
7 See also
8 Footnotes and references
9 External links
Terms and sittings[edit]
A term of the Supreme Court commences on the first Monday of each October, and continues until June or early July of the following year. Each term consists of alternating periods of approximately two weeks known as "sittings" and "recesses." Justices hear cases and deliver rulings during sittings; they discuss cases and write opinions during recesses.
The Court's authority to hear cases[edit]
Appellate jurisdiction[edit]
In nearly all of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, the Court exercises the appellate jurisdiction granted it by Article III of the Constitution. This authority permits the Court to review—and affirm or overturn—decisions made by lower courts and tribunals. Procedures for bringing cases before the Supreme Court have changed significantly over time. Today, cases are brought before the Supreme Court by one of several methods, of which the first two account for the overwhelming majority of cases decided:
By petition for a writ of certiorari, filed by a party to a case that has been decided by one of the United States courts of appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
By petition for writ of certiorari with respect to a decision of one of the territorial or state courts, after all state appeals have been exhausted, where an issue of federal constitutional or statutory law is in question. The writ is usually issued to a state supreme court (including high courts of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa), but is occasionally issued to a state's intermediate appellate court for cases where the state supreme court denied certiorari or review and thereby refused to hear the appeal.
By petition for certiorari before judgment, which permits the Court to expedite a case pending before a United States court of appeals by accepting the case for review before the appellate court has decided it. However, Supreme Court Rule 11 provides that a case may be taken by the Court before judgment in a lower court "only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court."
By appeal from certain decisions of United States district courts in certain cases involving redistricting of congressional or state legislative districts, or when specifically authorized in a particular statute.
By a certified question or proposition of law from one of the United States Courts of Appeals, meaning that the Court of Appeals requests the Supreme Court to instruct it on how to decide the case. This procedure was once common but is now rarely invoked; the last certificate accepted for review was in 1981.
By petition for an "extraordinary writ" such as mandamus, prohibition, or habeas corpus. These writs are rarely granted by the Supreme Court though they are more frequently granted by lower courts.
Original jurisdiction[edit]
Certain cases that have not been considered by a lower court may be heard by the Supreme Court in the first instance under what is termed original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's authority in this respect is also derived from Article III of the Constitution, which states that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction "in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party." The original jurisdiction of the Court is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1251. This statute provides further that, in the case of disputes between two or more states, the Supreme Court holds both original and exclusive jurisdiction and no lower court may hear such cases.
The number of original jurisdiction cases heard by the court is small; generally only one or two such cases are heard per term. Because the nine-member Supreme Court is not well-suited to conducting pretrial proceedings or trials, original jurisdiction cases accepted by the Court are typically referred to a well-qualified lawyer or lower-court judge to serve as special master, conduct the proceedings, and report recommendations to the Court. The Court then considers whether to accept the special master's report or whether to sustain any exceptions filed to the report.
Although jury trials are in theory possible in the Court's original jurisdiction cases, there has not been one since Georgia v. Brailsford in 1794.[1] In 1950, in the case United States v. Louisiana, the state of Louisiana moved for a jury trial, but the Court denied the motion, ruling that the suit was an equity action and not an action at law, and that therefore the Seventh Amendment guarantee of a jury trial did not apply. If a matter involving an action at law did come before the court, however, a jury would likely be empaneled and would hear the case alongside the justices of the Court.[2]
Selection of cases[edit]
Since the Judiciary Act of 1925 ("The Certiorari Act" in some texts), the majority of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction has been discretionary.[3] Each year, the court receives approximately 9,000–10,000 petitions for certiorari, of which less than 1% (approximately 80–100), are granted plenary review with oral arguments, and an additional 50 to 60 are disposed of without plenary review.[4][5]
The Court strictly enforces its requirements for the preparation and timely filing of certiorari petitions, in order to manage such a massive caseload. This occasionally results in harsh consequences, as Justice Thomas acknowledged in a 2007 opinion: "Just a few months ago, the Clerk, pursuant to this Court's Rule 13.2, refused to accept a petition for certiorari submitted by Ryan Heath Dickson because it had been filed one day late ... Dickson was executed on April 26, 2007, without any Member of this Court having even seen his petition for certiorari. The rejected certiorari petition was Dickson's first in this Court, and one can only speculate as to whether denial of that petition would have been a foregone conclusion."[6]
In theory, each Justice's clerks write a brief for the Justice outlining the questions presented, and offering a recommendation as to whether certiorari should be granted; in practice, most Justices (all of the current court, except Justices Alito and Gorsuch) have their clerks participate in the cert pool.[7][8][9]
During the Justices' regular conference, the Justices discuss the petitions, and grant certiorari in less than five percent of the cases filed. (During the 1980s and 1990s, the number of cases accepted and decided each term approached 150 per year; more recently, the number of cases granted has averaged well under 100 annually). Before each conference, the Chief Justice prepares a list of those petitions he believes have sufficient merit to warrant discussion. Any other Justice may also add a case to the "discuss list"; cases not designated for discussion by any Justice are automatically denied review. The Court or a Justice may also decide that a case be "re-listed" for discussion at a later conference; this occurs, for example, where the Court decides to request input from the Solicitor General of the United States on whether a petition should be granted.[10]
The votes of four Justices at Conference (see Rule of four) will suffice to grant certiorari and place the case on the court's calendar. If the Supreme Court grants certiorari (or the certified question or other extraordinary writ), then a briefing schedule is arranged for the parties to submit their briefs in favor of or against a particular form of relief. During this time, an individual or group having an interest in a case but not a party to the case may submit a motion to appear before the court as amicus curiae ("friend of the court"). Except for certain specific categories (such as lawyers for state and local governments) or where all parties to the case consent, it is in the Court's discretion whether such motions are granted.
The grant or denial of certiorari petitions by the Court are usually issued as one-sentence orders without explanation.
Cases that fall within the Court's original jurisdiction are initiated by filing a complaint directly with the Supreme Court, and normally are assigned to a special master appointed by the Court for the taking of evidence and making recommendations, after which the Court may accept briefs and hear oral arguments as in an appellate case.
Hearing cases[edit]
Filing briefs[edit]
Before oral arguments, the parties to a case file legal briefs outlining their arguments. An amicus curiae may also submit a brief in support of a particular outcome in the case if the Court grants it permission. Formal rules govern every aspect of these briefs; Chief Justice William Rehnquist described the rules thus:
The rules direct what information must be included in a brief, describe the size of paper and type of print, and limit the number of pages. Even the colors of the covers of the briefs are specified: the petitioner's brief must have a blue cover and the respondent's must have a red cover. The Court also often receives briefs from amici curiae (friends of the Court) in particular cases, and these must have a green cover. This color-coding comes in very handy when you have a stack of eight or ten briefs in a particular case and can locate the brief you want by its color without having to read the covers of each.[11]
Oral arguments[edit]
Thereafter, if the Court chooses to hold a hearing, each side has thirty minutes to present its case orally. In exceptional and controversial cases, however, the time limit may be extended. In the Court's early years, attorneys might argue a single case for hours or even days; but as the judicial workload increased, the time available for argument has been restricted. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist was noted for his especially strict enforcement of the argument time limits.
To file pleadings or to argue a case, an attorney must be a member of the bar of the Court. (The primary requirement for admission to the Bar is that the attorney must have been admitted to practice in the highest court of a state or territory for at least the past three years.) Justices are allowed to interrupt the attorney speaking in order to ask him or her questions, and particularly since the arrival of Justice Antonin Scalia in 1986, do so often.[12]
The Court began recording Oral Arguments in October 1955.[13] Beginning in October 2010, the Supreme Court began the practice of posting recordings and transcripts of the oral arguments made during the preceding week on Fridays on the Court's website.
In an interview for C-SPAN, former Justice Scalia, speaking for himself, noted that by the time the Justices hear oral arguments, having read the submissions by the parties and amici, it is "very rare, though not unheard of", for the discussion during the oral arguments to change his view of a case in which he has already made up his mind based on the submissions and his research about the case. However, he also made the point that it is "quite common" for him to go into Oral Arguments with his mind not made up yet, as the cases are usually very hard and difficult, and that in those situations a persuasive attorney can make the difference for him.[14]
Forming opinions[edit]
The conference: assignment of opinions[edit]
At the end of a week in which the Court has heard oral arguments, the Justices hold a conference to discuss the cases and vote on any new petitions of certiorari. The Justices discuss the points of law at issue in the cases. No clerks are permitted to be present, which would make it exceedingly difficult for a justice without a firm grasp of the matters at hand to participate.[15] At this conference, each justice—in order from most to least senior—states the basis on which he or she would decide the case, and a preliminary vote is taken.
Former Justice Scalia professed frustration that there is little substantive discussion,[16] while former Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that this makes the conference more efficient.[17] The votes are tallied, and the responsibility for writing the opinion in the case is assigned to one of the justices; the most senior Justice voting in the majority (but always the Chief Justice if he is in the majority) makes the assignment, and can assign the responsibility to him- or herself.
Circulating draft opinions and changing of views[edit]
The justice writing the opinion for the court will produce and circulate a draft opinion to the other justices. Each justice's law clerks may be involved in this phase. In modern Supreme Court history only a few justices, such as former Justice Antonin Scalia, have regularly written their own first drafts.[18] Once the draft opinion has been reviewed, the remaining Justices may recommend changes to the opinion. Whether these changes are accommodated depends on the legal philosophy of the drafters as well as on how strong a majority the opinion garnered at conference. A justice may instead simply join the opinion at that point without comment.
Votes at conference are preliminary; while opinions are being circulated, it is not unheard of for a justice to change sides. A justice may be swayed by the persuasiveness (or lack thereof) of the opinion or dissent, or as a result of reflection and discussion on the points of law at issue.
The evolution of the justices' views during the circulation of draft opinions can change the outcome of the case; an opinion that begins as a majority opinion can become a dissenting opinion, and vice versa. At the conference for Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Kennedy is said to have initially voted with Chief Justice Rehnquist, but then changed his mind, feeling unable to join Rehnquist's draft opinion.[19] While working for the Justice Department, present-day Chief Justice John Roberts—a former Rehnquist law clerk—wrote an analysis of Wallace v. Jaffree[20] in which he indicated his belief (based on the length and structure) that Rehnquist's dissent had started out as an opinion for the court, but lost its majority; similar speculation is often heard of Justice O'Connor's dissent in Kelo v. New London.[21] Justice Kennedy is known within the Court for changing his mind subsequent to the conference, and Justice Thomas is known for having the tendency to lose a majority.[22] Justices may change sides at any time prior to the handing down of the Court's opinion. Generally, the Court's decision is the opinion which a majority (five or more) of justices have joined. In rare instances, the Court will issue a plurality opinion in which four or fewer Justices agree on one opinion, but the others are so fractured that they cannot agree on a position. In this circumstance, in order to determine what the decision is lawyers and judges will analyze the opinions to determine on which points a majority agrees. An example of a case decided by a plurality opinion is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
A justice voting with the majority may write a concurring opinion; this is an opinion where the justice agrees with the majority holding itself, but where he or she wishes to express views on the legal elements of the case that are not encompassed in the majority opinion. Justices who do not agree with the decision made by the majority may also submit dissenting opinions, which may give alternative legal viewpoints. Dissenting opinions carry no legal weight or precedent, but they can set the argument for future cases. John Marshall Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson set down for the majority opinion later in Brown v. Board of Education.
After granting a writ of certiorari and accepting a case for review, the justices may decide against further review of the case. For example, the Court may feel the case presented during oral arguments did not present the constitutional issues in a clear-cut way, and that adjudication of these issues is better deferred until a suitable case comes before the court. In this event the writ of certiorari is "dismissed as improvidently granted" (DIG)—saying, in effect that the Court should not have accepted the case. As with the granting or denial of cert, this dismissal is customarily made using a simple per curiam decision without explanation.[23]
Customarily, justices who were not seated at the time oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court do not participate in the formulation of an opinion. Likewise, a justice leaving the Court prior to the handing down of an opinion does not take part in the Court's opinion. Should the composition of the Court materially affect the outcome of a pending case, the justices will likely elect to reschedule the case for rehearing.
Tied votes and lack of quorum[edit]
If not all of the nine justices vote on a case, or the Court has a vacancy, then a tied vote is possible. If this occurs, then the decision of the court below is affirmed, but the case is not considered to be binding precedent. The effect is a return to the status quo ante. No opinions (or voting alignments) are issued in such a case, only the one-sentence announcement that "[t]he judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court." Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. is an example of such a case. The court tries to avoid such rulings when possible: After the retirement of Justice O'Connor in 2006 three cases would have ended with a tie. All cases were reargued to allow the newly appointed Samuel Alito to cast a decisive vote.
A quorum of justices to hear and decide a case is six. If, through recusals or vacancies, fewer than six justices can participate in a case, and a majority of qualified justices determines that the case cannot be heard in the next term, then the decision of the court below is affirmed as if the Court had been equally divided on the case. An exception exists when this situation arises in one of the now-rare cases brought directly to the Supreme Court on appeal from a United States District Court; in this situation, the case is referred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the corresponding circuit for a final decision there by either the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, or a panel consisting of the three most senior active circuit judges.[24]
Announcement of opinions[edit]
Throughout the term, but mostly during the last months of the term—May, June, and, if necessary, July—the Court announces its opinions. The decision of the Court is subsequently published, first as a slip opinion, and subsequently in the United States Reports. In recent years, opinions have been available on the Supreme Court's website and other legal websites on the morning they are announced. Since recording devices have been banned inside the courtroom, the fastest way for decisions of landmark cases to reach the press is through the Running of the Interns.[25]
The opinion of the Court is usually signed by the author; occasionally, the Supreme Court may issue an unsigned opinion per curiam. The practice of issuing a single opinion of the Court was initiated during the tenure of Chief Justice John Marshall during the early 19th century. This custom replaced the previous practice under which each Justice, whether in the majority or the minority, issued a separate opinion. The older practice is still followed by appellate courts in many common law jurisdictions outside the United States.
Reporting and citation of cases[edit]
For more specific details on how cases are cited, see case citation.
Supreme Court decisions are typically cited as in the following example: "Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)." The court citation consists of the names of the opposing parties; the volume number; "U.S." (signifying United States Reports, the official reporter of Supreme Court decisions); the page number on which the decision begins; and the year in which the case was decided. The names of the opposing parties are listed in the format "Petitioner v. Respondent" or "Appellant v. Appellee." The Reporter of Decisions is responsible for publication of the Court's rulings. Two other widely used citation formats exist: the Supreme Court Reporter and the Lawyers' Edition, corresponding to two privately published collections of decisions. Citations to cases in the Supreme Court Reporter would be structured as follows: Snowden v. Hughes, 64 S. Ct. 397 (1944). Citations to cases in the Lawyers' Edition would be as follows: Snowden v. Hughes, 88 L. Ed. 497 (1944). Judicial opinions often use the citation from all three sources (the United States Reports, Supreme Court Reporter, and Lawyers' Edition), as seen here: Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 26 S. Ct. 338, 50 L. Ed. 497 (1906). Since the 1930s, prior to publication of the decisions in these reporters, they are available from the United States Law Week (U.S.L.W.). In more recent years, opinions have been available electronically soon after they appeared on commercial sites such as Lexis or Westlaw, on Internet sites such as FindLaw and on the Court's own website.[26]
The Reporter of Decisions is the court official responsible for the publication of the Court's opinions and orders. The current Reporter of Decisions is Christine Luchok Fallon.
Decisions of the Supreme Court are precedents that bind all lower courts, both federal and state. The Supreme Court generally respects its own precedents, but has in some cases overturned them.
See also[edit]
Supreme Court Case Selections Act
Footnotes and references[edit]
Jump up ^ Georgia v. Brailsford, Powell & Hopton , 3 U.S. 1 (1794).
Jump up ^ United States v. Louisiana , 399 U.S. 699 (1950).
Jump up ^ Scalia, Antonin. "Originalism: The Lesser Evil". University of Cincinnati Law Review. 57: 849, 850. Archived from the original on February 21, 2006; Rehnquist, William H. (September 27, 2001). Remarks by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (Speech). Lecture at the Faculty of Law of the University of Guanajuato, Mexico.
Jump up ^ See, e.g., Lazarus, Edward (June 14, 1998). "Closed Chambers". Booknotes (Interview). Interviewed by Brian Lamb. C-SPAN.
Jump up ^ "The Justices' Caseload" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States.
Jump up ^ Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205 (2007).
Jump up ^ Mauro, Tony (October 21, 2005). "Roberts Dips Toe Into Cert Pool". Law.com. Regarding the picking of cases, see generally, Rehnquist, William H. (2001). The Supreme Court (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf. pp. 224–238. ISBN 9780375409431.
Jump up ^ Liptak, Adam (September 25, 2008). "A Second Justice Opts Out of a Longtime Custom: The 'Cert. Pool'". The New York Times. Retrieved October 17, 2008.
Jump up ^ Liptak, Adam (May 1, 2017). "Gorsuch, in sign of independence, is out of Supreme Court's clerical pool". New York Times. Retrieved May 2, 2017.
Jump up ^ Thompson, David C.; Wachtell, Melanie F. (2009). "An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures". George Mason University Law Review. 16 (2): 237, 241. SSRN 1377522  .
Jump up ^ Rehnquist, William H. (September 27, 2001). Remarks by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (Speech). Lecture at the Faculty of Law of the University of Guanajuato, Mexico; cf. "Part VII. Practice and Procedure. Rule 33. Document Preparation: Booklet Format; 8 1/2- by 11-Inch Paper Format". Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. Supreme Court of the United States. April 19, 2013 – via Legal Information Institute, Cornell University.
Jump up ^ Talbot, Margaret (March 28, 2005). "Supreme Confidence: The Jurisprudence of Justice Antonin Scalia". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on September 3, 2005 – via New America Foundation. In his early years on the Court, Scalia's exuberant questioning was not well received by his colleagues ... In Scalia's first oral argument he asked so many questions that Powell whispered, 'Do you think he knows that the rest of us are here?' The other Justices have since caught up with Scalia. Now all of them—with the exception of Clarence Thomas—are garrulous Linder, Doug. "Justices Brennan & Scalia Debate Creation-Science". On a bench lined with solemn gray figures who often sat as silently as pigeons on a railing, Scalia stood out like a talking parrot.
Jump up ^ "About the Oyez Project". Oyez Project. Retrieved January 24, 2011.
Jump up ^ Scalia, Antonin (June 19, 2009). "Justice Antonin Scalia" (PDF) (Interview). Interviewed by Susan Swain. C-SPAN. Retrieved November 6, 2010. [I]t is probably quite rare, although not unheard of, that oral argument will change my mind. But it is quite common that I go in with my mind not made up. I mean a lot of these cases are very close, and you go in on the knife's edge. Persuasive counsel can make the difference. There are things you can do with oral argument that cannot be done in a brief. You can convey the relative importance of your various points.
Jump up ^ Rehnquist, William H. (2001). The Supreme Court (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf. p. 253. ISBN 9780375409431.
Jump up ^ Lazarus, Edward (2005). Closed Chambers. New York: Penguin. p. 285. ISBN 9780143035275. to call our discussion of a case a conference is really something of a misnomer. It's much more a statement of the views of each of the nine justices.
Jump up ^ Rehnquist, William H. (2001). The Supreme Court (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf. pp. 254–58. ISBN 9780375409431.
Jump up ^ Lazarus, Edward (2005). Closed Chambers. New York: Penguin. p. 271. ISBN 9780143035275.
Jump up ^ See, e.g., Zimmerman, Carol (March 18, 2004). "Justice Blackmun's Papers Reveal Near Overturn of Roe". Catholic Herald. Catholic News Service. Archived from the original on April 19, 2004.
Jump up ^ Roberts, memo to Fred F. Fielding, June 4, 1985.
Jump up ^ See, e.g., Claeys, Eric (June 24, 2005). "Did O'Connor Lose the Majority?". SCOTUSblog. Archived from the original on August 22, 2006.
Jump up ^ See Tushnet, Mark V. (2005). A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law. New York: Norton. ISBN 9780393058680.
Jump up ^ Savage, David G. (January 2002). "Adarand Didn't Add Up: Lawyers Now Wonder Which Affirmative Action Case Court Will Take". ABA Journal. American Bar Association. 88: 26. Retrieved January 5, 2013.
Jump up ^ U.S.C. Title 28, Section 1; U.S.C. Title 28, Section 2109.
Jump up ^ Kessler, Robert. "Why Aren't Cameras Allowed at the Supreme Court Again?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 24 March 2017.
Jump up ^ "Opinions". Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved 25 October 2014.
External links[edit]
Court Rules from the U.S. Supreme Court website
2010 rules from the U.S. Supreme Court website
2013 rules from the U.S. Supreme Court website
2013 rule revisions from the U.S. Supreme Court website (with "clerk comments" that clarify what's changing for 2013 and why)
hide
v
t
e
Supreme Court of the United States
The Court
Lists of cases
Procedures
Supreme Court Building
Court demographics
Ideological leanings
Appointment and confirmation
Current members
Chief Justice: John Roberts
Associate Justices: Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch
Current nominations
For Associate Justice: Brett Kavanaugh
Retired Justices
John Paul Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor
Anthony Kennedy
David Souter
History
Jay Court (1789–1795)
Rutledge Court (1795)
Ellsworth Court (1796–1800)
Marshall Court (1801–1835)
Taney Court (1836–1864)
Chase Court (1864–1873)
Waite Court (1874–1888)
Fuller Court (1888–1910)
White Court (1910–1921)
Taft Court (1921–1930)
Hughes Court (1930–1941)
Stone Court (1941–1946)
Vinson Court (1946–1953)
Warren Court (1953–1969)
Burger Court (1969–1986)
Rehnquist Court (1986–2005)
Roberts Court (2005–present)
Lists of justices
and nominees
Chief justices
Associate justices
All justices
court
seat
education
time in office
timelines
Justices who served in Congress
All nominations
Unsuccessful nominations
Nominations near end of presidency
Statutes affecting
Court size
Judiciary Act of 1789
Judiciary Act of 1801
Judiciary Act of 1802
Seventh Circuit Act of 1807
Eighth and Ninth Circuits Act of 1837
Tenth Circuit Act of 1863
Judicial Circuits Act of 1866
Judiciary Act of 1869
Court functionaries
Clerk
Marshal
Supreme Court Police
Reporter of Decisions
Lists of law clerks
Chief Justice
Seat 1
Seat 2
Seat 3
Seat 4
Seat 6
Seat 8
Seat 9
Seat 10
All
Former locations
Old City Hall, Philadelphia
Old Supreme Court Chamber, U.S. Capitol
Old Senate Chamber, U.S. Capitol
Related
United States Solicitor General
United States Reports
Lawyers' Edition
Amicus curiae
Article III, U.S. Constitution
Original jurisdiction
Burial places of justices
The Court in fiction
Other countries
Law Portal
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States&oldid=849892775"
Categories:
United States procedural law
Supreme Court of the United States
United States appellate procedure
Hidden categories:
Use mdy dates from May 2014
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 12 July 2018, at 03:31 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: mw-jump-link #mw-head

values: mw-jump-link #p-search

value: tr

value: th

values: Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg

attrs: class style

values: Lists of United States Supreme Court cases

value: li

values: Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

values:
plainlist
padding:0 0.1em 0.4em;text-align:left

values: List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition

values: List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by seat

values: List of United States Supreme Court Justices by time in office

values: List of law schools attended by United States Supreme Court Justices

values: List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States

values: Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States

values: List of people nominated to U.S. Supreme Court in last year of presidency

values: Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States

values: List of United States Supreme Court Justices who also served in Congress

values: Ideological leanings of United States Supreme Court justices

values: Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States

values: Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States

values: Marshal of the United States Supreme Court

values: padding:0.3em 0.4em 0.3em;font-weight:bold;border-top: thin solid #aaa

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

values:
/wiki/United_States_federal_courts
mw-redirect
United States federal courts

values:
/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States
mw-redirect
Constitution of the United States

values: checkbox button toctogglecheckbox toctogglecheckbox display:none

values: Edit section: The Court's authority to hear cases

values: Article Three of the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Writ_of_certiorari
mw-redirect
Writ of certiorari

values: United States v. Louisiana (1950) (page does not exist)

values: Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Amici_curiae
mw-redirect
Amici curiae

values: Edit section: The conference: assignment of opinions

values: Edit section: Circulating draft opinions and changing of views

values:
/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London
mw-redirect
Kelo v. New London

values: Edit section: Tied votes and lack of quorum

values:
/wiki/Slip_opinion
mw-redirect
Slip opinion

values: Edit section: Reporting and citation of cases

values: Supreme Court of the United States Reporter of Decisions

values:
/wiki/Supreme_Court_Reporter
mw-redirect
Supreme Court Reporter

values:
nofollow
external text
//ssrn.com/abstract=1377522

attrs: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.oyez.org/about

values: Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States

values:
navbox-image
11
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Chief Justice)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 1)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 2)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 3)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 4)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 6)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 8)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 9)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 10)

values: Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States

values: List of burial places of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States

values: Supreme Court of the United States in fiction

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner mw-collapsible mw-made-collapsible

values: Category:Supreme Court of the United States

values: Category:United States appellate procedure

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States rootpage-Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States skin-vector action-view


text:
Online poker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. Please help this article by looking for better, more reliable sources. Unreliable citations may be challenged or deleted. (February 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Online poker is the game of poker played over the Internet. It has been partly responsible for a huge increase in the number of poker players worldwide. Christiansen Capital Advisors stated online poker revenues grew from $82.7 million in 2001 to $2.4 billion in 2005,[1] while a survey carried out by DrKW and Global Betting and Gaming Consultants asserted online poker revenues in 2004 were at $1.4 billion.[2] In a testimony before the United States Senate regarding Internet Gaming, Grant Eve, a Certified Public Accountant representing the US Accounting Firm Joseph Eve, Certified Public Accountants, estimated that one in every four dollars gambled is gambled online.[3]
Contents
[hide]
1 Overview
2 History
3 Legality
4 How online poker rooms profit
5 Integrity and fairness
5.1 Randomness of the shuffle
5.2 Insider cheating
5.3 Collusion
6 Differences compared with conventional poker
6.1 Currency issues
6.2 Poker tools
7 Bonuses
8 Compatibility
9 See also
10 Notes
11 External links
Overview[edit]
Traditional (or "brick and mortar", B&M, live, land-based) venues for playing poker, such as casinos and poker rooms, may be intimidating for novice players and are often located in geographically disparate locations. Also, brick and mortar casinos are reluctant to promote poker because it is difficult for them to profit from it. Though the rake, or time charge, of traditional casinos is often high, the opportunity costs of running a poker room are even higher. Brick and mortar casinos often make much more money by removing poker rooms and adding more slot machines - for example, figures from the Gaming Accounting Firm Joseph Eve estimate that poker accounts for 1% of brick and mortar casino revenues.[3]
Screenshot of open-source PokerTH table
Online venues, by contrast, are dramatically cheaper because they have much smaller overhead costs. For example, adding another table does not take up valuable space like it would for a brick and mortar casino. Online poker rooms also allow the players to play for low stakes (as low as 1¢/2¢) and often offer poker freeroll tournaments (where there is no entry fee), attracting beginners and/or less wealthy clientele.
Online venues may be more vulnerable to certain types of fraud, especially collusion between players. However, they have collusion detection abilities that do not exist in brick and mortar casinos. For example, online poker room security employees can look at the hand history of the cards previously played by any player on the site, making patterns of behavior easier to detect than in a casino where colluding players can simply fold their hands without anyone ever knowing the strength of their holding. Online poker rooms also check players' IP addresses in order to prevent players at the same household or at known open proxy servers from playing on the same tables. Digital device fingerprinting also allows poker sites to recognize and block players who create new accounts in attempts to circumvent prior account bans, restrictions and closures.
History[edit]
Free poker online was played as early as the late 1990s in the form of IRC poker. Planet Poker was the first online card room to offer real money games in 1998.[4] The first real money poker game was dealt on January 1, 1998. Author Mike Caro became the "face" of Planet Poker in October 1999.
The major online poker sites offer varying features to entice new players. One common feature is to offer tournaments called satellites by which the winners gain entry to real-life poker tournaments. It was through one such tournament on PokerStars that Chris Moneymaker won his entry to the 2003 World Series of Poker. He went on to win the main event, causing shock in the poker world, and beginning the poker boom. The 2004 World Series featured three times as many players as in 2003. At least four players in the WSOP final table won their entry through an online cardroom. Like Moneymaker, 2004 winner Greg Raymer also won his entry at the PokerStars online cardroom.
In October 2004, Sportingbet, at the time the world's largest publicly traded online gaming company (SBT.L), announced the acquisition of ParadisePoker.com, one of the online poker industry's first and largest cardrooms. The $340 million acquisition marked the first time an online card room was owned by a public company. Since then, several other card room parent companies have gone public.
In June 2005, PartyGaming, the parent company of the then-largest online cardroom, PartyPoker, went public on the London Stock Exchange, achieving an initial public offering market value in excess of $8 billion. At the time of the IPO, ninety-two percent of Party Gaming's income came from poker operations.
In early 2006, PartyGaming moved to acquire EmpirePoker.com from Empire Online. Later in the year, bwin, an Austrian-based online gambling company, acquired PokerRoom.com. Other poker rooms such as PokerStars that were rumored to be exploring initial public offerings have postponed them.[5]
As of March 2008, there are fewer than forty stand-alone cardrooms and poker networks with detectable levels of traffic. There are however more than 600 independent doorways or 'skins' into the group of network sites.[6] As of January 2009, the majority of online poker traffic occurs on just a few major networks, among them PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and the iPoker Network.
As of February 2010, there are approximately 545 online poker websites.[7] Within the 545 active sites, about two dozen are stand-alone sites (down from 40 in March 2008), while the remaining sites are called “skins” and operate on 21 different shared networks, the largest network being iPoker which has dozens of skins operating on its network.[7] Of all the online poker rooms PokerStars.com is deemed the world’s largest poker site by number of players on site at any one time.[8] By May 2012 PokerStars.com had increased their market share to more than 56%.[9]
The year 2011 is known as the infamous year of Black Friday, when the U.S department of Justice seized the domain names of PokerStars, Full Tilt & Absolute Poker, effectively freezing the bankrolls of their player base.[10] Full Tilt was accused by the DoJ of acting as a Ponzi scheme and scamming players out of $300 million. On the other hand, PokerStars paid $1 billion in fines immediately.
In 2014, PokerStars became the largest Publicly Traded Company in the industry of Poker when businessman David Baazov initiated a takeover bid costing $4.9 billion.[11]
Legality[edit]
From a legal perspective, online poker may differ in some ways from online casino gambling. However, many of the same issues do apply. For a discussion of the legality of online gambling in general, see online gambling.
Online poker is legal and regulated in many countries including several nations in and around the Caribbean Sea, and most notably the United Kingdom.
In the United States, the North Dakota House of Representatives passed a bill in February 2005 to legalize and regulate online poker and online poker card room operators in the state. The legislation required that online poker operations would have to physically locate their entire operations in the state. Testifying before the state Senate Judiciary committee, Nigel Payne, CEO of Sportingbet and owner of Paradise Poker, pledged to relocate to the state if the bill became law.[12]
The measure, however, was defeated by the State Senate in March 2005 after the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to North Dakota attorney general Wayne Stenehjem stating that online gaming "may" be illegal, and that the pending legislation "might" violate the federal Wire Act. However, many legal experts dispute the DOJ's claim.
In response to this and other claims by the DOJ regarding the legality of online poker, many of the major online poker sites stopped advertising their "dot-com" sites in American media. Instead, they created "dot-net" sites that are virtually identical but offer no real money wagering. The sites advertise as poker schools or ways to learn the game for free, and feature words to the effect of "this is not a gambling website."
On October 13, 2006, President Bush officially signed into law the SAFE Port Act, a bill aimed at enhancing security at U.S. ports.[13] Attached to the Safe Port Act was a provision known as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). According to the UIGEA, "unlawful internet gambling" means to place, receive, or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by means of the internet where such bet is unlawful under any law in the State in which the bet is initiated, received, or otherwise made. Thus, the UIGEA prohibits online gambling sites from performing transactions with American financial institutions. As a result of the bill, several large publicly traded poker gaming sites such as PartyPoker, PacificPoker and bwin closed down their US facing operations. The UIGEA has had a devastating effect on the stock value of these companies.[14] Some poker sites, such as PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, Absolute Poker, continued to operate and remained open to US players.[15]
Following passage of UIGEA, former U.S. Senator Al D'Amato joined the Poker Players Alliance (PPA). Part of the PPA's mission is to protect and to advocate for the right of poker players to play online. Sen. D'Amato's responsibilities include Congressional lobbying. In April 2008, the PPA claimed over 1,000,000 members.[16][17]
Other grassroots organizations, including the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative, have formed in opposition to UIGEA, to promote the freedom of individuals to gamble online with the proper safeguards to protect consumers and ensure the integrity of financial transactions.[18]
On November 27, 2009, Department of the Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke announced a six-month delay, until June 1, 2010, for required compliance with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA). The move blocks regulations to implement the legislation which requires the financial services sector to comply with ambiguous and burdensome rules in an attempt to prevent unlawful Internet gambling transactions.
On July 28, 2010, the House Financial Services Committee passed H.R. 2267 by a vote of 41-22-1. The bill would legalize and regulate online poker in the United States.[19][20]
In September 2010, the Washington State Supreme Court upheld a law making playing poker online a felony.[21]
On April 15, 2011, in U. S. v. Scheinberg et al. (10 Cr. 336), the Federal Bureau of Investigation temporarily shut down three major poker .com websites of Full Tilt Poker, Poker Stars, and Absolute Poker, and seized several of their bank accounts. A grand jury charged 11 defendants, including the founders of the poker sites, with bank fraud, money laundering, and violating gambling laws. The prosecutors claim the individuals tricked or influenced U.S. banks into receiving profits from online gambling, an act that violated UIGEA.[22] The same day, former Senator D'Amato released a comment on behalf of the PPA. He asserts that, "Online poker is not a crime and should not be treated as such." D'Amato made no comment on the specific charges raised but promised a response once the "full facts become available."[23] He responded in the Washington Post on April 22.[24] The actions by the Department of Justice were also criticized by gaming law experts, including Professor I. Nelson Rose.."[25]
On September 20, 2011, in response to guidance requested by the states of Illinois and New York regarding the sale of lottery tickets online, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum opinion stating that the Wire Act does not prohibit lottery sales over the internet because it deals solely with wagering on sporting contests. While this opinion does not address online poker specifically, the reasoning employed interprets the Wire Act in such a way that its provisions don't apply to the game of poker.[26]
On August 21, 2012, a federal judge in New York ruled that poker is not gambling under federal law because it is primarily a game of skill, not chance. The ruling resulted in the dismissal of a federal criminal indictment against a man convicted of conspiring to operate an illegal underground poker club. The judge relied in his decision largely on findings by a defense expert who analyzed Internet poker games.[27]
On April 30, 2013, Nevada became the first U.S. state to allow persons physically located within the state and at least 21 years of age to play poker online for money legally.[28]
In late October, Delaware launched its regulated online gambling market. Controlled by the Delaware Lottery, the state offers online casino games in addition to online poker.[29]
On November 21, 2013, New Jersey became the third - and the largest state population-wise - to offer legal real money online gambling to residents and visitors. The industry in the Garden State launched in "soft launch" mode on November 21 with a full-scale launch occurring five days later on November 26, 2013.[30]
On February 25, 2014, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval and Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed the first interstate poker compact, an agreement that will allow online poker players from Nevada to play for real money against players located in Delaware. The compact is limited to online poker only, as that is the only game currently permitted under Nevada law. Should more states enter into the agreement, something that is provided for under the terms of the compact, more games could be offered.[31]
How online poker rooms profit[edit]
Typically, online poker rooms generate the bulk of their revenue via four methods. First, there is the rake. Similar to the vig paid to a bookie, the rake is a fee paid to the house for hosting the game. Rake is collected from most real money ring game pots. The rake is normally calculated as a percentage of the pot based on a sliding scale and capped at some maximum fee. Each online poker room determines its own rake structure.[32] Since the expenses for running an online poker table are smaller than those for running a live poker table, rake in most online poker rooms is much smaller than its brick and mortar counterpart.
Second, hands played in pre-scheduled multi-table and impromptu sit-and-go tournaments are not raked, but rather an entry fee around five to ten percent of the tournament buy-in is added to the entry cost of the tournament. These two are usually specified in the tournament details as, e.g., $20+$2 ($20 represents the buy-in that goes into the prize pool and $2 represents the entry fee, de facto rake). Unlike real casino tournaments, online tournaments do not deduct dealer tips and other expenses from the prize pool.[33]
Third, some online poker sites also offer side games like blackjack, roulettes, or side bets on poker hands where the player plays against "the house" for real money.[34] The odds are in the house's favor in these games, thus producing a profit for the house. Some sites go as far as getting affiliated with online casinos, or even integrating them into the poker room software.
Fourth, like almost all institutions that hold money, online poker sites invest the money that players deposit. Regulations in most jurisdictions exist in an effort to limit the sort of risks sites can take with their clients' money. However, since the sites do not have to pay interest on players' bankrolls even low-risk investments can be a significant source of revenue.
Integrity and fairness[edit]
Randomness of the shuffle[edit]
Many critics question whether the operators of such games - especially those located in jurisdictions separate from most of their players - might be engaging in fraud themselves.[35]
Internet discussion forums are rife with allegations of non-random card dealing, possibly to favour house-employed players or "bots" (poker-playing software disguised as a human opponent), or to give multiple players good hands thus increasing the bets and the rake, or simply to prevent new players from losing so quickly that they become discouraged. However, despite anecdotal evidence to support such claims, others argue that the rake is sufficiently large that such abuses would be unnecessary and foolish. Attempts at manipulative dealing could face a risk of third party detection due to increasingly sophisticated tracking software that could be used to detect any number of unusual patterns, though such analyses are not generally available in the public domain.
Many players claim to see lots of "bad beats" with large hands pitted against others all too often at a rate that seems to be a lot more common than in live games. However, this could be caused by the higher hands per hour at on-line cardrooms. Since online players get to see more hands, their likelihood of seeing more improbable bad beats or randomly large pots is similarly increased.
Many online poker sites are certified by major auditing firms like PricewaterhouseCoopers to review the fairness of the random number generator, shuffle, and payouts for some sites.[36]
Insider cheating[edit]
Insider cheating can occur when a person with trusted access to the system (e.g. an employee of the poker room) uses his position to play poker himself with an unfair advantage. This could be done without the knowledge of the site managers.
Perhaps the first known major case came to light in October 2007, when Absolute Poker acknowledged that its integrity had been breached by an employee, who had been able to play at high stakes while viewing his opponents' hidden "hole" cards.[37] The cheating was first brought to light by the efforts of players, whose saved histories of play showed the employee was playing as only someone who could see their opponents' cards could.[38]
In 2008, UltimateBet became embroiled in a similar scandal, with former employees accused of using a software backdoor to see opponents' cards. UltimateBet confirmed the allegations on May 29.[39] The Kahnawake Gaming Commission announced sanctions against UltimateBet as a result.[40]
Collusion[edit]
More mundane cheating involves collusion between players, or the use of multiple accounts by a single player. Collusion is not limited to online play but can occur in any poker game with three or more players. Most poker rooms claim to actively scan for such activity. For example, in 2007, PokerStars disqualified TheV0id, the winner of the main event of the World Championship of Online Poker for breaching their terms of service.[41]
Differences compared with conventional poker[edit]
There are substantial differences between online poker gaming and conventional, live gaming.
One obvious difference is that players do not sit right across from each other, removing any ability to observe others' reactions and body language. Instead, online poker players learn to focus more keenly on opponents' betting patterns, reaction time, speed of play, use of check boxes/auto plays, opponents' fold/flop percentages, chat box, waiting for the big blind, beginners' tells, and other behavior tells that are not physical in nature. Since poker is a game that requires adaptability, successful online players learn to master the new frontiers of their surroundings.
Another less obvious difference is the rate of play. In brick and mortar casinos the dealer has to collect the cards, shuffle, and deal them after every hand. Due to this and other delays common in offline casinos, the average rate of play is around thirty hands per hour. However, online casinos do not have these delays. The dealing and shuffling are instantaneous, there are no delays relating to counting chips (for a split pot), and on average the play is faster due to "auto-action" buttons (where the player selects his action before his turn). It is not uncommon for an online poker table to average ninety to one hundred hands per hour.
There are many ways in which online poker is considerably cheaper to play than conventional poker. While the rake structures of online poker sites might not differ fundamentally from those in brick and mortar operations, most of the other incidental expenses that are entailed by playing poker in a live room do not exist in online poker. An online poker player can play at home and thus incur no transportation costs to get to and from the poker room. Provided the player already has a somewhat modern computer and an Internet connection, there are no further up-front equipment costs to get started. There are also considerable incidental expenses once on a live poker table. In addition to the rake, tipping the dealers, chip runners, servers and other casino employees is almost universally expected, putting a further drain on a player's profits. Also, whereas an online player can enter and leave tables almost as he pleases, once seated at a live table a player must remain there until he wishes to stop playing, or else go back to the bottom of the waiting list. Food and beverages at casinos are generally expensive even compared to other hospitality establishments in the same city, let alone compared to at home, and casino managers feel little incentive to provide any complimentary food or drink for poker players.[citation needed]
In the brick and mortar casinos, the only real way a player can increase his earnings is to increase his limit, likely encountering better opponents in the process. In the online world, players have another option: play more tables. Unlike a traditional casino where it is physically impossible to play at more than one table at a time, most online poker rooms permit this. Depending on the site and the player's ability to make speedy decisions, a player might play several tables at the same time, viewing them each in a separate window on the computer display. For example, an average profit around $10 per 100 hands at a low-limit game is generally considered to be good play. In a casino, this would earn a player under $4 an hour. After dealer tips, the "winning" player would probably barely break even before any other incidental expenses. In an online poker room, a player with the same win rate playing a relatively easy pace of four tables at once at a relatively sluggish 60 hands per hour each earns about $24/hour on average. The main restriction limiting the number of tables a player can play is the need to make consistently good decisions within the allotted time at every table, but some online players can effectively play up to eight or more tables at once. This can not only increase winnings but can also help to keep a player's income reasonably stable, since instead of staking his entire bankroll on one higher limit table he is splitting his bankroll, wins and losses amongst many lower limit tables, probably also encountering somewhat less skilled opponents in the process.
Another important difference results from the fact that some online poker rooms offer online poker schools that teach the basics and significantly speed up the learning curve for novices. Many online poker rooms also provide free money play so that players may practice these skills in various poker games and limits without the risk of losing real money, and generally offer the hand history of played hands for analysis and discussion using a poker hand converter. People who previously had no way to learn and improve because they had no one to play with now have the ability to learn the game much quicker and gain experience from free-money play.
The limits associated with online poker range down to far lower levels than the table limits at a traditional casino. The marginal cost of opening each online table is so minuscule that on some gambling sites players can find limits as low as $.01–$.02. By comparison, at most brick and mortar establishments the lowest limits are often $1–$2.
Few (if any) online poker sites allow action to be taken "in the dark", while this is usually allowed and applied by players in real gaming houses. It is also not uncommon for online poker sites to not allow a player the option of showing their hand before folding if they are the giving up the pot to the last remaining bettor. This practice is also typically allowed in casinos.
Currency issues[edit]
One issue exclusive to online poker is the fact that players come from around the world and deal in a variety of currencies. This is not an issue in live poker where everyone present can be expected to carry the local currency. Most online poker sites operate games exclusively in U.S. dollars, even if they do not accept players based in the United States. There are two methods by which poker sites can cater to players who do not deal with U.S. dollars on a regular basis.
The first method is to hold players' funds in their native currencies and convert them only when players enter and leave games. The main benefit of this method for players is to ensure that bankrolls are not subject to exchange rate fluctuations against their local currencies while they are not playing. Also, most sites that use this method usually apply the same exchange rate when a player cashes out of a game as when he bought in, ensuring that players do not expend significant sums simply by entering and leaving games.
The other method is to require players to convert their funds when depositing them. However, some sites that use this policy do accept payments in a variety of currencies and convert funds at a lower premium compared to what banks and credit card companies would charge. Others only accept payment in U.S. dollars. One benefit of this method is that a player who constantly "tops up" his chip stack to a constant level (some poker rooms have an optional feature that can perform this function automatically) does not have to worry about rounding issues when topping up with a nominal sum – these could add up over time.
Players may also make use of ewallets, virtual wallets that will allow players to store their funds online in the currency of their choice. This allows them to deposit at poker sites without worrying about further currency conversion.[42]
Many online poker sites, particularly those that serve the United States, began adopting cryptocurrencies in 2013 as a means of bypassing the UIGEA. The majority of these poker rooms accept deposits in Bitcoin and then convert them to U.S. dollars, performing this process in reverse when paying out winnings. There also exist cryptocurrency-only operators who denominate their games in Bitcoin or fractions of a bitcoin, avoiding fiat currencies entirely.[43]
Poker tools[edit]
Main article: Poker tools
Various types of useful software applications are available for online play. Such tools include hand database programs that save, sort, and recall all hand histories played online. Scanning the active tables for known players and displaying previous statistics from hands with those players next to their name(known as a Heads up display or HUD) is a common feature of these programs and is allowed by most sites. Other programs include hand re-players and odds, equity or variance calculators. Some software goes as far as to provide you with quizzes, or scan your previously played hands and flag likely mistakes.
Bonuses[edit]
Many online poker sites offer incentives to players, especially new depositors, in the form of bonuses. Usually, the bonuses are paid out incrementally as certain amounts are raked by the player. For example, a site may offer a player who deposits $100 a bonus of $50 that awards $5 every time the player rakes $25. To earn the full $50 bonus sum, the player would have to rake $250 in total.
In addition, several online cardrooms have developed VIP programs to reward regular players. Poker rooms often offer additional bonuses for players who wish to top-up their accounts. These are known as reload bonuses.
Many online rooms also offer rakeback and some offer poker propping.
See the online casino article for more on general information on bonuses.
Compatibility[edit]
Online poker rooms typically operate through a separate piece of software. This may be cross-platform, for example using a Java applet or WebGL, allowing the program to run equally well on various computer systems such as Windows, Linux and macOS. However, many online poker rooms offer downloadable programs designed only for Microsoft Windows which require a compatibility layer such as Wine to run on Macintosh or Linux computers. Some sites do make available clients that run natively on Mac or Linux.
Some poker rooms have started offering poker on portable devices (mobile phones, smart phones, PDAs). The functionality of mobile online poker software is much the same as computer-based clients, albeit adapted to the interface of mobile devices. The player must be able to receive a WiFi or cell phone signal in order to play.
See also[edit]
Computer poker players
Poker companies
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ "Going All In For Online Poker". Newsweek. 2005-08-15. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
Jump up ^ "Financial Times: Online Poker 2004 revenues and 2008 forecast". Us.ft.com. 2003-08-28. Archived from the original on 2009-05-20. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
^ Jump up to: a b Eve, Grant. "Grant Eve Testimony 111711 - United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs". The Future of Internet Gaming. Retrieved 11 January 2013.
Jump up ^ "Online Poker Real Money USA - History & Legality". USPokerSite.net.
Jump up ^ Pokerstars reveals hand with plans for £1bn float The Times
Jump up ^ "Poker networks". Pokerscout.com. 2007-01-01. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
^ Jump up to: a b "Poker Scout Online Poker Room Complete List". Pokerscout.com. 2010-02-11. Retrieved 2010-02-11.
Jump up ^ "Poker Scout Online Poker Room Traffic Report". Pokerscout.com. 2010-02-11. Retrieved 2010-02-11.
Jump up ^ "Poker History Market Share". Pokerhistory.eu. 2012-08-10. Retrieved 2012-08-10.
Jump up ^ "Black Friday: Reliving Poker’s Darkest Day Five Years Later". Retrieved 2017-06-11.
Jump up ^ Heitner, Darren. "How A $4.9 Billion Purchase Of PokerStars Could Change Online Poker In America". Forbes. Retrieved 2017-06-11.
Jump up ^ Rafferty, Tom (2005-03-08). "Bismarck Tribune". Bismarck Tribune. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
Jump up ^ "Bush Signs Safe Port Act". Forbes. 2006-10-13. Archived from the original on 2006-10-18. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
Jump up ^ "UIGEA Safe Port Act Legislation effect on Online Poker Rooms". WhichPoker. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
Jump up ^ "PokerStars Will Keep Serving American Customers". CardPlayer. 2006-10-12. Retrieved 2013-07-23.
Jump up ^ Players, Poker (2008-04-21). "Poker Players Alliance press release: Poker Players Alliance Reaches Million Member Milestone". Pokerplayersalliance.org. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
Jump up ^ "Boston University washington Journalism Center: Gamblers betting on Frank to overturn law". Bu.edu. Archived from the original on 2008-12-05. Retrieved 2017-02-13.
Jump up ^ Mehaffey, John (8 August 2013). "Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative to Rep. Barton: Allow Credit Card Deposits". US Poker. Retrieved 29 March 2014.
Jump up ^ Wall Street Journal: House Panel Votes To Approve Bill Legalizing Online Gambling
Jump up ^ Bloomberg.com: House Panel Passes Measure to Legalize Some Internet Gambling
Jump up ^ Pulkkinen, LeviE (2010-09-23). "High Court upholds state ban on Internet poker, online gambling". Seattle P-I.
Jump up ^ Popper, Nathaniel (2011-04-16). "FBI calls Internet poker sites' bet". Los Angeles Times.
Jump up ^ Kemp, Caroyln (2011-04-15). "PPA Comments on Federal Action Against Online Poker Companies". Poker Player's Alliance. Retrieved 2011-04-17.
Jump up ^ D'Amato, Alphonse; Al D'Amato (2011-04-22). "Make online poker legal? It already is". Washington Post.
Jump up ^ Rose, I. Nelson (2011-04-22). "Black Friday: A Step Too Far". gamblingandthelaw.com.
Jump up ^ Seitze, Virginia A. - US Assistant Attorney General (2011-09-20). "Whether Proposals by Illinois and New York to Use the Internet and Out-of-State Transaction Processors to Sell Lottery Tickets to In-State Adults Violate the Wire Act" (PDF). Retrieved 5 August 2017.
Jump up ^ Washington Post
Jump up ^ "Just In: Ultimate Poker To Deal First Real-Money Online Poker Hand In Nevada Today". CardPlayer. Retrieved 22 July 2013.
Jump up ^ "Online gaming called 'new frontier' for states". LVRJ. Retrieved 25 February 2014.
Jump up ^ "New Jersey Online Gambling Soft Launch Lineup Revealed, Play Begins". OnlinePokerReport. Retrieved 25 February 2014.
Jump up ^ "Nevada, Delaware signing online poker partnership". LVRJ. Retrieved 25 February 2014.
Jump up ^ Buttons, Chris (25 March 2014). "How Poker is Online". Carbonpoker. Retrieved 8 April 2014.
Jump up ^ "How online poker rooms profit?". The Daily Poker. Archived from the original on 2014-09-21. Retrieved 2017-02-13. }}
Jump up ^ "Side Games". Merge Gaming. Retrieved 8 April 2014.
Jump up ^ Holloway, Chad (26 November 2013). "Todd "DanDruff" Witteles Discusses PokerFraudAlert, Cheating in Poker & Much More". Pokernews. Retrieved 29 March 2014.
Jump up ^ Harlan, Mark; Derossi, Chris (2011-04-27). Winning at Internet Poker For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. p. 23. ISBN 9781118070000.
Jump up ^ "Online poker cheating blamed on employee". MSNBC. 2007-10-19. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
Jump up ^ Levitt, Steven D. (2007-09-20). "How Not to Cheat - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com". Freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
Jump up ^ "Poker site cheating plot a high-stakes whodunit". MSNBC. 2008-09-18. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
Jump up ^ "Kahnawake Gaming Commission Announces Sanctions on UltimateBet: Russ Hamilton Named". Pokernews.com. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
Jump up ^ "Card Player Magazine". Cardplayer.com. Retrieved 2009-03-19.
Jump up ^ Gentile, Michael (5 December 2013). "ACH and eWallets Provide Deposit Solutions for Online Gaming Sites in New Jersey". Pokerfuse. Retrieved 29 March 2014.
Jump up ^ Singh, Michael (29 January 2017). "Cryptocurrencies Provide New Processing Channels for Online Gambling Operators". ProfessionalRakeback. Retrieved 5 August 2017.
External links[edit]
Online Cardrooms and Review Sites at DMOZ
[hide]
v
t
e
Poker
Index of poker articles
Outline of poker
Overview
Betting
Cheating
Glossary
History
Poker boom
Tournaments
Play
Elements
Chip
Position
Pot
Playing card
Hands
Non-standard
Tell
Plays
Aggression
Bluff
Check-raise
Draw
Isolation
Protection
Steal
Variations
Draw poker
five-card draw
Stud poker
five-card stud
seven-card stud
Community card poker
Texas hold 'em
Omaha hold 'em
Greek hold 'em
Six-plus hold 'em
Three card poker
three card brag
Four card poker
Chinese poker
Open-face Chinese poker
Strategy
Fundamental theorem of poker
Morton's theorem
Pot odds
Slow play
Computing
Computer poker player
Online poker
Poker tools
Category
Commons
WikiProject
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_poker&oldid=799347940"
Categories:
Poker
Online games
Online gambling
Hidden categories:
Articles lacking reliable references from February 2017
All articles lacking reliable references
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from May 2009
Articles with DMOZ links
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
Български
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
Français
한국어
Italiano
Magyar
Македонски
Română
Suomi
Svenska
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 7 September 2017, at 04:14.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: img

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: Text document with red question mark.svg

attrs: href class

value: td

attrs: href title

value: b

value: span

value: i

value: small

value: tbody

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-unreliable_sources

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
/wiki/Freeroll_(poker)
mw-redirect
Freeroll (poker)

values:
/wiki/Device_fingerprinting
mw-redirect
Device fingerprinting

values:
/wiki/Empire_Online
mw-redirect
Empire Online

values:
/wiki/Bill_(proposed_law)
mw-redirect
Bill (proposed law)

values:
/wiki/Cassava_Enterprises
mw-redirect
Cassava Enterprises

values:
/wiki/Absolute_Poker
mw-redirect
Absolute Poker

values:
/wiki/Timothy_F._Geithner
mw-redirect
Timothy F. Geithner

values:
/wiki/Ben_S._Bernanke
mw-redirect
Ben S. Bernanke

values:
/wiki/Washington_State_Supreme_Court
mw-redirect
Washington State Supreme Court

values: Edit section: How online poker rooms profit

values:
/wiki/Computer_game_bot
mw-redirect
Computer game bot

values:
/wiki/Random_number_generator
mw-redirect
Random number generator

values: Edit section: Differences compared with conventional poker

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (May 2009)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values:
/wiki/Poker_terms#D
mw-redirect
Poker terms

values:
/wiki/Fiat_currencies
mw-redirect
Fiat currencies

values:
/wiki/Smart_phone
mw-redirect
Smart phone

values:
/wiki/Computer_poker_players
mw-redirect
Computer poker players

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.newsweek.com/id/56438

values:
nofollow
http://www.pokerscout.com/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21381022/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26563848

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Category:Articles lacking reliable references from February 2017

values: Category:All articles lacking reliable references

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from May 2009

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Online_poker
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: Онлайн покер – Bulgarian

values: 온라인 포커 – Korean

values: Онлајн покер – Macedonian

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Online_poker rootpage-Online_poker vector-experimental-print-styles vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view