SKILL GAMES

Dominant Factor Test in Action

Under the Dominant Factor Test, the key question is: Is skill more influential than chance in determining the winner?

​

Games where dice rolls, random number generators, or unpredictable outcomes play only a minor role are more likely to be considered legal skill-based contests.

​

In Texas, this standard has led to the acceptance of certain skill-based activities, including fantasy sports, which have been classified as games of skill rather than chance. So, if you’re a fan of these interactive, strategic experiences, Texas is a game-friendly state for you!

​

No Recording or Visual Aids

To preserve fairness and integrity, the use of any recording or visual aids—including videos, cameras, smartphones, or even pen and paper—is strictly prohibited during gameplay. Any form of recording is considered cheating and may result in immediate removal from the premises if a player is caught or suspected of violating this policy.

​

Skill Games Are Legal in the State of Texas

 

The Element of Skill

• Gambling laws apply to games involving prize, chance, and consideration (payment and risk of loss).

• To avoid being labeled as gambling, a game’s outcome must be governed by skill, not chance.
   

Courts use various tests to weigh skill against chance:

• Dominant Factor Test: Determines whether skill or chance primarily influences the game’s outcome.

• Material Element Test: Considers whether chance plays a significant role.

• Any Chance Test: Evaluates whether any chance is involved.

• The test used can determine whether a game is a legal contest of skill or illegal gambling.

​

Dominant Factor Test

• This test asks whether the outcome depends more on participants’ relative skill than chance events.

• Dice rolls or random number generators should have minimal impact on determining the winner.

• The primary question is whether chance or skill dominates the decision-making process.

• In Texas, skill-based gaming has gained acceptance, including fantasy sports classified as games of skill rather than chance. So, if you’re a fan of skill-based games, Texas is a friendly place to enjoy them!

​

No Recording or Visual Aids

The use of any recording devices, including videos, cameras, or even pen and paper, is strictly prohibited during skill games. Engaging in such practices is deemed cheating and may result in immediate removal from the premises if one is caught or suspected of violating this rule. It is essential to adhere to this policy to ensure fair play and maintain the integrity of the games.

 

Legal Resources

• In a pivotal decision that reverberates through the Lone Star State, a Texas judge has declared that widely used entertainment terminals, which have stirred considerable debate, fall comfortably within the bounds of legality, premised on the requisite display of skill for successful participation under state law. Judge Laurine Blake of Fannin County presided over the landmark hearing and expressed her initial judgment, seizing the mantle as the first Texas jurist to render an opinion on the contentious legitimacy of such gaming apparatus. 
   

• In Texas, skill-based machines are legal but if it is chance-based it is illegal.

​

The State of Texas In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00011-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant
V.
5 GAMBLING MACHINES, Appellees

​

On Appeal from the 336th District Court
Fannin County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV-23-46217

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
Chief Justice Stevens dissenting without opinion

​

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a post-seizure show-cause hearing, the trial court determined that five devices seized from a Fannin County convenience store are not gambling devices as that term is defined in Section 47.01(4) of the Texas Penal Code. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 47.01(4).

The parties to the show-cause hearing were the State, Appellant, and the Appellees, S&M, Inc., the owner and operator of Quick Stop Food Store in Savoy, Texas; POM of Texas LLC, Inc., the “software manufacturer” of the seized machines (referred to as Pace-O-Matic or “Pace”); and Republic Amusements, LLC, the Texas “operator” for Pace. We refer to Appellees, collectively, as Pace.

The trial court made its ruling via thirty-four findings of fact and twenty-one conclusions of law. As a result of those findings and conclusions, the trial court ordered the return of the devices themselves, as well as the return of cash seized at the same time as the devices.

Via a consolidated brief, the State appeals. The State’s brief, however, does not contain a standard of review. As shown below, a trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed with deference. Nor does the State specify which particular finding(s) it challenges. Generally, this must be done.

​

Review of the Trial Court’s Factual Findings
The State asserts that “[t]he trial court erred in finding that the devices seized were not gambling devices and the cash seized did not constitute proceeds from gambling.”

​

Analysis Regarding Cash Proceeds

The trial court entered a fact-finding that the seized cash proceeds at issue are not proceeds of gambling activities: The State did not present any evidence that the Seized Funds were proceeds of gambling. The State did not trace the Seized Funds to any act of gambling. The Movants presented evidence to the contrary and demonstrated that the Seized Funds were not proceeds of gambling. The State admits that the cash proceeds seized are not gambling proceeds if the seized machines are not gambling devices. In light of the trial court’s fact-findings regarding the nature of the devices, which we affirm, and given the State’s concession that the nature of the devices 9 dictates the outcome regarding the seized cash proceeds, we affirm the trial court’s finding of fact that the seized cash proceeds are not gambling proceeds.

 

Conclusion

Based on the circumstances of this case—the evidence presented to the trial court, the factual findings of the trial court, the issue presented on appeal, and the deferential standard of review—we affirm the challenged factual findings of the trial court. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

 

Date Submitted: October 9, 2024

Date Decided:  April 30, 2025

STEVENS, C.J., dissents without opinion.

 

Jeff Rambin

Justice

​

See legal documentation here >>