The standard is basically the same as it is for summary judgment; the real differences are 1) what the decision is based on, and 2) timing. Judgment as a matter of law is moved for during the trial phase, as opposed to before trial (when you move for summary judgment). And whereas summary judgment is based on the evidence that is unearthed in discovery and will be admissible at trial, judgment as a matter of law is based on what evidence and testimony are actually presented at trial.
But a similar standard is used for both, viz. looking at the evidence, assuming the non-moving party's witnesses and evidence will be believed and that all reasonable inferences will be drawn from that evidence and testimony in favor of the non-moving party, could a reasonable jury decide the case only one way (i.e., in favor of the moving party)? Usually, the non-moving party is the plaintiff, and the moving party is the defendant, so you can substitute those terms into the above if that makes it easier to grasp. Hope that helps.
For more info, consult Fed. R. Civ. P. 50.