A Push To End the Online Gambling Ban 205
Hugh Pickens writes "Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts has introduced legislation that would roll back a ban on Internet gambling enacted when Republicans led Congress. The legislation would allow the Treasury Department to license and regulate online gambling companies that serve American customers. Frank's bill has roughly two dozen co-sponsors and the backing of the The Poker Players Alliance, with over a million members. But opponents are mobilizing to defeat the bill including social conservatives and professional and amateur sports organizations, which say more gambling opportunities could threaten the integrity of their competition. 'Illegal offshore Internet gambling sites are a criminal enterprise, and allowing them to operate unfettered in the United States would present a clear danger to our youth, who are subject to becoming addicted to gambling at an early age,' says Representative Spencer Bachus, Republican of Alabama and the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee. Another powerful roadblock could be the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada. 'Gaming is an important industry to the state, and anything that affects it will be reviewed carefully,' says Reid's spokesman."
Re:Think of the children? (Score:5, Insightful)
And how many people failed to attend college because they, or their parents, gambled away the college fund? I'm not saying gambling should be illegal, I just think it's silly to argue for gambling the perspective of the winners (and only the winners).
Captain Oxymoron to the Rescue! (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, the doublethink [wikipedia.org] boggles the mind.
If the gambling ban is repealed, these sites would immediately cease to be "criminal enterprises", and become legal offshore Internet gambling sites.
If the gambling ban is repealed and these sites chose to operate "unfettered within the United States", they'd then become legal, American gambling sites.
The whole fracking point, Rep. Bachus, is to eliminate these "offshore criminal enterprises". By making it legal, you can bring them onshore, where they can be taxed and regulated, just like state lotteries and privately-owned casinos.
Speaking of privately-owned casinos, at least Sen. Reid of Nevada has a "legitimate" reason to be a roadblock: He just doesn't want to see Vegas have any competition.
The dumb part about Reid's objection is that the legalization of online poker would bring a lot of new players into the game. Some of 'em might even end up enjoying it so much they end up going to Vegas to play the game in meatspace. Quit acting like the RIAA of gaming, buddy, and you just might make a few more bucks.
So... (Score:1, Insightful)
Barney Frank was offered a large campaign contribution by gambling interests.
Nevada (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, if you've ever driven North on I-15 on a friday afternoon out of California, people go to Vegas in droves despite that California has easily accessible Indian gaming with all of the same games/slots (except for Sports betting) that Vegas casinos do.
The Internet might take a small portion of the market for gaming, but the lion's share save up their "gambling budget" and take a trip to Vegas or a local casino/resort for the experience of all the non-gaming activities and gamble in an environment that makes it fun even when you're losing.
Now, if the internet could comp you free beers in the comfort of your home, Mr. Reid can start to worry.
Vice laws. (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we also end the drug and prostitution ban? Just saying.
It could pass (Score:4, Insightful)
But that aside (a big issue to put aside, but anyway) I wouldn't be so sure that the bill won't pass. As we see all over the country, state governments have been steadily allowing more and more gambling purely as a way to increase the tax revenue in difficult times, so the trend is towards more gambling, not less. The way they see it is not as an issue of rights through. What they see is all this money going out to overseas companies without the US government being given a chance to keep a share for itself, which in their mind is the real crime here.
So...illegal things are criminal? (Score:3, Insightful)
AKA: Illegal (things) are a criminal (thing).
No kidding! If it becomes legal, then it's no longer a criminal enterprise now is it? He needs to give a better reason why it should remain illegal than just because it's illegal now.
Re:Think of the children? (Score:3, Insightful)
Reasons to support poker players (Score:4, Insightful)
Playing around a kitchen table or in cyberspace, the same talents and skills required to win at poker hold true. Observing betting patterns and watching when players fold are just as critical when playing poker over the Internet as when playing in person.
In addition, since poker is not a "house game" like blackjack and others, the game requires players to compete against other players. This characteristic is true whether someone is playing online or offline.
Poker is a game with a predominance of skill. Like chess, poker is a "thinking man's" game which relies on mathematics, psychology and money management.
Billions of tax revenue is being lost.
According to an economic analysis, 3.3 billion in federal tax revenue and addition 1 billion in state tax revenue could be raised if the federal government were to regulate Internet poker.
Poker is a source of charity.
In 2006, millions of dollars were raisedfor local and national charities through poker tournaments. One event in D.C. featuring 15 Members of Congress raised more than $288,000 to fight cancer.
Poker is one of the great American pastimes.
The game has been enjoyed by presidents, generals, Supreme Court Justices, Members of Congress and average Americans for more than 150 years.
Playing Poker Online Is Simply an American Tradition Evolving into the 21st Century
Americans have played poker throughout history. Playing poker on the Internet is simply an example of an American tradition evolving into the 21st century. It is unfathomable that poker, an American pastime and game of true skill, should be banned for the millions who enjoy playing responsibly.
75 percent of Americans oppose banning online poker.
According to national polling, a vast majority of Americans oppose federal efforts to ban online poker. Online Poker can be safe and regulated.
Appropriate federal regulation can ensure that minors are kept out of sites, services are provided to problem gamblers and the proper taxes are collected. The current system does nothing to protect children, problem gamblers and it is allowing billions in tax revenue to go overseas.
Online Poker vs. Online Horse Racing Betting?
If Congress allows me to bet on horses and state lotteries online, why can't I play a skill game like poker with other consenting adults?
Prohibitions don't work.
The UIGEA effectively bans online poker in the U.S. and drives those players underground. Meanwhile, poker continues to grow in popularity nationwide.
Re:poker is NOT gambling (Score:2, Insightful)
Given that #2 and #3 are substantially less useful in online poker, it's closer to gambling that it is to a "game of skill," particularly for the vast majority of the population with less than stellar probability skills (see the entire population of people playing the lottery).
Again, I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to gamble, just that it's a tad silly to argue it from the perspective of the winners.
Re:Think of the children? (Score:3, Insightful)
Regulated gambling pays taxes to the regulating government, unregulated gambling pays it to some other government(where it is considered "regulated") or not at all.
Unless they can figure out a way to region-code gambling and keep all the money, they'd rather make it ineffectually illegal.
I'd rather have legal gambling and keep some of the money, than illegal gambling and have some island in the Pacific get everything, but apparently politics has little to do with rationality.
This is about poker, and hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
A major proponent of this bill is the "Poker Players Alliance" (http://pokerplayersalliance.org/). They've been lobbying for several years now; they formed around the time Bill First put the UIGEA into a port security bill using a procedural move.
I think the majority of people who are passionate about seeing this bill pass are poker enthusiasts who just want to be able to play poker online as a hobby. I don't give a damn if they legalize online slot machines or keno, and I think it's generally ridiculous to utilize such things. At least in Vegas, you get free drinks while wasting your money. But poker is a game of skill in the long run.
The UIGEA was ethically bankrupt:
* It carved out exceptions, such as betting on horses
* 43 States have State Lotteries, aka, the "Tax On People Who Are Bad At Math". These are games which, like typical casino games, are inherently "unbeatable". They are pure chance, and stacked very heavily against the player.
At this point, millions of people are still playing poker online, but they don't enjoy any sort of regulatory protection, and the United States does not enjoy any tax revenue from it; although the UIGEA burdens our banks with a significant cost of compliance by trying to force them to screen out transactions intended to move money to the online poker houses.
As far as Harry Reid goes, I think online poker has been a net benefit to Vegas; huge numbers of players visit for the World Series of Poker each year, as well as a bunch of lesser events. And those numbers have dwindled since the UIGEA passed in 2006.
Re:So...illegal things are criminal? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:poker is NOT NOT gambling (Score:1, Insightful)
Poker is not a pure game of skill. It is a gambling game that requires skill as well.
The random ordering of the cards obviously has a major impact on the outcome of a single game. In the long run the average outcome can be significantly affected by the players' relative skills, but the variance of results still grows (i.e. in reality you do not get to divide your winnings or losses by the number of times you played and so your undivided result does not converge to the average). A good player who gets dealt a few miserable hands they can't do much with is not guaranteed, nor more likely, to subsequently receive a run of good hands to "make-up" their average to their "theoretical performance level".
If you think poker is a pure game of skill, why don't you allow the deck to be completely "fixed" by the dealer? After all, if the random distribution of cards doesn't affect the result, why do you need it to be truly random? You may as well say that horse-race betting is a game of skill as make that claim of poker because careful analysis of the history of the horse and the condition of the track can give you information on who is going to win.
The multiple rounds and concept of "bluffing" in poker makes it harder (but not impossible) to mathematically analyze (and virtually impossible to do so mentally during a game). As it is not really possible to work out the optimal move mentally, the quality of a player's approximate heuristics (built up by experience) is an important factor to consider. The gap between a novice player who has not had enough experience to build up heuristics and an expert who has developed heuristics covering most situations is large enough that it may seem that skill is the only significant input, but at its base poker is still gambling.
Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that #2 and #3 are substantially less useful in online poker, it's closer to gambling that it is to a "game of skill," particularly for the vast majority of the population with less than stellar probability skills (see the entire population of people playing the lottery).
Incorrect. You're presuming that all four factors are equally important. But in reality, especially at low-stakes games, skill with probability (#1) is far more important than any of the others.
Poker is a game of situational tactics and strategy. Luck is a factor because you don't know which cards are going to come next, but on the whole it's still a game of skill, because skill is what lets you recognize good bets and stay away from bad bets.
Overall, luck is no more important to poker than it is to investing in stocks or selling insurance. You never know exactly what the outcome will be in any particular case, but you have a damn good idea of how likely each outcome is, and you can plan for that in the long run.
What were they before... ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Before they were illegal, they weren't criminal enterprises. If you repeal the law that bans them, they will no longer be criminal enterprises.
So, they're illegal because they're criminal because they're illegal.
Re:poker is NOT gambling (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that #2 and #3 are substantially less useful in online poker
Physical tells are unavailable, but they're overrated anyway. Identifying the betting patterns of your opponents (and making your own patterns not obvious) is more valuable and works just as well online.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
What if all of the players of a game have the same skill at probability?
Then the other factors become more important.
"Skill with reading people" exists in online poker. Contrary to popular belief, "reading" isn't only (or even mostly) about recognizing facial expressions or body language to figure out whether someone has a strong hand. It's also about recognizing patterns of action: a raise means a lot more coming from someone who's folded his last 10 hands than from someone who raises 50% of the time, for instance.
"Skill at hiding your own tells", therefore, also exists in online poker. But it's not about maintaining a poker face, it's about being unpredictable. Or even better, being just predictable enough to give your opponents a false impression that you can use to your advantage. If you're the guy who's folded the last 10 hands, you might conclude that it's time to raise even with a bad hand, because your opponents will believe you have a good hand based on your past behavior.
Now, what if all the players at the table have exactly the same skill level in all these areas? In that case, luck is the only thing separating the players, and it's time to find a different table, because no one can expect to come out ahead.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Investing in stocks is a game of luck unless you have the resources of buffet or lynch. It's a random walk and no amount of studying of historical data is going to predict the future. Remember when world comm was a sure thing and nothing could ever unseat the car companies?
Re:poker is NOT gambling (Score:2, Insightful)
...you have zero idea about the composition of the 'deck' and how the cards are dealt. You also have zero idea exactly whom you are playing against, and if/how they are communicating and cooperating.
Game of skill? yeah...you against the program and its operators. Not against the other 'players' or the cards.