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."
Think of the children? (Score:1, Interesting)
Not that I know of.
I have seen people pay for skyrocketing college tuition with winnings from online poker.
50/50 (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, since the US Gambling ban the whole World has seen a dramatic reduction in the most obnoxious flashing gif adverts since punch the monkey.
Do I hate censorship or annoying flashing ads more...? Honestly I really don't know...
Re:Think of the children? (Score:4, Interesting)
As someone who remembers the phrase "the internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it", I have to ask, exactly what IS "regulated internet gambling", how does one tell it apart from "unregulated", and exactly how do you stop the "unregulated" from taking place?
Excuse me, Mr. Bachus... (Score:3, Interesting)
I wasn't aware that gambling sites that operate outside of the United States fell under the US' legal jurisdiction. Is there any kind of law, convention, or agreement (maybe from the UN?) that supports this?
Because otherwise, I see this as an argument FOR legalizing gambling- if there are sites outside of US jurisdiction where it is available, then criminalizing it just cuts off potential tax revenue when the gamblers take their business elsewhere.
Re:Think of the children? (Score:3, Interesting)
I know many many kids who's introduction to gambling was playing poker with their buddies for pennies...
I'm like that too. Except I never moved on from the pennies, I realize that in official settings the odds are heavily stacked against me, and do not view gambling as a source of income.
I also have a limit on my losses, and once I hit that, there's nothing short of a gun to my daughter's head that will make me play that night again.
Re:welcome to the age of the internet (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually, that is what happened. I'm a European playing online poker legally on a number of online sites. Immediately following the ban just about all the US players disappeared; within a few weeks the stronger players started trickling back (I guess these were the ones making money regularly, so they had an incentive to find a way around).
Now these sites are back to at least the level of US players they had before the ban, so I imagine the methods of circumvention have filtered down.
Re:poker is NOT gambling (Score:3, Interesting)
This is mostly wrong. As someone who played twenty hours of poker or so every week for a decade, I can tell you none of the points on your list have much effect on your long-term winnings.
Assuming you're not a complete idiot, there are three qualities that separate the winners from the losers:
None of the items on my winners list have nothing to do with actually being there in person.
Re:Bad Idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wanna Bet? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:poker is NOT gambling (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would that be incorrect?
:)).
The only reason it'd be better to play 5 hands on different tables is that it could be done concurrently (thus averaging higher returns as a function of time).
Removing the time constraint (since you did not mention it), a good poker player would be better off playing the the 5 hands (of 10) at a single table, since each hand played represents an opportunity to gain information about your opponents. If you only play small-stakes poker, then the value of that information is low. But once you begin playing big stakes poker, it's that information that gives you the slight edge to come out a winner in the end -- the value of that information is pretty high.
So, it's not completely incorrect. It's incorrect for a certain style of playing, at certain money levels, against certain competition.
I played small-stakes poker for years online as a hobby/supplemental income, averaging about $80/hr (maximum 6 tables at a time). Now that I have kids, I play infrequently -- but at bigger stakes tables, and I average around $95/hr. The main reason for the switch is the amazing number of bots that play at the lower-stakes tables. I just don't find it as much fun to play against bots, even though once you figure them out, you can abuse them handily (though good ones leave the table after you abuse them 2 or 3 times