$33 Million In Poker Winnings Seized By US Govt 465
An anonymous reader writes "A New York Times story reports that, 'Opening a new front in the government's battle against Internet gambling, federal prosecutors have asked four American banks to freeze tens of millions of dollars in payments owed to people who play poker online. ... "It's very aggressive, and I think it's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors," Mr. Rose said. He added that it was not clear what law would cover the seizure of money belonging to poker players, as opposed to the money of the companies involved.' Many players are reporting that their cashout checks have bounced."
Re:Lame Gov (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, let's see, you seem to be thinking the Government is one monolithic entity, that can only process one thing at a time. In reality, it's multi-taking, multi-processing, and otherwise engaged in doing a lot of things at once. More than likely, none of the people involved in this situation have anything to do with the economy in any meaningful decision-making way. Their concern is elsewhere.
So yeah, you're just making a joke, but it's not funny, because it's simply not true. Don't go on the White-Collar comedy tour.
Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's push poker underground too! (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like a great idea to me to push poker off of a safe online format and into illegal and sometimes dangerous poker rooms. Sure many people will choose not to gamble - but what exactly is the cost in lives that justifies that?
I play on FullTiltPoker all the time. It's safe and I can play for literally as little as 10 cents for a full tournament. How is that worse than having some of the same people venture into big games that aren't legal, they can't afford? You think gambling is a problem? Wait until those same people with gambling problems get in front of a loan shark, or shot because they can't pay.
Great move.
Laws, schmores (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah, you're missing the big picture...
Since the laws against internet gambling are themselves illegal [slashdot.org], it's important to put the casinos out of business so that they can't keep on embarrassing the government and claiming compensation year on year.
Just splendid... (Score:5, Interesting)
I happen to be a better than average poker player. Just today, I played in the $60 Freezeout at a local casino (died pushing an 18 outer), came home, played some low-limit NLHE and Omaha H/L PL on PokerStars and Full Tilt.
Joined the PPA - Poker Players Alliance - when it formed and hoped the UIGEA would get some attention. Well, not the way we hoped!
Since I make the vast majority of my poker money from live games in brick and mortar casinos, this newest stupidity doesn't hurt my bankroll directly. It does however, limit what I use online poker for...practice. I can play 4-6 tables at one time online, so I can see many, many more hands per hour than live at a single table.
I do own poker simulation software, so I can use that for a similar purpose. The issue is that the software AI is nothing like a human opponent.
I don't know the numbers the PPA is telling Congress, but I recall reading that if internet poker were taxed, the annual nut was over $10 billion. That's not small change.
This is a prime example of solving a problem that doesn't exist in the most ignorant way possible. Give me a freaking break.
Re:that's what you get for breaking the law (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait, what? You wrote a software package that did what? Explain this please.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Let's push poker underground too! (Score:4, Interesting)
DC used to have the highest gun violence and murder rates in the country. The decline does seem to have some correlation with the widespread-ed-ness of the internet...
Re:Another reason not to gamble online (Score:1, Interesting)
There's no guarantee... but over time such a thing would show up in the statistics... and the players would find out... and the poker room would find itself out of business.
Collusion among players is a much bigger problem for online poker than the house skewing the games. And even that seems to not be very prevalent. And online poker rooms spend some amount of resources trying to catch colluders as well. Collusion is easy to see if you can see all the cards...
Re:Lame Gov (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Another reason not to gamble online (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering they can't even prevent former employees from doing it, I'd say yeah, you're right. (Google NioNio if you don't know the story.)
Re:Another reason not to gamble online (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't matter. Your opponents are still other players. Someone always wins every hand - the house never "wins". The house just takes a rake out of every pot.
I used to work as a programmer in a large Nevada casino.
The house regularly hires "shills" with good poker playing skills to sit at the table. The shills get a salary and the casino gets their winnings. That is how the house increases it's take
I see no reason why online casinos would not do the same thing.
Re:Lame Gov (Score:5, Interesting)
Dude, this is just change you can believe in.
Seriously, the thought of winning is what drives most gamblers who are out of control. Almost everyone I know who does online gambling says they do it "to win" and not for "entertainment" or "to pass the time". Of course I know a lot of people who will brag about spending $200 to win $50 and think they are getting somewhere. It's like another guy I know who used to spend his entire paycheck on instant lottery tickets. He would toss $400-500 to the state and average about $300 in winnings. Every once in a while, he would win big but I think he still broke even in the long run. If there is no collecting of the winnings, then a lot of the gamblers move on or stop.
Think of it like removing all the food and furniture in the house to get your in laws (or grown kids) to move to somewhere else. As long as they're happy they will stay forever, but as soon as they get uncomfortable, they hightail it to somewhere else.
Re:Lame Gov (Score:1, Interesting)
*At the risk of an off-topic mod* Why can't I change my viewing threshold to -1 anymore? Or rather, why is it that having it at -1 there are still hidden comments.
(Not to mention that earlier today I saw a +5 funny buried by a -1 mod)
Am I just doing it wrong?
Re:Lame Gov (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, the best part of the joke is that these people are still liable for taxes on these winnings. You don't escape tax liability on illegal earnings just because the government snagged the cash. Cf. Al Capone.
Re:Lame Gov (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Lame Gov (Score:2, Interesting)
> I guess they forgot how America was "discovered" in the first place... to escape an oppressive and over size government that is at it's heart, was hypocritical, much like today
Huh? Enough with the revisionist history already! America was discovered by Christopher Columbus in search of a trade route in order to make lots and lots of money trading spice. Also, the poor, poor pilgrims fleeing from oppression went to the Netherlands first, where they had a very good time and were hardly oppressed at all. The reason they went to America was because they had trouble adapting to the Dutch culture (which was a little too free for them), NOT because the Dutch were oppressing them.
Re:The point of drug laws? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's obvious that the government itself would see increased revenue by regulating marijuana. We'd save a lot of money not trying and imprisoning people, who would then continue to contribute to the economy, paying the taxes we all do, AND a considerable excise tax on their government approved marijuana.
The problem is that legislators don't do what's in the governments best interest, but what's in their own best interest. As long as the pharmaceutical industry, and the alcohol/tobacco industry keep getting the drug warriors reelected, we'll keep waging war on drugs. Even if it does cost us all more in the end.
Re:Another reason not to gamble online (Score:3, Interesting)
shills is the common name in Nevada for anyone who fills a spot at a table.
"Second, props are paid a small salary from the casino and play with their own money."
Yes, but SHILLS bet payed and play with casino money.
"..when the table is full so that a customer can sit."
Shills may or may not depending on the skill of the players.
"The use of props is controlled by the state gaming commissions. You can always ask the dealer if their is a prop at the table."
Same with shills. In fact there has to be a clean sign i the casino that says they use shills.
With an online game, they don't ahve any regualtions so they don't ahve to tell you squate about who is at the table.
Look at the cheating that went on in Nevada casinos in the 50s. That has slowed considerably with regulation. Why do you think someone who is unaccountable won't cheat? More accurately why to you think that in an industry that isn't regulated there won't be cheaters?
As a young man, I had a job i=n a Casino and one of my responsibility was to drive shills to varies casinos.