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."
Wanna Bet? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Say I buy 1000 contracts of "Bin Laden to be captured by end of May 2009" for 5 cents each. Each contract pays out 100 cents if he is captured. Now say tomorrow the BBC reports that the US has engaged Al-Quaeda in a reg
Re: (Score:2)
That's certainly an accurate description of InTrade, but you still haven't explained why you don't consider it gambling. Is it because of the secondary market, or because the thing you're betting on isn't totally random?
It's because the contract's price is not random at all, but determined by market demand for the contract. In a lot of ways, these Intrade contracts function the same way as stock options. There is a risk you take that the price will go down, but risk and randomness are not the same thing. In this instance, the difference is that you can research the subject of the contract to make a determination as to whether it is fairly valued.
It's true that some people consider investing money in anything with non-n
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
welcome to the age of the internet (Score:2)
if you don't allow it, it just moves offshore and continues uninterrupted, resulting in nothing but your own businesses not getting a share of the pie
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happened was the gambling sites just ignored the US - in fact here in the UK they make so much money they're sponsoring TV programmes and can afford primetime advertising. It's a huge industry ready and waiting to move in.
Of course the US has killed its own online gambling industry stone dead, so it'll all be foreigners making the money, but... isn't that what the politicians wanted? Oh, it wasn't? Um...
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, the gambling sites are *effectively* sponsoring TV shows too. They're just using .net sites, rather than the .com sites. The .net sites all have free games, and presumably they're expecting people to mistakenly go to the .com site instead and find out about the pay games.
I believe the .net vs .com distinction for gambling sites originally came about because of players wearing logos for the various online sites on TV shows. One show (probably 2003 or 2004 WSOP) required them to show only .net s
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Online gambling is legal just about everywhere except the US. It's also taxed and regulated - no incentive for organised crime to get involved as it's a huge very profitable industry.
You can launder money in Vegas too.. or, much easier, just have an insider in a bank.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also taxed and regulated
Which is why most of them are registered in tax-free offshore financial centers. They're owned by anonymous International Business Companies with bearer shares. Most of these places have few laws regarding these kind of things and respond kindly to cash incentives. Some regulation.
no incentive for organised crime to get involved as it's a huge very profitable industry.
That's precisely why organized crime gets involved, Einstein. Money for nothing and your chicks for free.
Re: (Score:2)
What reason would these alleged criminal enterprises have for coming into the fold if all it brings is additional regulatory red tape and taxation for their business? The fact that they're offshore makes them somewhat difficult for the US to touch and as far as I know there really hasn't been much in the way of legal action brought against these websites.
Even if the gambling ban is repealed, why should these websites submit to some authority when it's clear from their current position that they obviously do
Re: (Score:2)
Money. Lots and lots of money. More so, than what they can aquire in their current state.
It reminds me of the World of Warcraft localization in China. Blizzard had to change a large portion of its content and put a timer on time spent playing it for the Chinese government to ok it. Blizzard changed its Chinese version, satisfied the government, and raked in a huge segment of players willing to fork over money.
I'm sure any amount of "regulation and taxation" would be outpaced by the huge revenue from the m
Re: (Score:2)
No. There is also the current problem of off-shore casinos reneging on paying their largest winners. To make off-shore gambling more legit, we would need to make those enterprise bonded (or insured) with actual assets in the US that could be taken away and given to the winners in case of breach of contract.
And while we're at it, we'd probably also need some ki
Re: (Score:2)
Why? I am all in favor of offshore casinos not being held to any higher standards than your ordinary Ebay seller. Mostly, I want to operate a online casino with slots and roulette. Just as soon as it is legal to do so and not get hassled by credit card companies.
I figure this should be worth millions and anyone with half a brain can see that. Look, Las Vegas pays out aroun 98% on slots and they are raking in the dough. I figure you pay out at 80% and make a big deal out of each and every winner. Send
Re: (Score:2)
Las Vegas pays only 98% (I've heard 95% but the number is fixed) because they have to by law. That's the whole point of gambling being REGULATED. You would still be violating the law if your payouts were 80%. And in order to be regulated you would have to submit to costly audits of both your books and your code. This bill will not let you put roulette and slot machines on the web from your basement. But good luck trying it.
Re: (Score:2)
By making it legal, you can bring them onshore, where they can be taxed and regulated, just like state lotteries and privately-owned casinos.
Actually, you wouldn't need to bring them onshore to do that. Gambling can be taxed under WTO rules as long as onshore and offshore gambling are taxed equally. In fact, the US is currently under WTO sanctions because our gambling laws are at odds with our treaty obligations with regard to gambling.
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.
Pure cynicism if ever there was such a thing; its hard to be more blatantly biased than that.
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.
It is not the role of government to ban activities which people might enjoy too much, even to their own detriment. The l
Re: (Score:2)
If that's really the case, my guess is that they've run the odds of that happening. I hear they have a few people who know how to do that, 'round them parts. ;)
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.
Proposal to Alleviate Heavy Traffic on I-15 (Score:2)
I've been thinking about all that heavy bumper to bumper traffic on I-15 every weekend. I have a proposal that will alleviate the heavy traffic, reduce air pollution and consumption of fossil fuels. Additionally, it would provide a badly needed economic boost to southern Nevada and California (which have both been hit badly by the recession). It would be an effective use for some of the Federal stimulus money and would help both areas benefit from foreign tourism, thus reducing the national trade deficit. T
Vice laws. (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we also end the drug and prostitution ban? Just saying.
Re:Vice laws. (Score:4, Funny)
With blackjack!
And hookers!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, we'll sponsor our own vice bill!
With blackjack!
And hookers!
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:2)
I was a little hasty. To be fair to Barney Frank, he did introduce a bill [wikipedia.org] that would have legalized small amounts of marijuana at the federal level. Of course, that got nowhere.
Re:Vice laws. (Score:4, Funny)
he did introduce a bill that would have legalized small amounts of marijuana at the federal level
Wait.. so only the feds would be allowed to smoke weed?
That'll help recruitment...
Re: (Score:2)
"How about we also end the drug and prostitution ban? Just saying."
But they work so well and don't produce any collateral social damage!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would take that deal. Freedom is freedom.
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: (Score:2)
I realize that you're being facetious, but you can get rid of the obnoxious flashing ads through a simple [mozilla.org] browser add-on, wouldn't it be better to get rid of the censorship?
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an easy solution (Score:2)
I've got a simple way to deal with online gambling without banning it. Just put in place limits on the financial liability. If it's really "think of the children" then just make it like contracts. A minor can enter into a contract but the contract isn't enforceable, so who in their right mind would bother?
If the law makes it clear that an online casino can't collect from a minor then there's no motivation for them to try to get a minor hooked so the whole "think of the children" argument falls apart.
As for
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a good idea. I was pretty fed up with how gambling came to Iowa, but since the Genie is out of the bottle, I say equal opportunity. Why not allow the stupid tax to hit everyone. Just make sure gambling losses are non tax deductable, and that they tax the bejesus out of the online casinos.
Re: (Score:2)
This would work up until someone gets the bright idea of letting their sixteen year old kid play online poker. If the kid wins, the father and son collect the winnings. If the kid loses, then obviously they can't lose because the person playing wasn't an adult. Illegal as hell, but who can really prove things one way or the other?
Here's my own wonderful idea: why not provide a free site where minors can gamble with money that isn't real. Instead they can hone their skills and use their funny money points to
The .net versions of online gambling sites (Score:2)
Here's my own wonderful idea: why not provide a free site where minors can gamble with money that isn't real. Instead they can hone their skills and use their funny money points towards some kind of booby prize.
I believe that site is called PartyPoker.net.
Re: (Score:2)
If we are to consider gambling as an addiction, are you also a proponent of allowing other kinds of addicts to go untreated?
Untreated? No. Un-"illegalized" yes. I can't think of any case where I'd approve of passing a law against an addiction. Laws against certain behaviours of addicts, yes, but not because the actions are performed by addicts. Murder, burglary, auto theft, bank robbery, all sorts of things should be illegal regardless of whether they are done because you're a pot head, a heroin fiend, a sociopath or an asshole.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The mechanism they used to ban it doesn't matter, the end result is the same. What's the point of making in illegal to transfer money specifically to gambling sites if not to prohibit online gambling.
Strictly speaking, this is fully within Congress' rights to regulate interstate commerce which is explicitly granted by the Constitution.
Read
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.
Holy Shit! (Score:4, Informative)
Harry Reid is going to review something carefully! I wondered what it would take, as countless violations of the US Constitution, the Geneva Convention, and human decency weren't sufficient. Now I know: you have to threaten a microscopic portion of Las Vegas's profits.
Re: (Score:2)
hahahaha, ain't that the truth.
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.
thanks for the plagiarism (Score:2, Informative)
Thanks for going to all that trouble html-formatting this pdf file [pokerplayersalliance.org] instead of just linking to it. Golly gee your karma must be soaring!
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your points, and I think that online poker should be legal. I'd even go a step further in saying that I'm not worried about children becoming addicted, since they're already addicted to everything else (sugar, WoW, TV, etc). Addictions are a concern because by definition they represent an opportunity cost to the rest of their lives. Poker puts that cost in direct monetary terms, whereby I think people could potentially learn their lesson early, when they're more accepting of correction. Further
This decision is ruled entirely by reason! (Score:2)
'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.
And that is why online horse betting is totally OK.
Illegal offshore Internet gambling sites... (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Meanwhile, in related news ... (Score:2)
...crude oil futures are trading at $62.70/bbl.
Who needs your penny ante poker games when I can drop some real cash on the biggest numbers racket around.
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: (Score:2)
I want to set up my own roulette and slot machine "casino" online. I figure I can pay out 80% of the take and keep lots of people happy.
Just as soon as it is legal to have online gaming in the US. Why wouldn't it be legal for me to have my own casino like that?
Re: (Score:2)
Because you'll be doing monte carlo simulations to hit that 80% house take when you don't need to go through all of that. You would be cheating.
Generate really good pseudorandom numbers and let the rules of the game and probabilities do the rest. Besides, you'll get caught eventually by people who record every single game and do the math.
Re: (Score:2)
If so, then you'd be doing yourself a favor by betting the patterns that are most likely to appear. Go download the number histories and do some nCk calculations to see the expected vs actual outcomes on odd/even combinations, distribution of the numbers, etc.. Yeah, you probably won't win but you'll considerably increase your chances by playing the numbers that come up more often.
Skip the top-loaded powerball or mega millions, go for the state lotto or five number games and do the calculations on returns
State? (Score:2)
Isn't gambling a state matter currently? Why not let the states handle it?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't gambling a state matter currently? Why not let the states handle it?
Because you can't be sure that a particular user isn't accessing an online gambling site from out of state through a closed proxy. Out-of-state users fall under federal jurisdiction per the commerce clause of the Constitution.
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.
I want the ban ended! (Score:2)
If I can set up my own "casino" online, then I am all for it. If it is restricted to some type of licensed (and heavily taxed) entities as gaming is now, I am not interested at all.
The potential for legal "private" gaming sites is enourmous, especially if these are allowed to operate without oversight. Even if there are reporting requirements, as long as they aren't too onerous, it would be a great thing to get into.
Allowing Harrah's to run an online site is pointless. Running it the same way Indian Gami
Don't hate the sin (Score:2)
Gambling is bad (Score:2)
- but much as I would like to see it not exist at all, the fact is that it does, and there are people who genuinely like it. It is never a good idea to try to will something like that away by passing a law; we simply have to learn to live with it in a sensible way, which fortunately is possible.
But living sensibly with things like drugs, gambling and other things society doesn't feel comfortable with means educating people about these things, preferably from an early age. Criminalising a common activity cre
Senator Frist's Cashout (Score:2)
The bill that banned online gambling was spearheaded by Senator Frist (R-TN) who retired from politics immediately afterwards.
I wrote him a letter and he wrote me back with the same tired slogan that online gambling "frays the fabric of families".
Well, I don't know about that, but if that's true so does brick and mortar gambling and state-sponsored gambling/lotteries and he didn't seem to care about that. Nice payday for him, I guess, with a perpetual government pension to boot.
I should have become a polit
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).
Re:Think of the children? (Score:5, Informative)
And how many people failed to attend college because they, or their parents, gambled away the college fund?
That is an argument which is sometimes made by the anti-gambling people, but really how many specific cases have their been where parents gambled away junior's college money? It seems to be a popular cautionary story that happens rarely in practice (i.e. a variation of the "think of the children" fallacy). This type of logical fallacy has a long and colorful history in our legislature, and it is easier to appeal to emotion rather than logic (i.e. "if you are against me then you are against the children, how can you be against the children?"), but that doesn't make the tactic right. The more that we use emotional arguments in our national policy the greater the damage that we do to our constitution and the values that our nation was founded upon.
I'm not saying gambling should be illegal, I just think it's silly to argue for gambling the perspective of the winners
Fair enough, but did you know that the US is presently in violation of the WTO treaties on trade with our present gambling laws? The treaties say that you can either ban all gambling or allow it, but that if you allow it then you must allow foreign competition (i.e. offshore internet gambling). In fact, a small caribbean nation (Antigua) actually won a WTO action against the United States on this very point and the United States is currently racking up fines and damages payable to Antigua for violating the treaty. What makes the whole thing doubly interesting is that Antigua has requested an unusual remedy, namely the privilege of ignoring US copyrights on movies, music, software, and other creative products produced in the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
That is an argument which is sometimes made by the anti-gambling people, but really how many specific cases have their been where parents gambled away junior's college money?
Until Junior goes to college that money is still the parent's money. Being (presumably) responsible adults they can do with it what they wish.
I think of the children, just not the ones you do (Score:2)
But think of all the casino owner's children that got to go to college as a result.
Re: (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, ju
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.
Re: (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: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: (Score:2)
the casino's will still kick you out for counting cards.
You must be thinking of blackjack.
Isn't poker a problem that's been solved anyway (like chess)?
No. Chess is a game of complete information; poker is a game of incomplete information. Any strategy has to involve some element of speculation about what other players are going to do. That's an art, not a science.
Re: (Score:2)
The shorter the game or run, the high an impact any instance of luck will have.
Certainly. But time in this respect is measured in events, not minutes: you'll see 30+ hands in an hour of playing poker, but it might take days for an investor to make 30 trades.
As in the less varibales you have (poker has far few varibales then the stock market) the grater an impact luck will have one a single move, hand or stock purchase
It's not that simple.
First, I'm not sure you can assume that a game of poker has far fewer variables than the stock market. It has fewer players, but it isn't "luck" when your outcome is affected by other players' choices. The source of luck in poker is the shuffled deck; the source of luck in stock trading is current events.
Second
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Absolutely right.
And if it were a game of luck we wouldn't see the same people winning consistently over the course of years. Those players are good at the game.
Re: (Score:2)
Since _EVERYBODY_, slashdotters included, overrates their own skill, I think the smart money for most people should go into a different investment.
Re: (Score:2)
This common fallacy comes up again. Poker is not just an estimation of probabilities. Poker is a raw and pure example of a very complicated multi-way "game theory" problem. Such problems are far from NP-complete (not computable in polynomial time relative to number of inputs on a computer) and much more interesting than they might first appear. Nobel prizes in economics have been given for insight into such problems. There is a book called "Mathematics of Poker" (those interested can do a Google search) whi
Re: (Score:2)
Let's get something straight. Online gaming is going to mean slots, blackjack, roulette, craps and the like.
Go into any Indian casino or visit Las Vegas. Where are all the people? In the poker room? Nope, they are at the slot machines. Maybe 1% of the number on slots are playing blackjack. And out oif a casino full of people there are 10 playing poker. Do you believe this is lost on anyone running an "online casino?"
Should the credit card floodgates open, you will see sites offering slots, blackjack,
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(see the entire population of people playing the lottery)
I don't play the lottery to win. I play so I won't have to tear my hair out if the first week I stop my numbers would win big.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, I suppose you could check your hole cards on EVERY hand...that would take care of the problem too.
Re: (Score:2)
None of the items on my winners list have nothing to do with actually being there in person.
Sigh. That was brilliant. Should read "None of the items on my winners list have anything to do with actually being there in person."
Re: (Score:2)
A good analysis, but it's quite different in online play.
1. Skill with probability: This is virtually automated. Nearly all players use assistants (generally with the OK of the various sites). I'm referring to simple assistants that calculate pot odds, etc. When you watch the World Series of Poker, you see the little percentages displayed for you...this is the same thing. At any rate, while you still have to interpret them, 90% of the work is done for you.
2. Skill with reading people and 3. hiding your
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Listen up, this guy knows what he's talking about.
There is a lot of collusion going on and the poker sites don't have much incentive to detect and stop it.
You guys can talk about probabilities and how meaningless tells may be, but when you see guys raising all-in with junk and winning consistently, it's not because they're lucky or donks whose day will come but because they often have shills communicating their down cards.
Re:poker is NOT gambling (Score:4, Informative)
Guess what they find? That the dealing is random, that some people are consistent winners and, because of the rake, most people are losers.
Has it ever happened that people have colluded at the tables? I have no proof that it has happened, but I am willing to bet my life that it has happened some times. Of course it has. The thing is, most of these colluders are not skilled enough to make money out of it. Playing good poker is difficult. Successfully colluding is actually no less difficult. If you are bright enough to do that, you can win alone, just as easily.
Think of it this way: assume that you are a winning player. Would it be to your advantage to play five out of ten hands on one ten-handed table, or to play one hand on five different tables? If you think the former is better you are completely incorrect.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Think of the children? (Score:5, Funny)
Even if they did--for some odd reason--forget to make internet gambling specifically illegal for minors, what kid has a line of credit that's sufficient enough that they can gamble online for long enough to create an addiction?
Illegal offshore Internet gambling sites are a criminal enterprise
Gotta love arguments against legalizing things that are based entirely on the fact that they are currently illegal... Then again, I live in a state where gambling is legal, so long as you're on a body of water (no matter how small), so it's not like any of this has ever made much sense...
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. This bill is not going to "allow illegal offshore Internet gambling sites to operate unfettered", it is going to legalize regulated internet gambling.
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?
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
I know if I'm playing at the Venetian or in some asshole's basement. Not to say there aren't scams, but it's largely the same with online gambling.
In online gambling I think most of us would actively seek out the legit joints to play.
I mean, not that I would know anything about it. :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
I realize that in official settings the odds are heavily stacked against me, and do not view gambling as a source of income.
Only if you are talking about slot machines, roulette, blackjack, and the poker knock-off games. There are no odds stacked against you in poker or betting on sports games.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it requires far less skill to press the button on a slot machine than to play poker intelligently.
This is why the slot machines are crowded and the poker room has 15 people in it.
Re: (Score:2)
so it's not like any of this has ever made much sense...
Politics and logic are like oil and water, they don't mix well in practice.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a state where gambling is legal, so long as you're on a body of water (no matter how small)
Sounds like a good excuse to build a moat.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you wouldn't see all of the people who lost all of the money with which they could have paid tuition because they're no longer in college and out of site. It's similar to how Congress critters like to talk about taking millions of tax dollars to spend on some pet project which will create jobs or infrastructure. Of course they fail to see the jobs or infrastructure which will not be created due to the collection of those taxes or the fact that they cannot be appropriated towards some other project
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)