Online Poker Legalization Bill Coming Next Week 168
GovTechGuy writes "Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) could introduce his bill to legalize online poker as soon as next week. The bill would legalize the game in all 50 states, but sites could only be set up in states where gambling is already legal, so they can be licensed through existing gaming commissions. States could choose to opt-out of the law and ban online poker by referendum or a vote of the state legislature. The bill would also create a federal regulatory body to oversee the game."
Taking all bets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're going to ignore it because it oversimplifies things. Its not just about money, its about getting reelected, and getting reelected is only partly related to money.
add sports betting to it! (Score:1)
Now that is where the cash is!
or at least add it to the OTB's.
Re: (Score:1)
Gambling should be illegal in all states. (Score:2)
There is no reasonable reason why it's illegal in any state. Puritan rules are utterly stupid. Along with dumbass blue laws.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Gambling should be illegal in all states. (Score:5, Funny)
"go through the roof" = +8%. You sir have very low roofs.
Also, there may be some bias: there usually is quite heavy security around the casinos, which leads to more crimes being detected and reported (and prosecuted), for the same amount of crimes committed.
Re: (Score:3)
Add in the cameras and off duty cops used for that security and I bet it covers all or most of that 8%.
Lots of unreported crime when no one is watching.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So then crime rates will shoot up around free wifi if we make internet poker legal?
An 8% increase is not crime rates going through the roof. Considering the link to the paper is dead, this seems like rather poor evidence all around.
Re: (Score:1)
The big crime increase will come from all the noobs being scammed by the folks who play dirty by rigging or hacking [google.com] online poker systems.
When I was in high school (1976) I wrote a poker program that cheated. I used to challenge the stupid rednecks who hated my geekiness to play the computer for real money. My program would let them win for a little while, and then take them to the cleaners.
It was pretty amusing, so I never ev
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, *YOU* can write a poker program that cheats.
Do you think the slot machines or table games in Vegas cheat? They are highly regulated.
Yes, there have been cases of sites cheating people (Absolute Poker, Ultimate Bet)... and the current situation with PokerStars is scary from a business point of view, but as far as what's known now, nothing is known to be wrong with the site itself.
BTW, I have never spent a cent in online poker (but have thought about it -- not possible since Black Friday(*), however.)
(*
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I correct myself. The "cheating" cases have been people using superuser accounts.. They have not been cases of "the computer doesn't play the game legitimately".
Re: (Score:2)
Because gambling is illegal mostly everywhere and treated as somewhat taboo, the few places where they exist become dens of crime. Same with drugs. Legalize them and you disperse the problem.
Re:Gambling should be illegal in all states. (Score:4, Insightful)
create a federal regulatory body (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Living in Las Vegas I think Intrastate poker is fine :P
Just one more regulatory body, please! (Score:1)
The bill would also create a federal regulatory body to oversee the game
Ahhh... well, I'm pretty sure there are not enough regulatory bodies out there already... I wonder, has anyone actually counted the number of federal regulatory bodies / organizations / commissions / etc... and how many people work there? And how much it costs? Do we need 128 bit arithmetic for that?
Oh, and, BTW, how many of those have usefulness different than zero?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think the FDA is useful? The CDC? The Consumer Products Safety Commission?
Big casinos (Score:1)
Las Vegas et al were the ones who lobbied hard to ban online gambling because it competed with their profits. Now that they see how much money could be made from such gambling arenas, they're lobbying hard to re-legalize it but in such a way that ensures that they're the only game in town.
It's the U.S.'s pro govt imposed monopolist mentality all over again.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like scatching my ass (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I feel like scatching my ass (Score:5, Funny)
The next sound you hear will be the Ass Police pounding on your back door.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I could mod you +5 funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Donkey police? Wow. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
This bill seems like a NOP (Score:2)
This law makes it legal everywhere... except where state legislatures or voters vote to make it illegal. So all of the states that already ban it will vote to ban it (or maybe they'll just argue that having already banned it they have already made the vote and don't need another), and all of those that allow it will continue to allow it. Net effect, zero.
I don't really care about on-line gambling one way or another, but it seems silly to waste time and effort on a law that will ultimately change nothing
Re: (Score:3)
If it shifts the decision to the states, it's already a good thing, even if the states decide to maintain the status quo for now. People have different preferences everywhere, and eventually this may well lead to decriminalizing this in some more liberal states. If Bible Belt wants to stick to it, I don't see a problem with that, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So far as I know, this [wikipedia.org] is what currently restricts it on federal level. It is being actively enforced [wikipedia.org] specifically against online poker providers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is bad because we're talking about the Internet, which really should be governed by a law Higher Than The U.S. Government (which doesn't really exist, yes), not one lower. The issue is that there's no real way to determine if a person is in an area legal or not for the gambling. Furthermore, would it be legal if the computer actually "playing" the game is in a legal state and the "player" is logged in via terminal services? Or is it based on residency? What if a person is a resident of Nevada b
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is that there's no real way to determine if a person is in an area legal or not for the gambling. Furthermore, would it be legal if the computer actually "playing" the game is in a legal state and the "player" is logged in via terminal services? Or is it based on residency? What if a person is a resident of Nevada but is on vacation in Utah? Can they use it?
It's not fundamentally different than many other activities that occur across the state boundaries. The answers to your questions are fairly straightforward: the state has jurisdiction over 1) anyone and anything directly committed on its territory, and 2) its citizens, even for acts committed outside the state (insofar as this can be enforced if the person does not return to the state). How a state chooses to use this leeway is up to the state itself.
The ultimate point here is that the state can persecute
Why not just legalize and walk away? (Score:1)
Why do we need YET ANOTHER big government agency to regulate something that has been completely self-regulated, and successfully so, up until now?
Oh that's right. The big government wants its rake, too.
So we are going to create bigger government (Score:3)
Furthermore he expects all these firms who may ot conduct any business int he US, US citizens have to call them, are going to have to pay protection money to the organized crime syndicates that control the varied states in which gambling is legal. This would be like a US company having to pay the Russian mob before a Russian citizen can order a widget from the US company. What would happen is if a Russian party did receive goods form the US, they would pay a tarrif on when it entered the country. This is what should happen, use the rules we have. I can tell you that many cities in texas have a number of thinly veiled gambling houses and the laws are not being enforced.
I think that US citizens should be able to link foreign sites an gamble as they please. If the money or good are drawn from foreign sources and brought into the US, that is legal. If the good are US domestic that may be a problem. If the web sites are registered local then that might also be a problem as the US government can and will take it. The taking does not necessarily limit the ability to gamble.
Also, in case you don't know, the skill thing is a nod to the many irrational christians in texas. They are experts in situational ethics so that, for instance, preventing a the termination of fetus at 4 weeks requires huge amounts of taxpayer funding, but not taxpayer funding is required to prevent the baby from dying at 1 year. Gambling is bad, but if he can fool enough people into thinking that poker is skills it won't hurt their brains, even though most gambling houses will kick you out if you really use skill.
Re: (Score:2)
Gambling is bad, but if he can fool enough people into thinking that poker is skills it won't hurt their brains, even though most gambling houses will kick you out if you really use skill.
I would love to play against you in any form of poker. The reason is that not only don't you know that its a game of skill, you in fact insist that it isnt a game of skill.
I could take your money from you forever, and you will curse your bad luck the whole way. God I love people like you.
Re: (Score:2)
A big problem online poker players face is the nonsense that the GP was sprouting. The trouble is that they know nothing about the topic at hand yet feel they are qualified to talk about it (well, I guess the same goes for any topic really). You summed it up nicely - in a game of poker it is player v player, the house does not care one bit who wins and loses as they get a "rake" out of every pot. Their sole interest - the one that makes them the most money - is to make as many people play as possible. T
Re: (Score:2)
Loophole fail. (Score:2)
I worked for a Casino vendor (Score:1)
The online and offline gaming scene is highly corrupt. In countries where it *is* legal, certification agencies have no clue what they're doing. Getting certified is more a matter of money and politics than whether or not you cheat players (which most companies do!).
Online gambling is nearly impossible to regulate. It's way too easy to cheat people without getting caught which is why I believe it should remain illegal.
I can't stand brick and mortar casinos (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come now, we all know you just enjoy the ability to play with no clothes on! Must admit I have done that more than once.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh what?
Yes you can, you'll just be blinded off... Just like you would be online.
Re: (Score:2)
You said you can't walk away from a table if it's a tournament. I replied that you could, the same online or offline.
Re: (Score:3)
Fear not. I'm sure they will tack on a last-minute amendment outlawing food banks, or some such.
gambling should be lllegal in every state. (Score:2)
For population control purposes.
Re: (Score:3)
How does gambling impact the size of the population?
I am generally for harm reduction, and as such believe that gambling, prostitution and most drugs should be legal, well regulated and discouraged.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by "well regulated and discouraged"? I don't quite see the strict division between illegal and regulated. I would suppose the way most people now get, say, opiates (in a black market) would still be illegal if opiates are merely "well regulated and discouraged". I'm supposing the way you're imagining these things being capable of being legally bought would be in the case of them being bought from licensed proprietors. Either it would cost so much from these sellers that people would sti
Re: (Score:2)
Opiates are legal, well regulated and discouraged. Ever heard of morphine, vicodin, oxycontin, and codeine? Certain SPECIFIC opiates are illegal, but as a class opiates are "well regulated and discouraged." The fact that specific opiates (heroin being the prime case as it has minimal upsides relative to other opiates and a whole shit ton of downsides) are illegal doesn't change that designation.
Re: (Score:1)
I would suppose the way most people now get, say, opiates (in a black market) would still be illegal if opiates are merely "well regulated and discouraged".
As pointed out, most people get opiates from a pharmacist, not a black market.
Re:I can't believe it... (Score:5, Informative)
This bill would not be necessary if Republicans had not banned it in 2006.
So...better late than never to the logic train.
194 Democrats in the house voted for it, and 1 voted against. In the senate, the only Democrat who did not vote for it was Akaka, from Hawaii, who did not cast a vote.
But, I know, it's easier to blame Republicans than actually do any research.
Re: (Score:1)
That is one heck of a "But, Clinton". Just because the idiots from the other side of the isle voted for it does not change he stupidity of banning it in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
It certainly changes the stupidity of blaming either party for it as if the other wouldn't have also done it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bill would also create a federal regulatory body to oversee the game.
Basically, they just wanted to put their greedy little hands in the business. Unregulated business does not benefit the government and its insatiable need to grow. On this basic principle (and look at the voting record for this specific example) the republicrats and demoblicans entirely agree.
It's exactly the same principle as the mafia's protection racket only they get to write the laws, so they do it legally.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, I'm ok with the government regulating gambling. I like knowing the dice are only as loaded as the house admits (i.e. by the design of the game, rather than by fraud).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
It makes sense. If you can play offline poker in a state, then I see no reason why online poker should be any different.
I guess the difference is who gets the taxation revenues. The politicians in State A hate to think of their citizens gambling in an online casino that funds State B.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't look like it allows using casinos that are located in other countries. Didn't the WTO already hammer the US for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if people with a higher tax burden are less likely to successfully reproduce, which I find implausible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are also generally republican and tend to believe in the American dream.
So see... it is our culture not the individuals state of well being that causes people to gamble.
Re: (Score:2)
"natural berth control" methods
Is that when the ship isn't given any help beyond being told to breathe?
Re: (Score:2)
Use your head - berth control is a load of ship. 8-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to know that gambling sites take in more money than they give out. While of course people wouldn't mind getting rich, I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding that so many do it for the outcome. Many, if not most people are hooked on the gambling itself, seeing the lights spin, the excitement of the dealer flipping the cards, your heart racing as you wonder if they'll call your bluff or not.
One of my former colleagues is a pretty serious snowboarder, knows
Re: (Score:1)
This is a cleverly concealed tax for people who are bad at math.
According to the Feds [forbes.com], online gambling is the crème de la crème of money laundering methods. Does this law mean that the US government is prepared to tolerate money laundering so long as they get a cut?
Re: (Score:2)
You're looking at it backwards. The reason so many gambling sites are used for money laundering is because it's illegal. The old meme of "When X is outlawed, only outlaws will do X" applies here.
You had a big example of that, during the prohibition.
Re: (Score:1)
You're looking at it backwards. The reason so many gambling sites are used for money laundering is because it's illegal. The old meme of "When X is outlawed, only outlaws will do X" applies here.
You had a big example of that, during the prohibition.
Your argument is preposterous... by the same logic the failure to enforce prohibition is justification to decriminalise hard drugs or other abuse-related activities. Just because criminals commit murder does not mean we should legalise it.
Re: (Score:2)
I admit I hadn't; I had read about something similar some time ago and assume it was the same.
But that only reinforces my point: they're only laundering money "to avoid restrictions," meaning, because it's illegal.
Re: (Score:1)
Poker is not gambling. It's a game of skill as much as golf, bowling, or any other individual sport. Why this is not obvious to everyone I do not understand.
Re:Gambling... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you do not understand, then you may not be in the best position to explain to those who believe it is, at least predominantly, a game of chance.
Is there skill involved? Of course. You need to be able to weigh your odds on a non-emotional level. But that goes along with learning what a straight is and whether or not it beats a full house. That's not particularly 'skill'. The skill element comes from gaming your co-players. Reading their tells, faking your own, bluffing, etc. However, your actions therein may influence the game - then again, it may not. Thus: chance.
The point at which things become rather difficult is when proponents of "poker isn't gambling" point to the professional poker players who, when pitted against a random bunch of other poker players, tend to win far more often than a random selection would dictate. Thus their skill at influencing the game outweighs the chances.
But this is only against such a random selection of other poker players and only when they're human. Pitted against a computer, their results suddenly fall well within a bell curve of chance.
Compare this to golf and bowling, which you cited, where you are far more in direct control of how the game is played. Yes, a sudden gust of wind can throw the ball off course (in golf, perhaps in bowling if it's the hurricane season) - but the course you're presented with is known beforehand. It's not a randomly dealt course, and you don't have to read the other player's 'tells', you can see exactly where his ball went.
( Surprisingly, you didn't mention chess; also considered a sport, and also not uncontroversially so. But almost universally considered a game of skill rather than chance. )
So is it skill, or is it chance?
I'd say it's a little of both, with chance being predominant in the game's actual elements, and skill being predominant in its (human) players.
This presents a bit of a problem as the laws currently are sort of black-and-white. It's either a game of chance or a game of skill with nothing in between. So when a bunch of experts from both sides of the fence speak up during the latest debate on this and once again decide that it's more chance than skill, by however narrow a margin, the law says it's a game of chance and all regulations thus apply.
But those same regulations can't exactly be bent to a situation where it would be declared that poker is 55% chance and 45% skill and thus 55% of the regulations apply.
To much chagrin of both poker site operators as those looking to welcome 'taxing' the games played.
In the end, though, a highly skilled poker player can still lose against somebody who never played before and sat down just for kicks. A well-trained marathon runner, however, is not going to lose against a couch potato short of an external influence.
That's why it's not obvious to everyone that poker is not a game of chance, and thus it's not obvious to everyone that playing poker with an ante is not gambling.
Re: (Score:1)
Poker is a game of skill.
Being able to read another players tells etc are skills as well.(good) Businessmen, salesmen, doctors, anyone in customer service have well developed skills in reading other people.
I disagree with the computer thing. A novice player (we would call them a level 1 thinker) would get crushed by a computer I am sure. The computer can be programmed with high knowledge of probabilities etc. and thus always make the right mathematical choice. Against a seasoned player those mathematically
Re: (Score:2)
There is a BIG difference between online poker (as it stands today) and offline poker.
With online poker you dont get ANY of the normal signals (body language etc) that good players use to tell what the other player might be thinking, what their hand might be etc. I did hear though that some sites are looking into using webcam technology to both provide this (i.e. people who are being filmed and shown to other players would give away clues) and to allow verification that a real human being is playing and not
Re: (Score:2)
With online poker you dont get ANY of the normal signals (body language etc) that good players use to tell what the other player might be thinking, what their hand might be etc.
To a point, I'll agree; being a person who has played mostly online (though not horribly well), there are ways of figuring people out (betting patterns, how they jabber if they participate in any sort of chat either during or between hands) that serve as fairly rough analogues. These don't translate well to live games in and of themselves, but folks who play live games and dabble online that I've known tend to key in on those things when (naturally) nothing else is available, with slightly decreased return
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest tell of all is betting history. Betting history trumps any physical tell you can see, and is just as available (even more so in fact, you can cache it in a db) via the internet.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Is there skill involved? Of course."
Yep, you need computer skilled friends, so that you can share an Online Poker table and show each other your hands to drain the other suckers at the table.
Re: (Score:2)
... the professional poker players who, when pitted against a random bunch of other poker players, tend to win far more often than a random selection would dictate. ...
But this is only against such a random selection of other poker players and only when they're human. Pitted against a computer, their results suddenly fall well within a bell curve of chance.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about or you wouldn't make such blatantly false statement.
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly don't know what you are talking about or you wouldn't make such blatantly false statement.
I'm glad someone beat me to it. That statement was just absurd and shows a total ignorance of the subject being discussed, made worse with the condescending "you are all so sadly mistaken and I am now going to tell you how it is" tone.
The ONLY game where computers are a match with the top human players is heads up limit holdem. There is no other poker game where computers would be favoured against a top pro so the statement "pitted against a computer, their results suddenly fall well within a bell curve o
Re: (Score:1)
So is it skill, or is it chance? I'd say it's a little of both, with chance being predominant in the game's actual elements, and skill being predominant in its (human) players.
This presents a bit of a problem as the laws currently are sort of black-and-white. It's either a game of chance or a game of skill with nothing in between.
And yet there is a lot of luck in professional sports. I was just watching a sports and science segment on ESPN. They were looking at how someone leapt up and caught a ball just as it cleared the fence. They then went on to describe how any number of variables could have turned that hit into a home run including temperature and barometer. There is always luck involved, the star player getting sick, getting injured. If it was pure skill no shot would miss and baseball players would bat 1000. I'm curious ab
Re: (Score:2)
Is Poker a game of chance or a game of skill?
Let's look at it from different angles:
Firstly, is Backgammon a game of chance?
I'd say that in any single game, chance may play a significant role, but in a long sequence of games, it evens out. Similarly so with poker.
Secondly, there was an interesting study:
http://www.cigital.com/resources/gaming/poker/100M-Hand-AnalysisReport.pdf [cigital.com]
Quoting:
Re: (Score:1)
To say that poker is pure skill is simply untrue. A perfect example that comes to mind is Chris Moneymaker winning the 2003 WSOP? You can honestly say, straight faced, that he was the best poker player in that tournament? I didn't think so.
Perhaps you should watch some more poker on TV, or head down to your local card room more often; poker is not all skill. All it takes is a little luck on one or two hands and the tides turn. In that moment when you shoved all in with AK suited, and you get a ridiculo
Re: (Score:1)
In that moment when you shoved all in with AK suited, and you get a ridiculous call with 4-3 off, the skill it took to get you to that point is thrown out the window when the flop comes 443.
People run hot and cold sometimes that is true. (Moneymaker ran hot as a nova during the WSOP)
The above quote is a very bad example of why people think poker is luck.
AKs vs. 43o is only a 65% favorite. That is all. Not much is it.
Your a bunch of math guys around here. Here are the numbers. (whips open poker stove)
21,423,686 games 19.485 secs 1,099,496 games/sec
Board:
Dead:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 65.843% 65.5
Re: (Score:2)
If I were playing a cash game I would fist pump if I saw my AK get called by 43. Yes, the flop comes out 443 this time however in the long run (and poker is about the long run, as in tens if not hundreds of thousands of hands if you play seriously online) you will destroy that clown. Yes he wins this game, however over the next 10 times this happens he will lose around 2/3 of the hands, providing a nice profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you play a few tournaments during a lifetime then luck will be a significant factor. If you play every tournament of the WSO
Re: (Score:2)
to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance.
. It is gambling. It is a game of skill. It's both.
Re: (Score:2)
The skill is in knowing the probabilities and reading your opponents. Lose small pots, win big ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone obviously doesn't know anything about poker.
Re: (Score:2)
To his credit; poker on a hand level is largely a game of chance, where on a larger game level it is mostly a game of skill.
You have no control whatsoever on a single hand, but in the long term it becomes a game of bluffs and knowing probabilities.
leave usa if your that good at math (Score:1)
Surely a little math would proove you would have made more $$ and have a better free life outside usa.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not regulation we need. That is something players can get by spending their dollars at an establishment that does that. If anything strong labeling regulation is needed, so players can determine what sort of system they are playing against. More information helps markets be more efficient. Which is why so many big companies are against labeling laws more than regulation they can easily corrupt.
Re: (Score:1)
There really isn't an incentive for the sites to rig the games but there is an incentive for them to have fair games. That's why sites have their RNG's independently audited.
Unlike other casino games, in poker you're playing against other players, not against the house. The house makes money buy taking a small portion of the pot or tournament buy-in.
Re: (Score:2)
As the parent post saidp though, the RNG wouldn't be tampered with - They might tamper with the bids(showing a lower pot than was actually created, keeping the difference), but tampering the RNG wouldn't help unless you had shills playing(which *also* might be possible).
Re: (Score:2)
That was Wilson [wikipedia.org], not Barton.