Slashdot Mirror
A Push To End the Online Gambling Ban
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."
Not that I know of.
I have seen people pay for skyrocketing college tuition with winnings from online poker.
New Economic Perspectives
50 bucks says the bill fails.
I came here for a good argument
ohhhh http://mazok.ucoz.com/
We'll be seeing alot of these http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/files/www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/nodes/3027/c20081015_broken_monitor.jpg when people start to lose in blackjack?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
All in.
Wow, the doublethink 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If the gambling ban is repealed, these sites would immediately cease to be "criminal enterprises", and become legal offshore Internet gambling sites.
If the gambling ban is repealed and these sites chose to operate "unfettered within the United States", they'd then become legal, American gambling sites.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.
Barney Frank was offered a large campaign contribution by gambling interests.
I don't think Nevada has a lot to worry about in the realm of online gaming. Brick-and-mortar casinos offer a lot that online gaming can never provide. Casino gambling may be the cornerstone of the Nevada economy, but it has diversified to the point that other gaming enterprises do not appear to directly compete, in the form of fine dining, entertainment, and all that Vegas has to offer.
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.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
How about we also end the drug and prostitution ban? Just saying.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Let internet gambling be perfectly legal. Don't *endorse* it though by making the police and courts enforce payments.
I'm torn. Part of me detests censorship and state interference, my belief is that people can make up their own minds as to what's harmful.
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...
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 people over 18, screw 'em. If they want to dig their own grave then let them lie in it. I wish the government would get out of the business of protecting people from their own stupidity. It's a losing battle.
If you ask me it is outrageous that we have given our government the power to even be discussing whether people should be allowed to make a choice to gamble, online or not. It is simply not any of the government's business what I do with my money as long as I am not hurting anybody else.
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.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
"Illegal offshore Internet gambling sites are a criminal enterprise"
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.
Move Sig, for great justice.
Yes you are right about gambling.
But poker is not gambling. It is a game of skills. And back in the days when it was still legal, many kids were playing it in my university's library. Kids were very good in that game, compare to some mid-age old man. That is how college become possible, and even have some chance of graduating debt-free, which is very rare nowadays.
New Economic Perspectives
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.
Oppressing an entire population is never cheap.
--Jeckler (/. Beta IS GARBAGE!)
The PPA's position says YES. 4. Is playing poker legal in the United States? Generally, playing poker in a social setting in one's home is legal in most, but not all, states. Some states permit playing social games of poker in taverns and bars, while very few states allow commercial poker games. Increasingly, however, government officials have undertaken "crackdowns" on the playing of poker in traditional settings, including at charity events. These stories are detailed in the News section of this Web site. The Internet poses separate issues. There is currently no federal law that prohibits anyone from playing poker online. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, does not change any federal gambling and does not make it illegal for people to play on the Internet (Note: some states do have laws, like Washington St. which have criminal penalties for online).
Poker is a game of skill
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.
'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.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
The point I am making is, why don't they ban the stock market as well? It is gambling, and a lot of people went bankrupt with that. There are some cases where college students borrow money and 'invest' in stocks recently. You can probably guess what happened to those people.
New Economic Perspectives
...seem pretty tame compared to the monkey knife fights, men/cow marriages, and re-broadcasting of Major League Baseball with implied oral consent
0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
...and I mean this with the utmost respect, mind you. "Illegal offshore gambling?" What the FUCK are you talking about?
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.
...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.
Have gnu, will travel.
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. The idea: Build a high speed rail from Las Vegas to Disneyland. :-) No seriously.
How about this: Allow online gambling but only from state-licensed betting parlors that met certain requirements. States, and where required by state law, localities would have to opt in.
States could, if they chose, let people declare their own home a betting parlor provided it met certain requirements, such as the ability to verify its location electronically, the ability to verify that only those legally permitted to gamble were gambling, that all gamblers were provided with information on gambling addiction, that all winnings were reported to taxing authorities, if people other than household residents were gambling that local business zoning laws were met, etc. etc. etc.
Those taking bets would have to be based in the United States, be based in a location where running a gambling operation of its type e.g. casino or sports betting was legal, be required to verify that the client location was a betting parlor, and verify that the person placing the bet was authorized by the management of the betting parlor.
This will be expensive, and most people will find it more convenient to drive to the nearest "betting cafe" than to do the paperwork and pay the fees needed to make their home into a legal online casino client.
If this kind of "enabling legislation" were in force, localities could experiment with allowing online gambling by their residents, and over time a consensus would emerge if this was a good thing or not.
Personal disclaimer: I would just assume not have online gambling, but if you are going to have it, go slow about it.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
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.
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.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Isn't gambling a state matter currently? Why not let the states handle it?
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
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.
One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh. - LL
And how many people failed to attend college because they, or their parents, gambled away the college fund?
But think of all the casino owner's children that got to go to college as a result.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
As one who has seen my aging mother develop a gambling addiction and then gamble away my parents entire life savings with absolutely no way to stop it, I cannot disagree with this strongly enough. Say what you will, the gambling institutions didn't grow to their current state by not being the only true winners.
I ask what possible redeeming element could there be to legalizing the ability for people to ruin their lives, just so a few can "entertain themselves?"
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.
While he may be an obstacle, I don't think so. Not only does online gaming (especially poker) increase interest in gambling, but I have recently heard that Harrah's is making a bid to set up an online Casino. This is tax revenue in Nevada's pocket. I hope this can pass and poker players don't have to jump through some absurd hoops to play online.
There are no safeguards when it comes to online gambling, right? In person at a casino, can't they deal with problem gamblers?
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 Gaming is conducted is equally silly. Opening it up to anyone clever enough to have a web site means everyone can be rich, almost overnight.
You do understand that if you have more than a couple of brain cells to rub together that this would be only slightly more corrupt than a chain letter? That it would be something for imbecile suckers to lose money at while offering the "early adopters" a chance to get rich quick. Of course it will be shut down, restricted and taxed heavily just as soon as (a) some select folks get rich and (b) lots of Average Joes lose enough money to cry about it.
the casino's will still kick you out for counting cards. Isn't poker a problem that's been solved anyway (like chess)?
Thanks for going to all that trouble html-formatting this pdf file instead of just linking to it. Golly gee your karma must be soaring!
Hate the sinner. Seriously. It's their problem.
...
- 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 creates the worst possible situation; it excludes people from talking openly about it, sharing experiences etc, and it takes away any real authority when you want to teach your children how to handle it.
I personally never gamble - to me it is dull as well as a stupid way of wasting money - but I do smoke cannabis occasionally, which makes me a dangerous criminal; however, it also makes me able to teach my children why they shouldn't smoke themselves silly because of the way it interferes with your ability to achieve your ambitions. And you know what? I hold down a responsible job and have for decades, and my children are doing very well for themselves too. I imagine the same is true for people who enjoy gambling.
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 politician.
I really do care that people gamble or, for the poker fanatics, engage in a game of 'skill'. What I do care about is that companies do not engage in fraud. A trip into a casino can be a education of skillful and scientific application / implementation of fraud (or depending on the way you look at life, perhaps directly against the local legal line).
I recall several reports over the years of blatantly illegal activities on the part of these online operations which only came to light due to disgruntled employees, cheated customers, or hacker activists. Surely we can not rely on such random occurrences to provide equal protection of the law.
So... given a online corporation strategically located in the most liberal jurisdictions: who is providing legislation, oversight, and arbitration? And how do you pay for such things?
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
For freak sake, if people want to gamble they are going to. its like saying that by closeing all bottle stores on weekends will stop alcoholics drinking.... they will jest get their fix else where. If you adicted to gameling you will gamble, be it online or at a casino. Its time for people to harden the F up, and stop trying to wipe every one elses bums!!
If you go broke or endanger your health (note: either can lead to the other) then I'm forced to pay for the resulting mess.
When an ambulance hauls your unconcious body into a hospital and you get treated, your failure to pay the bill causes rates to rise for me.
When you default on your loans, interest rates rise for me.
When you turn to crime to pay for your habits, you may mug or burglarize me.
When you fail to pay your share of taxes, a greater burden falls on me.
All gambling does is exploit some people's need for immediate gratification to cash in.
You might blow $100 in a good drunk at a posh bar in one night, but you could blow that in minutes, if not seconds, at a casino.
You don't ban gambling because you are against somebody gambling, when they may not be able to help it. You ban gambling because there's some jackass at the other end just taking in money for doing nothing. That the government wants to be that jackass is just criminal.
This is my sig.
Government shouldn't protect us from ourselves, just each other.
Gambling, prostitution, **any** drugs (including alcohol) and basically anything that doesn't harm another person or property WITHOUT their consent.
That last clause is important, since some people like to be beaten.
Would you guess that I'm a libertarian?
Making bad decisions shouldn't be illegal, even if they are deadly to yourself.
As a long time online poker player this has been an infuriating issue for me. Most of what's wrong with government is summed up in this ban on online poker. It was originally passed as an earmark on a port security bill. If this is really something that the majority of our elected representatives want to deem illegal at least put it up to a straight up vote. Anyone that familiarizes themselves with this issue can see that the ban is ridiculous. Ignorance is the only reason it is still in effect.
I know ten university students, like myself, who make a living playing online poker. Admittedly, it primarily "exploits" people with $50 who want to play poker from their home. It's a strategy game first and a luck game next, and your support for the PPA and pro-poker legislation makes it easier for us to transfer this money into the US, primarily for savings and investment at our age, and pay taxes on it. It's a completely ridiculous thing to legislate, and that's why I'm confident the World Series of Poker and its marketing buddies at ESPN, et al, with your support, can continue to bring the booming poker industry back home to the world capital of gambling, the USA.