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."
50 bucks says the bill fails.
I came here for a good argument
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).
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
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If the gambling ban is repealed, these sites would immediately cease to be "criminal enterprises", and become legal offshore Internet gambling sites.
If the gambling ban is repealed and these sites chose to operate "unfettered within the United States", they'd then become legal, American gambling sites.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.
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
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...
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
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!
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...
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.
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!)
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?
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
Disregard that - I suck cocks.
I'm disabling ads until because I choose not to reward redesigns that are less usable than "view source".
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.