$33 Million In Poker Winnings Seized By US Govt

An anonymous reader writes "A New York Times story reports that, 'Opening a new front in the government's battle against Internet gambling, federal prosecutors have asked four American banks to freeze tens of millions of dollars in payments owed to people who play poker online. ... "It's very aggressive, and I think it's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors," Mr. Rose said. He added that it was not clear what law would cover the seizure of money belonging to poker players, as opposed to the money of the companies involved.' Many players are reporting that their cashout checks have bounced."

Comments

Lame Gov

[tc3driver]

Hello.... Government....
Don't you have more important things to be thinking about than `internet poker`?
Like an economy on the rocks?
or maybe nearly 10% of the folks in this nation who have no source of income?

Honestly, I'll never understand who goes through our governments minds... they do nothing but waste time, thus waste money... and people wonder why this nation is on the verge of collapse...

Re:Lame Gov

[Brett Buck]

There's no more important government function that getting their hands on someone else's money.

      Brett

Re:Lame Gov

[east coast]

Sorry you didn't understand... This *IS* their plan to fix the economy.

Re:Lame Gov

[geekoid]

Yes the government is just one big agency that only does one thing at a time~

The nation is on the verge of collapse(it's actually not) due to libertarian shifts in the banking industry.

Re:Lame Gov

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, let's see, you seem to be thinking the Government is one monolithic entity, that can only process one thing at a time. In reality, it's multi-taking, multi-processing, and otherwise engaged in doing a lot of things at once. More than likely, none of the people involved in this situation have anything to do with the economy in any meaningful decision-making way. Their concern is elsewhere.

So yeah, you're just making a joke, but it's not funny, because it's simply not true. Don't go on the White-Collar comedy tour.

Re:Lame Gov

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Change we can believe in. It's disgusting, now the government is robbing people of gaming winnings. They have nothing better to do, than make sure it's citizens are taxed and robbed to death. I guess they forgot how America was "discovered" in the first place... to escape an oppressive and over size government that is at it's heart, was hypocritical, much like today. We have tax cheats and frauds in financial institutions running this country. It's just sickening. The uprising is coming, and they will only have themselves to blame. It's coming.

Re:Lame Gov

[hedwards]

Actually, that would be a continuation of the policy put forward during the Bush administration years. I know that you like to bash Democrats, but I don't recall President Bush or the Republicans in congress threatening to shut it down.

The uprising is indeed coming, but to assume that it's going to go in favor of fascism is a huge mistake. The people of America are getting pretty sick of being abused so that corporations and moral interests can take their freedom. If you don't like this sort of policy, then you shouldn't vote for Republicans, end of story. They were the main proponents of banning internet gaming, not the Democrats.

Re:Lame Gov

[Arthur B.]

Libertarian shift in the banking industry o_O ?

The libertarians have been the most rabid opponent of the banking system for decades. The banking system is basically a franchise system by the state controlled central bank. The most important factor in banking, the short term interest rate is set by a group of technocrats and politicians, much like the gosplan. Banking is the least libertarian sector in the economy, it is a pillar of the government.

Re:Lame Gov

[MetinAustralia]

Wasn't this law brought in to protect the individual from losing his/her money to gambling? Then why is the individual now losing his/her money to the government?

Re:Lame Gov

[Anonymous Coward]

The government is a jealous lover.

Re:Lame Gov

[Brett Buck]

Are you addressing me? Where did I differentially bash anyone?

          Brett

Re:Lame Gov

[MindlessAutomata]

I guess they forgot how America was "discovered" in the first place... to escape an oppressive and over size government that is at it's heart, was hypocritical, much like today

The problem isn't that the politicians forgot this. It's that the American population did.

Re:Lame Gov

[Airborne-ng]

Honestly, I'll never understand who goes through our governments minds...

The last person to go through my mind was Jessica Biel...maybe it's the same for them.

Re:Lame Gov

[QuoteMstr]

Stop funding tasks that aren't improving urgent concerns

So in your world, nothing not urgent should be worked on? I take it you're not a fan of preventative maintenance then.

Re:Lame Gov

[Archangel Michael]

Then why is the individual now losing his/her money to the government?

The government hates competition.

Re:Lame Gov

[slarrg]

Let me see if I've got this straight. The government is concerned that people are being scammed out of their money by online poker playing so they take the player's money instead. How's this better? And, wouldn't the fact that the money they are seizing is actually payouts from the poker companies prove that at least people are actually winning at least $33 million?

Re:Lame Gov

[moosesocks]

'+5, Insightful'? Really?

Care to propose a government that can function without taxation? The Nobel Prize committee would love to hear about it.

If the government is unable to enforce its laws (tax evasion being among those laws), it becomes completely ineffective. Many consider the ability to systematically and consistently collect a tax to be one of the cornerstones of a stable government. The fact that the economy is fux0red has absolutely nothing to do with the government's enforcement of the tax code. As long as there's a code, it needs to be enforced, just like the rest of our laws.

I suppose you could question whether or not this law should be on the books to begin with. However, the fact that it's being enforced shouldn't even be the subject of discussion. It's quite well-known that this sort of activity is illegal, and there are plenty of legal venues for gambling available. The situation here isn't even remotely controversial.

In fact, we'd have huge problems if the government selectively chose which laws to enforce.

Re:Lame Gov

[Darkness404]

Care to propose a government that can function without taxation? The Nobel Prize committee would love to hear about it.

Yes, a pay-per-use government with only one tax mandatory (for defense) would be feasable and would lead to a more free way of living. Just look at the internet, other than connection fees and defense, the internet exists in a fully free economy which thrives, there is no recession in the internet.

Re:Lame Gov

[Khyber]

Libertarian and banking do not, and most likely never will be, associated in the same sentence.

Go look at the Federal Reserve. How fucked would they be if we subjected them to a standard audit?

THERE lies your answer. The government is the problem. Bye, libertarians, bye democrats, bye greens, bye republicans - you're all at fault.

Re:Lame Gov

[Kligat]

It's like kicking someone trying to commit suicide in the shin.

Re:Lame Gov

[QuoteMstr]

free way of living

Just like the 1880s, right? Sure, you can live free if you're the upper crust. Otherwise, your life will be nasty, brutish, and short, and spent toiling away and never seeing more of your proceeds than you need to stay alive, barely. This isn't a nightmare scenario. It actually happened. It was called the Gilded Age, and we should be glad it ended. Why do extreme libertarians like you consistently deny the logical implications of your policies?

Just look at the internet

I can't eat a Youtube video. How do you think all the thousands of people who are paid to create internet content get paid? With currency only good on the internet? The Internet isn't some isolated bubble divorced from the real economy. It's enmeshed quite heavily: people order real, hard goods through it, put real capital derived from conventional industry into it, and spend the real money generated from it on tangible products.

there is no recession in the internet

I suppose I'm dealing with a true believer here. Of course there's a recession "in the internet": it makes as much sense to say "no recession in the internet" as it does to say "no recession on the telephone network".

Re:Lame Gov

[QuoteMstr]

Not true. While speeds below the speed limit may still be considered unsafe and attract a summons, any speed over the posted limit is prima facie evidence of unreasonable speed and is illegal on that basis alone.

Re:Lame Gov

[Darkness404]

Just like the 1880s, right? Sure, you can live free if you're the upper crust. Otherwise, your life will be nasty, brutish, and short, and spent toiling away and never seeing more of your proceeds than you need to stay alive, barely.

Please elaborate. With the decline of government comes the decline of patents, therefore medicine would be cheaper than ever before and would only be limited by the materials needed to manufacture it. And how won't you see any more of your proceeds? Today we can import almost anything we need for cheap, with the sharp reduction in tariffs expected with a decline in government, goods become cheaper.

This isn't a nightmare scenario. It actually happened. It was called the Gilded Age, and we should be glad it ended. Why do extreme libertarians like you consistently deny the logical implications of your policies?

Again, elaborate, the Gilded Age was plagued with lack of information, government policies (such as giving land away to the railroad companies), a lack of a global economy to export to and import from and a lack of (today) basic technology. Suffice to say that the Gilded Age could not be recreated with A) A weaker government and B) 21st century technology/world economy.

I can't eat a Youtube video. How do you think all the thousands of people who are paid to create internet content get paid? With currency only good on the internet? The Internet isn't some isolated bubble divorced from the real economy. It's enmeshed quite heavily: people order real, hard goods through it, put real capital derived from conventional industry into it, and spend the real money generated from it on tangible products.

Your point holds true to a point, but look at Google, their entire business is intangible and works on choice. Plus even though there are thousands getting paid for internet content there are untold millions making no profit whatsoever on internet content. If you don't believe me simply look at your post, you posted a comment with a 0% chance that you could use that comment to make a profit.

The internet though is different than the traditional government controlled economy because you have absolute freedom of choice. Where in the USA you are penalized for choosing a provider in a certain area (either by taxes or by tariffs) it makes no difference where the site is you are accessing on the internet. If I want to go to www.nicovideo.jp rather than YouTube for my online video, that makes no difference. Whereas if I choose to get a Japanese car rather than an American car I would be paying more to the government for doing absolutely nothing.

I suppose I'm dealing with a true believer here. Of course there's a recession "in the internet": it makes as much sense to say "no recession in the internet" as it does to say "no recession on the telephone network".

The difference is there are entire industries not based off the network of the internet but rather the internet as a whole. The phone network functions, well, as a phone network. Other than perhaps a few phone-based services, there is no business using the phone system to really function like Google has for the internet. Then there is the internet community, the phone network has no real community.

Re:Lame Gov

[sumdumass]

Dude, this is just change you can believe in.

Seriously, the thought of winning is what drives most gamblers who are out of control. Almost everyone I know who does online gambling says they do it "to win" and not for "entertainment" or "to pass the time". Of course I know a lot of people who will brag about spending $200 to win $50 and think they are getting somewhere. It's like another guy I know who used to spend his entire paycheck on instant lottery tickets. He would toss $400-500 to the state and average about $300 in winnings. Every once in a while, he would win big but I think he still broke even in the long run. If there is no collecting of the winnings, then a lot of the gamblers move on or stop.

Think of it like removing all the food and furniture in the house to get your in laws (or grown kids) to move to somewhere else. As long as they're happy they will stay forever, but as soon as they get uncomfortable, they hightail it to somewhere else.

Re:Lame Gov

[JStegmaier]

I think you're showing your own bias in how you interpreted that AC's post. You read it as bashing the Democrats, and point out that it's just a continuation of a Bush policy--which was exactly what he was criticizing!

Since when is "But the Republicans were doing it to!" a defense of the Democratic party? If anything, they should be doing absolutely nothing the Republicans were doing, but unfortunately we're just getting more of the same.

Re:Lame Gov

[sumdumass]

Most state also encode maximum speed limits into laws concerning certain types of roads. For instance, in my area, an unmarked country road outside the city limits is 45 mph. A numbered highway is 55 MPH unless it is divided with limited access and then it is 65 MPH. Of course these change when within the city limits of any municipal incorporation or village.

Anyways, the limit may already be imposed as to what is unreasonable by state law, reinforcing what you said.

Re:Lame Gov

[tsm_sf]

With the decline of government comes the decline of patents, therefore medicine would be cheaper than ever before and would only be limited by the materials needed to manufacture it.

Those who don't remember history are doomed to buy Dr. Brush's Magic Tonsil Tonic.

Re:Lame Gov

[sumdumass]

By not collecting the winnings, you have just removed a large portion of the motivation to participate in the first place.

As for winnings showing the opposite, we lack enough information to know for sure. If 1 million people are winning the 33 million, then it's $33 a piece. But if they lost $300 in order to win the $33, then that's a little lopsided now isn't it? Now if that loss was because of scams like robot players at the table or people seeing different cards at the same table (suppose we both had an ace and an eight but the game showed each of us as the opponent as having a higher hand making us both think we lost as to pocket the difference). Or worse yet, suppose your at a hold'em table and I am on the phone with 3 other players at the table. We can manipulate the bid in an attempt to maximize out winning by sharing who has what and splitting the winnings later.

Re:Lame Gov

[humphrm]

No, the law was "brought in" to protect the American taxpayers from losing tax revenue on winnings earned, redeemed and spent in the US.

Re:Lame Gov

[cayenne8]

"I think you're showing your own bias in how you interpreted that AC's post. You read it as bashing the Democrats, and point out that it's just a continuation of a Bush policy--which was exactly what he was criticizing!

Since when is "But the Republicans were doing it to!" a defense of the Democratic party? If anything, they should be doing absolutely nothing the Republicans were doing, but unfortunately we're just getting more of the same."

Well, let's see....the Republicans started it...so we shouldn't bitch about it when the Dems do it??

Geez, after only a few months into the new admin, they seem to be willing and anxious to run roughshod over more of the constitution than the previous admin, of whom I was angry at too. I mean, the current ones don't even make the pretense to care about the consitution or rule of law. The latest instance in the Chrysler and soon to be GM 'bankruptcy' cases...where they bypassed the laws that have been in place for hundreds of years of who should be paid off first. They screwed over the bond holders, and in lieu of paying them off first like they should they handed the company over to the Unions, that didn't have secured claims to monies....

And from the article:

" He added that it was not clear what law would cover the seizure of money belonging to poker players, "

IF they're easy to throw away the laws regulating contracts and investmens in the US, what makes you think they have any reservations about taking any monies from individual citizens. Hell, what scares me...this is just the start.

Apparently laws mean nothing anymore to the govt....it is a huge power and money grab, and we're just pawns in the game.

I'm afraid America as we knew it, is going away fast...and by the time the general populace notices it....will be too late to turn it around.

Re:Lame Gov

[kcitren]

Please elaborate. With the decline of government comes the decline of patents, therefore medicine would be cheaper than ever before and would only be limited by the materials needed to manufacture it. And how won't you see any more of your proceeds? Today we can import almost anything we need for cheap, with the sharp reduction in tariffs expected with a decline in government, goods become cheaper.

And where is the incentive to create new medications? I, for one, am awaiting for the creation of a few new medical treatments [a pill, say, to replace the three times a week injections I have to give myself; or a cure, perhaps to the underlying condition, not that it's in the pharmaceutical companies interest to actually cure anything ]. The value of something is not simply the material costs. Research costs time and money, that cost has to be a) recouped, and b) incentivized. While I'm a huge proponent of the open-source, work on what you believe in, approach to development, it's not enough. There are not enough independently wealthy, selfless, do-gooders [in the best sense of the word] in the world to rely on for advancement in technologies.

Re:Lame Gov

[cayenne8]

"If the government is unable to enforce its laws (tax evasion being among those laws), "

Who said these gamblers were going to commit tax evasion???

I mean, there are spots right on the tax forms to fill in for gambling losses, etc. As long as you declare your winnings as income, there is no invasion.

So in this case...they're seizing it because someone might tax evade?

For that matter...should they now take money from independent business..like a contractor, who collects money with no taxes taken out of it...because he might not pay the appropriate tax?

I mean, I know the govt. makes it hard to be an indie business because they don't like it when they don't get their cut first like with a w2 employee, but, really....should we seize the funds first now? That's the analogy I see here with your example.

Re:Lame Gov

[Lunzo]

Libertarians (or more correctly neo-liberals) are opponents of the reserve bank yes. However they have had a huge influence on the banking industry. They successfully lobbied for deregulation in the extreme under the mantra of "the free market is more efficient" and "let the market decide". What they didn't realize is that some regulation of the banking industry is needed to ensure there is still a market for people to decide on when times get tough.

Re:Lame Gov

[brendan.hill]

Let's be reasonable for a moment...

The US Government has thousands of people working on thousands of project at any given time.

Anyone can walk up and say "why bother working on this one over here when this completely unrelated one over here managed by completely different people with completely different responsibilities could be worked on instead?"

Why bother issuing parking fines when the economy is on the brink of destruction? Gee, maybe because they've pretty much got nothing whatsoever to do with each other?

Come on.

Re:Lame Gov

[Kjella]

At least in a game like poker you can say that they're protecting all the people you have taken money from or intended to try taking making money from. Yes, it's somewhat absurd because they're protecting those people from you and you from those people, but that's the essence of a gambling ban - it's regulating how adult consenting people redistribute their money.

Re:Lame Gov

[shawn(at)fsu]

you're exactly right, because the whole of the entire government can only focus on one single task at a time. It is completely impossible that the government could divide itself in to groups to handle different tasks.

Re:Lame Gov

[Daniel Dvorkin]

a pay-per-use government with only one tax mandatory (for defense)

So why is defense the special case in this pay-as-you-go libertopia? Why can't we all just defend our own homes and communities, as the Framers intended? ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ...") Once you admit that one particular function is too big a problem for individuals to handle on their own, you pretty much open the door to all the others.

Re:Lame Gov

[MarkvW]

If you put a proposition to the vote that would eliminate all taxes and double all government services, I bet that a freakishly large number of people would vote for it. Much of the /. membership takes no responsibility for governmental actions--they're just passive whiners.

Re:Lame Gov

[Starlon]

Well, this year's Audit the Fed bill has a TON of sponsors. Last I checked Ron Paul had over 150 representatives signed on.

Re:Lame Gov

[martin-boundary]

Because you have to destroy the village in order to save it.

Re:Lame Gov

[Migity]

Well, let's see....the Republicans started it...so we shouldn't bitch about it when the Dems do it??

Maybe this guy was right.

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

-George Washington's Farewell Address, paragraph 20-25

Re:Lame Gov

[JumpDrive]

and what the hell does that have to do with the article. Taxes were never mentioned in the article.
I gamble and I pay taxes on my winnings if I get caught I go to jail. In gambling on poker and horse racing I find tax laws and enforcement much more restrictive. If I win big I have to sign for my winnings and taxes are withheld at 28% immediately. I can move money in and out of my Etrade account without a problem no matter how much I won, I'm free to invest it gamble it somewhere else or buy whatever I want with it. (usually hookers)
In both cases I just have to pay taxes on it when they are due.
Reporting on my income taxes is pretty much the same for both
I have to report each gambling transaction, how much I put in, and how much I got out.
From my perspective as an investor in gaming and using another business as an example, this would be tantamount to stopping all imports of Chinese goods until the Chinese companies reported their profits on those goods and payed the taxes. Wal-Mart would be out of business in about a month. But I'm kind of used to the stigma that is attached in the US on non-standard gambling. One day pretty soon I'll leave, because there are cases where laws are enforced arbitrarily within the US (usually state by state and within state) and I don't want to be a victim. Just my choice. I mean it was so bad for awhile nobody really was sure which states it was legal to gamble on horse racing in and one company would handle your transactions and another would. In grade school we set up a government without taxes and it pretty much worked without taxation. Well unless you consider the kisses I gave Lisa a form of taxation, I mean she was Pres.

Re:Lame Gov

[Carlos Laviola]

Man, you're right... It's a shame the government can't ever do more than one thing at a time :-(

Re:Lame Gov

[genericpoweruser]

*At the risk of an off-topic mod* Why can't I change my viewing threshold to -1 anymore? Or rather, why is it that having it at -1 there are still hidden comments.

(Not to mention that earlier today I saw a +5 funny buried by a -1 mod)

Am I just doing it wrong?

Re:Lame Gov

[Korin43]

Isn't the point of drug laws to keep people from ruining their lives?

Why is the government ruining drug users' lives by arresting them and leaving them with criminal records?

Re:Lame Gov

[QuoteMstr]

I see nothing in your post that contradicts mine. Texas sets certain speeds that are illegal to exceed. Speed in excess of these numbers is illegal simply because of the speed itself. The same principle applies in nearly every state.

Re:Lame Gov

[Alpha830RulZ]

Go look at the Federal Reserve. How fucked would they be if we subjected them to a standard audit?

Probably not fucked at all. You don't know much about audits. The Fed probably has scrupulously kept books, which accurately record the amount of funds that they are adding to the money supply. You're confusing auditability with fiscal prudence. Audits don't purport to measure whether a business or organization is healthy or behaving wisely. They attest as to whether the books are kept accurately with regards to certain accounting standards. I would be stunned if the numbers are inaccurate, as the Fed and US Treasury are fairly transparent. You can read about the Fed's doings every day in the Wall Street Journal.

Re:Lame Gov

[Alpha830RulZ]

Well, the best part of the joke is that these people are still liable for taxes on these winnings. You don't escape tax liability on illegal earnings just because the government snagged the cash. Cf. Al Capone.

Re:Lame Gov

[Threni]

Because it's about government control and looking tough on crime, not about stopping people from ruining their lives.

Re:Lame Gov

[vought]

Do they give money back to the users when a drug dealer is busted?

Re:Lame Gov

[WNight]

Nobody is suggesting stopping gambling, just non-state sponsored gambling where taxes aren't being paid. All your moralizing about gambling is totally irrelevant here because the US Gov would be really happy if the addicts would ruin their lives in approved casinos.

It's absolute theft to take this money. It belonged to one person, he gave it to another, they gave some back. Now the government decides that like the "house" in a crooked casino we can't leave, we owe a percentage of each transaction to them. For the favour of doing business in their turf.

Like all taxation it's theft.

But because we're all already screwed sixty-seven different ways from various taxes we're content to sit by for, no - we demand that, the government put the screws to someone else because we desperately believe the lie that it'll lighten our burden.

But it's just theft. Seizing evil gambling winnings to pay for orphanages (and the staggering collapse of the banking system) is a winning political move because it's nothing more than "See that shady-looking guy? Let's beat him up and take his money!" People are always willing to ignore the rights of others for a quick buck - or the promise of one.

(cough) See that Iraqi with that oil well... One quick little war...(/cough)

Re:Lame Gov

[jonbryce]

This $33m will go a tiny way towards getting the bailout funds our banks need.

Also, offshore gambling sucks money out of the economy, so from an economic perspective, it is a good idea for the government to try to stop it.

Re:Lame Gov

[jonbryce]

In Britain, driving above the speed limit will get you a speeding ticket. Driving too fast for the conditions but still within the speed limit will get you a "dangerous driving" or "driving without due care and attention" ticket.

Re:Lame Gov

[sumdumass]

Nobody is suggesting stopping gambling, just non-state sponsored gambling where taxes aren't being paid. All your moralizing about gambling is totally irrelevant here because the US Gov would be really happy if the addicts would ruin their lives in approved casinos.

Actually, there was no moralizing there. It was just an illustration of how they would get people to follow the laws. And seeing how they only froze payment to the no-state sponsered sites, then you can look at it as directing the gamblers away from those sites and to approved ones.

It's absolute theft to take this money. It belonged to one person, he gave it to another, they gave some back. Now the government decides that like the "house" in a crooked casino we can't leave, we owe a percentage of each transaction to them. For the favour of doing business in their turf.

This is not unlike a regular casino, you have to report your winning and pay taxes on them and if they are over a certain amount (I think about $5 grans) they will take taxes out before you leave the casino.

The rest of your comment I pretty much agree with except the Iraq comment. It's totally baseless and out of whack with reality.

Re:Lame Gov

[dimeglio]

At least we now all know that some actual people really do win money playing poker on-line. Great publicity!

Re:Lame Gov

[Anonymous Coward]

Switch off the broken pile of Web 2.0 shit and you may find Slashdot works.

Re:Lame Gov

[Anonymous Coward]

> I guess they forgot how America was "discovered" in the first place... to escape an oppressive and over size government that is at it's heart, was hypocritical, much like today

Huh? Enough with the revisionist history already! America was discovered by Christopher Columbus in search of a trade route in order to make lots and lots of money trading spice. Also, the poor, poor pilgrims fleeing from oppression went to the Netherlands first, where they had a very good time and were hardly oppressed at all. The reason they went to America was because they had trouble adapting to the Dutch culture (which was a little too free for them), NOT because the Dutch were oppressing them.

Re:Lame Gov

[L4t3r4lu5]

$33m?

That's about 2.9e-4% of US national debt.

Sure, they have their priorities straight...

Re:Lame Gov

[Tenebrousedge]

Good example. You're calling for these online casinos to be legalized and regulated. Collusion is extremely easy to detect if you're running the game and can see all the cards. If you're worried about rigged games, you should audit the casino, and fine the hell out of anyone running a bad table.

By not collecting the winnings, they're attempting to fix the symptom and not the problem. It's disturbingly similar to the DEA's program to seize assets of those suspected of drug crimes. You know, the one that robs and kills people.

Re:Lame Gov

[WNight]

I guess it comes off as moralizing because you talk about delusional gamblers (no argument there) and how they'll stop if they can't collect their winnings. Well yeah, most people will stop doing something if everything they hoped to gain would be confiscated - however delusional the basic activity. But, if you didn't mean it that way you didn't. But yeah, it will be effective.

I've never been accused of staying on-topic, so what's baseless about the comment on the Iraqi war? It was presented as a quick little war, and the non-oil reasons (terrorists, Saddam, etc) all fall apart when poked at.

Or was it the connection between the unjust war and taxation?

Re:Lame Gov

[Dog-Cow]

Had the Government not take over Chrysler and GM, those companies would have ceased to exist several months ago. If the Government is going to waste several billion dollars on each company, I think it's rather fair that they have a say in how they are run. After all, it's rather clear that neither company's board or management have any clue as to how to run a profitable company.

Re:Lame Gov

[cayenne8]

"Had the Government not take over Chrysler and GM, those companies would have ceased to exist several months ago. If the Government is going to waste several billion dollars on each company, I think it's rather fair that they have a say in how they are run. After all, it's rather clear that neither company's board or management have any clue as to how to run a profitable company."

That's the problem in the first place. There should have been no bail out,and these companies SHOULD have been allowed to have failed and gone into normal bankruptcy proceedings (which these are not). That way, they could have shed their debts and contracts, especially the union contract that have been strangling the car companies for decades. That last reason is the real reason the Obama admin has come in and interfered as they did....political reasons, they own the unions big time.

If these companies had gone through normal bankruptcy...they'd not have disappeared. I mean...remember all the people flying on bankrupt airlines in recent years? A large company can go through bankruptcy and never shut its doors.

No, this whole thing has been a sham, and worse, it has really damaged contract law, and faith in loans. The secured bonded debt holders should have been paid off first, but they were put at the bottom of the list (unprecedented), and unsecured debt holder, UAW was put at the top, and essentially given the company. And those strangling contracts? Essentially still in place. How do we expect these car companies to ever come back to compete with world manufacturers, if they can't truly 'start over'...?

Re:Lame Gov

[geminidomino]

Honestly, I'll never understand who goes through our governments minds...

The same thing that goes through ours. Remember who gives the government its authority.

Their bigger-than-our guns?

Re:Lame Gov

[geminidomino]

The last person to go through my mind was Jessica Biel

I hate when that happens. She always leaves such a mess.

Re:Lame Gov

[webweave]

Lame population:
Hello citizen, do you think that it is you who chooses which laws are enforced and against who? If you don't like the law do something to change it, sitting on your ass and complaining about it does little except identify you as a dipshit.

Re:Lame Gov

[gfreeman]

You criticize the poster for being too extreme, and then yourself produce an analogy that is at the other extreme.

'Preventative maintenance' is not washing your cars hubcaps, it's checking the oil, the brakes, tire treads and so on.

Re:Lame Gov

[mdarksbane]

When the other guy has a gun, generally yes.

Although the real problem is that even Bill Gates would have a hard time funding enough private jet fighters (and the research and development to produce them) to stave off a foreign invasion.

Re:Lame Gov

[Ed_Pinkley]

I'm not dissagreeing with you, just commenting on some details. The ROI on scratchoffs is much worse than anything in vegas. (I recall reading 60-75% but I am at work and can't get on any gambliong web sites.) If this guy is playing the lotto every week he is losing, say 25%, on average every week *including the big wins.* He is not breaking even for any amount of time unless he is very lucky. And I mean Larry-Niven-ringworld-bread-for-luck lucky.

If you had 1 billion dollars and spent it and all your winnings every week on the lottery, you would end up with under 1000 in a year. People overestimate wins and underestimate losses, especially their own.

Next time you see this guy, thank him. He and people like him are paying the government so people with some math sense can pay less in taxes. :)

Re:Lame Gov

[mcgrew]

What I don't understand is, there is no Federal law against gambling. Gambling is legal in many states; hell, you can gamble on horseraces here in Illinois, and we have riverboat casinos too.

Why is the Federal government involved at all?

Re:Lame Gov

[pbhj]

He would toss $400-500 to the state and average about $300 in winnings. Every once in a while, he would win big but I think he still broke even in the long run.

If he broke even then, after a while assuming no change in conditions, he wasn't gambling. He would have stood to lose nothing ("broke even") but potentially gain whatever the top prize was.

Re:Lame Gov

[UnrealisticWhample]

Those who don't remember history are doomed to buy Dr. Brush's Magic Tonsil Tonic.

Well, at least we can look forward to the fact that Dr. Brush's Magic Tonsil Tonic is likely to contain either an opiate or cocaine if not both!

Re:Lame Gov

[pbhj]

And where is the incentive to create new medications?

To sell them.

You know there are no patents protecting farmer Blake from growing carrots simply because farmer Adams grows them already yet somehow they both manage to grow crops and profit. They call it capitalism. What stops anyone from growing carrots in their yard, nothing, except the farmers skill (versus your own) and economies of scale.

The barrier of entry for pharma is a lot higher and so potential profits are too.

From a 2001 study (I'm sure things haven't changed that much here), http://dcc2.bumc.bu.edu/hs/sager/pdfs/020402/Pharmaceutical%20Marketing%20and%20Research%20Spending%20APHA%2021%20Oct%2001.pdf :

"Last year, a colleague looked at annual reports of six of the biggest drug makers,
and found that just 11 percent of revenues went for R&D in those firms. [...]
Thatâ(TM)s far below the 18.5-20.0 percent levels that the industry says it devotes to
R&D."

Elsewhere "31 percent [of revenue] went for marketing and administration." and it's noted that a 1950s senate study reported 4 times the revenue spent on marketing as on R&D.

I don't actually promote negation of drug patents. The 5 years or so of drug trials are the major hurdle. I think a term of license + 5 years (or so) or for compatibility a fixed patent term across all technologies of 10 years from registration is plenty.

Pharma's don't spend a lot on R&D compared to the gain they get in profit (about equal to the R&D figures) the patent deal is too cheap for them IMO.

Re:Lame Gov

[shummer_mc]

The personification of gov't into one evil entity incapable of multi-tasking is lame... (as are all the rest of these over-simplifying personifications).

Re:Lame Gov

[geekoid]

"Please elaborate. With the decline of government comes the decline of patents, therefore medicine would be cheaper than ever before and would only be limited by the materials needed to manufacture it"

Completely wrong. The patent cost id miniscule compared to the millions needed to develop a drug. And NO ONE is going to invest millions into a drug they will be knocked of the very second it hits the shelf.

Also, drug patent are different then other patents. If you don't know how please actually look into this issue instead of repeating ignorant crap. You are better then that.

Re:Lame Gov

[geekoid]

Becasue it's hard to defend against bombs dropped from 30K feet? Part of defense is also maintaining a good relationship with our neighbors. However it's moot. Libertarians seem to forget that there ideals have failed over, and over, and over again.

Re:Lame Gov

[geekoid]

Perfectly said.

You also need regulations to help stop and punish people who just make up financial schemes based on nothing.

Re:Lame Gov

[geekoid]

And they ahve pushed to remove regulation from it. Welcome to a libertarian economy.

Really, if you don't understand that then you don't really understand libertarianism, much less it's failings.

Re:Lame Gov

[geekoid]

You ignorance is..lets say outstanding.

Libertarians are against audits, because there are a by product of regulations.
Oh, and the Federal Reserve IS AUDITED, you idiot.

Re:Lame Gov

[sumdumass]

I understand that. The problem is that he thought he was going somewhere. This could have been much worse as far as gambling addiction goes but the fact that he couldn't grasp that he wasn't making anything more then he normally would have illustrates the type of mental processes people goes though when they gamble.

I have always held the rule-belief that if you couldn't drop the money on something frivolous or in the trash can, then you shouldn't be gambling with it. I'm not anti-gambling but I am anti lottery where they promise money is going to the schools but it generally makes up less the 3-5% of their funding. It's mostly a stupid tax that ignorant people play based around a false hope of something better. Many of the people get a rude awakening when they find their $5 mill jackpot only pays a lump sum of $1.2 mill and the government takes a little more then half of that. This is what a local office pool of 4 employees found out after quitting their jobs thinking they were getting 1 mill a peace to find out it was less then $160K. I look at it as entertainment rather then making me rich. Some people can't grasp the concept of spending $300 to make $100 is a loss and breaking even is not getting ahead. This may be because they are stupid or because the need for hope or winning is so large with them, or because of a number of other reasons I'm not even qualified to suggest.

Re:Lame Gov

[Svartalf]

1) Libertarians aren't neo-liberals or neo-conservatives; they're a differing party from the other two- and while there's both kinds in the Libertarian party, there's as many or more in the Republican and Democrat camps.
2) The people who actually did the lobbying for the initial loosening of the regulations was the Democrats under the premise that there'd be easier access to home ownership.
3) The further loosening of the rules that was done was done by the Republicans under the mantra you quoted.
4) Under the all loosening (Not just the Republicans, mind...), the players did very, very iffy practices, urged on by the Government of two different Presidents from two different parties to give out the loans they did.

Re:Lame Gov

[sumdumass]

Well, to be concise, currently we can't audit offshore casinos and the frozen assets are only for offshore casinos outside our reach. I think this is a little different then the DEA's program in that we have a clear record of what gains are from illicit activities as in payouts for offshore internet gambling sites where as the DEA program used to be everything first. It should also be noted that now the DEA has to show that the items were purchased or paid for with drug money to take.

Re:Lame Gov

[Svartalf]

But, unfortunately, many of the things that the government are about doing don't even remotely fall under "preventative maintenance", which many would consider to be nearly
as urgent as the other "urgent" stuff.

Re:Lame Gov

[MindlessAutomata]

I just assumed he meant the founding of the colonies at Plymouth Rock.

Re:Lame Gov

[mattwarden]

Please. The government isn't outlawing gambling. They're outlawing unlicensed, untaxed gambling.

Re:Lame Gov

[mattwarden]

Brilliant call, my friend. The government protects people from ruining their lives by taking away their freedom, throwing them in jail, and leaving them forever branded a convicted felon.

Let me ask you this... how many smart people are convicted of marijuana possession? And how worse off is society because they're busy in court, and paying fines, and sitting in jail instead of being productive?

You should know better than to use the drug 'war' as evidence for an argument outside of a PTA meeting.

Re:Lame Gov

[sumdumass]

I've never been accused of staying on-topic, so what's baseless about the comment on the Iraqi war? It was presented as a quick little war, and the non-oil reasons (terrorists, Saddam, etc) all fall apart when poked at.

There were legitimate reasons for the Iraq war without bringing oil into the mix. And to note, oil from Iraq has never benefited the US even when the left was attempting to make it so by claiming that Iraq's oil money should be paying for the war.

Now it turns out after the fact that a lot of those legitimate reasons were not valid and they were posed because of Saddam's attempts to make it appear that way out of fear of retaliation from it's neighbors. Don't let that sentence confuse you, a legitimate reason can be illegitimate after the fact when we find out more then we knew at the time. What I'm saying is that if everything points to A, then A can be treated as being true until it is proved false. Even people like Hans Blix who came out against the war claiming there was no WMDs, provided misleading statements in his reports to the UN security council that made the world believe they were there. Some of these statements were that previously declare destroyed munitions were showing up and surprise inspection sites, banned chemical weapons machinery that was declared destroyed ended up at an agriculture chemical processing facility in which is wasn't far off from being used again for weapons production. In the month leading up to the war, he showed proof of illegal missile systems, and so on. At the time the US wanted to goto war with Iraq, most of the world leaders believe the same as we did but they didn't agree that war was necessary. It wasn't until after the war that we found our understanding to be so far off base.

The war was never about oil unless you count the secrete oil deals France was making while violating the UN sanctions and using that for leverage. Iraq was cooperating until France issues a proclamation that it would veto any vote for war with Iraq, then they went back to the stall and hide tactics. Some say the corruption surrounding the sanctions and UN oil for food program is what defeated the sanctions and allowed Iraq to posture itself the way it did in the first place. I agree with them and state further that Bush could have never found a reason to invade if Iraq would have been forced into compliance to the 1993 armistice agreement as the sanctions were intended to do.

I will also go further because I know the mindset and customs prevalent of the middle east, and say that 9/11 might not of ever happened if it wasn't for years of Iraq pushing us around and making us look like we were all talk. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the then number Al Qeada official told interviewers that they didn't expect the American response because of how it treated Iraq when in defiance and the response to other Al Qeada attacks.

The problem I has with that part of your statement was the connection to oil. If you want to say scared over bad intelligence, fine. If you wanted to say retaliation for actions that emboldened Al Qeada, or because Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was inside Iraq operating a poison and explosives terrorist training camp with Iraq protecting him, fine. But oil is nothing but an anti-war conspiracy designed to inflame people without addressing any of the facts before, during, or after the war. If you want to claim the war was because Bush was an idiot, I'm somewhat fine with that (although at the time there was plenty of evidence to suggest strong military actions dating from 1995 forward). It's the connection with oil that simply does not exist that I have issues with. Just because it is there does not make it part of the puzzle. We were involved in the middle east before oil was a priority, we will be there long after it is. In fact, we have had relations in the middle east since the beginning of our country Kuwait was a long time ally and port safe harbor and trade and they even allowed Thomas Jefferson's marines to resupply during the invasion into Tripoli to stop the Atlantic pirating on US ships even though Kuwait was part of the ottoman empire too.

Re:Lame Gov

[sumdumass]

I'm not dissagreeing with you, just commenting on some details. The ROI on scratchoffs is much worse than anything in vegas. (I recall reading 60-75% but I am at work and can't get on any gambliong web sites.) If this guy is playing the lotto every week he is losing, say 25%, on average every week *including the big wins.* He is not breaking even for any amount of time unless he is very lucky. And I mean Larry-Niven-ringworld-bread-for-luck lucky.

He manipulated his odds a little by only purchasing the scratchoff past a certain number on a roll. If the roll weren't past a certain number, he would go to another store or select another type of scratch off. Evidently he found a pattern where the bulk of the winners are in the middle of end of a roll.

If you had 1 billion dollars and spent it and all your winnings every week on the lottery, you would end up with under 1000 in a year. People overestimate wins and underestimate losses, especially their own.

Yes, that was one of the things I was hoping to point out but it didn't come out as obvious as you put it.

Next time you see this guy, thank him. He and people like him are paying the government so people with some math sense can pay less in taxes. :)

I tell him all the time that the lottery is nothing more then a stupid tax. Perhaps I should just print your post and show him what you think.

Re:Lame Gov

[Schadrach]

Incoming rant against libertarians.

Let's say he hit the libertarian ideal, and exclude the government from everything, passing it all off to private industry because the free market solves all problems. I live in the Kanawha River valley in WV. There are three roads that run east west through Charleston coming in one side and going completely through and out the other. If one company were to buy the land US Rt 61, I64, and US Rt 60 were on to the east of Charleston, they would hold a complete lock on passage through the area, and rightly charge what the market will bear to be able to access the closest thing to a city nearby. For several communities the same could be done to the east of Montgomery and create a region where significant access to the entire area is constrained by what a single corporation feels the market will bear to be able to leave home. It's not a serious option to build additional roads through the area because they too would be subject to the same issue, as well as this being a river valley -- there is a serious limit to flat ground available, unless your special road is going to simply tunnel directly through the mountainside. The river (or rather the locks at Marmet and Kanawha Falls) of course will be bought up by *someone*, it being the only remaining means of transit in and out of the area aside from those three roads. I'm sure this isn't the only case where something exists as a public resource for the public good, or rather so that private owners don't simply exploit the "no choice" scenarios created by similar limited resources with no alternatives physically available.

Re:Lame Gov

[Schadrach]

Addendum, and in more general terms:

The free market only operates when certain criteria are met. Among those criteria are low barriers to entry, etc, but most importantly that making a transaction is a choice, and that the consumer is able to choose. That's why things like medicine are not a free market, because "pay what we charge or die" is *not* a serious choice.

Re:Lame Gov

[2obvious4u]

With the decline of government comes the decline of patents, therefore medicine would be cheaper than ever before and would only be limited by the materials needed to manufacture it.

Those who don't remember history are doomed to buy Dr. Brush's Magic Tonsil Tonic.

I buy several of them every day, today they call it "Dr. Pepper" and its great!

Re:Lame Gov

[QuoteMstr]

Or Elixir Sulfanilamide.

Re:Lame Gov

[Khyber]

Not properly, it isn't, you fucking moron.

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/

If it WERE audited PROPERLY there's wouldn't be a brand-spanking new bill trying to get the whole fucking thing made transparent, now would there?

Not a proper audit = NOT AN AUDIT AT ALL.

Re:Lame Gov

[mattack2]

He manipulated his odds a little by only purchasing the scratchoff past a certain number on a roll. If the roll weren't past a certain number, he would go to another store or select another type of scratch off. Evidently he found a pattern where the bulk of the winners are in the middle of end of a roll.

[Citation needed]

Sounds like more bogus numerology. I *very* highly doubt they make the lottery tickets that way...

Re:Lame Gov

[LoRdTAW]

Funny this should be mentioned. Last week a local men's club was busted for gambling. Guys would get together drink beer, play poker and watch sports on big screen TV's. Well they apparently added poker tournaments to their list and were making big bucks. They were there for three or four years until someone didn't like the percentage the house was taking and squealed to the cops. They raided the place with about forty officers, seized everyone's money, confiscated the chips and arrested twelve people. The people arrested were the owners friends who were running the club and game as well as all the dealers. The players got to leave but had their cash seized. None of the equipment was destroyed or taken by the police. Usually the cops cut up the poker tables with knives and sometimes even seize electronics like TV's and computers. The interesting part was the cops explained to those in charge that if they didn't take a percentage of the pot then they wouldn't have been in trouble.

To me its a waste of time. Those men weren't hurting anyone and the players were enjoying themselves. So they made a bit of money, big deal. Guys getting together and playing poker is nothing new. And with the whole hold em craze going on it makes them want to compete in addition to just playing. Gambling is one of those vices that shouldn't be a vice for the cops to deal with. Give the club owners an option to apply for a license and let them claim their cut of the winnings as income for tax purposes. Then everyone wins and the cops can take care of more important business. But knowing the government they would manage to screw up the licenses and put so many stupid restrictions and limits on it that there would still be no point in obtaining one.

Re:Lame Gov

[mattack2]

It's quite well-known that this sort of activity is illegal, and there are plenty of legal venues for gambling available.

Do you mean Internet gambling (specifically playing poker online) by definition being illegal?

If so, then prove it. Obviously this site is a pro-poker site, but it has citations and quotations from legal experts about the legality of online poker: http://www.playwinningpoker.com/online/poker/legal/

Yes, I know about the UIGEA. That does not cover playing poker online. That covers the transfer of funds by banks. Obviously they're trying to do an end run around making the activity illegal by making the transfer of funds more difficult.

Re:Lame Gov

[mattack2]

Yes, a pay-per-use government with only one tax mandatory (for defense) would be feasable and would lead to a more free way of living. Just look at the internet, other than connection fees and defense, the internet exists in a fully free economy which thrives, there is no recession in the internet.

That's kind of ironic. You do realize that your tax dollars, originally via DARPA, created the precursor to the Internet, right? We wouldn't have the Internet if it were not for the use of our tax dollars. (Yes, the D in DARPA stands for defense, but I don't think that's in any way the type of defense you're referring to.) Well, we would probably have a bunch of provider-specific online environments, similar to what we had in the late 80s and early 90s.

Generally, I actually agree with you, and think there are tons of things that we can get rid of to greatly reduce taxes. Unfortunately, most other people don't agree, and even people that want to lower taxes don't want to get rid of the same programs to lower taxes.

Re:Lame Gov

[zymano]

Exactly.

It goes farther though. They take money anywhere they can steal or pilfer it and then funnel it back to their main constituents who want stuff(dollars).

The question is why this is even legal. It's a form of kickback and VOTEBUYING.

think of how many elections have been unfairly determined by this form of vote buying.

Re:Lame Gov

[sumdumass]

[Citation needed]

I just gave you the citation, I told you his theory-gimmick.

Sounds like more bogus numerology. I *very* highly doubt they make the lottery tickets that way...

They spread the winning out throughout the roll. Each roll has a set amount of winner in it and the clerk usually can tell you if the big hits have been cashed in. Scratch off tickets are a scam anyways. They sell the store the entire roll of tickets for a certain amount. Of those tickets, there will be a certain amount paid and of that certain amount there will be so many in incremental denominations. IF they randomly placed the winners all up front, then the store would have a more difficult time selling the rest of the role and making their money back.

Anyways, go in and talk to the clerks at the gas stations. They have a good idea when the rolls will start hitting. Many of them do the same as this guy and if your not a dick and yell citation needed over some theory some guy I know created to justify his gambling odds, they might just tell you.

Re:Lame Gov

[XcepticZP]

Bullshit. Instead of "voting for Republican/Democrat", how about you get off your lazy, fat, McDonald's eating and Starbucks chugging ass and institute a democracy instead of a bi-party republic.

Then you can preach to the rest of the world about "freedom and democracy".

Re:Lame Gov

[twoHats]

Poker is not gambling as has been proved in a US Tax case. Poker is a skill that can be learned, and as you become more proficient, your probability of making money becomes greater. Compare this to roulette, black jack. dice. slots etc and you will see the difference. Have fun (if the feds will let you)

Re:Lame Gov

[twoHats]

"the thought of winning is what drives most gamblers who are out of control" Again - poker is not gambling, and if winning money was the whole thing, it would be very difficult to explain the millions of people playing right now for play money. I am a play money player - just trying to get better and better (no ceiling) and having a lot of fun doing it. This is completely free on most sites and there is no pressure to play for money.

check www.fulltiltpoker.net or www.pokerstars.net if you fon't believe me - I have no affiliation with either, but i have played on both for years.

Re:Lame Gov

[twoHats]

Isn't the point of drug laws to keep people from ruining their lives? Why is the government ruining drug users' lives by arresting them and leaving them with criminal records?

good f'ing question!

Re:Lame Gov

[sumdumass]

Poker is gambling. It's gambling that people have found ways to be skilled at more then others but it is gambling that relies on chance. And it doesn't matter if real money is present or not because in this case, we are talking about real money being frozen by the feds that was supposed to go to some of the players participating in it.

Anyways, the difference between real money and fake money is one of a legal definition. Some fake money can be considered real money if the fake money could be used to purchase goods or services that are also availible for real money transactions. of course that will vary from state to state but it's the law in my state. An example of this is where a skeet ball game at one of those pizza party game room places was legally considered gambling because the prizes were availible for purchase as well as the tickets could have been traded in for game tokens and food items. The particular store I know of had to change their operation and only allow the tickets to be exchanged for prizes separate from anything that could be purchased there as well as pay a hefty fine. I think the fine was a little anal from the state but they didn't distinguish between not knowing the law and knowing it.

Re:Lame Gov

[sumdumass]

Yes. In fact, having admitted in the first war that Iraq under Saddam was criminal we never should have stopped until he was removed.

I think it was the UN being scared that if we ousted Saddam in the first war that all of Iraqs neighbors would have swooped in to claim the resulting territory causing a middle east equivilent of a world war. This is also a reason why Bush concentrated on rebuilding Iraq and stating it was "regime change" and not punishment.

Yeah, it's like FOX news all over again.

Dude, just read the UN quarterly reports to the security counsel. Fox news has nothing to do with that, it's all in there and it was all reported under Hans Blix even though he was one of the loudest screamers of antiwar and claims that Iraq had no WMDs. i actually have a document I create from them which points out to ever statement between 2000 and 2003 that contradicts Hans Blix's public statements but it's lengthy. You should be able to scan through them and find it all on your own.

I think Bush had this image of a quick little war and being welcomed in Iraq as a liberator as the international coalition was seen to be during the first war (until they packed up and left, people unsaved). So I don't think it takes a lot to explain his calls for war. If you think we'll win handily and quickly you don't need to gain as much.

Nah, I don't think Bush thought much about it. The length of the war was pretty much caused by all the stalling we did which allowed protest in turkey to force us out of entering from there. The original plan was to use small amounts of troops with large reserves in order to keep the footprint small and entice battles out of Iraq. This would have killed most of the people who later became insurgents while allowing the reserves to come in, mop up and stabilize the security. But without the two front assault, we had to enter from the south with a large overwhelming force which caused the opposite effect and lead to the situations where we had no support in place to keep the peace and effect a transition. It was literally two different wars with two different outcomes because of the two different tactics.

But what does the USA gain from Iraq?

More oil available/less hoarded by our 'enemies', more oil processed by western companies, and more oil sold in dollars.

Here is where your argument breaks down. First, the EU had already implemented Kyoto which meant their oil use was going to drop. Second, there was never any oil shortages and therfore never any need for oil. The price hikes we saw was from hedge investors taking stock in oil futures in attempts to place the valuation of the dollar. They could literally sell the futures for spot price at a loss and profit because of changes in the value of the dollar. The problem with that is when normal companies who use oil attempt to secure long term runs, it drives the price up because even though there is more then enough physical oil, the amount of buyers doubled with people who could never take possession of the oil. And of course this also drove the spot prices up. When OPEC decides to raise production and the cost of oil increases as what happened several times during this period, you can see the disconnect between supply and demand of the actual product.

There was never any shortage of oil and Iraq'a production wouldn't have made a difference.

Even right there it probably enough to make it worth while. Then consider that Bush and his advisors have connections to the companies doing much of the work, getting oil contracts, etc and it's pretty easy to see how they could all be a bit biased.

That's nothing more then speculation on your part. The fact is that the companies used at the time were the only ones large enough to offer the range of services needed. No other

Re:Lame Gov

[Phoghat]

And the moon is a harsh mistress

Re:Lame Gov

[twoHats]

sumdumass says - "Poker is gambling. It's gambling that people have found ways to be skilled at more then others but it is gambling that relies on chance."

Ooooh I see, Sort of like the stock market, or any other business. People have found ways to be skillful at buying food for the restaurant, but if the headlines shout swine flu and you just bought a bunch of pork for your restaurant - whoops - chance just bit you in the ass.

Come on - you are playing with words here like so many lawyers do all the time.

The real money vs play money thing was to point out that everyone playing the game is not looking for big winnings, some just like the game!

BTW - poker sites go to great lengths to make sure you can't really buy anything with the money.

One last thing - As mentioned above, there has been a court case of a professional poker player vs the IRS - The IRS taking your position, that poker is a game of chance, and the IRS lost. It was shown that if you or I play against that professional we will lose. Therefor the person (google it, it is a well documented case) was not in arrears on taxes on money earned on a game of chance. So even the courts agree that poker is not a game of chance.

Re:Lame Gov

[sumdumass]

Ooooh I see, Sort of like the stock market, or any other business. People have found ways to be skillful at buying food for the restaurant, but if the headlines shout swine flu and you just bought a bunch of pork for your restaurant - whoops - chance just bit you in the ass.

That's not what I said and you know it. I said poker is gambling and because people have become skillful at it, it doesn't make it not gambling. You then attempted to turn that into the opposite and make the claim my point was if there is skill it's gambling which is no where close. The only thing that bit me on the ass was expecting some intelligence in the people replying.

Come on - you are playing with words here like so many lawyers do all the time.

Actually, it's you who is playing with words. I didn't say what you think I said.

The real money vs play money thing was to point out that everyone playing the game is not looking for big winnings, some just like the game!

And that seems to be fine, however, that isn't the topic of the article and my comment was addressing the article. You can roll dice for tooth picks and do it for the enjoyment for all I care, it still gambling. But when real money is involved, the laws and the government get involved, then seizing those winning stops the gambler from breaking that law.

BTW - poker sites go to great lengths to make sure you can't really buy anything with the money.

That's fine and dandy but not on topic with my point or the story. We are talking about people gambling on foreign casinos where real money is used and real money was frozen in order to stop it from being distributed. I don't think the government is worried or capable of worrying about your gambling for entertainment until such time real money becomes involved or fake money is treated as real money.

e last thing - As mentioned above, there has been a court case of a professional poker player vs the IRS - The IRS taking your position, that poker is a game of chance, and the IRS lost. It was shown that if you or I play against that professional we will lose. Therefor the person (google it, it is a well documented case) was not in arrears on taxes on money earned on a game of chance. So even the courts agree that poker is not a game of chance.

Why don't you cite it. I'm not sure why the IRS would be concerned over poker being gambling or not, it isn't their position as long as taxes are being paid. Gambling is largely state laws and only when it crosses state lines in the actual act does it become federal jurisdiction. In fact, all of the US federal gambling laws with the exception of areas congress has exclusive jurisdiction over like DC, military forts and territories, specifically mention it's up to the state either directly in the statute or by defining the gambling terms to means gambling legal within one state and another. As to the territories, gambling isn't explicitly illegal either, there are just requirements that need to be met. Maybe your thinking of the Pennsylvania and Colorado criminal cases in which the judges ruled poker met the exception to the law as a game of chance and didn't posses enough chance to fall under a law.

It really doesn't matter because the federal laws prohibit only what is not consistent with state laws as far as gambling goes. If it's legal within the state, it's legal according to the federal law. If it crosses state lines and is legal in both, certain requirements have to be met to ensure laws of both states allow it, age is verified and financial information isn't disclosed to third parties. In Ohio, Gambling is codified as a game of chance and outlawed under the gambling regulation when real money is transferred in most situations. So the federal law doesn't apply to games of chance, it applies to what is already

Re:Lame Gov

[WNight]

Yeah, it's like FOX news all over again.

Dude, just read the UN quarterly reports to the security counsel.

Yeah, and it was happening since the end of the first war. We hardly cared, including Bush pre-wtc, because he was mostly happy to kill his own people.

Fox news has nothing to do with that

When FOX starts trumpeting the evils of Saddam, ignoring the tons of actual atrocities and starts quoting UN documents you know they're up to something. If they really cared they had years to notice, but they only care when Bush is trying to make his Iraq-war case.

The original plan was to use small amounts of troops with large reserves in order to keep the footprint small and entice battles out of Iraq.

Sounds like a dandy plan.

The length of the war was pretty much caused by all the stalling we did which allowed protest in turkey to force us out of entering from there.

This is when Bush was trying vainly to connect Saddam to wtc?

Perhaps the Turkish people merely didn't want to be parties to war crimes?

It was literally two different wars with two different outcomes because of the two different tactics.

You know, history is full of master strategists - at least in their own heads, who think that having one really good plan makes up for it inevitably falling apart and them having nothing.

This is part of what people point to when they say Bush was Saddam focused. While certain military incursions into parts of Iraq might have helped us and the Iraqis, Bush let his quest for Saddam lead him into a badly planned war.

More oil available ... processed ... sold in dollars.

Here is where your argument breaks down.
First, the EU had already implemented Kyoto which meant their oil use was going to drop.

"Chololate rationing will be implemented"

Second, there was never any oil shortages and therfore never any need for oil.

"There never was chocolate rationing"

The price hikes we saw was from hedge investors taking stock in oil futures in attempts to place the valuation of the dollar.

You mean, investing in commodities? Or alternatively, ditching the dollar?

They could literally sell the futures for spot price at a loss and profit because of changes in the value of the dollar.

Of course, the dollar is increasingly just worthless paper and oil is useful around the world.

The problem with that is when normal companies who use oil attempt to secure long term runs, it drives the price up because even though there is more then enough physical oil,

No, this is the market disagreeing with you. There wasn't enough physical oil to satisfy everyone who wanted their own hedge, that's why the price went up as the cost of your own buffer was worked out.

the amount of buyers doubled with people who could never take possession of the oil.

And you're under the assumption that most buyers of commodities take them home with them?

And of course this also drove the spot prices up.

Demand, it'll do that.

There was never any shortage of oil

And yet people wanted more and were willing to pay for it.

and Iraq'a production wouldn't have made a difference.

Oh, of course not. Because the specific issue you focus on was a bubble you can't see that oil is actually tremendously valuable (hello, the Bush's are rich from it...) and that the Iraqi oil doesn't have to go one-to-one to fill some shortfall in Kentucky, but simply by being pumped and refined in a USA-friendly country helps our g

Re:Lame Gov

[sumdumass]

Yeah, and it was happening since the end of the first war. We hardly cared, including Bush pre-wtc, because he was mostly happy to kill his own people.

Then something happened, it was called 9/11. And these people who thought it wasn't worth enough to care about started wondering what would happen if Al Qeada or other terrorist got their hands on the weapons. We did know that there were terrorist in Iraq and we know that Saddam had some links to Al Qeada.

It is against the law of some magical force to change you minds about something once another even or information becomes known?

When FOX starts trumpeting the evils of Saddam, ignoring the tons of actual atrocities and starts quoting UN documents you know they're up to something. If they really cared they had years to notice, but they only care when Bush is trying to make his Iraq-war case.

I don't think what Fox news does is important here. The UN documents and the quotes they used are. They say things totally different then what Hans Blix himself stated even though he was responsible for the UN reports after 2000. Now tell me, do you trust what a guy says publicly to anyone who will listen in the 2 months leading up to a war or what he has officially endorsed to group representing every country in the world for the three years prior when they come into conflict with each other?

BTW, Fox news was right there reading the UN reports and railing on the evils of Iraq way back when Clinton was president. The idea that they were up to something is only convenient to your plot if you forget that.

This is when Bush was trying vainly to connect Saddam to wtc?

Outside of one gaf, I don't remember him doing so. I do remember him attempting to connect Saddam with links to terrorism and Al Qeada which while that was true to some extent, doesn't mean Iraq or Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. As I already pointed out, Saddam was either supporting or ignoring and therefore allowing a terrorist training camp to operate within the borders of Iraq for about a year leading up to the war. Saddam claimed he couldn't find it but we specifically pointed to it and informed him where it was. There was also the pensions he was offering the families of any suicide bomber who killed themselves in Israel. I'm not sure how anyone can deny that was supporting terrorism.

Don't take links to terrorism as a link to the WTC.

Perhaps the Turkish people merely didn't want to be parties to war crimes?

Perhaps we can guess all we want and eventually come up with something that makes our plot work then act like it's real. The protests at the time were anti war in general and it had to so with non-Muslims invading Muslim lands. We know this because the demonstrations were very public and vocal.

You know, history is full of master strategists - at least in their own heads, who think that having one really good plan makes up for it inevitably falling apart and them having nothing.

This is part of what people point to when they say Bush was Saddam focused. While certain military incursions into parts of Iraq might have helped us and the Iraqis, Bush let his quest for Saddam lead him into a badly planned war.

You can't really fault the collapse of a plan for political reasons and making a new one up on the fly on the creator of the plan. Bush didn't develop any of the plans, others did, he just used them. He also received assurances of the confidence in them. If you actually think Bush was in the war room moving troops around rubbing his hands together while whispering "common saddam, show yourself", you might need a better understanding on who things work.

You mean, investing in commodities? Or alternatively, ditching the dollar?

No, I mean o

Re:Lame Gov

[America2Inc]

I agree. Here they are throwing TRILLIONS of our money down the drain on AIG and their bonuses and yet they'll freeze the income of a poor bastards without a job and have no other way to make a little money. That's a bureaucrat for you. They have their jobs and man don't they like to lord it over us. http://www.michaelmathiesen.com/

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[Delwin]

There are no house odds in poker.

Arrest the prosecutor

[genner]

"It's very aggressive, and I think it's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors," Mr. Rose said.
The prosecution should be brought up on illegal gambling charges.

Re:Arrest the prosecutor

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a royal flush earlier today. Right after I dropped Obama off at the white house.

Re:Arrest the prosecutor

[hedwards]

Aha, so AC is a chauffeur. I'll add that to the list. A gay chauffeur with a fetish for poop. There can't possibly be that people like that around.

Re:Arrest the prosecutor

[MetinAustralia]

LOL!

Re:Arrest the prosecutor

[Sneeze1066]

I'm going to call the prosecutors bluff.........I'm all in.

Re:Arrest the prosecutor

[stephanruby]

"It's very aggressive, and I think it's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors," Mr. Rose said.

What gamble? The WTO has already ruled that offshore online gambling was legal.

This is just shifting money around. By interfering with online casinos, the US is only bringing down on itself trade retaliations sanctioned by the WTO. This is basically what happened the last time Kentucky tried to pull the same stunt.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're playing with a real deck, at a real casino.

Who knows whats in the virtual deck you're playing with?

Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?

[KneelBeforeZod]

Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways? Quite honestly I think the gov is just worried that online gambling may be a simplified way of laundering money.

Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?

[e2d2]

I think this you are right and this is all setting up the future, specifically the regulation of online gambling and taxation of it. These are not easy topics considering no country owns it. But you better believe Uncle Sam wants his cut. IMO that's what this is about. That and the lobbying efforts of various casino industry groups and both right and left leaning anti-gambling groups. One hates gambling because Jesus would hate it. The other hates gambling because it provides pleasure, and leftists hate anyone getting pleasure without sharing.

Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?

[zonky]

I think you'd find that many on-line casinos are already regulated by the countries they are based on. There are many that are not, of course.

Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?

[Anonymous Coward]

I work on one of the largest wagering sites in Australia, and a lot of thought and effort is put in to protect the sites against money laundering and other nefarious uses.

Our site is heavily regulated and audited by the Australian state governments, and our system already supports geographic distribution of taxes, based on the location of the account holder. The location of the account holder is verifiable, because we require a 100 point ID check to fully activate an account.

Through proper regulation, and well built systems, issues such as "who gets the tax" and "how can the site be trusted" are solvable, and have already been solved in many countries.

Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?

[e2d2]

Yes, but would you admit there's a difference between "regulated in costa rica" and "regulated in the US" (or Europe)?

Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?

[hplus]

What do you mean by "100 point" ID check? I doubt that I could produce 100 documents suggesting/proving that I am who I say I am and live where I live...

Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?

[Anonymous Coward]

Points are assigned to various documents with different weightings. You must meed the 100 points with four documents, meaning you must use documents of high point value.

Most companies, including ours, also require that at least one of those documents be of a certain type.

For example, we require a valid state issued photographic id that contains your current residential address.

Generally to meet 100 points you need to provide:

- Current Drivers License
- Birth Certificate (original or JP certified copy)
- Current (with in 3 months) electricity or phone bill that contains your current address of residence.
- A non-expired bank card, with your name on it.

Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?

[auLucifer]

In Australia things that identify you are weighted. eg. A licence, birth certificate and passport is 40 points, medicare card/bank card are 30 and addressed envelopes weigh in around 20 (I think. Numbers might be inaccurate as I haven't had to produce so much id in a few years but I do remember you almost always need 3 items)
So you just produce a licence, your medicare card and your bank card (all usually within your wallet, and your licence has your address) and you can produce 100 points of id.

Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?

[hplus]

Interesting, thanks for the info.

Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?

[pjt33]

What about people who don't drive and live in rented accommodation where they don't pay the bills?

Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?

[Nocterro]

Then you don't gamble. Or purchase a mobile phone, get electricity connected, or find it easy to rent a house. The 100 point system has a wide range of documents to help, but it sucks when you're trying to get started. Young people just deal with it.

Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?

[DaveGod]

Casinos are notorious for money laundering. Buy a few chips, get handed a bundle more from your customer and cash out your "winnings". Or there's the slots. It is superb for relatively low-level money laundering, especially since winnings are not taxable.

Online casinos, not so much. You can't just hand over a sack of chips in the toilets.

Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?

[Philip_the_physicist]

There is a range of items which can be used for your ID. Everyone should be able to get at least one form of 70pt identification, since if you weren't born in Australia, you would either have citizenship or be on a visa, which needs a passport. Not every organisation will allow every form of ID, epsecially if it is something which they are not familiar with and so cannot easily verify (or are too much trouble to verify, such as telephone contact), but a large subset of these items will be accepted at these values.

Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?

[pjt33]

Thanks. Hope someone mods your post informative.

Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?

[tsotha]

Quite honestly I think the gov is just worried that online gambling may be a simplified way of laundering money.

That's exactly what's going on. And it's not about drugs or terrorists. It's about taxes. The government is concerned about any flow of money it doesn't control - that's why we have currency transaction reporting laws and that's why you can get five years in jail for trying to sneak your own money out of the country. Do you realize "money laundering" wasn't even a crime until 1985?

Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways?

[Dexter Herbivore]

...and I am one of the people employed by a regulatory state agency to oversee the activities of organisations like those mentioned above. Australia has some of the most stringent regulations put into place to ensure integrity and to remove the risk of money laundering. Although I'm not really involved in the taxation side of things I'm intrigued by your statement "our system already supports geographic distribution of taxes, based on the location of the account holder". It supports it maybe, but as I understand the current situation the taxes still all go to the host state of the site in question and not the state of origin of the account.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[Zocalo]

Actually, there are no house odds in poker played with a real deck of cards. For anything involving a computer (or mechanics, historically) it's just a matter of how you implement the game.

Wont work.

[wonderboss]

They may successfully grab the money of these unfortunates, but then people will stop depositing winnings in US banks. The internet does not respect borders or jurisdictions.

Re:Wont work.

[Nimey]

You don't think we'll do our best to hassle foreign banks into compliance?

Re:Wont work.

[MrMista_B]

Governments, however, do. And are able to monitor such activity. Having your house seized as 'proceeds of illegal activity' is something that would very utterly negate the benefit of using offshore banks.

Re:Wont work.

[smegmatic]

I'll deposit mine in Kinakuta.

Re:Wont work.

[guruevi]

How the heck would they monitor it? You open a bank account in a different country, most likely without income tax regulations, get a VISA/MasterCard (Maestro) for the account and then use that for general expenses or to get cash out of an ATM. You can get $900 per day out of an ATM with a foreign Maestro card - yes I have an oversees account.

Re:Wont work.

[WNight]

Where do you live? I want to be able to point the newly bankrupt gamblers there so that when they take out their frustration at insane property-seizure laws they can burn down the right things.

Why are people like you always looking for a class of people to rape? Pay your own goddamn tax.

Re:Wont work.

[Sabz5150]

Governments, however, do. And are able to monitor such activity. Having your house seized as 'proceeds of illegal activity' is something that would very utterly negate the benefit of using offshore banks.

Really? Last time I looked, activities concerning money in non-US banks, illegal gambling and seizure of homes was all the norm these days.

Re:Wont work.

[LordRobin]

I'm not so sure. $33 million sounds like a lot, but it was the total for 27,000 players. That's an average of about $1,200 each. A nice check, but these guys aren't exactly high rollers. I'd be surprised if more than a tiny minority had the funds to open offshore accounts.
------RM

Re:Wont work.

[wonderboss]

See reply from guruevi (827432) http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1264595cid=28289153 Having an offshore account isn't as expensive or difficult as you might. Having an anonymous account in a tax-haven might be.

Re:Wont work.

[kalirion]

So then people will live in off-shore houses. Problem solved.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[Pulzar]

It's poker, you're not playing against the house. There's no reason to skew the odds.

(Before somebody else says it, yeah, they could try to generate "action" hands to increase the rake. They could make weaker hands win more often to keep the fish around. This is a much harder thing to do undetectably than have the house win 10% more often in blackjack... with all the software available to keep track of and analyze all hands played, it's easy to spot any irregularities in randomness. I doubt that it's worth the effort to try to develop an undetectable skew in probabilities... Not to mention that if you screw up and get detected, your gold mine will be deserted the next day).

Saw it Coming

[Renraku]

Honestly, I wondered why this hadn't happen sooner.

Now, instead of the people taking a risk of getting cheated out of their money, they 100% did get cheated out of their money.

The companies should be allowed to pay-out what has already been accumulated, but no more after that. There's no guarantee whatsoever that the gamblers themselves weren't going to pay taxes on the money that they won.

Re:Saw it Coming

[MindlessAutomata]

There's no guarantee whatsoever that the gamblers themselves weren't going to pay taxes on the money that they won.

Guilty until proven innocent?

And why the fuck should they have to any more than they should pay money to Tony Soprano?

Re:Saw it Coming

[Starlon]

"Guilty until proven innocent?" That's this administration's mentality. They can now take over any company on the same principle. Except it's a little shorter: Guilty!

Re:Saw it Coming

[hplus]

Well, for one, the internet that they're using as a means of accessing these gambling sites was paid for by money collected via the federal income tax.

Let's push poker underground too!

[CaptainPatent]

I live in the Washington DC area - a place where you can't get a legal hand of poker dealt for literally 200 miles around. There are still plenty of really big games around here - you just need to bring a firearm to some of them.

It sounds like a great idea to me to push poker off of a safe online format and into illegal and sometimes dangerous poker rooms. Sure many people will choose not to gamble - but what exactly is the cost in lives that justifies that?

I play on FullTiltPoker all the time. It's safe and I can play for literally as little as 10 cents for a full tournament. How is that worse than having some of the same people venture into big games that aren't legal, they can't afford? You think gambling is a problem? Wait until those same people with gambling problems get in front of a loan shark, or shot because they can't pay.

Great move.

Re:Let's push poker underground too!

[DerekLyons]

Wait until those same people with gambling problems get in front of a loan shark, or shot because they can't pay.

So, prior to the 'net, how many people were shot in the D.C. area per annum because they couldn't pay?

Re:Let's push poker underground too!

[drfreak]

Well, I doubt they were shot right way. The shark was just seeing no ROI.

Re:Let's push poker underground too!

[zippthorne]

DC used to have the highest gun violence and murder rates in the country. The decline does seem to have some correlation with the widespread-ed-ness of the internet...

Re:Let's push poker underground too!

[eebra82]

Wait until those same people with gambling problems get in front of a loan shark, or shot because they can't pay.

So, prior to the 'net, how many people were shot in the D.C. area per annum because they couldn't pay?

That wasn't his point (if you quote him properly). Regardless, it should be everyone's right to choose what to do with the money that he or she makes. Obviously to some extent, but in the long run, poker is a game of skill, and like any other sport, it takes money and patience to achieve something.

Re:Let's push poker underground too!

[sumdumass]

It also coincided with my sister growing old enough to drink alcohol legally.

Do you think those are connected too or is it only what you can find an advantage to that connect causation to correlation and coincidence?

Re:Let's push poker underground too!

[Itninja]

...safe online format..

Oh, you're adorable! There's no such thing sweetheart!

Re:Let's push poker underground too!

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The difference here is that there's a proposed causal mechanism. Obviously a lot of research would be needed to establish whether such a mechanism exists, but "internet gambling leads to less gambling-related violence" is a perfectly reasonable proposition, while "my sister turning 21" has to do with propositions of another kind entirely.

Re:Let's push poker underground too!

[DerekLyons]

That wasn't his point (if you quote him properly).

I did quote him correctly. He claimed gun violence would ensue if online poker were banned, using said claim as a scare tactic - and I called his bluff.
 
(Hand waving irrelevancies snipped.)

Re:Let's push poker underground too!

[DerekLyons]

Correlation is not causation.

Re:Let's push poker underground too!

[rts008]

...while "my sister turning 21" has to do with propositions of another kind entirely.

Well, at least you waited until she turned 21 to proposition her.

Re:Let's push poker underground too!

[Itninja]

You are saying "poker", but you mean "illicit gambling". I play penny-stakes poker all the time and have yet to get into a knife fight.
And regarding option 2, it's not someone breaking through the encryption that will get you, it's the offshore admins running the game. Do you think they don't just log in and give themselves a little 'straight flush' whenever they need a few bucks? They are not stupid, they won't steal your CC info. They would much rather tilt the cards in their favor and let their naive and docile clientele continue to click 'deal' thinking that this might be 'the hand'.

But hey, keep playing at home if you want. If it keep the trash off the street it works for me.

Laws, schmores

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you're missing the big picture...

Since the laws against internet gambling are themselves illegal, it's important to put the casinos out of business so that they can't keep on embarrassing the government and claiming compensation year on year.

Re:Laws, schmores

[hedwards]

That's not true. That was politically motivated, the WTO was hijacked as a way of getting back at the US for foreign policy disagreements.

Re:Laws, schmores

[bongomanaic]

That is an utterly ridiculous claim. The reason why the WTO ruled against the USA is because it is clearly in breach of its obligations under the treaties. The WTO has held that the USA has the right within the treaties to ban remote gambling, but that they haven't completely banned remote gambling, instead they have restrictions that unfairly discriminate in favour of US-based operators. The USA can resolve the problem either by completely banning remote gambling or by ending the discrimination. There are apparently domestic political difficulties that prevent the USA from following either course, but that is irrelevant in determining whether the USA has adhered to the rules it agreed to be bound by.

Re:Laws, schmores

[sumdumass]

Actually, our sovereign immunity prohibits laws applying to us that we didn't create or agree to.

In short, the WTO ruling bypassed the treaties we have signed and ratified and made crap up in order to retaliate against the US for foreign policy. They attempted to use clauses we aren't subject to for the ruling and therefore it isn't illegal by any means.

Re:Laws, schmores

[tinkerghost]

Actually, our sovereign immunity prohibits laws applying to us that we didn't create or agree to.

True but irrelevant since we signed onto the WTO treaty.

In short, the WTO ruling bypassed the treaties we have signed and ratified and made crap up in order to retaliate against the US for foreign policy.

The WTO is attempting to enforce a treaty we DID sign. And no they are not making up crap. The US permits remote gambling, but only if you are dealing with US based companies. That is a violation of the WTO treaties. It's not making crap up, it's reading the damn paperwork.

They attempted to use clauses we aren't subject to for the ruling and therefore it isn't illegal by any means.

Um, the US is attempting to opt out using the morality clause. IE. gambling is morally unacceptable therefore we will not permit it across our border. That's fine, except that the US does permit gambling within it's borders. The WTO correctly ruled that the US can't have it both ways.

Re:Laws, schmores

[sumdumass]

True but irrelevant since we signed onto the WTO treaty.

And the WTO treaty we signed on to has no provision for the ruling made. That make it un-irrelevant.

The WTO is attempting to enforce a treaty we DID sign. And no they are not making up crap. The US permits remote gambling, but only if you are dealing with US based companies. That is a violation of the WTO treaties. It's not making crap up, it's reading the damn paperwork.

No they are not. The US permits remote gambling only if the server is located within the state the gambling is taking place in and the state allows it through their laws. If a foreign country wanted to operate in the US, they can operate according to US law just the same as all American companies have to. The WTO made shit up about not giving the same access when it is there all along and invented concepts to justify it. Read the damn ruling then read the treaties we have ratified (yes, mere signature isn't enough, ratification has to be present).

Um, the US is attempting to opt out using the morality clause. IE. gambling is morally unacceptable therefore we will not permit it across our border. That's fine, except that the US does permit gambling within it's borders. The WTO correctly ruled that the US can't have it both ways.

That was just one of the multiple defenses given and it gained the most attention. We also claimed it was impossible to force states to regulate this within their border and the WTO treaty has a provision for government structures without autonomous authority like that. There was several other defenses too like protecting against fraud. Again, read the treaty and the ruling.

Article I -- XXVI of the gats section of the Uruguay Round table agreements which set the WTO in motion declares in section 1-3: "In fulfilling its obligations and commitments under the Agreement, each Member shall take such reasonable measures as may be available to it to ensure their observance by regional and local governments and authorities and non-governmental bodies within its territory;" The gist of it here is that the US federal government has no constitutional authority to force states to accept gambling of any kind. It does have the authority to force the states to allow foreign companies access according to their state laws. The WTO court attempted to use section part 3 sections XVI-1 and -2 to override that provision in 1-3 and it had no authority to do so. In fact, section 3-1 under part 1 was specific put there to account for situations like the US is in.

The WTO also stated that the US failed to show it's arguemnt for exception under part 2 Article 14 a and c in which it states (a)necessary to protect public morals or to maintain public order c)necessary to secure compliance with laws or regulations which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement including those relating to:
(i)the prevention of deceptive and fraudulent practices or to deal with the effects of a default on services contracts;
(ii)the protection of the privacy of individuals in relation to the processing and dissemination of personal data and the protection of confidentiality of individual records and accounts;

This is obviously problematic because the US supreme court has already ruled that morals can only be enforced that is consistent with the community meaning that only the state and local government has the ability to set standards on morality in the US. Several states have done so which was brought up by the WTO. As regard to C, the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act, are specifically designed for both subsection i and ii. They totally ignored that.

The appellate board then overturned the panel saying that the three US laws were consistent with the morals and public order and that the previous panel had no right to rule on the state laws.

It then went to arbitration

Re:Laws, schmores

[Dravik]

I wish I had mod points. This post isn't"informative" then I don't know what is.

Morally, ethically, and legally unjustifiable.

[nightfire-unique]

Nothing more needs to be said.

Except, maybe.. that the prosecutor(s) should be fired, forced to wear yellow, and barred from working with or for the American government for the next 20 years.

How far America has fallen from the beautiful ideal of the land of the free. :(

'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority

[nsayer]

I've got a great idea. How about the government makes a list of the most important issues facing the United States today. Hell, I'll even be happy to let the party in power at the moment dictate the order of this list.

Where do you all think internet poker falls on that list? Is it even in the top thousand?!?!

Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority

[mysidia]

It's pretty high on some of the special-interest-groups' lists.

The number of anti-gaming groups is obscene.

And apparently their voices are heard louder than most.

Also, they have a lot of ammunition to use against "online poker" sites, partly because politicans can easily be made suspicious of online services...

There are lots of negative connotations about "online gambling" sites

Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority

[phantomfive]

You're the second person who has said something like this. You do realize that the federal government has millions of employees, and is in fact capable of focusing on more than a thousand things at the same time? It's not like budget-planning is being put off to focus on this, or President Obama personally ordered it himself. Someone down the chain thought it would be a good idea. It's a weird idea, but at least this will bring some attention to the issue.

Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority

[anaphora]

There is a Government Briefing Book hosted at change.gov that asks citizens to rank issues they are concerned with. Online poker is the number one issue in the Technology category. Maybe you're not concerned with the fight against classifying poker as a game of 'chance', while horsebetting is a game of 'skill', but many of us make our living doing this and pay our taxes on it like normal people. Countless others enjoy depositing $50 and enjoying their evening gambling. By a wide margin, most online poker deposits are $100 and 50% of them are made by Americans, and yet there are billions of dollars in prize money handed out every year, so that illustrates the scale of which Americans enjoy a very popular pasttime which the government is trying to end because of a desire to prohibit gambling inside the United States.

Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority

[NeutronCowboy]

The most interesting part I find is that a lot of the anti-internet-gaming people are either directly linked to or funded by traditional casinos....

Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority

[sumdumass]

Lol.. Great, now instead of waiting for the media to do mass polling to determine the course of government, we can have the government do directly to the people and allow them to answer as many times as they like.

Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority

[sumdumass]

Actually, it should be near the top of the list. This is especially true given the state of the economy.

Online gambling generally results in more losses then winning as it true for most gambling with the exception of professional gamblers. When these sites are hosted outside the country, we have the problem or our wealth being distributed to places that won't benefit us anymore. When this happens, jobs are lost, and so on which is sort of what we should be attempting to counter right now.

Think of it this way, if you and your neighbor trade for stuff that each other needs (suppose you raise meat and he raises vegetables), then the exchange and wealth stays there. But suppose I purchase all his vegetables (take the money by online gambling offshore), he now has nothing to offer you and you either need to sell your meat or take a loss on it. Either way, it's worth is less then it was when you could get what you needed. Now suppose this happens again, you have to find something else worth of value or accept the loss or raise less meat. The effect is that your neighbor can purchase less, you can purchase and do less, it just detracts from everything.

Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority

[bnenning]

If true, that's an excellent argument for legalizing it. The money that US bettors lose to US casinos would cancel out, and the money that they collect from foreign bettors is a win.

Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority

[Canberra Bob]

You make a huge leap of faith (which you fail to backup with any fact) that all the money goes offshore. So you are stating that Americans on average are worse poker players than the rest of the world?

Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority

[sumdumass]

Unless they legalize it and not have to worry either way.

Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority

[sumdumass]

There is no leap of faith. It's against the law for US companies to operate online gambling sites across state borders without specific permission from the state. There is no legal 50 state gambling sites in the US and only the offshore sites can escape US law. The majority of online gambling is done through offshore companies. The winnings seized or frozen was only seized or frozen for winnings from offshore sites.

The story/article and a little attention to the situation is all that is needed.

Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority

[Canberra Bob]

So you believe all online games not hosted in the USA should also be banned, as the net flow of funds is offshore with nothing tangible in return?

Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority

[sumdumass]

Lol.. I didn't say that at all. I said that they do result in a net flow of funds out which the government should be very concerned about. In otherwords, online gambling should be high on their list just as the trade deficit and possibly other online games along with other things.

However, online games don't really draw the amount of capitol that gambling does so why it most likely should be on the lists of concern, it shouldn't be near the top like the effect of online gambling. We also have to acknowledge that there is a law against the gambling and not games.

Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority

[Canberra Bob]

The legalities of it are just about to be tested as I believe there are already parties taking action over this. Online poker is not as black and white as other forms of online gaming and it looks like there will finally be a case to bring everything to a head and get everything sorted out in the courts.

Re:'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority

[sumdumass]

That should have been il-legalize it.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[Anonymous Coward]

you're not playing against the house

Assuming that the other three people at the table aren't "the house", and that their computers don't tell them what cards you have, etc. etc.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[Mr. Underbridge]

If you're playing with a real deck, at a real casino. Who knows whats in the virtual deck you're playing with?

Doesn't matter. Your opponents are still other players. Someone always wins every hand - the house never "wins". The house just takes a rake out of every pot.

Now, you could theorize that the house occasionally might grab more rake than it is due, but that would be easy to determine. The only other means of obvious fraud would be for the house to create a 'shill' player.

Your real fear should be collusion between multiple accounts created by the same person or a group of people acting together. That happens all the time.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[NFN_NLN]

There are no house odds in poker.

Sure there is. There is a 100% chance the house will take a rake. Those are pretty favorable odds if you ask me.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[venicebeach]

First, you ahve no garuntee you will get paid. second, you ahve no way of knowing if it's fair. You can skew the odds 10% in the houses favor, and no one would notice. probably more.

The persistence of these myths is quite remarkable, and may have something to do with the current legal situation.

As others have pointed out, poker is not a game which is skewed in the house's favor. The house takes a percentage of every pot, called the rake. In poker players play against one another, and while there is a chance element, chance does not favor anyone in the long run. In the long run, the difference in earnings between two players can be attributed to the choices they make. That is why poker is considered a game of skill and many governments have recognized this distinction. Poker is legal in California, for example, because the courts have ruled it to be a game of skill.

What is especially silly about this new legal move is that it rests on very shaky legal ground. The prosecutor has cited the Wire Act, but federal courts have already ruled that the wire act only applies to sports betting. It's also strange timing since the UIGEA which attempts to prevent gambling-related money transfers is scheduled to begin being enforced later this year.

As to the fairness of the games, that could only be ensured and improved with proper regulation. Hopefully the attention brought to this situation by this case will ultimately result in the legality of online poker being clarified. Barney Frank has introduced a bill to legalize and regulate online poker. If this is an issue you support, I urge you to let your congressperson know.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[clem]

It's poker, you're not playing against the house. There's no reason to skew the odds.

For all one knows, one could very well be playing against the house. Any guarantee that one or more of the other players aren't automated agents there to pull in winnings for the casino?

Re:that's what you get for breaking the law

[gangien]

in poker anyways, the house makes its money on the rake. which is, each pot it gets a small percentage (usually this is capped at a few dollars). So the house has every reason to make sure it's cards are random, as people will perform statistical analysis on the cards dealt, and it makes no difference in terms of how much money they make. They want you to play more/bigger hands. So in poker, you're not really competing against the house, just other players and to make money you need to be better than the other players by percentage of the rake.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[panthroman]

Unlike homeowner's insurance, where you ARE playing against the house. Or car insurance. Or the state lottery. Or mutual funds. Or health insurance.

We manage risk all the time, and happily pay people for the privilege. I've never understood why poker got such a bad rep.

Re:that's what you get for breaking the law

[Anonymous Coward]

And somehow gambling isn't rigged in Las Vegas?

They don't build billion dollar casinos from winners.

Re:that's what you get for breaking the law

[geekoid]

I know that, but it's online. You know you are playing against real people how? you know the computer isn't feeding you a 'good' hand and someone else a better hand? how do you know the computer doesn't change the hands you can't see dependant on the pot?

You can't. And since they are over seas without regulation you have no way of knowing.

SO you get the normal house pot, AND the winning from some other player.
It's a trivial scam. Considering the history of gambling houses, and shady people who use the internet it's a risk.

I wrote a poker software package that did all that for SnGs in 99.
Trivial.

Re:that's what you get for breaking the law

[lorenlal]

Furthermore - As someone who used to partake in the online casino gambling industry (as a participant):

Most online gambling might be an outright lie. But in the case of online poker, the house took a rake, just like in the real casino. In fact, I managed to even cash out a few winnings before I lost interest, and then it became illegal. It was *possible* for the online casino to have a ringer that got stacked decks... But I seriously doubt that any of the mainstream sites would use that tactic especially since there was:
1) A metric F ton of competition from other casinos.
2) The cash they raked anyway was pretty darn good.
3) No risk on their part... They just needed to provide a service.

I was absolutely shocked that all online gambling was banned... until I saw that casinos and racetracks were the primary fund^H^H^H^H beneficiaries of the law. But IIRC the real selling point was that it was treated as unreported income for most of the users. That translated directly to lost tax receipts. I personally thought that the govt could have worked with the sites to find a way to slice off some of the winnings, or to get the sites to properly report losses and gains of the members. I'll assume that the reason they didn't was because the sites were mostly offshore.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[hedwards]

The house isn't going to do that, it's not in their best interest to cheat in games that are designed to be in their favor.

Employees on the other hand have been caught scamming, I remember a while back that an employee was fixing games by revealing the opponents hands to his friends. That went on for a while until the house took notice of the unusual winning streak and figured out what was going on.

Just splendid...

[UttBuggly]

I happen to be a better than average poker player. Just today, I played in the $60 Freezeout at a local casino (died pushing an 18 outer), came home, played some low-limit NLHE and Omaha H/L PL on PokerStars and Full Tilt.

Joined the PPA - Poker Players Alliance - when it formed and hoped the UIGEA would get some attention. Well, not the way we hoped!

Since I make the vast majority of my poker money from live games in brick and mortar casinos, this newest stupidity doesn't hurt my bankroll directly. It does however, limit what I use online poker for...practice. I can play 4-6 tables at one time online, so I can see many, many more hands per hour than live at a single table.

I do own poker simulation software, so I can use that for a similar purpose. The issue is that the software AI is nothing like a human opponent.

I don't know the numbers the PPA is telling Congress, but I recall reading that if internet poker were taxed, the annual nut was over $10 billion. That's not small change.

This is a prime example of solving a problem that doesn't exist in the most ignorant way possible. Give me a freaking break.

Re:Just splendid...

[QuoteMstr]

Regardless of your opinion of online gambling, you must acknowledge that there's a lot of skill in poker. Any idiot can get a full house on a particular hand, of course, but over several rounds, a good player will do much better than a poor one.

I'm no great poker player, but I'd rather play in person than online. In person, there's an element of learning your opponents, seeing when they're bluffing, and controlling how much information you release. It's subtle.

On the other hand, online poker is pure mathematics. It's easy to play poker perfectly: given the contents of your hand and the cards already played, an algorithm can make the statistically most likely decision every time. It's boring.

Re:Just splendid...

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful? What BS.

If it's nothing more than a game of chance then why are there professional poker players who are well-known to poker fans? How about knowing how to play the positions, number possibilities, and reading the other players in a live game?
You don't know a damn thing about poker.

Re:Just splendid...

[compro01]

The hands are pure chance. The bluffing isn't.

Re:Just splendid...

[Archangel Michael]

If it were all chance and luck, then everyone would be equal. It isn't chance and luck, there is a great deal of skill required. Math and People skills.

The average math geek can play well, if he can calculate odds, implied odds, pot odds etc. And a People person can know what a person has by looking at them. The great ones, the truly great players can do both, and it is very rare.

If you count on luck, and chance, I'd love to play with you.

Re:Just splendid...

[Pulzar]

On the other hand, online poker is pure mathematics. It's easy to play poker perfectly: given the contents of your hand and the cards already played, an algorithm can make the statistically most likely decision every time. It's boring.

That's not true at all, obviously. Just because your opponents are online, it doesn't mean they are not human. They will behave differently in different situations. What is "correct" against one player is incorrect against other.

The only thing you lose online are the audio-visual input from the person itself. You still get to see the betting pattern, the betting amounts, the hands commonly played, the speed of reacting, etc. It's tougher to win by purely "reading" opponents, and you have to play a more solid game to win, but you still need to read the situation right.

Re:Just splendid...

[sumdumass]

You can be skilled at a game of chance, that doesn't mean it isn't a game of chance.

The way you roll a dice can effect the outcome of the die to some extent, what to bet and when to bet will effect your overall winnings but the reality is that chance dictates the outcome, you either have it or you don't. Of course in poker, you can bluff and act like you have it when you don't.

Re:Just splendid...

[sumdumass]

It's still luck and chance. the skill basically plays the odds but the odds aren't the end all say all of it. You can have better then an 80% chance of winning the pot and still loose to someone who made a better hand on the last card. I have seen that happen plenty of times where an inside straight flush get hit and beat a four of a kind or something. I probably would have folded the hand but for whatever reasons, other people do keep them- especially when we are playing horse and buggy where you need two wins to take the pot and folding out takes you out of the game for the duration.

Re:Just splendid...

[bnenning]

In person, there's an element of learning your opponents, seeing when they're bluffing, and controlling how much information you release. It's subtle.

That's true in online poker as well. Physical tells are overrated; betting patterns are much more useful.

On the other hand, online poker is pure mathematics. It's easy to play poker perfectly: given the contents of your hand and the cards already played, an algorithm can make the statistically most likely decision every time.

Technically true but practically false. There does exist a "perfect" strategy for poker in the minimax sense, but it's not known what that is because of the huge number of possible hands and betting sequences, and it wouldn't be the optimal strategy against imperfect players anyway. If you're playing against somebody who bluffs a lot, you should call in many cases where the "perfect" strategy would tell you to fold.

Re:Just splendid...

[Canberra Bob]

I make a LOT more now playing full time than I did working as a software engineer. I would not say I am a great player but I am a sh!tload better than average. Yes everyone gets an equal distribution of the same cards and same situations. It is the ones who have a higher understanding of the underlying statistical probabilities of those situations that will profit from the ones who don't. The University of Alberta has an entire team devoted to trying to solve poker. The best bot they could produce can only equal the best players in the world heads up and cannot beat the best players in a multi-handed games - and this is only limit hold em. To equate a game of poker to a game of dice shows that you understand absolutely nothing about the subject at hand. Dice is solvable - if you get 6:1 odds on your number coming up, your net result will be 0 no matter what number you chose in the long run. Poker is not remotely in the same domain. The information is incomplete. There is no simple case of "if I follow strategy X then I will lose the least / win the most" ie. a Game Theory Optimal solution. In a game of pure chance and luck such a strategy would exist. Please get your facts straight before trying to sound clever and coming off as completely ignorant.

Re:Just splendid...

[UttBuggly]

I'm going to jump back into this and say several things....

1) Poker is a game of skill. While "doing the math" and some knowledge of game theory is helpful, good players "play the player", not the cards.

2) The psychological aspects are fascinating. And yes, physical tells are fairly important. I routinely utilize "reverse tells" to control the actions of other players. For example, if I want a free card on the turn, and I suspect a player in front of me may bet and make the pot too large to comfortably play (primarily in tournament play), I will "accidentally" twitch or otherwise make a move towards MY chips. Many players, even very good ones, will read this as "someone dying to bet" and check. This is a very, very basic play...and I succeed 8 of 10 times. No math, no random event...it's playing the player(s). As for reading other players, I'm not bad. Oh...wearing sunglasses or hats doesn't help against a good reader...the eyes and face are the LAST things I would trust for accurate information. Your FEET tell me more than whatever your face is or isn't doing.

3) Variance exists....and it is a bitch. From a purely statistical standpoint, you cannot win or lose every hand. It can certainly seem that way, but over a long enough interval, things tend to even out. The trick to making money is to exploit enough tiny equity situations into a profit. That's the skill portion of the game. As I mentioned in my initial post, I "died pushing an 18 outer" during a tournament. This translates to a 72% chance to win the hand (on the turn). I only have to succeed 1 of 3 times to show a profit. This particular instance, I did NOT catch any of the 18 cards I needed to beat a pair of 10's heads up. Knowing the math, I would make this play nearly 100% of the time.

OK...I charge for lessons, so take the free today and enjoy. :o)

Re:Just splendid...

[Canberra Bob]

Umm... I think you will find we are making exactly the same point, just from different angles :)

Now, for a flamewar that makes the vi v emacs, win v mac etc flamewars seem like a tea party, let's fire up the good ol' live or internet players are better debate ;)

Re:Just splendid...

[UttBuggly]

Umm... I think you will find we are making exactly the same point, just from different angles :)

Now, for a flamewar that makes the vi v emacs, win v mac etc flamewars seem like a tea party, let's fire up the good ol' live or internet players are better debate ;)

Bob...absolutely.

The reply was to the thread in general; you're correct in everything you said!

Re:Just splendid...

[foniksonik]

Games of pure chance and luck are not illegal... they are called lotteries and sweepstakes. You put the money down and get a chance to win the pot minus the house take. Anything else is a game of skill and is regulated and taxed heavily where it is legal.

Re:Just splendid...

[gujo-odori]

Where it gets really bad is that there are just soooo many crazy aggressive players in online poker these days. My wife is a pretty decent poker player (where "decent" is defined as consistently making money at it), but the crazies have made it a lot harder than it used to be. In a heads-up game they aren't so bad - she had a game last week where the dude's strategy was to go all-in pre-flop on every hand. Happily, the genius kept on accepting rematches for quite a while. He eventually gave up, but she'd beaten him 80% of the time. I guess he finally got tired of handing over his money.

The hard part is when you get 3 or 4 people at a full-handed table who'll literally play any two cards. Any one person like that will lose against a decent player most of the time, but when you have several of them, the chances of one of them hitting the crazy hand become a lot higher and they become a pain in the ass. Overall, these donks have got to be losing money, but they make it a lot harder for people with skill to make money.

Things didn't used to be this way, even a year ago. My pulled-from-orifice theory is that more and more people are watching poker on TV and figuring that's the way you play, without realizing that televised WSOP is just a highlight reel with commentary, it's not the whole tournament. It's especially bad when they see people like Kido Pham, who really is a hyper-aggressive player and is highly skilled enough to be fairly successful at that style of play. The concept of trying to actually be a good poker player seems utterly lost on this latest crop of noobs; to them, it seems that poker is nothing more than a slot machine handle.

Sadly, anything that becomes popular usually becomes worse.

Re:Just splendid...

[/dev/trash]

Oh dear lord you just didn't claim people skills.....I've heard it all now.

Re:Just splendid...

[/dev/trash]

Ohhhhhhh so I just have to learn to not smile when I get 3 kings?

Re:Just splendid...

[/dev/trash]

Sure I do. if I get 40 hands of shit,and bluff every time, by hand 12, everyone else is gonna know I'm full of shit.

You make money playing card....big deal. Don't call it a skill, that no one else has. It's pure luck you got that queen when you needed it.

Plus if all these well known players get together, say in the WSOP how do any of them win? Shouldn't they all be bluffing and faking people out with their sunglasses and hats?

Re:Just splendid...

[/dev/trash]

Explain to me what skill makes that next card be a queen and not a fucking deuce? I'll wait.

Re:Just splendid...

[Mr2001]

It's still luck and chance. the skill basically plays the odds but the odds aren't the end all say all of it. You can have better then an 80% chance of winning the pot and still loose to someone who made a better hand on the last card.

You could say the same about the insurance industry. You know that on average, only X% of drivers will get in a wreck in any given month, and if the average payout is $Y then you can charge $Z a month to come about ahead, but it's possible that every driver will get in a wreck on the same day and you'll go broke. That doesn't mean selling insurance is all about luck, or even mostly about luck.

Re:Just splendid...

[kalirion]

It does however, limit what I use online poker for...practice. I can play 4-6 tables at one time online, so I can see many, many more hands per hour than live at a single table.

So, um, what exactly are you practicing for here? Do you play 4-6 tables at a time at casinos? Or perhaps you close your eyes and only open them for a few seconds to make a decision when the dealer calls your name?

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[brunes69]

What are you talking about?

You are not playing against the house - therefore THERE IS NO HOUSE ODDS. It is totally irrelevant if the dec is real or virtual - both real and online casinos make a fixed percentage of money based on the size of the pot - they don't care at all who walks away with it.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[nomadic]

As others have pointed out, poker is not a game which is skewed in the house's favor. The house takes a percentage of every pot, called the rake. In poker players play against one another, and while there is a chance element, chance does not favor anyone in the long run.

In traditional poker, yes. Where none of the players see each other, one could be playing for the house; wouldn't they rather make the entire pot rather than a small percentage of it?

Or, you could just rely on the honesty of a fly-by-night, Cayman Islands-based internet company.

This should be interesting

[AdmiralXyz]

It will be fun to see how American conservatives respond to this, seeing how they balance their desire to purge us of our moral evils with the desire to scream that Obama is a communist for seizing people's hard-earned property.

Re:This should be interesting

[db32]

You act like they have some kind of problem with hypocrisy. Have you listened to them lately?

Gays are evil! ... Gay sex scandals galore
Small government! ... DHS/TSA anyone?
Spending Bad! ... What is it? 3 trillion on the 'War on Terror'?
Corruption! ... Stevens, Cunningham, hell even Cheney with those juicy no bid contracts
Individualism! ... Oh wow...so uhm... all those laws designed to make everyone conform to predominately fundamentalist Christian ideals
Activist Judge! ... This actually translates to judge that interprets the law in any way other than what we want. The most amusing part is watching judges rule on the letter of the law and be called activists because they didn't "interpret" around things the way the far right wanted.

Seriously? Do you think they have any problems with hypocrisy?

Re:This should be interesting

[Starlon]

That would be the case if this judge didn't rule in direct opposition to the 2nd amendment. What's next? States can take away our freedom of speech? Our freedom of spiritual expression?

US v. $124,700

[shentino]

They probably sued the money first.

US v $124,700

Civil forfeiture is nothing more than an end run around the 4th and 14th amendments.

Besides, if money can be sued by the government, and thus deprived of its liberty, doesn't the money have the right to legal counsel?

What about the money's right to 5th amendment protection against self incrimination? ...need I go on?

Re:US v. $124,700

[QuoteMstr]

Yes, in rem jurisdiction leads to ridiculous cases like United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola. If I had it my way, there would be legislation (or better yet, a constitutional amendment) barring in rem cases in which the owner of the property is known.

Re:US v. $124,700

[bennomatic]

Can you explain what you mean? My first reaction to your post was to mock it as making no sense, then I decided that maybe I'm just missing something. Please clarify what you mean by "money can be sued" and by the idea that money can be "deprived of its liberty"?

If this wasn't intended as a joke, it's one of the strangest posts I've seen in a while.

Re:US v. $124,700

[KiahZero]

Courts not only have jurisdiction in personam, over people, but also in rem, over property. Civil forfeiture takes advantage of this in order to seize illegal assets, where the court has jurisdiction over the property in question.

The owner of the property still maintains Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizure. Seizing illegally obtained property is not unreasonable, and thus the Fourth Amendment isn't violated.

Also, you might want to reread the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments; the right to an attorney and the right against self-incrimination do not apply in civil trials. Further, the Fifth Amendment attaches only to persons, and the Seventh Amendment applies only to suits under the common law, which does not include the statutory basis of civil forfeiture of illegally obtained assets.

Sure, there are problems with civil forfeiture, but if you want to oppose the practice, it'd be helpful if you had even an inkling of an idea what the hell you were talking about.

Re:US v. $124,700

[KiahZero]

You think that a constitutional amendment sharply curtailing the powers of government to exercise power over property in its jurisdiction is justified by the fact that in rem jurisdiction leads to funny case names?

Re:US v. $124,700

[QuoteMstr]

You're factually correct, but we both know that in rem jurisdiction runs counter to every principle held by the authors of the constitution. If they had any idea how pernicious civil forfeiture, it would have been explicitly forbidden. While forfeiture may be constitutional under the stare decisis interpretation of the fifth, sixth, and seventh amendments, I think any disinterested party would understand forfeiture to be blatantly in violation of the intent of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the implied Ninth Amendment right to personal property (not that the Ninth Amendment has any teeth these days...)

Re:US v. $124,700

[QuoteMstr]

Also,

Seizing illegally obtained property is not unreasonable

You don't know the property is illegally obtained until a proper trial has been conducted. Part of any sane interpretation of the presumption of innocence is that the current possessor of an item is its rightful owner. Forfeiture is literally a de jure presumption of guilt with regard to certain kinds of property, and flies in the face of a thousand years of tradition.

Re:US v. $124,700

[QuoteMstr]

in rem jurisdiction leads to funny case names

Of course not. The silly case name is a reflection of the silly nature of the case: in rem cases against property with a known owner is a pernicious legal fiction used as an end-run around our civil liberties; that this jurisdiction leads to ridiculous case names is a somewhat amusing side effect.

Re:US v. $124,700

[pem]

He knows what the hell he's talking about.

The government uses fancy lawyers like you to steal from people, in civil court, where they don't have to provide a lawyer, instead of actually proving that a crime was committed.

The fact that you seem to think this is peachy-keen fine is a reflection on your morals, not on the parent's education or intelligence.

Re:US v. $124,700

[KiahZero]

Yes, forfeiture is an unpleasant practice. Nonetheless, if you want to convince people that it's bad, the solution isn't to talk about "money's right to 5th amendment protection." The complaint ultimately boils down to it lacking in fundamental due process rights. If you focus on that rather than throwing in a collection of irrelevant constitutional amendments, you'd probably be more successful in convincing people that the power should be constrained.

Re:US v. $124,700

[KiahZero]

The fact that you seem to think a comment saying "there are problems with civil forfeiture" indicates civil forfeiture "is peachy-keen fine" is a reflection of your reading comprehension, not my morals.

Re:US v. $124,700

[KiahZero]

So you don't think courts should have power over property where they don't have power over a known owner (such as when the owner is outside of the jurisdiction)?

To restate what I said below, reforming civil forfeiture laws is a worthy goal, but you don't do yourself any favors if you start calling for ridiculously over-inclusive 'remedies.'

Re:US v. $124,700

[Ungrounded Lightning]

the right to an attorney and the right against self-incrimination do not apply in civil trials. Further, the Fifth Amendment attaches only to persons ...

I agree that you are correctly stating the current legal paradigm.

However, IMHO the seizure of property in a civil action because it is alleged to be the fruit of a crime is itself a penalty for an alleged criminal activity (illegally obtaining the property). As such, it should not be a civil matter and subject only to civil proceedings unless the alleged criminal act which makes it the fruit of a crime has already been proven under criminal law procedures and standards of proof. To do otherwise is, again IMHO, a "taking" and/or "deprivation of ... property" "without due process" under the Fifth Amendment.

(Similarly, the state level treatment of traffic violations as "civil infractions" is also a transparent move to impose what are indistinguishable from criminal penalties under the more lax civil law procedures and standards of proof. These procedures should also be banned and the associated laws stricken.)

Re:US v. $124,700

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Your morals already have a poor reflection. You've spent your time going over the pedantics of civil vs criminal and spouting latin terms that you've completely set aside the fact that peoples property is being taken from them, by force, without fair trial or just compensation.

I don't care if they're drug dealers. I really don't. I don't care if they're murdering peodophile terrorists. A court should not be able to take away their property with proving that it was ill gotten. Currently, the owners have to prove it wasn't, if they even get a chance to do that.

What's the logic behind this? To win the War on Drugs? Boo hoo. I'm a teetotaler and I don't give a flying fig whether people get high on alcohol, cannabis, cocaine or heroin. It's all the one to me. But so are all defendants. I don't care how evil anyone thinks they are. Justice for all means justice for all, not for people you think deserve it.

Re:US v. $124,700

[WNight]

So you don't think courts should have power over property

So you don't think carebears should have power over the moon?

No, frankly it's ridiculous. Almost nonsensical.

where they don't have power over a known owner (such as when the owner is outside of the jurisdiction)?

Now you're getting crazy! There's no jurisdiction outside the USA's laws.

Seriously, if you've got property in my jurisdiction should I make up some crazy legal fiction about suing the property or just treat you like you're in my jurisdiction, to a maximum claim of seizing all your available assets (the property I've already got).

It might seem like a clueless nitpick to you, but while various legal maneuvers might make your job seem clearer they break the useful relation between the legal system, the real world, and just outcomes. To lawyers it seems to make no difference if the law makes sense as long as it spits out answers that keep the world running - which is largely independent to the fates of individuals.

But to everyone else the law is code to be followed/forced-into in daily life. Here the crazy legal shenanigans such as having your property sued in a drug case are mind-boggling and amount to nothing more in use than arbitrary 'lose your life savings' and 'lose your freedom' cards.

While you and yours may find a law less useful because it doesn't handily handle some tax-related corner cases, remember that you merely work in the law and we live in it.

So kindly piss off with telling us in this condescending voice that the law needs to be complex for reasons beyond our simple understanding. Many of us here are computer programmers/etc, capable of abstract thought far more complex than anything you with your squishy legal decisions can imagine, and we understand the fundamental issues of information theory and complexity. While it IS hard to model complex situations, flawed models help nobody, especially backed by government fiat.

Re:US v. $124,700

[WNight]

Seizing illegally obtained property is not unreasonable, and thus the Fourth Amendment isn't violated.

Had you said "is not seen by the courts as being unreasonable" it would have been descriptive of the current legal situation.

You said "is not unreasonable". That's your view.

And yes, you certainly do seem to think forfeiture laws are reasonable. You argue for the necessity of them in some posts, and explain aspects of them in other posts with the apparent goal of showing how they're aren't unreasonable (the quoted sentence for example).

You point out trivial details of the law as if they matter without realizing that it's the mere existence of the law that everyone else finds objectionable. You're a lawyer (or act like one) and you're not (that I see) fighting some bastards like SCO or Scientology, or campaigning to simplify law, so you do seem to think it's peachy-keen. Job security I guess.

Re:US v. $124,700

[NP-Incomplete]

http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/afp/07federalforfeiture/index.htm

Re:US v. $124,700

[Starlon]

"Forfeiture is literally a de jure presumption of guilt with regard to certain kinds of property, and flies in the face of a thousand years of tradition." Isn't that what this Too Big to Fail policy is all about? You know, the one where somebody gets to assume damages based on whatever knowledge and seize the company in question?

Re:US v. $124,700

[shentino]

United States v. $124,700 was a real court case where the cash was actually sued instead of the one who possessed it.

My point was that if we were going to make it possible for property to be sued for the sake of confiscating it, then, logically, it would follow that the property should enjoy the same due process rights that a person would.

It's absurd, but compared to letting the government use in rem jurisdiction to do an end run around our rights it's a damn sight more logical.

Re:US v. $124,700

[Max Littlemore]

There's no jurisdiction outside the USA's

laws

Ummm... the rest of the world begs to differ...

Re:US v. $124,700

[QuoteMstr]

"I'll lend you a few billion dollars so you don't have to declare bankruptcy, but with strings A, B, and C" is very different from "I'm seizing your company".

The government has relied upon the former in this crisis, though, honestly, many companies deserved the latter.

Re:US v. $124,700

[Starlon]

You misunderstand the government's new powers then.

Re:US v. $124,700

[WNight]

Clue: My use of the word 'Seriously'.

Hint: I'm not from the USA.

...

What everyone else got: Sarcasm!

But really, what's the truth? If you were on one of their watch lists and flew anywhere that could possibly be diverted into the USA, or Canada/etc who will hand suspects over to the USA, you're as good as their subject. Or if you live in a country like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and they send in a team of commandos, again you're their subject.

But before you argue, or care, ask who you're saving yourself for. Who owns you? For certainly if you live anywhere the "authorities" would hand you over to the USA you can't be said to be free. Even if those authorities merely guarantee your relative disarmament such that you could easily be taken you can't really be said to be free.

So yeah, unless you're Russian or Chinese, you're American property, and you certainly aren't free in any case.

Re:that's what you get for breaking the law

[e2d2]

Wait, what? You wrote a software package that did what? Explain this please.

Ready...Set....

[lsmo]

This is just the start of what a Gov't scrambling to increase revenues will do. I have an equation that will amuse everyone. Insurance company that was to big + Banks that were to big to fail = ???? Yep a Gov't that is to big to fail, hide your wallets everyone. This is only a preview of whats to come. Guess what else I don't blame this on Obama or Bush for that matter. I blame the citizens. We must become a nation of informed citizens if we want to compete in the global market in the future. Time to make some tough decisions...

Re:Ready...Set....

[YesIAmAScript]

There's no revenue here, the money was frozen, not seized (despite what the summary says).

Never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to stupidity.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[e2d2]

Why is this insightful? This makes no sense. Do you understand the rules of poker? There is no house, hence there can be no house odds. The house does not play in the hand, any hand. It gets no simpler than that.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[venicebeach]

Sure, but the misconception is that the game of poker fairly played favors the house. People erroneously believe this because they relate it to other forms of gambling where this is the case.

Cheating is another issue, and it's true the we need better regulations on this -- which is part of the reason the law should be changed or clarified. That said, what has kept things above water so far (with a few notable exceptions like the scandal at Absolute Poker) is that the money these sites make from rake is enormous. The motivation to attract more players with a reputation of fairness is really the best way for them to make money. Cheating the very high limit players is pretty much the only way this could go down -- which is what happened at AP, where they were caught when people noticed the anomalous winnings of certain players.

Will the WTO give Antigua and Barbuda 33M more now

[Joe The Dragon]

Will the WTO give Antigua and Barbuda 33M more.

Will us gov be able to hit a over seas bank that you have money at?>

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[AuMatar]

Ah yes, th fly-by-night internet companies that are listed on the London stock exchange like Party Poker and Poker Stars.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[e2d2]

People gets a bad wrap because it's both misundedrstood, as we see in examples above, and the history of the game is dubious in general. That's not today's modern poker operation, but it does have the historical image of an "outlaw" game that is hard to shake.

All Gambling is risk management. That same risk management pervades our lives, we just don't recognize it.

Myself, I got half a million hands at 100NL that say online poker is worth the risk. But freezing accounts? Yikes. I don't like to take that kind of risk and I hope they get this cleared up soon because I won't play without that guarantee. It's not too much to ask to get paid in a timely fashion with checks that actually cash.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[afidel]

Online you can't know that the house isn't running a bot allowed to peak at the deck or your hand.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[nedlohs]

But they'd prefer big pots to small pots.

So action flops are better for the house.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[nedlohs]

And because you can see the guy across the table at the casino means he can't be playing for the house?

Legalize it again

[Nom du Keyboard]

I thought the Democrats were working to legalize Internet poker again.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[wiredlogic]

Actually, I think that case was detected by outsiders who noticed a statistical anomaly when analyzing the performance of the top players on the site in question. It only happened because there was enough publicly available data to spot something suspicious.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no guarantee... but over time such a thing would show up in the statistics... and the players would find out... and the poker room would find itself out of business.

Collusion among players is a much bigger problem for online poker than the house skewing the games. And even that seems to not be very prevalent. And online poker rooms spend some amount of resources trying to catch colluders as well. Collusion is easy to see if you can see all the cards...

US Actions Illegal Under International Commerc Law

[meehawl]

Yes, it's remarkable that the US is pursuing this weird, illegal vendetta against international online gambling when recent legal decisions have conclusively proved that its actions are unsupportted by anything approximating a legal right. The NY Times apparently knew this back in 2004, but it has apparently forgot by now.

The WTO's decision regarding the inability of the US, or its constituent States, to prohibit international commerce in the culturally protected arenas of sport and gambling is clear and, for a massive bureaucracy, surprisingly understandable. I think we can expect a lot more legal cases against the US by countries with offshore gambling economies. The WTO withheld awarding Antigua and Barbuda virtually unlimited license to duplicate any or all intellectual property copyrighted within the US. That could have cost billions, and really pissed off Microsoft. In a followup case, given persistent recidivism by the defendant (the US), a larger award might be more possible.

 

The United States was not able to invoke successfully the GATS exceptions provisions. In this regard, the United States was not able to demonstrate that the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act are âoenecessaryâ under Articles XIV(a) and XIV(c) of the GATS (i.e. âoeexceptionsâ provisions, including for public morals) and are consistent with the requirements of the chapeau of Article XIV of the GATS; ...
On 7 April 2005, the report of the Appellate Body was circulated. The Appellate Body: ...
upheld the Panelâ(TM)s finding, albeit for different reasons, that the United Statesâ(TM) Schedule includes a commitment to grant full market access in gambling and betting services.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[Main Gauche]

Considering they can't even prevent former employees from doing it, I'd say yeah, you're right. (Google NioNio if you don't know the story.)

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[TechnoGrl]

Doesn't matter. Your opponents are still other players. Someone always wins every hand - the house never "wins". The house just takes a rake out of every pot.

I used to work as a programmer in a large Nevada casino.

The house regularly hires "shills" with good poker playing skills to sit at the table. The shills get a salary and the casino gets their winnings. That is how the house increases it's take

I see no reason why online casinos would not do the same thing.

Poker? Poker!!???

[cdrguru]

What I want to see is legal (or at least allowed bank transfers) for casino games like slots, blackjack and maybe roulette. These are all extremely easy to rig, will draw millions of US citizens in with the hopes of a quick buck and make the operators very, very rich.

This can all be operated overseas without any possibility of government interference or regulation, just as soon as the credit cards companies will allow transfers to such businesses. Poker is a drop in the bucket, and certain is meaningless in terms of getting huge returns on gaming. The real thing happens when they legalize transfers for gaming, period.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[bennomatic]

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.

Nor the latency. And in some tragic cases, the packet loss.

Re:that's what you get for breaking the law

[bennomatic]

"That." Isn't it obvious? His program had sex.

Oh, no, I guess not. That would have been, "did it", not "did all that". I guess I'm confused.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[e2d2]

And in a brick and mortar you can't be sure that don't have a shill sitting right next to you.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[Ricken]

On the real deck of cards part: I've seen sites with real dealers dealing real cards over a cam.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[afidel]

It's pretty damn expensive to pay a shill and incredibly hard to pass card information to the shill without detection.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[fatray]

I used to work as a programmer in a large Nevada casino.

The house regularly hires "shills" with good poker playing skills to sit at the table. The shills get a salary and the casino gets their winnings. That is how the house increases it's take

I see no reason why online casinos would not do the same thing.

You are just wrong about this. First, when the poker room hires someone to play to fill tables they are called props, not shills. Anyone familiar with poker would know this. Second, props are paid a small salary from the casino and play with their own money. They keep their winnings and eat their losses. Props have to start games and have to get up when the table is full so that a customer can sit.

The use of props is controlled by the state gaming commissions. You can always ask the dealer if their is a prop at the table.

Some on line poker rooms use props. I know some of the props and can tell you they play with their own money, too.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[jhylkema]

Actually, in online poker, you have access to all the cards you ever played. You can look at your last 10,000 hands and see if the cards you get have any statistical anomalies. Try doing that at a bricks-and-mortar casino.

You do know that every bricks-and-mortar casino has literally thousands of surveillance cameras, right? And that said cameras record every transaction made, right?

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[dcollins]

"The house isn't going to do that, it's not in their best interest to cheat in games that are designed to be in their favor."

People don't always do what's in their best interest. Classic downfall of classic economic theory.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[man_of_mr_e]

They would only be "shills" if they were in collusion with the house to cheat. Any poker player who is not cheating, regardless of whether the house is paying them or not, is still just a poker play with the same chance to win as anyone else.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[Achromatic1978]

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say "you are aware that cameras have a record function, right? did the dealer have cnn playing on a tv behind him for authenticity?" - but in reality, most of the large poker sites are legit, because there's plenty of money in the rake, and it only takes one pissed off employee or calculating player to bring your house of cards down, if you're up to shenanigans.

Guess my Full Tilt money is stuck

[Punchinello]

I cashed out $200 a few weeks ago from Full Tilt and it was released successfully to my bank account. I guess the rest of my bankroll is stuck. I cannot even fathom how the government thinks thy can lock up my money like this.

Poker should be legalized. It is not gambling. The casino only takes a rake.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[humphrm]

You still believe the myth that the pretty pixels they program their computers to display on the screen are real.

In real poker, you see your opponents faces. You learn to read their actions. You see them get paid what amounts to cash for their wins. You see the house rake.

In computer poker, you see pretty pixels that they program their computers to show you, with a promise that it's all real. I guess it boils down to, do you trust them.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[Pulzar]

As an online and real life poker player I can safely say that the cards that are dealt in most online poker sites are certainly not "random".

If you don't want to research this yourself, there are certainly many others online that have done it. The cards are, in fact, random. It is indeed poker as we know it.

You simply play a lot more hands online, and therefore see a lot more happen. The 4-1 odds might seem huge when you play 10-15 hands per hour in real life, but when you're playing 200/hr in a 4-table session, you're going to see that 1 out 5 hit every few minutes.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[ModernGeek]

Not even shill players, just AI players.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[Moridin42]

Why do you care who another player is playing for? Unless that player's contributions to the pot are not honored when you win, what difference does it make where his money comes from? What difference does it make where the money you throw in the pot goes, if it isn't going to you after you lose?

If the dealer can be made to unfairly favor the house's agents, then you should care. But I'm fairly confident that such behavior would be discovered. I say this because players of video games have determined detailed formulas for damage, stat growth, encounter rates, and the like. And those people only had ego, wit, and a bit of recognition on the line. Poker players have all that and money on the line.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[tecnico.hitos]

[...]Your real fear should be collusion between multiple accounts created by the same person or a group of people acting together.[...]

Scientologists?

Re:US Actions Illegal Under International Commerc

[sumdumass]

Do you know what the concept of sovereignty is?

All countries possess it and can't be subjected to rules or laws they don't agree to be subjected to. Some countries have waved their sovereignty in some respects and actually allow international bodies to create laws that they have to abide by. The US is not one of them. The WTO was out of line in their ruling, they tread in areas that wasn't under their jurisdiction by treaty and stomped over other treaties and governing bodies like WIPO.

The WTO's governing body is made up of countries that don't like US foreign policy and the ruling was an obvious retaliation to that effect. The leadership of the WTO rotates every so often to give other countries equal say, in this case, that say was abused. There was no basis in obligations for it and the supposed remedy is illegal by other treaties in effect.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[UncleMark]

The shills get a salary and the casino gets their winnings.

That's not entirely accurate. Shills get paid a salary, this is true. But they play with their own money, keeping the winnings and suffering the losses.

Re:that's what you get for breaking the law

[bnenning]

You can't. And since they are over seas without regulation you have no way of knowing.

Except that you can record every hand you play and statistically analyze them. If there's any funny business like somebody else having pocket aces when you have pocket kings more often than chance allows, it would eventually be discovered. That's how the recent cheating at UltimateBet was uncovered.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[StDoodle]

The point of a house shill isn't to generate revenue for the casino by passing on their winnings, it's to generate revenue for the casino by filling out the table. People don't get excited about sitting down at a poker table with one or two other people, in general, and the house shill props up the numbers so more people will play. Also, you're ignoring two important points: 1) The shill is staked by the casino, and casinos (ironically enough) don't like to gamble with their money, so it's fairly obvious that the shill's winnings aren't their main concern & 2) A shill good enough to consistently make money for the casino would just find someone else to stake them at a much lower % and then go off on their own (though in truth, lower percentages are quite common; being a shill is historically a great way to 'get your feet wet' in poker)

These comments are just stupid

[Canberra Bob]

Reading through this it is amazing the ignorance shown in a lot of the comments.

To elaborate - I will come out and say it. I play poker professionally online. Mid stakes limit hold em to be precise. Firstly, I have been paid in full every time I have made a withdrawal. There are PokerStars offices (yes, real offices, with people working in them) in many countries around the world. I have bought many items, including cash bonuses, through the site store. I have received every single one (including the cash) in a timely manner and have not once had an issue. International freight is via DHL and usually arrives within a week (with no charge on shipping to me). The statement that you will not get paid just shows pure ignorance of the subject. I am sure there are some dodgy sites out there, but there are many dodgy sites out there in other activities too. I suppose you should never buy anything off a site because there are some dodgy sites?

As for fair or not, let me continue...

You can purchase quite sophisticated statistical analysis software for poker. Most (possibly all) professional and serious amateur players use it. It will break down every single part of all the games you have played and you can pull numbers on almost any conceivable situation you have ever been in to find flaws in your game ("leaks" in poker jargon). The data is stored in a PostgreSQL database for you to access if you care to write your own front end. This software stores every single hand I have ever played in. Included is analysis that shows if you are running "lucky" - you can prove mathematically if you have been "lucky" or "unlucky" with how the cards have come out - that is - if your results are skewed due to the cards being dealt giving you statistically more or less wins than you should have on average. There are some VERY smart guys playing (as one would imagine with the money that is at stake) including pros who have post grads in statistics, finance etc. I personally studied electrical engineering and am currently doing some stats study on my own to improve my game and move my play towards the holy grail that is Game Theory Optimal (which may not even exist in multi-handed poker due to incomplete information). These guys are not some country yokels who have no idea if they are being duped or not.

As for bots...
Firstly, I invite you to put your money where your mouth is, get a bot and play some mid stakes or higher multi-way poker (6-max or full ring). Your bot will be crushed. Period. Yes I know about Polaris (the University of Alberta bot which can match it with the best heads up limit players in the world). A few points to note. This is for heads up limit - more players than 2 and the game becomes exponentially more difficult for a bot to play. Bots are not all conquering in the poker world as some assume, a good player will crush almost any bot. Unlike other games poker is a loooooong way from being solved (if it can be). As for collusion, this happens unfortunately from time to time (as it does in a real casino) but there are protection mechanisms in place against it. Firstly, the sites employ poker and statistical specialists who have no other job than to keep the games honest. You can see if someone is playing statistically better than they should. Added to that, as a professional player many can quite easily spot when people are colluding on the table. If someone is caught cheating they have their entire playing account funds frozen and anybody who has played against them has their money refunded.

I have played pro live and online. I play online as I can get multiples more hands per hour against weak player in than I can in a live game. Also the rake is a small fraction of what I pay live. The only ones who say "omgz online is rigged" either have no idea what they are talking about, or are players who just suck at poker and instead of working on their game find something else to blame for why they always lose.

Plenty more to say but that will do for now...

Re:These comments are just stupid

[inmytaxi]

Well, there are ways to cheat, and I'd bet a lot of people are cheated. Friends on the phone playing a table have less incomplete information, and if they find the right sucker, can make a years' salary playing five against one high limit. Also there was a scandal at Ultimate Bet (Annie Duke and Phil Hellmuth's site) were one person knew the cards other players held. So cheating is possible, though you are probably safe statistically as so many players are honest.

Re:that's what you get for breaking the law

[Canberra Bob]

You can statistically analyse your hands to determine if you have been running above or below what you should have been given certain situations. It is not hard to do. The only ones who peddle this nonsense are those who just suck at poker and want to blame someone else rather than improve their game "omgz online is rigged!!!1!". I have played both live and online a LOT and you will find just as many suckouts live as you do online.

The point of drug laws?

[BancBoy]

I thought the point of drug laws was to punish people for choosing non-corporate recreational drugs. This Bud's for you! That bud growing over there? We'll lock you up for that...

Re:The point of drug laws?

[hesaigo999ca]

I tend to agree, however doomsickle it might be, I ten to realize that is whatever the government thinks makes them money...legalizing pot, if they saw a projected income from revenue generated by taxing and legalizing pot, we'd all be smocking tomorrow...

Re:The point of drug laws?

[Hatta]

It's obvious that the government itself would see increased revenue by regulating marijuana. We'd save a lot of money not trying and imprisoning people, who would then continue to contribute to the economy, paying the taxes we all do, AND a considerable excise tax on their government approved marijuana.

The problem is that legislators don't do what's in the governments best interest, but what's in their own best interest. As long as the pharmaceutical industry, and the alcohol/tobacco industry keep getting the drug warriors reelected, we'll keep waging war on drugs. Even if it does cost us all more in the end.

Re:The point of drug laws?

[geekoid]

Nope. Legal drugs would be another revenue stream for these corporation.
It's a 'War' created by Reagan in order to ahve a new villain, back by fundamentalists who are in a world of reinforced ignorance and denial. They use those 2 tools to control other lives, like any fanatic.

Re:Re. sovereignty

[sumdumass]

What problems did Bush have understanding it and what does this have to do with the current conversation? If your talking about Iraq, they already ceded parts of their sovereignty to satisfy the 1993 armistice agreements. If Afghanistan, then your right, we trampled on their sovereignty because the behaved in a way that undermined the direct and indirect safety of the US. If your talking about extraditing software pirates from Australia or other countries or arresting people when entering the US, then it's up to international treaties and local sovereignty which is already agreed upon.

I'm not sure what your talking about or what it has to do with the situation at hand.

The government lacks the power to seize private pr

[Paleolibertarian]

1. Seizing private property is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the government by the constitution.

2. Article 5 of the Bill of rights states: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Notice the clause, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

Notice the clause, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Congress cannot make a constitutional which violates the constitution. Unfortunately however the 3 branches of the federal government have not payed more than lip service to the constitution since the Lincoln administration.

Absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

The UIGEA is bad enough (amazing that it could pass) and this is just becoming ridiculous. People have a right to use their money as they see fit as long as it does not invalidate the rights of other individuals. Spending money on poker is a personal choice. It's true that some people lose money doing so but it's their own fault and we should not be made to pay for their mistakes. What's next, if a couple goes on a vacation they truly can't afford we will outlaw vacations? Moreover, poker is popular and growing. All this is doing is creating more problems and an underground movement that will not be pretty. For example, No-Limit-Hold'em is illegal in San Jose (yes, those idiots actually decided what games they'd like you to gamble in with your own money), but do you really think it isn't played for big stakes?

Finally, poker is not gambling in the pure sense. There is AT LEAST 25% skill and over time, better players just win much more and lose less. 25% is a very large degree when you consider that in just an hour you may play 40 or more hands. It's not chess, but it is a rational game. It's far from bingo, slot machines or the lottery. Good poker players play when they know they have an edge and make plays that have positive expectation. Some of them, like Ed Miller are actually Harvard graduates with degrees in mathematics. Many of them even say outright that they are not gamblers and have never played a slot machine in their life because they know that it has negative expectation and is a mathematically losing situation.

The government cannot and should not regulate this. It's making a mockery of our tax money, capitalism as well as the idea of personal responsibility.

pun intended....

[AnAdventurer]

" and I think it's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors" ha ha ha ha, you are very funny!

The Casino Lobby

[raehl]

The big casino folks pay a lot of money to make sure an online alternative to gambling in casinos is not created. They don't care about Poker so much, but they care very much that if poker is legal, it's only a short hop to online blackjack being legal.

I'll answer this one

[Anonymous Coward]

To make people healthier.

There's all sorts of reasons.

Philanthropy.

You have it too.

You can't take it with you when you go.

You can sell your amazing elixir.

An many more.

NOTE: there was no patent on snake oil, but people sold it to profit. Now you can get to more people to sell it to but they can converse with each other and tell each other if it works.

Re:I'll answer this one

[???]

Yes. Because the Internet has reduced the friction of communication to the point where it is impossible to make a profit selling snake oil.

As usual, the discussion is missing the point.

[ThEATrE]

While I don't play poker and consider it a vapid waste of time and energy better spent on doing something productive, I will say this. To everyone replying that the government is "wasting time and money" and is suggesting that there more important matters to be concerned with than shutting down internet poker. I will remind all of you of a seldom talked about and suppressed fact about our society. In a society as civilly disengaged, disillusioned, propagandized, and atomized as ours, the government will be able to get away with continuing and escalating their ongoing efforts to continue shaping society in the current negative direction by keeping up with their current and developing new means of doing what it does: engaging in social control while multinational unaccountable private tyrannies have their way with us.

Given Other "Investments" Lately

[Greyfox]

You could have sunk your 401K into an online poker site or, for that matter, lotto tickets and you'd be in about the same place right now.

Re:Why does the gov care?

[Sabz5150]

Why do they care about poker but not about many other legal forms of gambling? What makes online poker worthy of the government's time? Are they using the criminal law to prop up government sponsored monopolies in gambling?

One word: Lottery.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[Carewolf]

You can't buy a life insurance policy on J Random Person

For the insurance company there is no difference. It is only to you personally that an insurance bet is tied to a tragedy, and therefor called insurance instead of gambling. For the insurance company, the case is simple gambling like any other.

Re:US Actions Illegal Under International Commerc

[Carewolf]

Do you know what the concept of contracts is?

You sign a contract, and stick by the rules, and if you break the rules, you suffer the consequences outlined in the contract.

The US signed the WTO contract, then violated them by making foreign gambling illegal, while keeping US gambling legal. The WTO used the power granted them to punish the US. Among the powers of WTO is they handle international IP (imaginary property). If the US leaves the WTO, the US loses their IP right internationally. In this case WTO is being nice, and only offers two small countries hurt by the illegal US rules to ignore US IP.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[MartinSchou]

When I played on Party Poker they used to give a prop offer about once a week. "Play at this table for $x/hour". You played with your own money, and the payment wouldn't even cover the blinds. It was an incentive to get more people to the table, not to increase their own take (the rake is always limited).

Re:that's what you get for breaking the law

[Win0ver]

Because I log 100% of the hands I play, and so do every pro/semi-pro players. It's then trivial to perform statistical analysis (the softwares logging the hands are made precisely for that). With thousands of players doing this, it doesn't take long until we know something is up. Most cheaters get caught. Or they aren't cheating good enough to affect our bottom line.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[Zebedeu]

That doesn't make any sense. If the player is making more money from the table on average than he gets as salary, then why would he accept a contract where he would give his winnings and keep the lower salary?

If he's making less money than the salary, then the casino is losing money by having him there, therefore lowering their take.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[tshak]

Unlike homeowner's insurance, where you ARE playing against the house. Or car insurance. Or the state lottery. Or mutual funds. Or health insurance.

We manage risk all the time, and happily pay people for the privilege. I've never understood why poker got such a bad rep.

Ignorance.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[venicebeach]

I believe the concern is that the house may cheat by having players with access to the hole cards.

Re:that's what you get for breaking the law

[jparker]

Sure, the house makes its money from the rake, but since that's a percentage of the pot, the house has a vested interest in ensuring big hands. That's also the kind of drama that makes poker most exciting. Put simply, it's never in the house's benefit for a player to have a bad hand.

I'm not saying that the online poker sites are stacking decks this way, but it's a mistake to say that they don't have any incentive.

Re:that's what you get for breaking the law

[geekoid]

In the 90's Electronic gambling software was going through some growth. Smarter electronic poker games.
Several friends of mine went into that industry. Some went on to online gambling.
I wrote a poker program that should how you could have fake players, and deal non random hands which would lead the actual players(AKA Suckers) into betting heavier then normal by giving them a good hand, but a faux player having better.
So the house gets the rake and the pot from their faux players.

On a large 24 hour electronic gaming system, that anount to a lot of money.
If you only did that 10% of the time no one would notice.

Rememberm in gambling 1% different can mean 10s of millions of dollars.

I said 'software package'. This was a misnomer. I should ahve said software program. I apologize, I've just been talking to vendors and doing software work on a couple of large software packages and I type that by mistake.

Even more accurately I would call it a proof of concept.
IT worked, but has no error trapping, and had all the hall marks of a slapped together software application. Meaning you would NEVER go to production with it.

Of course, the easiest form of fraud is just have a online site that actually pays a little more. Once people get wind and sign up you just walk away from the company with millions.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[geekoid]

shills is the common name in Nevada for anyone who fills a spot at a table.

"Second, props are paid a small salary from the casino and play with their own money."
Yes, but SHILLS bet payed and play with casino money.

"..when the table is full so that a customer can sit."

Shills may or may not depending on the skill of the players.

"The use of props is controlled by the state gaming commissions. You can always ask the dealer if their is a prop at the table."
Same with shills. In fact there has to be a clean sign i the casino that says they use shills.

With an online game, they don't ahve any regualtions so they don't ahve to tell you squate about who is at the table.

Look at the cheating that went on in Nevada casinos in the 50s. That has slowed considerably with regulation. Why do you think someone who is unaccountable won't cheat? More accurately why to you think that in an industry that isn't regulated there won't be cheaters?

As a young man, I had a job i=n a Casino and one of my responsibility was to drive shills to varies casinos.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[Gryphn]

You can read a good summary of that scandal here.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/ub-scandal-sticky-251207/

Quid Pro Quo

[meehawl]

Agreeing to membership within the WTO is a sovereignty compromise designed to promote economic exports. As a result of membership, the USA gets protection for its exports against unfair tariffs, duties, or other illegal restraints of trade designed to exclude US exports from foreign markets. Given that until recently, the USA was a huge net exporter of manufactured goods, services, and copyrighted material, obviously WTO membership was a big deal designed to open foreign markets for US companies.

Maybe the current emotional, illogical campaign by several US politicians and political wannabes against international gaming has come about because by now the US has seen several decades of increasingly insular economic development and has become relatively decoupled from international export trade, WTO membership is no longer seen as so essential to US economic interest. Or maybe it's because the US is electing more dumb-as-a-plank politicians? Either way, the US has gained tremendously from its membership in the WTO and other countries' compliance with its market-opening directives. For the US now to turn around and persist in imposing illegal trade restraints is simply hypocritical.

Re:Quid Pro Quo

[sumdumass]

Agreeing to membership within the WTO is a sovereignty compromise designed to promote economic exports. As a result of membership, the USA gets protection for its exports against unfair tariffs, duties, or other illegal restraints of trade designed to exclude US exports from foreign markets. Given that until recently, the USA was a huge net exporter of manufactured goods, services, and copyrighted material, obviously WTO membership was a big deal designed to open foreign markets for US companies.

That's all fine and dandy when the dispute isn't using made up crap. We didn't give up sovereignty over this and if you read the treaty as well as the ruling you can clearly see shit was made up, taken out of context and rule on inconsistent with the reality it resides in. The US is only bound to the agreement's that it approved, not delusional interpretations that ignore the treaty, the governing structure of the US and everything else involved. Take a look at the treaty and ruling yourself. Here is the meat of it with some comments to why it is absurd. And yes, read all of it especially the end.

Maybe the current emotional, illogical campaign by several US politicians and political wannabes against international gaming has come about because by now the US has seen several decades of increasingly insular economic development and has become relatively decoupled from international export trade, WTO membership is no longer seen as so essential to US economic interest. Or maybe it's because the US is electing more dumb-as-a-plank politicians? Either way, the US has gained tremendously from its membership in the WTO and other countries' compliance with its market-opening directives. For the US now to turn around and persist in imposing illegal trade restraints is simply hypocritical.

This has nothing to do with internet gambling and everything to do with states rights, existing laws, and foreign companies excluding themselves from US law. Internet gambling is availible in the US under a specific set of rules and all foreign companies have to follow those rules. If they don't then it's their move, not ours, that is restricting their access.

Now it seems that not only are you severely challenged mentally in this conversation (you have no clue about the text of the treaty, the rulings, or the laws justifying the ruling that was taken out of context), that you are also letting political ideals and biased dictate your incorrect understanding of the events. Please stop this, take a couple of minutes to learn what the hell your talking about, and we can have a competent discussion if you want.

Re:US Actions Illegal Under International Commerc

[sumdumass]

o you know what the concept of contracts is?

Yes, I do. Do you even remotely know the terms of this contract? It doesn't look like it. Do you even remotely know the conditions of the ruling or the justifications of it or the finding in the appellate panel or the appellate board before it got screwed over in arbitration? Again, it doesn't look like it.

You sign a contract, and stick by the rules, and if you break the rules, you suffer the consequences outlined in the contract.

The ruling by the arbitration panel is what is ignoring the rules, the offshore sites are specifically asking to violate US and state law in their course of trade which is not free trade or free access. Free Trade is where all parties are subject to the same rules and regulations. Try learning a little about the situation before going off half cocked. I will provide a link to some of the relevant parts but I suggest you actual learn more about this then what you favorite headline news flashed before you.

The US signed the WTO contract, then violated them by making foreign gambling illegal, while keeping US gambling legal. The WTO used the power granted them to punish the US. Among the powers of WTO is they handle international IP (imaginary property). If the US leaves the WTO, the US loses their IP right internationally. In this case WTO is being nice, and only offers two small countries hurt by the illegal US rules to ignore US IP.

No it did not. In your fist statement, there are two false concepts right off the bat, first is in the violation of the contract in which it didn't and the second is in making foreign gambling illegal in which it didn't. The WTO didn't use power granted to them, they invented concepts that were inconsistent with reality and the laws in place. They interpreted a regulatory law as something more then it was and ignored specific exceptions and limitation imposed by the Gats treaty as well a the limitations to binding obligations. If you would have spent a small attempt at understanding what was happening, this would be obvious.

Here is a link where I outlined it more closely and no, I didn't pull the information from Wikipedia, I pulled it directly from the WTO treaty and decisions. Fuck, if it was as simply as your making it out to be, I would agree with you, but it's something entirely different and they made shit up, misconstrued facts, and made a ruling that isn't supported by either the treaty provisions or the textual and common interpretations of US law within the United States.!

Re:And you ceeded part of your soverignty

[sumdumass]

The one about not creating an artificial barrier to free trade.

There was no barrier to free trade. The only barrier was that foreign companies had to follow the same rules as US companies.

Which banning only FOREIGN internet gambling (not domestic) is.

This is not what happened at all. You need to look at the facts, perhaps post under a normal account so I can educate you on them.

So your sovereignty is broken the same as Saddam's.

Man, you are a fucking idiot aren't you? Your equating something that didn't happen but you think it did which revolves around trade as the invasion of an allied countries and the armistice agreement imposing specific obligations on Saddam and Iraq as a condition to end the war? That takes a stretch so far out there that it more likely you made it out of ignorance then any intellectual thought process. No wonder you posted as AC.

Re:Why does the gov care?

[ShaunC]

They haven't figured out how to tax it yet, so they'd rather try to make it go away. See RIAA, etc. If they'd just get on board, everyone would be happy.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[ShaunC]

You can't buy a life insurance policy on J Random Person

Sure you can, just ask Wal-Mart.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[mdvolm]

No, the rake is a percentage of the pot, and thus constant. Stacking the deck will not affect it in any way, nor would "action hands" (whatever that is) or any other playing style or computer cheat. These things may affect gameplay for other players, but not the house rake.

Ed Lolington's Internet Court

[meehawl]

Now it seems that not only are you severely challenged mentally in this conversation

Let's see. Who do I trust more? An Ed Lolington random wannabe on the internet whose first recourse is to hurl childish insults, or the decisions of several rounds of hearings, arbitration, and appeals of an international legal body with representation from around the world and across the political spectrum?

You lose. Sorry.

Upon reflection, the servers are not based in the US. The DNS resolvers are not based in the US. The depository banks are not based in the US. The players, however, are based in the US, and are exercising their freedom to trade internationally. The US is now intervening to retard the transfer of capital with very little in the way of excuses other than "Do what we say, not what we do" to its citizens.

Do you work for a US casino?

Re:Ed Lolington's Internet Court

[sumdumass]

et's see. Who do I trust more? An Ed Lolington random wannabe on the internet whose first recourse is to hurl childish insults, or the decisions of several rounds of hearings, arbitration, and appeals of an international legal body with representation from around the world and across the political spectrum?

Fuck dude, it's all there in black and white. Read the damn shit and figure it out on your own and trust yourself. It isn't rocket science or some obscure brand of astrophysics, it's right there. You can't read it, understand it, and not come to the same conclusion I did. All the shit I pasted was out of the treaty and the rulings along with the appeals. The stuff is publicly availible and on line so the only thing stopping you is laziness.

You lose. Sorry.

No, you lose and yes, you are sorry. Your not even looking at the information availible at your finger tips and instead taking the word of others through blind trust because you want to support that outcome. You are intellectually lazy and a moron. If you invested just a few minutes into verifying what I said, you would be in total agreement with me. If you actually look at the treaty, the dispute process and the arbitration ruling and somehow find I am in error, then bring that up based on what you found, not your own preconceived idea of something that isn't even relevant.

Upon reflection, the servers are not based in the US. The DNS resolvers are not based in the US. The depository banks are not based in the US. The players, however, are based in the US, and are exercising their freedom to trade internationally. The US is now intervening to retard the transfer of capital with very little in the way of excuses other than "Do what we say, not what we do" to its citizens.

The citizens of each country are subject to the laws of that country. You can't argue any different because that is a simple fact. It appears that you aren't even arguing facts but whatever you can think of to support offshore gambling. The casino's are doing business in the US, when the payouts, and US citizens enter the online casino's, they are subject to US laws and the laws of the states or jurisdiction in which they reside.

The Ruling never should have been made the way it was, it was either severe incompetence or malicious activity that caused it. It's based on nothing that's true in reality, and it ignore the damn treaties in which it attempts to base the ruling from.

Do you work for a US casino?

No, not that it matters. What the topic right is about isn't whether it should or should be legal to gamble, it's about the WTO dispute process being severely broken, ignoring reality, taking US law out of context, and ignoring the entire treaty that it was attempting to enforce. Words have meanings for a reason, it's so people understand what is being communicated and the law they cited didn't do what they claimed it did as well as specific wording in the treaty made exceptions for the states rights as with how the US is set up.

Again, if you can read the shit without ignoring things, find something I am wrong on, then bring it up and we can discuss it. Until then, you wanting things to be a certain way doesn't change any of the realities I pointed out. All it does is make you look like a moron.

Re:US Actions Illegal Under International Commerc

[Carewolf]

Thanks for you details. Your interpretation still look quite colored though.

I hope we can agree on one thing though. It is not a matter of sovereignty. It is a matter of international contracts. I replied, because I am tired of people thinking that nations and especially the US exists in some kind of vacuum and can do what they want. Sovereign nations are still bound by the treaties they sign, the relationships they build and sometimes simply the opinion of their peers.

Deposits (never gambled $) not just profits frozen

[inmytaxi]

They didn't seize winnings, they froze money the players requested be returned to them from the site, which often includes money deposited by the played and never gambled.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[inmytaxi]

That's not how it works. First of all, why would a good poker player give the house a profit? If they win more than they earn hourly they'd just play for themselves. The "shills" are there to generate interest in games. They're paid a small hourly sum so tables don't go empty. On line poker sites don't need shills. They're always people playing and they don't have idle dealers.

Full Retard

[meehawl]

You can't read it, understand it, and not come to the same conclusion I did ... the only thing stopping you is laziness ... You are intellectually lazy and a moron. If you invested just a few minutes into verifying what I said, you would be in total agreement with me ... All it does is make you look like a moron.

Oh you're adorable. Is this your first week on the Tubes, or are you off your meds? Don't ever change.

Re:Full Retard

[sumdumass]

Oh, you mean I should know that despite having all the information at your fingertips I shouldn't be surprised when you refuse to examine any of it and instead troll..

No, I'm not surprised, and I'm not surprised that you are refusing to address any of the actual information presented other then saying "nuh-uh". However, other people read this and showing them you ignorance does help set the record straight and prevent the fictional reality that has cropped into the real world.

Re:US Actions Illegal Under International Commerc

[sumdumass]

I would say it's just as much sovereignty as it is contract because the contract limits sovereignty and the interpretations are making new limits that we didn't agree to thereby removing sovereignty. If the terms of the treaty was followed, then it would be impossible for the ruling to come out the way it did. They ultimately used the interstate horse race betting law to justify Federal approved gambling that doesn't exist. All those laws do, and did for 20 years before we signed on to the agreements, is say that if states allow off track gambling that crosses a state line, the devices and races have to be from an approved and regulated organization and track meeting the standard of certain semi-private nation wide or otherwise prominent organization.

The interesting part is that the specific justification was never brought up in the arbitration, it was just piled on without response at the end with the ruling but was never a point of complaint or justification during the proceedings. In other words, there was never any chance to competently respond to it or explain what the law meant or how the states rights and the limits on the constitution work, they more or less pulled it out of thin air. You can easily see why something like this would happen, it's because someone was looking for something on the arbitration panel instead of just mitigating the original complains which was completely dismissed. The effect is that someone went out on their own who was supposed to be deciding the validity of complains and more or less created their own complaint based around the incorrect interpretation of a law and the lack of understanding in how the US governing structure works. This is why US senators on both sides said they would start a trade war and withdraw from the WTO before following the ruling.

Re:Another reason not to gamble online

[s7uar7]

You do know you've completely missed the point, right? He is saying that in online poker you, the customer, can analyse past hands to look for statistical anomalies. Good luck getting access to the bricks & mortar casino's surveillance tapes.

Dear Mr Lolington

[meehawl]

showing them you ignorance does help set the record straight and prevent the fictional reality that has cropped into the real world.

Dear Mr Honorary Ed Lolington, e-Lawyer Extraordinaire:

Getting in the last word does not make you right, it just makes you look anal.

Also, the historical reality is that an internationally constituted body with considerable subject matter expertise and domain knowledge has heard multiple arguments from both parties, along with appeals and arbitration arguments, and has rendered a decision that has been tested and accepted by all sides in the dispute.

Your fictional reality is that you, a random slashdot poster, claims to possess superior legal understanding of the argument and issues, and that your judgement alone constitutes the entirety of a more correct analysis of the argument.

There's a word for this.

Re:Dear Mr Lolington

[sumdumass]

Quit arguing the hypothetical merits of a body or people that I already challenged the integrity of and either count one of the points I made or troll somewhere else.

Fuck dude, I told you they were in error, pointed to where the error was, showed how they ignored the original complaint, the treaty and instead made their own complaint up without provocation and ignored the plain English text of the treaty in order to make their ruling. Hell, their ruling didn't even consider the argument made. No one ever made the argument that their ruling supported, otherwise it would have been documented before it got to arbitration and during the arbitration. It simply wasn't there. They went looking for something they couldn't find and took it out of context, ignored the treaty and made a ruling based on their desire not any fact presented.

You sound just like my niece when she was 7 years old in 2004 and she attempted to tell me that there was only 26 amendments to the US constitution because that's what her teacher said and she went to school to be a teacher. I had to go to school and show her teacher that they slipped one in all the way back in 1992 in order for her to correct what she had taught the class. You are this naive 7 year old refusing to look at the evidence that is there in plain English and availible to anyone concerned. But worse yet, you instead- trust someone you don't even know, never heard of before their boondoggle, who can be showed to be in error by a simple look at the evident and fact at hand.

There is a word for you too, Fucktard Fucktards do not simply defy common sense, they are pathologically incapable of recognizing the obvious, that even mirrors fail them. Go ahead and try the test on that page.

Internet Court of Second Guessing Appeals

[meehawl]

The historical reality is that an internationally constituted body with considerable subject matter expertise and domain knowledge has heard multiple arguments from both parties, along with appeals and arbitration arguments, and has rendered a decision that has been tested and accepted by all sides in the dispute.

Ed "sumdumass" Lolington's fictional reality is that they, a random slashdot poster, claim to possess superior legal understanding of the argument and issues, and that their judgement alone constitutes the entirety of a more correct analysis of the argument.

There's a word for this.

Age Verify

[meehawl]

You sound just like my niece when she was 7 years old in 2004

With your uncreative use of crude language, your dogmatism in the face of wisdom, your fondness for ad hominem attacks, and your reliance on anecdote as evidence, *you* actually sound like everyone's 7-year-old niece.

Re:Age Verify

[sumdumass]

Either address the merrits of the points made or go troll somewhere else.

BTW, it's not an ad hominem attack when I call you a moron or an idiot. I am addressing you directly and not attempting to hide this fact. The truth of whether it's an attack or stating the obvious rests in your own actions in which case it's not even an attack. Anecdote evidence is the actual fucking treaty that you refuse to review or comment on and the ruling from the arbitration panel that you also refuse to look at while blindly accepting what the evidence clearly shows is an error. That evidence however, is fact, as in scientific fact or direct observation and not anecdotal.

You can complain and side step the issues all you want, point to a collage of quasi dumbwhit internet slogans but the simple fact remains that you still have not addresses a single point I made and it's obvious you aren't going to. That being the case, I can only assume that you are deflecting your own ignorance and stupidity in a mad attempt to make yourself feel better in order not to cry yourself asleep while attempting to kill yourself every night. Perhaps you should seriously think about letting it go and doing the deed. It will make the world a better place and I suspect your family will thank you for it. You could also get some professional help.

The difference between you and me is that while insulting your (and i did), I actually addressed your points. You OTOH, ignore the entire context and attempt to stick to the insults but you can't even do that right. Perhaps you should forget I ever mentioned you should seek help and just end it all. Your not adding anything to the conversation and your comments are doing nothing but wasting time that no one will ever be able to get back.

Grammar Marxist

[meehawl]

Your not adding anything to the conversation

"You're". Not: "your".

See, something has been added. Your grammar was frequently atrocious in your earlier screeds, but I decided to give you a free pass for those ones. You really should concentrate on getting the basics of English down, because using it poorly reflects badly on your message, no matter what you are saying. Or trying to say.

I addressed the merits of your case earlier, with regard to the physical location of the plant used to operate the gaming, versus the residence of the gamers. You argued that the WTO had no remit in this case. The WTO panel disagreed, and in accepting arbitration, the US *and* Antigua both accepted remit. You are, in effect, second guessing the legal and political teams from two countries as well as an international panel of jurists. As with idiosyncratic stock picking, there is a very, very small probability of you being correct in this instance, versus a very high probability of you not being correct in this case. I have read your bloggish/fisking-style arguments againt the WTO decision and they are unconvincing and merely reiterate or restate many of the initial arguments of the US deposition in the first round of hearings. These arguments were judged at the time to be of insufficient merit to prevent the arbitration from proceeding. Your stubborn refusal to recognise that a legally constituted body delegated to come to a resolution of this difficult problem bespeaks a cognitive difficulty in accepting wisdom.

Sometimes, you just have to admit that you are wrong. The problem is that when your intellectual capabilities constrain you from recognising the domain borders of your inexpertise, there is a high probability that you will overestimate your capabilities.

Re:Grammar Marxist

[sumdumass]

"You're". Not: "your".

See, something has been added. Your grammar was frequently atrocious in your earlier screeds, but I decided to give you a free pass for those ones. You really should concentrate on getting the basics of English down, because using it poorly reflects badly on your message, no matter what you are saying. Or trying to say.

As if I actually care about grammar or proof reading when talking to a troll. You need to get a sense of reality.

BTW, a grammar error that small doesn't change the content of the message, but good job attempting to claim it totally invalidates it.

I addressed the merits of your case earlier, with regard to the physical location of the plant used to operate the gaming, versus the residence of the gamers. You argued that the WTO had no remit in this case. The WTO panel disagreed, and in accepting arbitration, the US *and* Antigua both accepted remit. You are, in effect, second guessing the legal and political teams from two countries as well as an international panel of jurists. As with idiosyncratic stock picking, there is a very, very small probability of you being correct in this instance, versus a very high probability of you not being correct in this case. I have read your bloggish/fisking-style arguments againt the WTO decision and they are unconvincing and merely reiterate or restate many of the initial arguments of the US deposition in the first round of hearings. These arguments were judged at the time to be of insufficient merit to prevent the arbitration from proceeding. Your stubborn refusal to recognise that a legally constituted body delegated to come to a resolution of this difficult problem bespeaks a cognitive difficulty in accepting wisdom.

The problem is that you failed to give the argument any consideration at all and instead attempted to ignore the fact that I said the Arbitration panel acted outside it's real in order to retaliate against the US for it's perceived other trade position.

Now you linked to a few scientific article abstracts concerning various aspect of knowledge processing. The problem is that you failed to consider the content of the statements and are instead ignoring them in favor of randomly picking the side you want to believe has more merit. What I showed was in black and white and written within the treaty, US law, as well as the appellate panel and the appellate boards findings. When it went to arbitration which we were forced to participate in (the rules say it will happen with or without us), the arbitration considered the previous complaints, upheld the the appellate boards determinations, and then ignored the entire principle in order to create a ruling based on an argument that was never made by either side that also would have been excepted under the same concept as the other actual complaints. Now you can point to any papers you want, but you cannot deny that fact. It's right there in black and white. The ruling knows only political motivation outside the realm of the treaty and even the complaints being made. If the argument had been presented, it could have been demonstrated that the particular US law used to justify the ruling only says that the gambling has to be legal in both states and then follow certain guidelines to protect against fraud. You have not addresses that at all, and instead attempted to point to "Well, these people know what they are doing". That is not addressing anything, especially when the text of the law says something completely different then what they claimed.

You cannot look at the availible evidence and find any rationell to support the decision outside or other political motivations.

Sometimes, you just have to admit that you are wrong. The problem is that when your intellectual capabilities constrain you from recognising the domain borders of your inexpertise, there is a high probability that you will overestimate your capabilities.

GOV'T GAMBLEs WITH OUR MONEY all the time.

[America2Inc]

OK, so the Gov't can gamble with our money to the tune of TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS betting on worn out losers like GM, CHRYSLER, AIG, Bank of America etc. AND, they don't ask us. It's only OUR DAMN MONEY, but they can gamble with it and then pass laws that WE CANNOT GAMBLE WITH OUR OWN DAMN MONEY. That's freedom and democracy??? We have a better idea. http://www.america2inc.com/ Get your stock in America today.