Slashdot Mirror
Mass. Gambling Bill Would Criminalize Online Poker
timothy writes "Awesome: 'A gambling bill introduced by Massachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo criminalizes Internet gambling and online poker. The bill calls for two casinos.' Not that they're against gambling, you see... just against being deprived of a monopoly in such a perfect fleecing opportunity."
Why is it that in 2010 we still try to create even more victimless crimes? Even if I'm against the object of the crime itself, I'm very much opposed to my tax dollars being wasted on people who want to do it.
I don't care if my neighbor plays poker. I do care if I have to pay money because my neighbor plays poker.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
It shouldn't be a shock to anyone that MA, or any state, would want to limit on-line gaming. The only reason any US state has permitted gaming at all is to generate revenue. Being as the states don't have a good mechanism for that on-line, they don't permit it.
One can moan about libertarian ideals and Puritan ethics all one wants. But, all of the players are fully aware of the situation, and have no inhibition against saying so in public, so pointing it out isn't going to make it go away.
Luke, help me take this mask off
This is a fairly common ban... even in Las Vegas you have to submit yourself to the whims of the Nevada Gaming Commission, and you can't get an Internet casino approved by them. Most states have lotto laws that makes the state-run game the only legal gambling in their jurisdiction.
It's already proven that a lot of MA residents are traveling to the two CT casinos. I'd rather stay in MA to play poker if only there was a legal game in town.
and how do you diferenciate between diferent games of skill? What is the diference between say a poker game with a $20 per player entry fee and say a Warhammer (minature wargames) competition with the same entry fee with the entry fee being used in the same way to provide prizes.
Press: "Mr. Speaker DeLeo! How come only two casinos?"
DeLeo: "I only got two friends."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Casinos are specifically and carefully designed to exploit people's natural instincts (for example, no windows so you have no sense of time) and mental illnesses; the layout of the floor is done purposefully, as are the style of the games. There's a wealth of information out there for anyone with access to Google Scholar, for example, like this:
I don't care if my neighbor plays poker. I do care if I have to pay money because my neighbor plays poker.
You have to pay when your neighbor robs the local convenience store to pay the rent/mortgage/grocer (or their gambling debts, or just to gamble more), loses the house/apartment anyway, and their spouse and child are now homeless and on welfare. Or the person becomes homeless, with no health insurance, and ends up in the hospital. Or goes mentally insane and stabs you on the street corner for the $10 in your wallet.
Take a look at the police spending in any community pre-and-post casino. It always skyrockets after the casinos move in, because casinos attract the desperate, mentally ill, and criminal.
Please help metamoderate.
They don't ban the commerce, they ban the communication.
The feds have already banned interestate and international gambling online.
It was banned over the telephone and telegraph decades ago; in fact, having read that law and knowing how the Internet works, I didn't see a need for any new laws to ban it for internet traffic, but legislators like to show up on C-SPAN.
Massachusetts legislators are no different, so tacking a redundant ban onto a bill legalizing in-state gambling is either a no-op, or adds some twist that the feds didn't consider. Like banning in-state internet gambling as well.
You don't have a very good grasp as to how online poker works. There is no reason whatsoever for an online casino to cheat their customers. In fact, it works against their interest. Money is taken out of each and every pot played. It is NOT in the casino's interest to make their customers go broke faster than normal. If you go broke fast, you may leave forever. If you go broke slowly you will likely reload your account with new funds. Regardless, a hired "shill" will not be able to pull a profit undetected faster than the rake which collects money every single hand on every single table.
You sound like the many many people who try online poker, lose badly, and chose to blame the system rather than a lack of skill.
That wouldn't be a new problem, nor is it a difficult one. State laws in the United States regulate gambling by stuff like the number of tables in play and the number of machines in play, as well as whether the company makes a business out of operating a gambling establishment. Even non-casinos are (and should be) subject to regulation like the rule saying that no purchase can be necessary to enter a contest or else it's legally a lottery.
Also, why would you say that a Warhammer tournament with entrance fees and a big prize should be less regulated than a poker tournament?
Slashdot is mostly centered around the United States. And in case you're unaware, the United States is a bunch of united states with their own separate laws. Not that much is legislated federally; news about Massachusetts law (a particularly influential state, in fact) is as notable as any other legal news.
That is an incredibly stupid thing to say. It's obvious you don't know how to play poker - on line or IRL.
Reading your opponents "nervousness" is only a small part of the game. Playing on-line just means everyone has a perfect poker face.
The far more important clues are just as valid on-line as they are in person. How much did he bet? From what position did he play? How long did it take him to think? How often does he bet? How often are the continuation bets? These are all much more important tells then "he looks nervous"...
You can push "all-in" with junk hands and force people off good hands - sure. But if you're playing anyone good, you win maybe a big blind 3-8 times. And as your odds of getting pocket aces are 1 in 215 (or 24 times around a 9 person table), if you push all in long enough, someone will eventually have you beat and call. Donkeys who play like that always go bust if there is anyone moderately good at the table. Sounds like you have had the pleasure...
Not that much is legislated federally
Say what? Congress may not pass all that many bills but the ones they do are multiple warheads filled with scatter bombs.
Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
Don't be stupid. Maybe you posted as AC because you know you are full of it. The big sites make money hand over fist because they offer a straight game. They stand to lose way more if they don't. The small shady sites maybe, but Pokerstars and FullTilt are fine. These are legitimate enterprises that run legally in many countries.
Some states have rules decided based on whether it's a game of chance or skill.
For example, pinball was hotly contested in some states, because there are some luck elements - especially because early pinballs paid out. (And they didn't have flippers, so it was almost entirely chance at first.) Some of those luck elements (free games, match, etc.,) must be disabled in some states, to be on the skill side of the chance vs. skill threshold.
Some states require that games of skill not pay out, some of them have a certain legal tests for what a game of skill is (they essentially boil down to something along the lines of, can a skilled player win even with all luck elements being against them, IIRC,) etc., etc.
I live in Massachusetts.
If you pay your proper bribes you can do just about anything in the area of gambling. Slot machines, poker games, dice tables.
My next door neighbor used to have a high stakes poker game every week. One of the players was the chief of police.
There is an ethnic club in the next town that has slot machines, lotteries, poker games. They pay their bribes and no one bothers them.
What the politicians don't like about internet gambling is there is no way to collect the bribes.