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
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!
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.
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.
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.
Non sequitur. The existence of a recovery group for addiction to X does not indicate that doing X results in a victim. For instance, there's groups for shopping addiction, yet shopping is victimless.
Same as I have to pay if he robs the local convenience store because he bought too much house for his income, or spent all his money on a business that failed, or any number of things. It's already illegal to rob the local convenience store; making the reasons someone might rob a local convenience store illegal is not compatible with a free dociety.
Casinos attract a lot of people full stop. But this is about _internet_ gambling; the desperate, mentally ill, and criminal can stay right where they are.
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.