Slashdot Mirror
Online Poker Legalization Bill Coming Next Week
GovTechGuy writes "Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) could introduce his bill to legalize online poker as soon as next week. The bill would legalize the game in all 50 states, but sites could only be set up in states where gambling is already legal, so they can be licensed through existing gaming commissions. States could choose to opt-out of the law and ban online poker by referendum or a vote of the state legislature. The bill would also create a federal regulatory body to oversee the game."
I'm going to bet my life savings to call your bluff.
Must... resist... urge to agree... with... Republican!
It makes sense. If you can play offline poker in a state, then I see no reason why online poker should be any different. Not to mention, maybe now a lot of the stuff can go from underground to legal, thus enabling the government to take a cut (not that I generally like seeing the government get a cut, but I'd rather them than some illegal casino because at least then the money has a chance of going to something potentially good like NASA).
What are the odds of this passing?
Now that is where the cash is!
or at least add it to the OTB's.
The bill would also create a federal regulatory body to oversee the game.
The beast is hungry for more power!
This is a cleverly concealed tax for people who are bad at math.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
There is no reasonable reason why it's illegal in any state. Puritan rules are utterly stupid. Along with dumbass blue laws.
For population control purposes.
No No No. Why need to a create a federal regulatory body? For interstate taxing? That is why you are forcing it to be run in a state with a gaming commission. everything else is ok. But get back to me when this is actually close to passing.
The bill would also create a federal regulatory body to oversee the game
Ahhh... well, I'm pretty sure there are not enough regulatory bodies out there already... I wonder, has anyone actually counted the number of federal regulatory bodies / organizations / commissions / etc... and how many people work there? And how much it costs? Do we need 128 bit arithmetic for that?
Oh, and, BTW, how many of those have usefulness different than zero?
unless the random function is a separate signed binary from some regulatory authority that absolutely guarantees it is authentic and not tampered with, no one in their right mind should go near it.
Actually I'd prefer some sort of ticket system like kerberos that also proves that not only was the signed random function used to generate the hand, that that randomness produced the current "transaction" ( card ) and was not distrubed "in transit" from the random function to your "hand"
and the audit of that should also be signed and sent to a 3rd party.
The entire audit of all players should be public after the game with all signatures provided so they can be validated by the user and by the governing authority.
But of COURSE none of that will be in the bill.
Las Vegas et al were the ones who lobbied hard to ban online gambling because it competed with their profits. Now that they see how much money could be made from such gambling arenas, they're lobbying hard to re-legalize it but in such a way that ensures that they're the only game in town.
It's the U.S.'s pro govt imposed monopolist mentality all over again.
This is not regulation we need. That is something players can get by spending their dollars at an establishment that does that. If anything strong labeling regulation is needed, so players can determine what sort of system they are playing against. More information helps markets be more efficient. Which is why so many big companies are against labeling laws more than regulation they can easily corrupt.
Is that OK? Has anyone legalised it yet? It's really important that I know if Senator John Johnson III has passed a bill saying that it's no longer illegal for me to scratch my ass.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This will likely pass because it cuts out the existing poker sites by requiring the limitation to states allowing gambling. In other words, the idiots who didn't come up with this are given time to build their "legal" options and the upstart innovators are basically blocked.
This law makes it legal everywhere... except where state legislatures or voters vote to make it illegal. So all of the states that already ban it will vote to ban it (or maybe they'll just argue that having already banned it they have already made the vote and don't need another), and all of those that allow it will continue to allow it. Net effect, zero.
I don't really care about on-line gambling one way or another, but it seems silly to waste time and effort on a law that will ultimately change nothing. I suspect that the Representative's intent was to legalize it everywhere, period, using the fact that federal law overrides state laws, but had to insert the opt-out provision as a compromise to mollify opponents, but the net effect is to make the bill pointless.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Why do we need YET ANOTHER big government agency to regulate something that has been completely self-regulated, and successfully so, up until now?
Oh that's right. The big government wants its rake, too.
There really isn't an incentive for the sites to rig the games but there is an incentive for them to have fair games. That's why sites have their RNG's independently audited.
Unlike other casino games, in poker you're playing against other players, not against the house. The house makes money buy taking a small portion of the pot or tournament buy-in.
There really isn't an incentive for the sites to rig the games ...
that is, no incentive other than the trivially obvious one, of making huge piles of money the easy way, by cheating their customers. But we all know that a business wouldn't cheat their customers, even if it's easy. Businesses always think of the long term, always, without exception. Of course they do.
(Or was that original statement intended to be sarcastic, and I missed it? in that case, whoosh!)
Surely a little math would proove you would have made more $$ and have a better free life outside usa.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
As the parent post saidp though, the RNG wouldn't be tampered with - They might tamper with the bids(showing a lower pot than was actually created, keeping the difference), but tampering the RNG wouldn't help unless you had shills playing(which *also* might be possible).
Furthermore he expects all these firms who may ot conduct any business int he US, US citizens have to call them, are going to have to pay protection money to the organized crime syndicates that control the varied states in which gambling is legal. This would be like a US company having to pay the Russian mob before a Russian citizen can order a widget from the US company. What would happen is if a Russian party did receive goods form the US, they would pay a tarrif on when it entered the country. This is what should happen, use the rules we have. I can tell you that many cities in texas have a number of thinly veiled gambling houses and the laws are not being enforced.
I think that US citizens should be able to link foreign sites an gamble as they please. If the money or good are drawn from foreign sources and brought into the US, that is legal. If the good are US domestic that may be a problem. If the web sites are registered local then that might also be a problem as the US government can and will take it. The taking does not necessarily limit the ability to gamble.
Also, in case you don't know, the skill thing is a nod to the many irrational christians in texas. They are experts in situational ethics so that, for instance, preventing a the termination of fetus at 4 weeks requires huge amounts of taxpayer funding, but not taxpayer funding is required to prevent the baby from dying at 1 year. Gambling is bad, but if he can fool enough people into thinking that poker is skills it won't hurt their brains, even though most gambling houses will kick you out if you really use skill.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
When you buy an ipod or order a tv from Amazon do you expect that sometimes you'll open the box and find it full of rocks instead?
Once it's legal and regulated at the federal level like he's proposing, the states have no power over it unless they want to face multitudes of costly federal court battles over attempts to regulate interstate commerce.
The online and offline gaming scene is highly corrupt. In countries where it *is* legal, certification agencies have no clue what they're doing. Getting certified is more a matter of money and politics than whether or not you cheat players (which most companies do!).
Online gambling is nearly impossible to regulate. It's way too easy to cheat people without getting caught which is why I believe it should remain illegal.
I thought.. great! Somebody that understands the way the internet works. (If you make it illegal, people will do it illegally, similar to the war on drugs.) The part about per state regulation was the cherry. Then the last part of the summary made me run for my tin-foil hat! Any government oversight beyond promoting security and assigning names/numbers is a foot in the door towards INTERNET CENSORSHIP in the USA. Like the kind of crap they pull in the East...
These sites need to accept bitcoins for transactions
Online poker is legal here in BC,Canada and there has never been a push to make it illegal, offshore or otherwise AFAIK.
http://www.bclc.com/cm/eCasino/landing.htm (This is the BC Lottery Commission's website, eg the regulator.)
"British Columbians currently spend an estimated $87 million each year gambling on approximately 2000 available unregulated offshore internet gambling websites. PlayNow.com will offer online players the option to play casino-style games such as blackjack, roulette, and poker on a secure and regulated website while helping to keep online gaming revenues in British Columbia."
Also one of the channels on Shaw cable frequently shoes the pokerstars.net live tournaments (or maybe it was some other site, but it was live) so it's not like there is any real move against it.
Personally though, I'm someone who easily gets stuck in gambling-addict mode, so I won't go near these sites, even the free-to-play/no-real-money one.
I do see one large loophole, and this problem exists in every form of online gaming (including MMO's and Xbox Live), in that multiple states/countries require being regulated by their own states, thus building virtual fences and making it impossible for players from anywhere around the world from playing in the same instance together. Let's say Nevada,USA and BC,Canada make the same requirements of having to be registered in with their respective regulators, this means that players in their countries can't play together.
So the proposed laws might not go far enough, they would need to have a third party "OK'd regulators" in foreign countries as well. NGCB and BCLC could designate each other as "OK'd" and thus allow players in their regulated areas to play on each others turf. Not on the list, then expect your monies to be seized.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the banks or credit card companies that pushed for the original ban since online forms of gambling are a source of fraud, particularly money laundering.
I'm a good poker player. Online I've increased my initial buyin by over 100000% until they shut em down with no luckboxing a MTT. Live poker has downfalls I don't like. You cannot mute a racist hatemonger at a poker table, and you can't walk away from the table if it is a tournament. Live does not let you play for low buyins if you're not psyched up for medium play. Live rarely has tournaments and sit and gos. Live has a bigger rake than online. There's a lot of reasons why I like online vs casinos. I'll still play live, yes, with friends for fun. But if I'm at a table of people who aren't my friends, it just isn't fun.
God spoke to me
At least he is doing something no other politician is doing....legislating something (albeit imperfect) I want.
at Obama's SOTU speech?
The takeaway is, don't go all in with unpaired 6-3 when Joe's at your table.
Gambling laws in the UK, before the idiots in New Labour deregulated, stated that only Cribbage amongst card games was a game of skill, and this was the only game you could *legally* play in a pub for money. To my mind this was a sensible state of affairs.
Of course that never stopped people playing Bridge, Poker, Brag and similar games for money, but any gambling debts generated were not recognised in a court of law.
legalize it, tax it fools. some people bet the farm on all manner of Wallstreet investments, get into highly leveraged trading, foreign exchange, etc. likewise online poker should be legal, horse racing is, so why not sportsbetting? people do office pools regardless. anyway, if people wanted to use online casinos, who cares? joints like this honor state lottery numbers drawings. http://betslips.com/gameinfo_pick3.aspx http://5dimes.com/lr_payouts.html so someone wants to play pocket change online, big deal! people lose heaps more on bad Wallstreet gambles. cheers!