BikerBabe 0 #1 June 10, 2009 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/APNewsBreak-Group-says-poker-apf-15481559.html;_ylt=Al3H.fL.CjLeRdG3NJklRnW7YWsA?sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode now, there's a lot of background this story doesn't go into, or just gets wrong. 1. The seizure was done claiming violations of the Wire Act, which has already been determined by the courts to apply only to online sports betting, NOT poker. 2. The UIGEA, which doesn't go into effect until December of this year, does NOT outlaw internet gambling. It only makes it illegal for banks to accept/process payments to and from online gambling sites...with a further stipulation that it applies to "games of chance". 3. The Poker Players' Alliance (and Barney Frank's bill) maintain, with good evidence, that poker isn't a game of chance at all, but a game of skill. Anyway, all that aside, the larger issues here to me are internet freedoms, banking freedoms, and the stupidity of not regulating the industry rather than outlawing it. US players make up an estimated half of all online poker players...which is a $16BILLION industry. However...i suspect the REAL reason this was done was because brick and mortar casinos are hurting BADLY and want to force people out of their computer rooms and back to the poker rooms (even though poker is the least profitable game for the house). So will gambling be vilified as marijuana is, or will it eventually be regulated? ETA: here's a better articve at the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/10poker.html?_r=1Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #2 June 10, 2009 Bits of both, IMO - but I think the 'untapped revenue source' aspect counts more toward the decision.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #3 June 10, 2009 QuoteThe Poker Players' Alliance (and Barney Frank's bill) maintain, with good evidence, that poker isn't a game of chance at all, but a game of skill. Shhh … I much prefer playing against people who believe that poker is a game of chance. The mathematics of poker and the mathematics of insurance are very, very similar. The biggest difference is that poker players must make the calculations in real time while actuaries have the luxury of software and peer review. Poker is no more a game of chance than buying or providing insurance. Chance may play a role in any given hand or any given insurance policy, but just as the insurance company does not typically sell just one single policy in an attempt to make a profit, poker players typically don't play just one single hand in an attempt to make a profit. In both cases, it's about making a profit in the long run. QuoteHowever...i suspect the REAL reason this was done was because brick and mortar casinos are hurting BADLY and want to force people out of their computer rooms and back to the poker rooms (even though poker is the least profitable game for the house). Interesting hypothesis. I would offer a counter hypothesis that online poker has increased the popularity of poker, resulting in more poker business for poker rooms and casinos. (I don't have any evidence supporting one hypothesis over the other. Yours could very well be the correct one.) One thing online poker has done is offer the opportunity for players to make money at a faster rate than in a live game. Playing a live game limits players to playing one table at a time (additionally, play tends to be faster online). Playing online, OTOH, allows players to play as many tables simultaneously as they can keep up with. For some people, that number is 12+ tables at a time.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #4 June 10, 2009 oh trust me, I'm totally with you on this one. I agree that there's a lot more online players trying out the casinos, but for sheer access, nothing beats the net. Given the choice, Joe Fish from Nowhereville, AR will be much more inclined to deposit his $50 of drinking money online and play rather than spend hundreds of dollars taking a trip to Vegas or even his local riverboat. Taking away that ease of depositing means joe Fish probably won't play at all... The trouble for people who actually play online and make money at it is that cutting off all means for the casual (read: BAD) players to deposit money will seriously limit the incomes of these folks. as for the political side of this issue, I find it very funny that the drivers behind the "ban all internet gambling and poker" are the conservatives, whereas the people advocating less government in this case are the liberal types. lol. here, Sen D'Amato says it well: http://www.foxbusiness.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=5885742&referralPlaylistId=undefinedNever meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #5 June 11, 2009 ok, so i'm replying to myself, but this is worth it. http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1148592712&play=1 guys, keep me away from your kids...apparently, playing poker online will TURN ME INTO A CHILD ABUSER!!!! LOOK OUT! it's a money grab disguised as morals. the worst possible kind. *sigh* Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #6 June 11, 2009 Money grab. Quote So will gambling be vilified as marijuana is, or will it eventually be regulated? Gambling is regulated. When you want to gamble you have to go to a brick and mortar casino (which pay state+local taxes and have paid lobbyist) or buy a lottery ticket (which is serious direct profit for the state). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
