How do you feel about the new online poker ban in the U.S.?

In My Humble Opinion
21

[QUOTE=Colophon]
I had a reasonably large investment in Partygaming, which last Friday was worth £1.07 per share.

On Monday, I sold up for £0.45 per share.

That’s how I feel :frowning:

(Yup, banning gambling protects people’s wealth, ha ha ha)
[/QUOTE]

Not to downplay that sucky situation of yours, but investment in the stock market is itself a type of gambling, is it not?

Obviously the market has other functions than the risk factor, but there is a risk involved in the investment. Where’s the piggybacked bill to protect me from the stock market?

22

[QUOTE=Sweet Mercury]
Not to downplay that sucky situation of yours, but investment in the stock market is itself a type of gambling, is it not?

Obviously the market has other functions than the risk factor, but there is a risk involved in the investment. Where’s the piggybacked bill to protect me from the stock market?
[/QUOTE]

That is kind of the point I was making. Put it this way – this tax year I’m well in profit from online gambling, and quite the reverse from the stock market :wink:

23

[QUOTE=Tastes of Chocolate]
Will this just lead to someone starting the equivalent of Paypal, based out of someplace outside the US, who’s main role is to process money transfers between US players and the online poker sites? Or maybe someone like Western Union, who is now advertising that you can transfer money straight into another persons qualifying bank account. I’m guessing that there will be a period of slowdown/shutdown/slowburn, and then someone will figure out how to provide a service in demand.
[/QUOTE]

As was discussed in one of the other threads, Neteller already provides pretty much exactly that service. They work pretty much more or less as Mayo Speaks! diagrammed out (though they might only do transfers directly from/to bank accounts, no credit cards). Like I said before in that other thread, it seems like too easy a way around the new law to work, but we’ll see…

24

[QUOTE=Sweet Mercury]
Not to downplay that sucky situation of yours, but investment in the stock market is itself a type of gambling, is it not?

Obviously the market has other functions than the risk factor, but there is a risk involved in the investment. Where’s the piggybacked bill to protect me from the stock market?
[/QUOTE]

The government makes money from the stock market, even when you are losing money.

The government makes nothing from offshore gambling.

25

[QUOTE=D_Odds]
The government makes money from the stock market, even when you are losing money.

The government makes nothing from offshore gambling.
[/QUOTE]
But it could very easily make money if those gambling sites were permitted to operate inside the US. By choosing to ban instead of regulate, the government gives up a huge source of revenue and instead costs itself money on enforcement. The parallels with Prohibition and the War on Drugs are inescapable.

I donated to the Poker Players Alliance to lobby against this law. Now that it’s been snuck through they’re working on getting online poker the same exemption that exists for lotteries and horse racing. Who knows if it will do any good.

26

Whether or not to legalize gambling is a state’s right. Interstate wire transmission of gambling has been illegal since 1961. It’s why I can’t legally call up Atlantic City and place money on the Giants over the Redskins on Sunday. This bill didn’t ban any gambling. It made it so that banks can be considered assecories if they assist in already illegal financial transactions.

The federal government shouldn’t be able to legalize gambling nationwide (not that they’d let a little thing like the Constitution to get in their way when they don’t like it). What this means is that as long as one state (such as my ‘lovely’ home state of NY) explicitly states that online gambling is illegal and online gaming providers cannot peddle their services to NY residents, you can’t have online gambling. Theoretically, if a gambling site can prove that they only allow clients from states where it is legal, they should be in the clear.

That’s the legal case against turning a blind eye to online gambling. I still think the driving force behind the legislation is lost revenue, versus any argument saying this is a move by the moralists or that they simply want to prevent an already illegal activity from occuring. I’m sure Harrah’s, MGM and Bally’s are all looking for ways to now legally get their hands on all the money internet gamblers were spending. It would not surprise me to see, a year or so from now, new legislation regulating internet gambling in a way that the major U.S. corporations and state/federal government can profit.

27

I find the ban repugnant, the way it was slipped into a port security bill disgusting, and the arguments used to defend it, such that it aids the war on terror, to be ludicrous and insulting.

Democrats: When an idiot like Bill Frist makes the claim that internet gambling helps terrorists because they can use it to launder money, GRAB HIM BY THE THROAT AND MAKE HIM PROVE IT. You want to look stronger on the war on terror? Turn this crap around and throw it back in his face. Tell people that using the war on terror as a scare tactic to push through legislation your district wants is not only deceptive and disingenuous, but that it HURTS the war on terror by trivializing it. Say that any politician who invokes the war on terror over an issue as trivial as internet poker playing is not a serious person when it comes to defense. Make the damned weasel squirm.

And this would be a good time for Bush to exercise a veto - he should say something like, “Port security is too important an issue to allow people to attach unrelated legislation. I’m going to set an example right now by vetoing this bill. We are serious about the war on terror. That means bills involving it should remain pure so that they can be accepted or rejected on their merits. I understand that the addition of riders such as the internet gambling ban has a long history in the U.S. government, but when it comes to bills involving the very security of our country, I will not tolerate it. Send this bill back to me quickly without any unrelated riders, and it will be signed. This one’s going back. Let that be a message.”

Oh, I’d do a little happy dance of joy if he did that. And it would be great for him politically. But it will never happen. Bush is too much of a party man to slap Bill Frist down or run the risk of making the Republicans look bad. Which is too bad, because they ARE bad. I hope they get their clocks cleaned in the next election.

28

Sam, neither will never happen. What is someone going to say? “We’re going to stop this bill because someone added a rider making it more difficult for people to engage in an illegal activity”? Online gambling (a) was already illegal and (b) was not banned by this bill (as near as I can tell). The only surprising thing was that lobbyists (including the disgraced Jack Abrahamoff) were able to block its passage this long.

29

[QUOTE=Number]
But it could very easily make money if those gambling sites were permitted to operate inside the US. By choosing to ban instead of regulate, the government gives up a huge source of revenue and instead costs itself money on enforcement. The parallels with Prohibition and the War on Drugs are inescapable.

I donated to the Poker Players Alliance to lobby against this law. Now that it’s been snuck through they’re working on getting online poker the same exemption that exists for lotteries and horse racing. Who knows if it will do any good.
[/QUOTE]

I was going to say something similar, then found this article that sums it up pretty well:

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article1800652.ece

I am on the horse-racing end of internet gambling, so not affected by this bill, but agree the way this bill was pushed through is sickening. The sites I use for betting horses are ones that are “approved” by the racing industry. A bit of the money they collect goes back to purses which I think is good for racing. Other bettors use the “illegal” offshore sites, and they get very nice rebates for betting there, but I don’t like the fact that those offshore sites don’t contribute anything back to improve racing.

So in one sense, this bill might be seen as a benefit to horse racing, now all the money will come in through sites that will help to support racing. But I am still against it. I dojn’t think it is the federal government’s place to prohibit people from betting from their homes if their state allows it.

I think they will figure out a way to make it legal to play poker online in the US, tax it, and I would see that as a win-win situation.

A bit off subject, but this part of the article looked very strange to me.

“The National Football League, too - worried about corruption of sporting events because of gambling on their outcome - made a ban on internet gambling its top lobbying project this year.”

The only reason I can think they would do this, is because they knew online betting would soon be made legal, and they were hoping to get the offshore ones out of business first so they could come in and get the profits when it was legal. I don’t believe for a minute that the NFL thinks the fact that folks like to bet on football, especially the Monday night games and the Superbowl, is bad for the NFL.