Isn’t there also a matter of regulation? Brick and mortar casinos are regulated by state gaming boards (or an Indian gaming commision) to insure they are offering games on the up and up.
To my knowledge there is no gaming commission at the federal level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaming_control_board#United_States
The real reason online poker was stopped was because so much money was changing hands so rapidly and the powers-that-be had no way of getting a cut.
Online poker tended to based in places where US authorities had no access to records, like Belize, Antigua, Isle of Man, and a Canadian Indian reservation. People with “unsavory” reputations were involved … like Ruth Parasol, a big-time porn provider, and her partner Anurag Dikshit who very quickly hit the Forbes Richest list as he became the worlds youngest billionaire via Party Poker.
Poker sites were easy to program, some written by a single amateur programmer, and the money poured in by the billions.
Other problems and concerns did arise but the real reason for the government ban was the uncontrolled and untaxed flow of such large amounts of money to people who were not part of the Establishment.
Hardly. Congress could very easily have prohibited online gambling on non-US sites, but it banned it entirely.
Sheldon Adelson, specifically. The casinos (or at least the casino ownership groups) were actually in favor of online gaming because they thought it would put more butts in their brick-and-mortar seats, too. Plus, they figured they could quickly make a lot of money off it directly with their name recognition. Adelson more or less singlehandedly turned that around and pushed the UIGEA through Congress.
Because it is not entirely a game of skill; it is at least 50% chance.
Gambling laws, like most vice laws, have a high component of “say so” that is difficult to challenge because morals, Jesus and Elliott Ness, you know.
There’s certainly no more chance involved in poker than in fantasy football. We’re not talking about online roulette or something. The difference is that the UIGEA has a fantasy sports carve-out but not a poker carve-out.
I think we may be glossing over the obvious.
Federal law was enacted in 2006 that specifically prohibits the use of money transfers relating to gambling. For the purposes of this statute, fantasy football and whatnot was specifically excluded as being gambling. Why did Congress enact a ban on internet gambling? That’s a hard question to answer, but the legislation itself points to a 1999 study recommending such a ban. Link.
But I can’t immediately find anything in that study that stated or implied that fantasy sports shouldn’t be included in the ban. I have no idea what that’s about, or why horse racing appears to be in some kind of gray area.
I’m not sure what you think is being glossed over. I specifically referenced the federal law in two of the three preceding posts…
Well, also, it’s very much YMMV and IMVHO, but anyone who gambles online, poker especially, needs a safer and more meaningful hobby, like back-alley encounters arranged on Craigslist.
Your posts were of the highest quality in content and style. I was referring to the general discussion of other issues that seem to miss the larger point.
I’ll also add that I did not preview my post, so I did not see your post immediately preceding mine. Which was just a wonderful post, for which I tip my hat to you on the conciseness and clarity of your contribution.
I am immune to sarcasm, and therefore suitably mollified. Carry on.
I agree completely. Casinos thought they would benefit if online gaming were allowed. Adelson is the wealthiest of casino owners. He did put millions into stopping it, according to him, to his own financial detriment. How did he benefit? This is the part I don’t understand.
In California gambling on games of skill was legal – there were several clubs open to the public where backgammon and bridge were played for money; AFAIK no special license was required.
For many years, licensed California clubs were allowed to offer lowball poker but not high-ball poker (is that a word? 
). I heard that the reasoning was that getting a good high-ball hand is a matter of luck, but it takes skill to win with a bad hand. :smack:
In California there was a court case that rule that bridge was a game of skill and that is why it was allowed. Don’t know about backgammon. They played pinochle also. Bridge was the only game discussed in the court case.
OP, you mean de jure, don’t you? / not snark
No, the law outlaws money transfers, not online poker per se.
I heard from reasonable authority that lowball was permitted because it definitely was *not *“stud horse poker,” which is what the ca. 1880s law prohibited. (Since no one had any idea what “stud horse poker” was, it was interpreted as most standard forms of the game.)
The balance of odds to skill are pretty much the same across the poker spectrum. Lowball is just a different organization of the two.