What is Digg?126 Comments
- RHandler, on 12/01/2008, -0/+66"prohibition vs regulation"
History teaches us that column A is full of fail. - inactive, on 12/01/2008, -0/+48'"Congress shouldn't be trying to make criminals out of people who have taken the game from the kitchen table to the computer table," said John Pappas of the PPA."' Well said, sir.
- TheEngineer2008, on 12/01/2008, -3/+36I posted this to the WaPo site:
There are some people who have excessive gaming habits. There are also people who have trouble with alcohol, others with compulsive shopping issues, etc. Should the federal government be in the business of controlling everything that could possibly be an issue for anyone? Should we have another Prohibition (on alcohol).
I don't agree that gambling has destroyed "so many lives", as if it's not the fault of the person who chose to gamble. Rather, the person who gambled too much ruined his life. There should be some personal responsibility, I believe. Fortunately, sites have plans in place to combat that. They have error-proof age verification. Kids CANNOT get on. This was proven at the June 8, 2007 House Financial Services Committee hearing on Internet Gaming Regulation. Even the latest study touted by Focus on the Family shows that. Also, the proposed bills that license and regulate online poker require self-exclusion from ALL Internet gaming sites. And, explicit legalization would bring sites under U.S. law, protecting U.S. citizens who play while bringing in revenue that currently goes abroad. Finally, the legislation out there funds treatment for those with excessive gaming habits (which are about 0.7% of the population, according to a recent UK study). Prohibition does none of this. It's just a feel-good law that does nothing for people with problems while interfering with the rights of those who don't.
One example the prohibitionists cite is a young man (18 or over) in college who developed a gambling problem and robbed a bank for money. His father, Pastor Hogan (a Baptist minister), tried to help but didn’t really know what to do. He installed blocking software on his P.C. but his son played elsewhere. With the proposed legislation, Pastor Hogan could have marched his son to the P.C. and had him place himself on an exclusion list. He could have then taken his son to industry-funded treatment. Then, he could have educated his son to not steal from his family and banks (which was the real moral issue…not gaming).
The status quo is the opposite of the ideal situation. Offshore sites service the U.S. and they do so legally, as the Wire Act (per the latest appeal court ruling) does not apply to Internet poker. Sites service the U.S. with impunity, and sites that left after the 2006 restrictions are reentering the market. It should be the opposite. We should own this industry. It's legal throughout Europe and most of the free world. And, the lengths to which the federal government goes to ban it should offend anyone who cares about freedom.
Finally, there are plenty of casinos. However, I really don't want to drive all the way to a smoky casino to play poker. Nor do I always wish to play the higher stakes offered at casinos. Online, I can play for an hour or so after work with my wife by my side, and at my leisure. - TotalHalibut, on 12/01/2008, -0/+24There's no excuse for probiting online poker while keeping casinos open, none at all. Feel free to regulate, to keep dishonest sites in-check, feel free to tax, as you should any business, but banning it entirely is ridiculous.
- WordsnCollision, on 12/01/2008, -0/+23Physicians, heal thyself.
- mikbunn, on 12/01/2008, -1/+21Hey, its a hell of a lot better than slots. At least it's based on skill and intelligence rather than a direct probability that you will lose.
- tattertech, on 12/01/2008, -0/+14Way too simplistic. Even without physically seeing a person there is a wealth of information available. In fact, physical tells are overrated compared to betting patterns and the like.
- pintomp3, on 12/01/2008, -0/+13if we have a prohibition on gambling, shouldn't the state-run lotto and church bingo be shutdown? governments and churches realize gambling is a great way to raise revenue off of the stupid and weak-willed. why not let other people do it? regulate it and tax it. same goes for drugs.
- cissystrut, on 12/01/2008, -1/+14wouldn't stock trading on the internet be considered gambling?
- bobodaclown, on 12/01/2008, -1/+13Really only 2 issues here. First, do we REALLY want the government to censor the ability of responsible adults to sit in their living rooms and access the internet as they choose? Second, do we REALLY want to forego the enormous revenues available from internet gaming - monies that could be put to vast benefit here at home - in favor of sending these funds overseas into unregulated and unsecure markets?
The fact that the current statute purporting to outlaw internet gaming - it does not, despite the inaccurate reporting by 60 Minutes; rather it seeks to prevent funds transfers among banks and other financial institutions - as well as its implementing regulations were passed at the very end of lame duck congressional sessions with no debate whatsoever, and the fact that virtually everyone connected with the banking industry has confirmed that the law is entirely unclear and largely unenforceable, illustrates just how problematic this effort is.
Licence, regulate, and tax. No minors, and deal with problem gamblers the way you deal with problem drinkers. The fact that a few should be excluded from engaging in a particular behavior does not mean it should also be illegal for the vast majority of those who engage in it responsibly. - Eldorian, on 12/01/2008, -1/+12Did anyone see the 60 minutes special last night of the people who have lost $200k+ from scammers on online poker and can't do anything about it since it's happening on foreign soil?
The governments needs to just regulate it. - andmarhar, on 12/01/2008, -0/+11Unless it is controlled by the government (lotteries, daily numbers, scratch offs, etc.) then it's A OK
- hblask, on 12/01/2008, -0/+10The legitimate companies, such as Pokerstars and Full Tilt, already have serious collusion detection and cheating programs. I know some really high level poker players, and they all agree that you are much much more likely to run into collusion at a brick-and-mortar casino than you are at an online game.
At any rate, this is like all prohibition: there are more problems when it is illegal. If it were legal, we could create structures designed to keep the game honest. The problems at AP and UB were *BECAUSE* it was illegal. - AnotherDiggGuy, on 12/01/2008, -4/+14Great, just what we need.... more government involvement.... that'll definitely make things better
- BlackJackJester, on 12/01/2008, -1/+11and you can gamble for literally pennies. None of this $10 minimum bet. Talk about gambling problems, casino's won't let you sit at a table with less than $200 in hand, and then you're so short stacked theres no way to not just get bullied around so hard you lose it.
- aserer511, on 12/01/2008, -2/+11are we becoming SUCH a nanny state that we're enforcing the US' traditional prude laws on everyone?
- Barackalypse, on 12/01/2008, -2/+11There's a third option here, and when we're talking about the Government, its usually the right one: do nothing.
- plague, on 12/01/2008, -0/+8The point is that if it were a legit business in the US, there would be laws in place that would allow those people to get their money from the company that scammed them. As it stands now, a shady company can do whatever they want with your money if you live in the US, because you can't get legal help to even try to get it back.
- mumbels24, on 12/01/2008, -0/+8so, by your same logic. The Alcohol industry would disappear if there was ever a cure for alcoholism?
- sodade, on 12/01/2008, -2/+10Oh yes Protonz, don't let governments regulate anything and we'll be so much better off. /s
Just because OUR government has utterly failed the american people when it comes to regulating industry, doesn't mean that regulation is somehow inherently bad. - sizzzzlerz, on 12/01/2008, -1/+9Rule #1: People are going to gamble
Rule #2: There is nothing the government can do about it. - zirconx, on 12/01/2008, -0/+8You guys are missing the point (big surprise, diggers generally would rather call someone stupid than try to understand a situation).
The people mentioned on 60 minutes had to do their gambling on overseas servers/companies because of the current legal situation in the US. If those companies or someone at those companies steals money from US citizens, there's nothing the citizen can do about it.
But if it were legal in the US, they would have been playing with US companies/servers and would have had some recourse. - rossnyc, on 12/01/2008, -0/+8If you ever sit down and really play online poker you'll want to learn about betting patterns. The players who learn to recognize and read other player's betting patterns are normally the winners.
Don't get me wrong...of course there is luck involved. But skill far outweighs the luck factor the more hands you play. You can lose one, specific hand and be a 99% favorite to win the hand before the last card comes out. Sometimes the other guy gets lucky. But, 99% of the time, if you are making the correct decisions on that one hand you'll be the winner.
There is a tremendous amount of skill and intelligence required to be a consistent winner. - mikbunn, on 12/01/2008, -0/+8Yes, but that probability can be determined by the player based on the bets put forth by opponents and the strength of your hand. There's still a good deal of skill involved.
A friend of mine made $3,000 in one month just playing $1-$2 blinds, bought a car, and now just plays occasionally. - JackpotCity, on 12/01/2008, -0/+7Very true words those.
- rossnyc, on 12/01/2008, -0/+7You see 5-10x as many hands online than you do live. Of course you'll see more crazy hands.
Pokerstars and Full Tilt are not in the business of cheating people. They make gajillions of dollars off of rake. They have no need to alter the deck or allow people to cheat. - StopTheLie, on 12/01/2008, -0/+7You can spend every dollar you have on worthless State Lottery "scratch off" tickets. You can mortgage your house and play $5,000 hands of black jack in land based casinos. Hell, you can even bet your kids lunch money at the local CHURCH; but you're not allowed to play poker (online) from the privacy of your own home.
The ban on internet-based gambling (passed in 2006) is yet another instance of special interests protecting "their cut" of the pie at the expense of the consumer. Nowhere near a “majority of American’s” wanted this bill passed. It was shot down over and over again from 1998 -2005. In 2006, the prohibitionists simply attached their legislation to a "Port Security" bill. (Let's see you vote NO on that in a "post 9/11 world.") -our "leaders" at work. - plague, on 12/01/2008, -0/+7This is exactly why it needs to be legalized. If there were laws in place that allowed a government body to audit the source code of poker software, this wouldn't be a concern.
As for people working together, it happens. I used to play online at a table with a friend and we would tell each other when we had good hands, but that can happen at any poker table online or in a casino. - minoss, on 12/01/2008, -0/+7I've been playing online poker for close to 4 years now. The amount of ***** being spewed by politicians on this subject is ridiculous. Neteller was great. It was a safe and secure location to hold money. Removing Neteller via legislation has created way more scams and schemes than anything Neteller ever created or caused.
- kemp34, on 12/01/2008, -0/+7Middle finger to Feds trying to prohibit internet poker!
- Rivetgeek, on 12/01/2008, -0/+6thats only because online you tend to see more hands since there is no lag for a new setup or shuffle and players are timed for every hand.
- Daedalus81, on 12/01/2008, -0/+6Collusion and cheating occurs off and online. The servers would have to recognize a player to alter a shuffle based in their favor. That would mean the player and the company are in cahoots. I find that highly unlikely.
- Lockean, on 12/01/2008, -0/+6Are you really that ***** stupid? First, nothing is irrelevant with economics when money and possible revenue is concerned. Second, I find it amazing to think that it would be ok for me to drive to one of the seven card rooms within ten minutes of my office on the way home to play poker but that sitting in my office at home and playing is in some way a heinous crime. Gambling is not, in fact, illegal, *****. It is merely regulated.
- TheEngineer2008, on 12/01/2008, -0/+6Excellent Title = 71 more front pages than you. :-)
- inactive, on 12/01/2008, -4/+10"Governmental regulation of the free market is inherently bad. All governments fail at it."
Tell that to all the people who died due to the unregulated railroads. Or are you arguing that the monopolies of the past were a good thing for America? - GovernmentsGun, on 12/01/2008, -4/+10Remember: Government owns you. This is another way they tell you that. And they will enforce it with a gun pointed at you, your kids, or me if need be.
- TotalHalibut, on 12/01/2008, -4/+10Well actually Online poker is based quite significantly on the direct probability that you will win or lose. There's more intelligence required than slots of course, but since you can't see the opponent, read them for tells and so forth, it comes down entirely to the probability of your hand being good enough to beat their hand. Bluffing takes on an entirely different quality when you're not facing somebody down across a table.
- Bilabrin, on 12/01/2008, -1/+7Right on man. People forget the coersion. The government has a gun to your head every day. Try not paying your taxes. Men with guns appear to take everything you own. Ed Brown for example.
I don't understand how Liberals fail to feel the rape of life in america at Federal gunpoint. - inactive, on 12/01/2008, -0/+5Don't be fooled, this isn't a morality issue; it is disguised as such. This is about controlling the flow of money from this country, such that individuals from the USA are not losing to individuals in other territories, resulting in a net loss for the US. Also, it is about controlling the flow of money domestically, so that individuals cannot exchange money with one another without supervision- making sure that there are no instances of tax evasion from earnings and/or money laundering between individuals. In other words, the federal govt wants players to keep their funds within this country, and they want a cut of the action.
- cissystrut, on 12/01/2008, -1/+6how about fast food businesses? addiction to unhealthy food is just as bad as anything else
the government shouldn't have this much power - inactive, on 12/01/2008, -1/+6My favorite part of this is that not one person in the comments has said "keep it illegal." With the economy in such a slide, think of all the possible jobs that would be available if we were to loosen our gambling laws.
- ApokalypseNow, on 12/01/2008, -2/+7Deregulation of the free market is what landed us in this sub-prime mess we're in today. Even McCain saw this, and he was in the Senate Finance Committee for years pushing for deregulation - eventually he changed his tune.
- Rivetgeek, on 12/01/2008, -0/+5maybe in YOUR ***** state. I live 5 minutes from the largest card room in the world.
- surgeongg, on 12/01/2008, -0/+5As a professional poker player I'd have to say you don't know what the ***** you're talking about.
- rossnyc, on 12/01/2008, -0/+5A semi-naive statement but Obama plays poker. Having the leader of the country on the poker player's sides can't be a bad thing.
- ngmcs8203, on 12/01/2008, -0/+4It isn't in the best interest of the poker sites to steal from their clients. If the players were able to figure out that they were being cheated by others (see Absolute and UB) then it would eventually come to surface that the casino's are cheating too. Since that hasn't happened, and online poker rooms don't want to bite the hand that feeds, I don't see them cheating us. As far as other players? Sure there's collusion. It happens in real life and online. Tell us something we don't know.
- ExRe, on 12/01/2008, -0/+4Deal with "problem" gamblers?
Who would do that? Problem gamblers = more profits for the places they are going to, you think they'll do anything?
Online gambling is a problem because sites can be setup with the design of scamming people, giving them very low odds to win (yes, even in poker). The website can control absolutely everything. When you go to a casino, they can be held responsible for cheating and are regulated, you can not regulate online gambling. - BlackJackJester, on 12/01/2008, -0/+4This is like the war on drugs, pure epic fail. By trying to stomp it out, you just make it so the illegitimate sites and dealers make more and more money, because people are going to do it whether it's legal or not. People smoke weed, people gamble, people drink, people have sex. Trying to prevent any of these things is like peeing into the wind. What the government should do, is instead of having people pee every which way all over the place, they could easily direct people to pee into toilets and use it for hydroelectric power.
If you didn't catch that, it's a metaphor for regulation, bringing in internal, and foreign tax dollars. - Lockean, on 12/01/2008, -0/+4Gambling is not illegal, it is just not allowed everywhere. It is much like the sale of alcohol, you need permits to do so and need to conform to regulations. There are a dozen card rooms within Sacramento city limits that you can play poker and blackjack at, just not slots and some table games. This is just another element of the industry that has not yet been regulated like the rest of it.
- cissystrut, on 12/01/2008, -0/+4well put... In USA, money>justice
-
Show 51 - 100 of 127 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is