+1 to these

Really good ideas Mr. Stake Monster. Fair, helps gets more games going and isn't at all dishonest to fish.

It isn't in that category because it isn't. We can say we wish it were and we've all made a ton of noise suggesting that poker ought to by considered a game of skill like those games, but we are not considered by law to be the same as those.

If you lowered the rake the number of winning players would increase to the point that you couldn't possibly argue it isn't a game of skill.

The house rake is creating losers out of tens of thousands of actual winners.

You could drop the rake to zero...online poker would not be considered to be an authorized game of skill the way games on Worldwinner.com are. PPA has argued that it should be and will continue to do so, but that's how it is right now, unfortunately.

Most gambling pursuits involve skill. A skilful sports bettor will win more than an unskilful one by employing his skill and knowledge. I don't see how that's much different to a poker player.

As I posted upthread I think the popular poker sites are just fleecing their customers. Pokerstars could halve their rake and halve it again and still make a lot of money.

they could, but why would they ever do something so stupid?

Perhaps they could. The question I was answering ITT was one of how poker is treated under state and federal U.S. law.

Rich, is it fair to say poker is purposefully being withheld because of it's popularity? Otherwise I don't see how worlwinner etc introduce new games all the time and avoid having to get a court ruling or some piece of legislation clearing them.

Is it also fair to say that if one of those games that they offer, some of which are even card games, became as "big" as poker it would draw the attention of the people who want to ban it/control it/rape it and they would do just that?

I'm just trying to understand this here and I appreciate your response. I didn't word my previous post well and didn't mean to insinuate the PPA was ignoring it, I just meant that there seems to be no good answer as to why poker is treated differently. I would love to have poker classified as those other games/fantasy though, as the stranglehold on it would be lost and we wouldn't feel we have to beg people to not only allow us to play, but to over rake and tax it more than any other game 100 fold but to hopefully a point they dont ruin it.

also when playing hu sngs be able to invite a player to play a couple at a time ...

No, I don't think so. Laws on poker predate all of this. Rather, I believe it stems from the fact that many in the past (and today, unfortunately), see poker as a gambling game. While they probably see there is skill involved, they also see people wagering money and using cards.

They simply stick to offering games like duplicate bridge that take the chance element (as defined by law) out of the game.

Thank you Rich. That made some sense to me and I understand it better now.

Can you please take a stab at why fantasy was so easily carved out of the UIGEA and why poker can't be, or maybe I should say: what is it the people who wanted fantasy excluded did in order to make that happen and can us poker supporters do the same thing?

It just seems they didn't have to do much, and now enjoy a lot of freedom. I don't even think draftday.com for example has to get a license from anyone or report to a regulator. I Could be wrong on that but point is they very quietly and easily were purposefully excluded from being covered by the UIGEA with seemingly no resistance from the usual suspects and opposition forces poker deals with on a daily basis. Where were the objections of underage concerns, problem gambling, Vegas casinos, christian coalition, Kye, etc?

I'm only talking about the carve out too, not to mention how did they prove fantasy is a skill based endeavor, as I find that a thinner argument than poker would be. These have been important to me, so I appreciate you taking your time to attempt to help me make sense of it. Cheers

sweet article, gandalf is such a legend.

That's because poker IS a gambling game. You win money or you lose money. As I pointed out earlier there is skill involved in sports betting as well so it's difficult to make the case that poker's qualitatively different.

I consider poker a "gambling game." The discussion is about online games of skill, which many (including me) would also consider "gambling games." Perhaps poker ought to be included in those games defined as skill games. I think so.

States and the federal government have passed legislation specific to sports betting, which is why the laws regarding sports betting are generally separate and distinct from the skill vs. chance argument (OTOH, many state laws on non-sports gambling are based precisely on them being games of chance vs. games of skill).

No problem.

Poker can be if enough lawmakers wish to do so. The change to the law isn't necessarily complex (though it can be, depending on how they choose to implement it).

Our problem isn't if it would be easy or hard to do. Is is the fact that we have a lot of resistance. Back in 2006, a lot of the discussion in the House in favor of HR 4411, a bill that would have banned online poker that passed that body 317-93 (which became UIGEA after being watered down in the Senate later that year). A lot of the discussion was on the need to ban online poker. You can read the testimony at UIGEA House Testimony: July 11, 2006.

There were comprises in the bill, including fantasy sports and horse race wagering. Many saw that as necessary for the broader aims, which unfortunately included poker.

If we keep standing up for ourselves to ensure that Congress knows that we won't go away, we can get ourselves into the category of gaming that lawmakers see as necessary to address to move any legislation.

wow i didnt realise how bad highstakes HU had got. On stars right now at stakes 5/10+ there are over 300 tables with 1 player seated... there is literally 1 table running and its at 5/10 and its a new player VS bumbunter.