article

Well looks like the battle to revisit the UIGEA has hit the big time. This article is on the front page of the Times' website.

Looks like FOF has assaulted the comments.

FaceBooked

Sounds good to me

Looks like a very fair and generally accurate article, but we really need to take control of the comments!

A fairly well balanced and accurate article. Here is my contriibution to the comments.

In the wee hours of the morning in 2006 the UIGEA was attached to a Port Security Bill at the last minute leaving little time for discussion or proper consideration of that bill. This underhanded scheme was flawlessly executed but had the unintended consequence of driving online poker sites off shore and deputizing banks and financial institutions. The UIGEA did not make playing poker online illegal as so many have parroted and it also failed outright to stop millions of American citizens from logging on daily and playing poker online.

Four years later Poker Players have organized (1Mil+ in the PPA alone) and the UIGEA is being reconsidered in the light of day. Legislation that recognizes poker as a unique game of skill is also being introduced and is being acted upon favorably. The current proposed legislation is well crafted and addresses the panoply of social concerns so often vaunted as reasons to preclude adults from indulging in an entertaining and possibly profitable past time.

I play online poker a few times a week and poker is both fun and profitable for me. This is also true for the many other players I know who have taken the time to learn the skill sets necessary to be a competitive poker player.

Naysayers would have you beleive that poker is somehow an inherently addictive activity and that ALL poker players are gambling addicts abusing their families by frittering away the grocery money. Those few people who do suffer from some form of gambling addiction, while pitiable and deserving of our help, are in fact a minority and NOT the majority the naysayers purport them to be.

By playing just a few nights a week I not only made extra money for christmas last year but also payed for our entire family vacation this year. I also declared my winnings as income and payed the taxes due on them.

Let's all take a little breather here and consider that this is the land of the free and while you have the right to freely espouse your personal views as loudly and often as you like that right does not translate into a right to infringe upon the past times of responsible, taxpaying, job holding, income generating American citizens (Like Me).

Cheers,
D

PS - If you naysayers want to take on a form of gambling that is actually worthy of derision look no further than Lotto, Keno and Scratch tickets. These are true games of CHANCE with horrible odds that are aggressively marketed and played almost exclusively by poor people. Might I also mention that these "games" are also the exclusive domain of the State Governments.?!

We need to start getting in on these comments from the start. Most (including possible congressional voters) probably aren't going to read all 100+ comments and the first couple of pages are just full of the usual anti-poker/gambling ignorance.

It was on the front page of the hard-copy Times, which is great.

I sent them this email, doubt they'll do anything about it:

also a "debate" here:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...g-be-legalized

I feel like we should cross-post this in the Zoo. I'd do it myself but I'm not sure if I would be violating any rules.

lol @ taking control of the comments guys.

MSNBC just did a segment on it as well, Annie Duke vs. some guy who's with some group that did a study in 1999 that said online gambling should be banned.
Annie did a good job clarifying that A) its not illegal and B) in the UK and Europe, problem gambling did not increase with regulation.

As the issue starts to hit mainstream media, is there anything else we can be doing in addition to the usual letters to congress and comments to the online articles?

I think the academic case for gambling is incredibly weak here. I find it very unlikely that increased access to gambling doesn't increase "problem gambling" -- possibly not % of the gambling population who are prone to problem gambling, but by increasing the # of gamblers it likely follows that there are more overall problem gamblers. I have also seen studies that say essentially the opposite of whatever study she is citing.

IMO the strongest case is moral. I.e., leave me the **** alone and stop telling me what I can/can't do.

Why should they? The law is clear in that any online gaming site knowingly taking money from someone in the US is breaking the law. Just because you want to play with the words it is illegal for a website to take funds from a US player for the purpose of gambling. It doesn't change this. Even though the law is unenforced because the sites hide on Indian reservations and off shore doesn't change the facts. It is against the law to conduct online gaming to US players.

You may wish to ignore the letter of the law, but courts and government agencies cannot.

As we type, there is a company located in Newton, Massachusetts called "Worldwinner" that conducts online gaming for US players. For money. You can use your credit card to deposit. The games it offers are games like Bejewelled, Bridge, Spades, Solitaire, Tetris and the like.

Why does the DOJ not shut them down? Could it be that what games you offer makes a difference under the law? Could it be that Poker, which is far more similar to Bridge and Spades than it is to Blackjack or Roulette, should be treated online more like Spades than like Blackjack?

It could. And no amount of glossing over the actual wording of the law because it does not support your feelings about the matter will change this fact.

Skallagrim

Probably going to regret not just ignoring you, but in case anyone is taking your posts seriously: Which law is that?

Skall please just try this:

It works wonders. Everybody needs to stop feeding this troll.

From the NCPG (National Council on Problem Gambling) web site:

Do casinos, lotteries and other types of gambling “cause” problem gambling?

The cause of a gambling problem is the individual's inability to control the gambling. This may be due in part to a person's genetic tendency to develop addiction, their ability to cope with normal life stress and even their social upbringing and moral attitudes about gambling. The casino or lottery provides the opportunity for the person to gamble. It does not, in and of itself, create the problem any more than a liquor store would create an alcoholic. (emphasis mine).

Here are the statistics for Utah:

1% of Adult Population (as of 2006) struggling with Pathological Gambling – 17,589 people
2% of Adult Population (as of 2006) struggling with Problem Gambling – 35,177 people

Total Adult Pathological/Problem Gambling Population – 52,766 people

2% of Adolescent Population (as of 2006) struggling with Pathological Gambling – 3,256 people
4% of Adolescent Population (as of 2006) struggling with Problem Gambling – 6,513 people

Total Adolescent Pathological/Problem Gambling Population – 9,769 people

But wait, there's no gambling in Utah, how can this be? Problem/pathological gamblers are going to gamble. Legal, illegal, above or below ground, they're going to gamble.

From your inability to discern between gaming and gambling, to your butchering of what is actually deemed illegal under the UIGEA and beyond, your ignorance shines through once again.

Here is a hint: UIGEA stands for Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

Even as such, no law is being broken by anyone or any party when I make a deposit to PokerStars, or withdraw from Full Tilt.

+1

People need to realize that even if gambling were somehow abolished forever, those with a penchant for addiction still have a problem within themselves that needs to be addressed. To eliminate all forms of gambling is to treat the symptom and not the source.

A point occurs to me whilst reading all these threads.

Some consider poker gambling, some do not, but in the context of discussions around harmful or addictive gambling, it would be really helpful if poker was somehow separated from all the other games coming under the gambling umberella.

If the main purpose of HR2267 was to open a slot machine parlour on every street corner, then I think many poker players would see that as not beneficial to society at large. OTOH, if there was a proposal to expand playing of chess or bridge - how many of our opponents would object? Probably a small proportion. Of the small percentage of those who are gambling addicts, how many are addicted to poker? A very small percentage I would wager.

Even the stock market is more gambling than poker as you are not actually in control of the factors that are moving the share price.

Right now a lot of the opposition to HR2267 is from those who aren't imagining intelligent adults expending mental energy attempting to be successful at poker, but thinking of degenerates depositing money they don't have to play roulette or slots from their shack in a poorer part of Detroit or somewhere.