You realize that these games are harder to beat than they were in the past, and now you want higher rake and less promotions, now instead of 3% poker winners we will have 1%, and boom poker dies even faster. I'm sure any decent tournament score would lead to instataxation, which we know how swingy tournaments are and that will affect anyone's bottom line, yes they can fight for it at the end of the year, but I'm sure many won't any just another example of huge losses for the poker ecosystem.

I agree entirely with this, except for the Indian reference. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it was a native English speaker who just didn't proof read the article. If you're churning out content for half a cent a word (or whatever his rate is) you're not going to pay someone to proof read it.

It has been mentioned already here, but I'll repeat: the rate is ZERO cents/word.

HuffPo is a clickbait site that doesn't care about accuracy & also doesn't use an editor/proof reader for submitted material. People who write articles for them gain exposure & that's it. The 'articles' are in effect adverts for the writers where they can throw in references to their latest book or website - which is exactly what this author does - provides a link to his own lame finance website.

Please don't take this response personally, I only quoted you because it seems your post touches on what seems to be a recurring pattern in many of these threads.

Winning poker players do not make online poker survive. Depositors and recs (aka people who play for fun) do. In a regulated world where recs can easily deposit/withdraw, and play where they feel secure, and not cheated, this "ecosystem" can last a long long time. Nobody "wins" at movies, or "golf" (well 99% never even play for a prize) but people pour money into these things all the time. Paying green fees to play when you can't win money? How is golf ever going to survive??

For fun. Something to do. Something to talk about. This is what gives an industry long term viability. Not 3% ROI (after rakeback) over 3,000,000,000 hands of 24 tabling zoom or somesuch.

Legalized high rake poker will make poker survive much better than small sketchy sites where you need to deposit into some foreign country pretending to buy t-shirts to play against 24 tabling guys who have hud stats up and are trying to scrape together next month's rent.

Heck, even lotteries and horse racing survive, and we all know the rake on those is ridiculous. I don't think powerball even gives rakeback! Those bastards!

Flame away, I guess.

Although I have been reading the forums for some time I must say I registered just to reply to this because I have seen it thrown around so often without people noticing the fallacy of the problem. Money in poker is not just money (well with the exception of people that make a living at this but they are such a small percentage that does not matter). Money in poker is how you keep score.

Will people play golf without making money? Sure. Will people play golf without keeping score? Without knowing what their par is or without trying to improve it? Of course most won't.

I am a losing player after 1500 games. I am trying not to be one though but actually in my last 800 games my ROI is actually 1% (pre-rakeback). And this makes me happy, means I am improving. You know what I do every time at the end of my session? I don't go check my balance and see how much closer I am to retirement, no I go update my spreadsheet with my results and see how my long term and medium term ROI has been impacted by the games I played.

If rake goes so high that someone at my skill is a permanent (heavy) loser guess what will happen to my interest in poker? I am assuming the same that happened to the movies when people that don't like watching movies to the sound of other people eating popcorn got Netflix.

If you are a recreational you don't do it for the money. But to think that money doesn't matter is just ridiculous.

Career wise, with online poker, I am up money. I only played MTTs and did most of my winning back in the glory days, pacific, party, stars etc... (2008-2011 or so)?

I don't know how much because I don't have a spreadsheet. I deposited about 300$ back when net teller let you move it around, and I cashed out many times without redepositing, so I know I am up.

also, I do play golf without keeping score. Plus I cheat all the time. Preferred lies everywhere. On a root, move that so you don't mess up your club, wrist, etc... Footprint in the sand trap, I am going to place that ball somewhere better.

Most of the people I play with don't even know the rules of golf properly. You don't take a one stroke penalty and drop it in the fairway if you lose your ball in the rough or the trees. You hit from the spot of your last shot and take a stroke. Do you know anyone that does this playing recreational golf? Do you often see people driving back to the tee to hit their 3rd?

Score is not that important when you are a rec player. If you have a spreadsheet to keep "score" at poker, you are not a rec player, IMO.

I see where you are coming from. And I think you are mistaking non-competitive people with recreational people. You can be competitive and recreational, and I don't know any competitive people that don't keep score - even if they're playing candy crush saga.

Recs can be competitive. I am very competitive.

The way I define a rec is someone who is playing because they enjoy the experience. If you are playing because you are worried about ROI, or profit after rakeback, you aren't really playing for fun anymore.

The article is written so poorly that it's not really something you can discuss.

I am worried about being good at playing poker. ROI is simply how I measure it.

I have literally dozens of spreadsheets on my computer for video games I played in the past. I never made any money out of them - but I enjoyed knowing I was good at them.

Of course when I play poker I want the same, I want to be good at it. I want to see my bankroll go up, not because I think I will retire or "go pro" but because it means I can "level up" (aka go play higher stakes).

Despite the author not understanding how to write an article, or a conclusion, or not really having such a strong command of the English language....

I've been an online pro for the last 10 years and it is true that I would not want online poker legalized.

Anybody thinking this has something to do with tax implications is very short sighted.

Do you have any clue about the US government's general spending practices?

Checks link.. Yeah, HuffPo.. Story checks out.

Why couldn't they just issue a tax form to fill out online before releasing funds to you account? This way it is reported and you are responsible for it at the end of the year plus or minus your income for rest of year. They don't take federal tax from you at the casino, they could just use the same format and would seem to make most sense.

I would imagine that most Americans are indifferent to the idea of online poker.

Also, the name Huff Post rustles my jimmies.

Most Americans can't handle seeing a tit or hearing **** on the television so this makes sense.