Regulation is a good thing for poker.

Anyone for de-regulation for poker (and anything in general) has no idea about anything.

I agree that the online sites need to be more connected to the live B&M rooms.

Run more SAT's to the big live events......use online to feed the live games.

That seems to be what helped create the monster fields at WSOP....

But rig-ulation is not good. And that's the form that it most often takes. On regulated sites, your funds are safer. But that's about it. The NJ sites are on crappy sites and I'm sure there isn't an extensive system in place to prevent collusion and other cheating.

It also adds another layer that might be corrupt. Yes, it's shocking to think but NJ might have some corruption problems. f you think a superuser could never exists on these sites I would consider you to be very naïve. And the regulators are also another layer that wants a piece of the pie.

On the contrary, I think it is you who has no idea what your talking about. How exactly is regulation good for the average person? Regulations create less competition in a market which leads to less choices which leads to higher prices for the consumer. I wonder, why it is that some multi-millionaires and billionaires are proponents of regulation? It must be that their just caring individuals who want to protect others and not because they just want to line their own pockets up. I can say this for certain, they didn't get that rich by being sympathetic toward others.

Over-regulation by people that have absolutely no clue about it such as governments is not good for poker. I am not against regulation, but it should be reasonable.

I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. Generally speaking, one of the ways "forward" for poker as a whole is the increased integration and cooperation between the live (land-based) and online sides of the industry.

To point, the WSOP offering a hybrid online-live bracelet event for the first time at this summer's series is a stroke of genius. I hope we see more of it from them and from other tour operators.

This line of thinking is embarrassingly bad. I think you're usually trolling, but I'll bite here.

Borgata has b&m casino revenue of 50mm per month. They are going to risk their entire casino license to run a superuser on their site? To make 50k off the five 2/4 tables running? Somehow I'm doubtful

Party and 888 software has been running ROW forever. Neither have had security breaches, superuser scandals, or un-addressed collusion.

In NJ the player pools are smaller by orders of magnitude, making it far easier to catch cheating. There's even recourse through the DGE for cheating.

Obviously everyone would prefer the pre-UIGEA environment -- big revelation there. Trying to argue that NJ regulation somehow makes it easier to cheat based on some vague references to corruption isn't too smart.

No, not trolling but your posts exposes your limited mind.

NJ is corrupt. Do you really think the DGE is a bunch of great people waking up everyday thinking about how to protect us? Look at the solution to the chipgate scandal. Obviously that was a joint Borgata/DGE solution. No one was looking out for the players. Don't be naïve.

The only thing rig-ulation does is add a layer of corruption.

Mr. Rhino, who regulates the rig-ulators?

This by itself is pretty good reason to be skeptical that regulated sites in NJ are likely to use superusers to cheat players:

With all due respect, I consider this to be naïve. Of course it wouldn't be the Borgata. But you have layers of people involved and not everyone shares the same interests. Some rig-ulator from the DGE could be in on it along with a disgruntled programmer. They don't see a dime of that casino revenue.

I'm not saying a superuser is likely, just that it has the same odds as an unregulated site.

Then there is also collusion. DGE doesn't get into that. All they do is stuff like making the sites jump through hoops and wait months to install Pot Limit Omaha. Not a lot of value there for the players.

Regulation means your balances are 100% safe. Everything else is fair game imo

Not having regulation wouldn't prevent there being disgruntled programmers or collusion.

With regulation if someone gets caught colluding, or whatever else, there can be penalties.

Not sure how an employee of the DGE would operate a superuser or whatever else.


I'm not sure what your point is? Is it that even with regulation cheating or other bad things could still happen? I don't think that is much of a revelation.

And further, pipes seems to think cheating doesn't happen in b&m rooms?

To some it is. They think regulation is some great thing that will provide a 100% safe playing environment. They need to get in the real world. Other than your balances being 100% secure I don't see any positives.

But there are costs:
1. Compensation for the rig-ulators. The pie is only so big. So this is either slimmer profit margins for the sites or higher rake/less giveaways for the players.
2. Ridiculous red tape that delays improvements. We always hear that simple good improvements to the software need to be approved by the DGE. So it either takes months or never happens.
3. Adds a layer of corruptness. It is NJ. I'm sure there is corruption within the DGE.

Pipes has no idea how this question has anything to do whatsoever about the topic at hand

You seem to be against regulation because you think sites will cheat or have super users. I'm simply pointing out that regardless of being online or live, it's possible for an operator to cheat. However, i think Lego clearly pointed out why your argument is wrong.

No, not really. Look at my two points above which have absolutely nothing to do with that.

Was Lego one of the ones using that same logic claiming there was no superuser on AP/ Ultimate Bet? Sorry, I don't like the logic that was presented. There are many players involved that don't always have their objectives in line with the company.

But all of that isn't the main point of my posts. Reread them.

By no means am I suggesting that we just sheepishly go bury our heads in the sand and take whatever "they" dish (whoever "they" are), but really, we're not going to get legislation that just says "awe **** it, everything is back to the way it was circa 2004". Those days are gone and holding them as the standard for comparison is just a setup for disappointment. The gig is up and organized government wants its cut.

agreed

I just want there to be honesty about the situation. The government took a crap on our head in April 2011 and continue to do so as we beg for scraps. I just want us to stop thanking them for the hat.

I don't think regulation makes the balances 100% safe. Maybe they are safe to the tune of 99.some very long decimal, but I wouldn't say 100.

Yes, regulation can cause increased costs.

Yes, there may be delays in implementing different items.

Yes, corruptness exists. I'm not really at all worried about the regulators somehow rigging the poker games to cheat and steal from players in the poker games.

ok, we are close I guess

I know 99. to some long decimal is good odds, but if they can't ensure that 100% I don't know what purpose regulation provides. Account balances should be separate from the business, period. If the DGE doesn't do this they should stop requiring 100 different hoops to start PLO and get on this instead.

Ok, but the regulators are not doing anything to prevent any cheating. You are at the mercy of the site for security. Some are better than others, but regulation does not play a role.

regs just a way for the gov to charge fees to sites and players
but congressmen get to much moneys for not allowing online