I think talking about the skill element is useful. It helps group the game to other games of skill including chess. However, I don't think you should mention you've earned 6 figures (and possibly not your relatively large salary). It's too easy for the politician to say "poker might be ok for him but he's nothing like my constituents".
The rest of the submission is terrific.

Feedback appreciated!!! intend to ask friends to submit something based off this...

Online Poker Inquiry Submission
My name is **** and I’ve considered poker my main hobby alongside surfing and cricket since around 2008. It is an activity I have regularly engaged with over that period alongside a substantial number of my friends. Poker is a game we are passionate about, it is probably the most strategically deep game in the world. To illustrate this point, computers learnt to beat the best human players by the late 1980s. The first time a computer beat a selection of top human players was in January of this year. I mostly play a variant of poker which is more sophisticated still than the most common variant, No Limit Hold’em. It is believed it will be many years still before computers are able to best the top humans in this variant (Pot Limit Omaha).
The depth of strategy of the game is fascinating for thousands of Australians who discuss in person, form skype groups and post on forums in order to share and improve their collective understanding of the game. Many Australians including myself and my friends thoroughly enjoy the healthy competition it promotes. So many of us formerly competed in a variety of sports, however, as we get older, it is more difficult to find the time, and also physically more difficult as we age. Poker is an intellectually stimulating social pursuit we can all continue to engage in together long after our mobility becomes limited.
It is common for poker playing friends to travel together domestically and overseas in order to attend various events and tournaments. The community and interest in poker is huge and the game has been played around the world since its first variant emerged in France in the 17th Century. Groups of friends including my own regularly organise to meet up and socialise over a game of poker. All of us also enjoy online poker, it allows all of us to improve and develop our skills and understanding between organised games between friends. Online poker also allows people to learn the game by playing tiny sums, starting from just 10cents. Star City Casino’s smallest buy in game is $100, a considerably more significant investment that deters many.
Poker is not to be confused in any way with ‘poker machines’. These have absolutely no skill and require only the pressing of a button by the player. It is mind numbing. Poker is a mix of fortune and an incredible amount of skill that takes years to develop, in the long run, better players will always win.
Online poker has made me many connections and trusted friends around Australia and the rest of the world as we passionately engage in a common interest. I would be extremely disappointed if my friends and I were banned from engaging in our most loved shared hobby, especially as the government’s inquiry into gambling in 2010 found that almost no problem gambling is associated with poker.
Why should our favourite pastime be outlawed when our own government found that it produces almost no problem gamblers, while the electronic gaming machines in almost every pub, rsl and bowling club around the country continue to be legal, despite 75-80% of problem gambling being attributed to them?
Please do not take away my passion, especially as I can see no good reason.
Thank you,
**** ****


Relevant Studies
http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/compl...ng-2009/report
2010 Australian Government Productivity Commission inquiry- gambling
Found 75-80% of problem gambling in Australia was associated with electronic gaming machines, the lion’s share of the remainder was associated with sports betting, poker was associated with a negligible number of problem gamblers. I believe this is because it is a game of strategy, skill and socialising, encouraging intellectual pursuit and healthy competition, not antisocial problem gambling.
https://www.communications.gov.au/fi...token=F785mC4l
2012 Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy’s Review of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001

Summary
The 2012 report found amongst other things with regards to online poker
- It has a different character to Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs)
- It is partly a game of skill
- There is no evidence that players experience the trance like states that occur when playing EGMs
- There is a social element to the game as you are playing against other people so it is very interactive
- It is a game in which people compete for a pot of money to which they contribute which therefore limits losses
In her submission on the review Dr Sally Gainsbury (Deputy Director at Gambling Treatment Clinic and Research Group, University of Sydney), observed that online poker appears to have relatively low likelihood of leading to gambling problems. The report recommended amending the IGA to pave the way for online poker to be licensed in Australia.

by the way, is everyone else finding ignition almost impossibly glitchy and buggy? Havent even been able to redeposit the last two days as cashier keeps bugging

I have tweeted Sally now Swoop. Would be great if she made a submission.

Simonsays, do NOT mention that computers can beat humans now imo - Libratus is a supercomputer that takes minutes on the river to act and can't be used online but politicians don't know that and don't want their constituents playing against an unbeatable machine. It just doesn't help us at all and will confuse them. To uneducated politicians anything about AI will sound like bots/rigging/etc. just mention that multiple studies have found it to be a game of skill etc. then go into the depth of strategy of the game bit like you did. Maybe mention a bit more on the civil liberties side that you believe as an Australian it's your right to play a game of skill for money with other consenting adults on the internet if you choose to do so.

Other than that looks great

Also as a general point for everyone don't go into detail bragging about how much you've won, you can mention you're up lifetime or that the best players can actually make a profit because it's a game of skill, but mentioning large sums will only potentially create negative tax laws for poker players rather than operators/businesses and while if that's the price we have to pay to play poker so be it, it'd be better if they followed the UK model of taxing the operators not players and there are so few professional poker players in Australia that we'd be a negligible portion of the revenue they gained through taxing online poker, the bulk of it would always come from operators and so it should, that's why we pay rake to them, because they're businesses that offer a service and we're paying them to use that service.

@capitao85 I was directly invited to submit a submission and it is on my to-do list. Thanks for the shout-outs

Above is Sally Gainsbury on twitter, I replied reminding her submissions need to be in by July 21 and I look forward to heading hers if its public. Sounds like she's going to make one. Maybe in a week or so we can check whether she's done it with a couple follow up tweets but no need to tweet-bomb her at this time other than with thanks for taking the time to make a submission etc.

Hopefully we'll have some news from Stars soon on whether they'll be helping at all.

I think you're off to a good start here talking about how poker is involved in your life and your friend's lives, and how it's something you use to socialise, how it builds communities etc.

I feel as though outlining the difference between poker and pokie machines detracts from your main points, which are about you as a player and how the changes to the IGA will impact you. I'd probably leave out the pokie comparison, and the line about 'poker is a mix of fortune and skill... better players always win', because it makes the reader think 'worse players always lose'.

I'm not sure if the summary of Dr Sally Gainsbury's review is needed either - it reads too copy/pasted, and it's probably material they are already familiar with.

But otherwise good job, I really think it's key that we focus on who we are, why we play, and how it benefits us in ways that are more than just financial.

The Gainsbury thing is copy/pasted, I had it in my submission too and it's from the original change.org petition the AOPA put up. The study she did was commissioned by the government, which is good for us. It turns out that Sally is going to make her own submission, but there's nothing wrong with mentioning her findings and that we respect her as an expert who has actually done a relevant study (since her conclusions basically support our position and as an academic with actual data to back her claims she can present our case very articulately and with supporting data). Her submission will almost certainly be good for us and she's been invited to give a submission personally, so I assume it will be weighed more heavily than any of our random submissions as individuals since she's an expert. Worth showing she has the support of the public/poker community with her findings though imo.

It's awesome that she's going to make a submission and that should help the cause a lot.

I think if everyone mentions her research or summarises her points in their submissions we begin to sound very 'coached', and detracts from more important points we could be making to address the terms of reference.

Leave the research and numbers to the expert/s, and talk about what you're an expert on - how these changes will affect YOU.

That's good advice, it's fine to mention studies etc supporting our position but that most important thing is for us as individuals to discuss how this affects us as individuals who don't want to see our hobby banned

guy's anyone know if it's possible if we can get stars to send a email to all Aussie players, because I started from 1c/2c and opened every single table every game with a Aussie player on it all the way to $1/$2 yesterday and did $2+ I'm up to $5/$10 today.
But I don't have enough in my account to send a message to players sitting on higher limits as a observer, 7/8- 10 players wont even respond and the few that do prob 2-10 reply most player have no idea what's going on.
I send them the info to go to AOPA or here at 2+2 if they do or don't respond.

Can someone who has enough in there account do $10+ limits.?
I did my submission yesterday and got 5 more people to send them in this was the next best think I thought of to reach out to more OZ players.

Great work icyakardz, i'm pretty sure anyone playing 5/T+ will be aware though for the most part, only a small minority wont be

Thanks for the feedback.

I did give it some thought as to whether to mention profit when playing. I concluded that a slim reference to it was appropriate because many people are unable to differentiate poker (a skill game) and for example pokies (pure gambling). I liked Swoop's submission where you could tell he was profitable and he didn't bang on about it. I had originally written how seeing my profit gradually grow was a motivator and rewarding aspect of the game but decided not to include that at the end.

In real life, when I tell people about poker most are surprised to learn that it is possible to be profitable over the long run and my sense is that it changes their impression of the game. I tried hard not to make my submission a bragging one, indeed tbh I lied about being a loser at sports betting just to balance it out.

I do agree that if there are just submissions from players claiming to be winners then it may reduce the impact of the message, but I still think that being able to be profitable over the long term is what sets poker apart from other forms of gambling.

I'm concerned about how few Australians seem to know about this and let's all do what we can to raise awareness in these last few days. I will mention it to any aussie players I come up against and think about any other ways I can get the message out. The suggestion of getting pokerstars to send an email to all Aussie players is a good one, it's in their interests to do so.

Nice work guys, keep them coming.

Jackson, I think you might have left out the word 'chess' unintentionally as it isn't clear that you are talking about chess in the AI discussion (or perhaps I am half asleep). Apart from that it all looked pretty good. Re Swoop's point, if you want to mention that it took a super computer to beat poker which took a decade to build and an entire team at XXXX university that should cover that (I can't remember the name now - but it comes up in an early article if you google).

Everyone - it is ok to copy parts that sound coached. Facts are facts so it doesn't matter where you pulled them from. Showing the fact that you have been engaged enough in the process to research is good. It shows you care.

I think it is great that everyone is sharing their submissions here but remember this is YOUR submission. You write what you think is the best thing for you. Don't feel you need to post them on here. If you are happy with it just send it. If you need help ask on here or send me an email.

In other news:

- Yes Dr Gainsbury is making a submission. Just so you know the commitee invites relevant stakeholders to make submissions to inquiries. The AOPA received an invitation, Dr Gainsbury received an invitation and so did many other gambling and social counselling providers/services

- Party Poker sent an email out to their Australian player base yesterday. If you didn't receive let me know.

- PokerStars will send something out shortly

- NPL/APL will send something out shortly

- There are several other things happening in the background which I hope you can appreciate I can't share until they are official.

To reiterate though we are running out of time. If you haven't written your submission START TODAY.

If you have ask three other poker players to do the same or share our Call to Action photo (the AOPA FB profile pic) on your social media channels!

Great post Joey. Hopefully stars kicks into gear shortly. Good news that the big pub poker operators are on our side too, they should make their own submissions as they have a stake in this too as online poker gets people interested in poker who in turn may also play some live games

If you haven't written your submission yet now's the time

A few of my friends are busy with the WSOPME but the moment they bust i'll be reminding them that they need to finish their submissions

Let's win this thing!

Hey Swoop,

I just copy and pasted your submission into a word doc and it was 13 pages long.

Have you shortened it at all?

I don't think it matters that it is that long but this is from the website:

Writing a submission

The best submissions:

clearly address some or all of the terms of reference—you do not need to address each one
are relevant and highlight your own perspective
are concise, generally no longer than four to five pages
begin with a short introduction about yourself or the organisation you represent
emphasise the key points so that they are clear
outline not only what the issues are but how problems can be addressed, as the committee looks to submissions for ideas to make recommendations
only include documents that directly relate to your key points
only include information you would be happy to see published on the internet.
Submissions that include complex argument, personal details or criticise someone may take the committee longer to process and consider.



How many pages are other people doing?

Mine was 1 1/2 pages

I realise mine was longer than the guideline. In a standard font it's more like 10 pages not 13 and it has bolded headings/etc for each topic and section in the format I sent - that doesn't show well on a forum and it also clearly states to skip the bit that describes what online poker is if the person reading it is familiar with that which is a couple pages worth. The bolded headings alone would take up a full page worth of my sub but it makes it easier to read.

I'd say anything from a couple paragraphs to about the length of mine is fine. I doubt many will be more than 5 pages.

I did read that, and my submission was originally several pages longer, I cut everything I deemed unnecessary out and could have maybe cut one more page worth at most.

I took the time to write it, they can take the time to read it, I don't think any of it is excessive (other than the describing what online poker is and how it works but I figure there's a chance nobody else did that in their sub and committee members should have some idea of what it is they're thinking about banning if they've never played or seen online poker before and might be thinking of online pokies or whatever)

I'd guess most people are writing 1-5 pages but who knows. Would love to see more submissions posted to the thread.

Hi guys really hope you get the result you are after. What will be the case do you think if it does get banned online, do you think the casinos here will see more players or the opposite?

You won't notice any difference in the casino

This

Net effect is pretty neutral, see WSOP numbers in the USA, no substantial increases or decreases post-poker boom, obviously less satellite qualifiers hit the main numbers a bit but other than that the prelim numbers are pretty similar for the tournaments that have continuously existed. Live poker will go on as normal one way or the other, 'premier' tournament numbers may be down very slightly due to less satellite qualifiers but the AM main barely satellites anyone in online anyway these days, your random sydney/melb/whatever series numbers will be about the same and cash action will be about the same etc.

In the long term it's a negative for poker numbers live though as less people will take up the game playing for microstakes online etc, granted that's happening anyway as we recede further from the poker boom and most serious poker players are late 20s to 30s now vs everyone being 18-30 during the boom.

The high stakes live games might get marginally get tougher though as a small number of online regs may migrate to live poker and they generally have better fundamentals, but it won't be a large difference as most will either move overseas or change careers, low stakes live cash won't see a difference at all.

At the end of the day the net affect for live poker will probably be neutral in the short term and very slightly negative in the long term due to less young people becoming interested in the game to replace the ageing poker player population if it isn't available online.

submitted.

Legend!

Hi i'm Adam I am a 20 year old that plays poker for fun but also to make some money. As a student it has been hard to find a job. With poker online I can buy in for 10 cents which compared to a casino is nothing. It has been a great help to me for the availability of online poker to have some fun and blow off steam but to also make some money that I can use to better myself in my studies. Poker has also helped me to create friendships that I value highly. Without online poker I would have not had the ability to go do my studies.

My studies and poker have overlapped as I had a variety of maths units. The most important reason why poker needs to be differentiated from gambling is that it’s a skill based game where math’s is a very important factor. Making the correct calculations through odds of winning and card equity can allow you to have a large edge on other players. You aren’t playing against the house where the house is always at an advantage, you are playing against a real person where you can use your skill and mathematics to be a profitable player.

International online poker sites need to be regulated to provide Australians with a safe way to play. If this bill goes forward without amendments to regulate online poker, poker players will be forced to play on unregulated sites which will provide a much greater risk for players. I personally will be forced to play on these sites as I will not be giving up a game I love to play online. I also know of numerous other Australian online poker players who will be doing the same. All this bill achieves is making the Australian online poker market unsafe and allows the government to dictate what a tax payer can and can’t do with their own money.

Thank you for taking the time to review my submission and I hope the right choice is made in safeguarding Australian poker players online through regulation while also allowing tax payers the freedom of spending their money on the entertainment option of their choice.

Will upload the following tonight..... I wanted to put in a recreational view of someone who is not winning but plays for fun

The participation of Australians in online poker;

My name is Karl, I am 57 years and live on my own. My wife passed away 4 years ago, my children are grown and have left home. Online poker is hobby for me. I probably play 3 or 4 nights a week on average. Poker gives me something to do, a challenge and something to look forward to when I come home at night from work. I have a good social life and see my kids regularly. I probably go out one or two nights a week. The other nights I am on my own. I play guitar, poker, x-box, watch television etc. I particularly enjoy poker for the challenge it provides. It provides stimulation and something to focus on for me. I enjoy the theory and mathematical aspects of poker.

I am thinking of retiring in 4 or 5 years. I will need to find things to occupy my time. I was hoping online poker would be one activity I could enjoy in my retirement.

The nature and extent of any personal or social harms and benefits arising from participating in online poker;

Overall, I have lost an average $3.60 per week since 2011. I spend an average of 6 hours per week playing on-line cash games, so this costs me 60c per hour to play. To put this into perspective, I spend $8 a day on coffee at work. A few dollars a week for poker represents excellent value for money entertainment for me.

The following quote supports my experience that online poker gaming is a low cost and therefore low risk activity. (Page 113 of the “Final Report 2012 Review of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001”)

Dr Gainsbury notes that, in a recent online survey of 6682 Australian gamblers, median monthly losses for online poker players were $1, suggesting most players gamble for relatively low stakes. In the study, this was the lowest monthly loss reported for any gambling activity (although Dr Gainsbury noted caution in interpreting expenditure data due to large variation in responses).

Online gambling is a low-cost option compared to a Casino. The minimum buy in at my local Casino is $100, maximum $500. The average would probably be $200-$400. This is beyond the reach of many players other than for an occasional once a year treat. Banning online poker will remove the opportunity to play low cost poker for fun for many people.

I have a dozen or so friends who are recreational gamblers, as many Australians are. None of them have any gambling issues, they all work and play poker for fun. We play online, get together to play poker, we like to follow the big games and personalities in poker and have fun. The social aspect of Poker is important. I have made lifelong friends through poker.

Poker requires analytical and mathematical skills to name a few. Improving these skills is the challenge. The old quote “a minute to learn and a lifetime to master” is true. One benefit of poker is improving logical thought processes, mathematical ability and general clarity. Like many card games, the participants must think about what they are doing, study and practice to get better. Poker keeps you learning as the game and its theory evolves.

Whether the current regulatory approach, in particular, the recently amended Interactive Gambling Act 2001, is a reasonable and proportionate response to those harms and benefits.

A total ban on-line poker is clearly not a proportional response. This is the same logic as a total ban on alcohol, driving and shopping given there are problem drinkers, over a 1000 road fatalities a year and burgeoning levels of personal debt.

A proportional response would acknowledge the lower levels of risk associated with online poker as noted in the following quote from the “Final Report 2012 Review of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001”

In making its recommendation regarding regulated access, the Productivity Commission stressed the difference between online poker card playing and other forms of online gaming, noting that while all types of gambling carry some degree of risk, online poker card playing involves relatively lesser risk

A reasonable response given this lower level of risk would be regulation rather than prohibition. There are a variety of examples regulation such as the UK model as referred to in the final report that could be used as a basis for this.

In summary, I hope the committee recognizes Poker is a low risk form of entertainment for the vast majority of recreational players. We enjoy playing and are happy to pay a reasonable amount for that entertainment.

Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. I hope online poker is not banned, but regulated along the lines of the UK model instead.

Great work!