Re: the australian gambling research centre submission, they've based their research on a 17,000 sample.
http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/hilda
While that's fair enough for most things, their numbers show 0.8% of Adults play poker or 132,000 (which is probably about right). Assuming all of the 17,000 in their sample are adults (which is probably generous), those results are based off 136 poker players.

The results are saying (among other things):
- 14% of poker players have a bachelor or higher compared to 25% of adults
- 34% of poker players are women
- 21% of regular poker players could not pay rent compared to 8% of adults
-etc, etc



Joey, can we write some kind of counter submission calling out their unreliable sample size (which they even admit themselves before they spew out all their unreliable numbers)?

I assume the "Australian Gambling Research Centre, Australian Institute of Family Studies" have left their submission to the last minute in order to reduce the opportunity for other submitter's to address the issues they raise.

Is it possible to enter a submission addressing another submission? Is it possible to counter a submission as biased as this one is?

I am still have to make my submission. So if anyone can come with something that makes sense I can possibly add it to my submission. Hopefully Sally Gainsbury’s submission counters the Australian Gambling Research Centre submission.

FYI: The “Interactive Gambling Commissioned by Gambling Research Australia 2014” that was written by Sally Gainsbury’s and others, https://www.liquorandgaming.justice....g%20study.pdf” contains a summary of the data that the O’Farrell review used.

The Sally Gainsbury’s report came to the conclusion that “There is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that interactive gambling is causing higher levels of gambling problems”. Between 44% and 50% of all problem gambling is to do with EGMs.

The O’Farrel using data from the same report came to the opposite conclusion

“As discussed above, a key concern of this Review is the effectiveness of existing consumer protection measures for online wagering. The rate of problem gambling is higher among interactive gamblers compared to gamblers more generally. The study cited above found that 2.7 per cent of interactive gamblers are problem gamblers compared to 0.9 per cent of all gamblers A recent study found that 41 per cent of interactive gamblers were at risk of problem gambling compared with less than 20 per cent of non-interactive gamblers”

From my reading of the Sally Gainsbury report, about 44% interactive gamblers (2.7%) were problem gamblers because they also played on EGMs and it was the EGMs that caused the issues and not the game, i.e. poker that was the problem

ugh

I think the counter needs to spell out how statistically unreliable that sample size is when drilled down to the assumptions they are drawing eg 132 poker players in their sample, saying 14% of poker players have bachelors or higher compared to 18% of the adult population is 14 people in the sample compared to 18.
If it turns out their 17,000 sample includes people under 18, then the number of people creating that result is even lower.

Jono Bredin and Piyush Gupta both confirmed to me their submissions are in today. Monsterdong said his is done too.

Whiterabbito and Knightsgee both confirmed they're working on theirs as well as Josh Budin

Keep up the good work team final stretch, everyone try and get at least one more friend to make a submission

Hoping Sally Gainsbury's submission is good, she confirmed she was making one on Twitter last week

Also good point re: Joey calling out the right wing 'family values' scum submission in our AOPA one, obviously that sample size is loltastic, we could sample this thread for 100 poker players and show that 75% of online poker players are net winners, 70% have tertiary degrees and our average income is 150k+ or whatever due to the lol sample size, 100 people isn't even a valid sample when screening for voting preferences with two options let alone something as subjective as problem gambling

The big issue with the "Australian Gambling research Centre" submission is that their submission and the study they based it around does not address the submission topic of "Online Poker" it was just based on poker in general and clearly from the figures they quoted was heavily weighted towards live poker. This can easily be seen by their claims of average losses of poker being $1,700+ per year, whereas the studies/reports that Joey quoted in his submission was based specifically on online poker and claimed average losses to poker being $1 per month or $12 per year.

P.S.- Great submission Joey, excellent work.

Agree with above comments re the "Australian Gambling research Centre" submission. It appears to have been cobbled together by a student or outsourced to India. Or both. Aside from the sample size, there's more wrong with their numbers/ analysis. I haven't gone through the data but in the opening bullets they state

Typical poker expenditure varied widely across participants. While the mean or average expenditure was $1,758 per player for 2015, players’ self-reported expenditure ranged between $120 and $12,000 for the year.

So if the self reported expenditure ranged between $120 and $12,000 for the year there was not a single profitable/ break even player (approx 10% of online community); nor even was there someone lying/delusional that they made a profit (approx 50% online community (joke))? Seems unlikely to say the least even with the lol sample size. This leads me to suspect they've just looked at one side of the equation, and somehow excluded returns (gross spend rather than net).

Done

also according to the gamblng research centre stats of poker gamblers vs regular gamblers, the poker gamblers are less likely playing lottery and scratch tickets and more likely to play casino table games, egm(which some could just counting this as poker), keno and race and sports betting. pretty much shows they are mainly casino poker players and not online players.

is our money safe with pokerstars if online goes down? i have a lot in my account but am still playing, should i withdraw?

Hi team,

I note that a lot of you are talking about the other submission that has been uploaded.

My two cents - this is a complete waste of our time. We have a goal and we know what we need to do. We need to focus on getting as many poker players to make a submission as possible to show how vibrant and diverse our Australian poker community is.

The submission is not something worthy of our time. The committee members are not silly people. They will see how small, irrelevant and out of context their sample size is and will take this into consideration.

All we can do is focus on ourselves and our plan. Every second we talk about that submission is time we are not convincing others to get out and make a submission.

Let's get our agenda back on track and have a big final 24 hours knowing that we have left nothing on the table!

Your money is safe regardless with Stars. They're publicly traded and wouldn't risk their licenses in other jurastictions plus they paid everyone in the US when they went down there

The Hearing is Sep 14 unlikely anything will happen one way or the other until then that is conclusive

I assume the individual submissions will only be displayed after and it's the organisation ones displayed now?

Got an interesting email today inviting me to appear before the committee on August 1 to answer questions (via teleconference as it's too short notice to appear in person as I have a flight to Melb on August 2 etc )

Joey (and all), any recommendation for study material beyond basic knowledge of the content of my own submission plus general online poker knowledge, Dr Gainsbury's study and what the UK laws are?

Content of the email

Dear [my name]

I’m writing on behalf of the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee in relation to its inquiry on the participation of Australians in online poker. I note that you have made a submission to the inquiry (yet to be published).

The committee is planning a hearing in Sydney on Tuesday 1 August 2017 and has asked the secretariat to canvas your availability to appear at a hearing on that date. I note that you are Melbourne-based and may not be able to attend the hearing in person. If so, we can organise a teleconference for you to appear remotely. The tentative time for an appearance would be 10.30-11.00am.

Can you please let me know by COB Monday 24 July whether you would be available to attend? If you have any questions, please call the secretariat on (02) 6277 3526.

Regards

[their name] | Research Officer

Did anyone else get an invitation to appear?

Also had one more person submit a submission with my help overnight and another who is going to try and get one done in time but is busy (not a poker player in the latter case but someone who agrees with our cause)

Also worth noting Stars just had DN make a tweet about our cause. Get those retweets going (whatever our feelings about DN/Amaya/etc are, it's helpful if as many people as possible see it, and perhaps make some comments re July 21 deadling in the comments too)

To whom it may concern,

Please do not bad online poker in Australia. I strongly object to this freedom being removed from human beings of this great country who should have the liberty of participating in this form of recreation if they choose. I am 31 years of age, soon to be married and an accountant by profession (soon to be a CPA). I play both online poker, poker at my local casino and poker with close friends in the privacy of our homes.

Poker is a great game which has countless positive attributes that promote humans being a better version of themselves. Poker encourages healthy intellectual exercises such as the scientific method as a way of thinking, mathematical calculations, emotional intelligence and much more. Further, poker has the rare characteristic of competing against people of all races, genders, ages etc. Online poker is the perfect format for free adults to practise these skills and enjoy the type of entertainment matched by no other recreational activity.

Poker has taught me life skills that are contrary to the fundamental flaws of problem gamblers. For example, poker has taught me concepts such as bankroll management (i.e. not gambling what I cannot afford to lose), not betting in situations where the bet in question is likely to lose (we call this negative expected value, such as what you would find at a roulette table or pokie machine) and transcending the biological impulses (as a result of gambling) that lead humans to make poor decisions. If anything, more people should learn to play poker simply as a way of learning how to make decisions in life.

While banning an untaxed form of gambling may be more profitable in the short term (I believe that this isn’t even the case), the long term benefit of Australians enjoying this game has far greater long term benefits. If more Australians played poker, we would have a nation of more intelligent and rational thinking citizens.

Kind regards,

Ben

Sounds good!

Some more background on problem gambling will probably help, that is of course the issue at the heart of this (plus protecting existing firms).

There are a few things about problem gambling that few know about that are important.

First- Problem Gamblers bet in many different ways. This means

• Restricting one product does nothing to restrain problem gambling as they do the lot on all the others anyway.
• Products used by the fewest people almost always have higher levels of problem gamblers as a %, this applies to online and to poker because the PG participate in the minority product far more often than the general public.
• Regulated online gambling that lets operators see all the ways PG bet helps to identify problem gamblers and offer them help. The participation in many products is a risk factor.

Second - there are two primary "theories" about problem gambling.
1) "Opportunity" - That exposure to gambling opportunities increases risk and problem gambling just by having been made available more easily.

2) "Adaption"That people adapt to new forms of gambling quite quickly and easily, the new opportunity does not create new problem gamblers but may shift spending between products/outlets.

Personally I think that there is always enough opportunity for a degen to degen so changes in access/product make little or no difference.

The important think here is that this debate should really have been settled by now. The UK has had full legal access to online gambling, the introduction of high stakes pokie like machines called FOBTs in bookmakers, a huge rise in advertising of gambling on TV and elsewhere...all since 1999. The amount spent on these new products is huge £1.8bn on FOBTs, £4.1bn online when neither existed in 1999.

The UK Problem Gambling rate? Completely unchanged since 1999. The whole poker boom has meant no rise at all in problem gambling rates. Indeed problem gambling is remarkably stable globally.

That's not the same as claiming no rise in "harm" which many see just as what is spent, or that spent by those at risk or who are problem gamblers. Harm is hard to measure though especially vs the entertainment value (or consumer utility) of say a $10 tournament.

Anyway, in a discussion I think it is worth knowing not just that regulation is the best way to help problem gamblers (ie self exclusion from all sites at player's request) but also that restricting access not only does not work because they will go to dodgy sites anyway but even if you could completely ban online poker and enforce it....there would still be the same number of problem gamblers harming themselves and their family.

PM me if you want to discuss.

@Richas thanks ill get in touch when I have some free time. Do you have a link to studies etc showing the unchanged problem gambling rate in the UK since 99? Also do you happen to have any revenue figures or estimates for how much money the UK laws have brought in in tax revenue annually?

@Pocketts you need to replace the word 'bad' with 'ban' in your first sentence. Good to see more and more people making submissions

i'm sure they have little interest in helping the problem gambler, if they were making 90% tax on the industry we wouldn't be here discussing this right now, i have many family members that blew all their super within the year on pokies, 100k, 200k the ladder keeps climbing.

Problem gamblers would most likely play formats other than poker, poker is a slow game, you don't get free spins, dazzling lights, trance like music or the instant thrill of laying 100k on the number 16. poker is a social game of cards, that involves elements of skill/luck and rewards those that work the hardest.

That submission with the false statistical data is appalling!

revenue considerations should never come in to play when trying to evaluate legislation.

people need to learn to fix their own problems, we as a society shouldn't be banning people, most of the time it forces things underground and at the control of criminals. Educating/Helping people is far superior than using the ban hammer.

i ended up doing 3 submissions, submissions will be closed soon, so get them in quick. Thanks to everyone, esp to the main guys pushing this in the right direction, keep it up. GL us!

A quick thank you everyone who made submissions and to those who posted theirs in this thread as it helped me write my own.

Also a big thank you to the likes of joey del, swoopAE, bazooka and others who put so much time and effort in to challenging this and keeping people like me in the loop by updating this thread. I really appreciate it. Cheers and gl us

Great work everyone! Just getting my submission in in the nick of time!

-----------------------------

To whom it may concern,

I would describe myself as an avid gamer who’s preferred arena is online poker. I don’t consider myself a punter, and my non-poker friends are often surprised when I decline to play roulette or craps or some other game of pure chance because it bores me. I prefer playing poker online as I find the slower pace in cardrooms renders it quite dull, not to mention the much higher commissions which make it harder for any of the players to come away victorious.

I grew up in Melbourne in a family without a TV. My sister and I learned to entertain ourselves playing plenty of competitive sport and any board games we could get our hands on. My fascination with games of skill started with us regularly getting up for a game of Monopoly before primary school, and continued with our grandma teaching us bridge at an early age and later through forging a lifelong friendship with a classmate over a trading card game called Magic: The Gathering.

In our last year of high school, my mates and I discovered poker, and on the weekend we would get together to play mini tournaments for a perpetual trophy as the prize. I loved the combination of skill and luck which the game offered, and was interested to see how I’d go with something more than matchsticks or pride on the line. Fortunately, I could do just that in the $1 game at ParadisePoker.com without risking anywhere near what would be required to play the minimum game at Crown. This allowed me to learn risk management strategies – in poker we call it bankroll management – early on without having to put much money at stake, and this has held me in good stead in managing my finances/investments in the years since.

I quickly became absorbed attempting to improve my game, applying probability I’d learnt at school and game theory I’d learnt studying economics at Uni. Throughout Uni and until now, I’ve continued to play and study online poker, both on my own and with like-minded players. I can say without doubt that the independent thinking, probabilistic outlook and logic and analytical skills I’ve developed through online poker will shape any future vocation(s) far more than any formal education I’ve received.

I hope to have demonstrated the numerous ways my life has benefited from online poker. I would describe the harms I have suffered from online poker as nil, and so would view the banning of online poker in Australia as having a significantly negative impact on my life and on the numerous like-minded friends I’ve made along the way.

Yours sincerely,

Richard

Managed to get a month off work so I've been travelling, only got mine in at the death. Not overly comprehensive, more personal than numbery, but I think Joey/Swoop nailed that brief anyway. Once again incredible effort Joey, regardless of the outcome

great news!

I couldn't resist, writing a counter submission to the family studies submission




As someone who plays poker as a hobby, I would like to respond to a number of issues raised by the "Australian institute of Family studies" submission.

The Institute had an opportunity to discuss the importance of regulation in an online gambling environment. Instead their submission
1) quoted a number of statistics in their "summary of findings" which are "unreliable due to the small sample".
2) does not address Online Poker i.e. their submission assumes there are no differences between Live and Online Poker. However, compared to live poker, online poker has improved reporting of the player’s profit and losses, players are able to play significantly lower stakes and effective harm minimisation technology is available.

As a result of the issues referred to above, the alarming statistics referred to in the Australian institute of Family studies submission are extremely unreliable. Examples of unreliable statistics include:
• “One fifth of*regular poker players may have been*problem*gamblers*(22%), the most severe risk category. This*was ten times the rate among*regular gamblers nationally.”
• “Poker players*were five to*ten times more*likely*than other regular gamblers to report*health (26% vs 4%)*or financial problems (23%*vs 3%) caused by their gambling, to borrow*money or sell*something to get money*to gamble (14% vs*1%), and to*feel*guilty*about*their*gambling behavior (40 vs*9%). “
• “38.2% of poker player households reported asking for financial help from family and friends during the year, which was twice the rate of Australian households (19.7%).”
• “One in five poker player households (21%) reported they could not make a mortgage or rent payment. This was more than twice the national rate (9%)."

Please feel free to contact me if you would like any of the above points clarified.