this

whilst we allow the #3 ranked site [quoted by pokerscout] to continue with its 4% currency exchange ripoff for unsuspecting AUSTRALIAN players

its no wonder ALL sites are to be shown the door

pathetic really as the offending site has a LOBBY team already in place , negotiating an OZ SITE , for when the coalition puts in place the "oz owned online poker "licences"

time "stars" put a team " lobby'' together

Maybe you should email pokerstars this

My local take away food shop raised the price of minimum chips from $2.80 to $3.50, is this the right thread to make this comment?
Seriously how has this thread been on the front page for so long, STFU already with this unrelated banter.

?

Indeed.

You really think Pokerstars doesn't have people in place lobbying to be a part of any future legalized online poker environment that may eventually arise in Australia? I am positive that it does: not because I am in any way 'in the know', instead because it is a company run by clever people and has already demonstrated that it can effectively work with governments.

+1

would actually rather grind live then play on that 888 scum network

With all the complaining you do on exchange rates, how you can still be playing on 888, I will never know...

In spite of any lobbying that may occur it seems unlikely that a coalition government will allow any regulated online poker through. I'm pretty sure I remember them slamming the tentative suggestions labor made to heavily regulate forms of internet gambling including online poker.

it has at least put in place "DISCLAIMERS" for the "live oz games"
which were running @ 25% above market exchange

bundy if ur "wise" you will see that the "showdown @ the star" is currently running "unders" on the 888 exchange

will players be expected to "credit" 888 the difference

This is exactly right and the reason it was even in their campaign ****. Now it turns out they really really need Xenophon, so we can expect to be ****ed sooner or later.

Good sign for poker that Abbott puts the removing of compulsory student union fees on the backburner for now (which is arguably a more important issue for the liberals based on party ideology grounds than poker) and which would be considered a strike at Pyne's agenda because Abbott has bigger fish to fry?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226727553732

It's on the back burner because he's going after online poker.

Yep poker loses students a whole lot more money than compulsory student union fees

There is a sub for politics BTW. Could we get a mod to lock this abomination up. Thanks

If you really want to be a nit about it I suppose the thread could be moved to politics, but why in hell should it be locked? It is about POKER y'know?

The time for the head-in-the-sand approach has passed mate.

I don't think the Independent for Dennison will be a help

http://www.andrewwilkie.org/content/...ection_history

He's anti-pokies but i've heard he views poker as a game of skill so it's not xenophon blanket hatred of gambling or anything

Who the **** knows what Wilkie thinks on any matter?

good point pushy26

Pokerfuse is running a story about some Australian research that alleges that Internet gambling has twice the problem gambling rate.

http://pokerfuse.com/news/industry/a...er-risk-15-10/

This headline grabbing finding is very likely to be abused by poker opponents in Australia so I thought I would try and explain here why this finding is misleading.

A powerpoint of the research is available here:

http://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcont...t=tourism_pubs

The finding is erroneous because of their definition of an Internet gambler - they have this as "anyone who has gambled using interactive methods in the past 12 months".

Now that may sound fair enough but it completely skews their problem gambling figures. Problem gamblers are heavily engaged gamblers, they use lots of different types of gambling. If you want to predict who is a problem gambler then measuring their "engagement" or number of ways they gamble is pretty good.

This means that problem gamblers are very likely to show up as "internet gamblers" but they would also show up as any other type of gambler - pokies in past 12 months tick, betting office, tick, lottery tick, casino tick.

The group "Internet gamblers" are being defined against - gamblers who never bet interactively is certain to give you a higher proportion as the control group is less engaged. To be honest I am surprised they found (m)any problem gamblers who have not bet interactively in the past year at all. This might be as the prevalence data is from 2011, it might be the restrictive laws you have in Aus or it might be that some of the problem gamblers included in the figures are those who have not made any bets at all in the past 12 months thanks to support from GA or the like who would show up as non internet gamblers.

Anyway, if and when this research gets abused down under by your media and politicians at least you have been briefed.

**** like this certainly doesn't help the image of poker in Australia.



http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/po...026-2w8pr.html

lol wtf embezzling with links to an accountant? I always thought Billy Jordanu was a mobster/druglord of some type, he's one of the donators in the bigger tournaments at crown and from memory cash too but haven't played with him much in cash games

If they remove the players with "links to organised crime" from Crown that poker room will be half empty on any given day.