Dammit, still no one who would know much about how online poker works. So lame.

I do like the title of the hearing though.

Watching Frank and Campbell smack around Wolf is going to be FUN.

The past two action plans have included prefilled tweets to Wolf. I hope we're all sending them, as he needs to hear from all of us.

Dr. Rachel A. Volberg
Senior Research Scientist
NORC at the University of Chicago

From Wikipedia

"NORC at the University of Chicago, established in 1941 as the National Opinion Research Center, is one of the largest and most highly respected social research organizations in the United States......NORC conducts numerous research projects involving opinion survey and other data collection and technology strategies."

Good or bad for us?

Edit: Probably bad.

From: NORC's Gambling Impact and Behavior Study,

"The availability of a casino within 50 miles (versus 50 to 250 miles) is associated with about double the prevalence of problem and pathological gamblers, according to the combined patron and telephone survey results"

So from about 1% to 2%?

Nice wording.

telephone survey results? really?

Not looking good

Excerpt from Rachel Volbergs 2006 California Problem Gambling Prevalence Survey (report)

http://geminiresearch.com is her site with her reports

Internet gambling is already easily accessible and the only way to help problem gamblers is to regulate it. Anyone that is likely to become a problem gambler over the internet has already been affected. You can gamble on the internet right now, if you choose to.

If anyone wants to email her, the address is rvolberg@geminiresearch.com

I focused on protection of minors and problem gamblers in my email since that is her area of research

I reeeaaaaaally hope, Fahrenkopf and Lipparelli have done their homework in terms of all this "gambling problem" and are absolutely on top of their game @ the hearing... I mean everything is right in front of them - such an easy game, it would be just unforgivable not to completely pwn this hearing... Please :begging cat: .jpg?

Three of the testimonies have been posted.

Charles McIntyre

Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.

Dr. Rachel A. Volberg

Oh come on Dr. Rachel A. Volberg, you're forgetting the most important argument!

No harm done though, I think we can find some common ground:

I guess McIntyre doesn't know about the state opt-outs included in all the bills?

his testimony will be awkward

McIntyre: States should decide

Barton: States can opt-out

Rest of Subcommittee: Oh, what are you here for again Mr McIntyre?

From Volberg testimony:

"In a national sample, we found that people who had visited Starbucks were 10 times more likely to enjoy coffee than those that only drank coffee at home or at work."

Thanks for posting the links, RazzSpazz.

The lottery guy doesn't seem too against it, necessarily. He's just concerned about letting states make their own rules, so state opt-outs (as any bill will have) should totally address his concerns?

Fahrenkopf's looked really good. I really like all of the AGA's points, they come off much better in a congressional testimony than they do in an overly-ambitious video marketing campaign.

I agree with spacegod on that particular part of Volberg's testimony, but, given that, thought it was reasonable overall, and she does mention one potentially-interesting study that does actually attempt to sort out the correlation/causation issue of the relationship between problem gambling and internet gambling:

In addition to that i think it is also a good opportunity to point out that people still played online post UIGEA and that state lotteries were not affected. It would be great to illustrate that online gaming would be more of an add on as opposed to a threat.

Will this be part of the hearing?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...4&postcount=56

Frank Fahrenkopf's testimony references it.

repulse, I also wonder how Volberg reconciles her findings with those of Howard Shaffer (the Harvard crack cocaine guy) given his recent review piece that seems quite contrary to her results.

I figured the lottery guy would be more against it.. after reading the testimony just seems like he wants NH to be able to decide.. well duhhhh.

Lifetime Cardroom participants have double the at-risk percentage and triple the problem and pathological percentages of Casino participants????

LMAO, Exactly!

Cliffs (including reading between the lines of the lottery guy's testimony):

• Default option for states should be opted-out.
• There should be no time restrictions on how long a state has to opt in.
• States should be allowed to determine for themselves who will regulate i-gambling within their state, including an option for the state lottery to be the regulator.

• The Wire Act should be amended to make all forms of internet gambling expressly illegal in the US, except for those authorized by law.
• Only online poker should be legalized under federal law.
• The UIGEA should be amended so law enforcement can shut down illegal sites.
• The technologies exist today for effective protections for underage gambling, problem gambling, money laundering and other criminal activities through online gambling as well as consumer protections against fraud and cheating.
• Only through licensing and regulation of online poker in the US will players be protected.
• States should have an option, and should be able to decide who can operate sites within their state.
• Legislation to legalize online poker should be done on a federal level to provide consistent guidelines for regulation across the opt-in states.
• According to modern research, gambling expansion, including online gambling, does not increase the percent of the overall population that suffers from pathological gambling.
• The legislation must not create competitive advantages or disadvantages between and among legal commercial casinos, Native American casinos, state lotteries and pari-mutuel wagering operations. (!)
• It will create new high-tech jobs and tax revenue.

• While there are strong economic incentives for governments to legalize and regulate Internet gambling, there is, as yet, no satisfactory model proposed to regulate these activities.
• Gambling revenues won't meet the claimed projections.
• Legalization will likely increase problem and pathological gambling.
• It is essential that regulatory policies take account of likely increases in problem gambling in the wake of the legalization of online poker in the United States.
• HR 2366 should be changed to include additional harm minimization requirements including an opt-out requirement for players to set daily, weekly and monthly limits with regard to time and money with changes only possible after a 24-hour cooling-off period, monthly financial statements, and self-assessment tests
• These should be operated by a third-party, independent organization rather than by the online gaming operators or the licensing state and tribal agencies.
• Prevention, treatment and research on problem gambling needs to be funded.

Yeah, the Shaffer study always sounded quite convincing in its approach. I would have to think that it would carry more weight than a random other study. But I've never read either one. I can't find the one Volberg mentions, it may not be publicly available yet, hopefully people ask about it in the hearing.