2nd Hearing in House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade held on November 18th - Page 6 - Poker Legislation

Two Plus Two Forums Poker News & Discussion General Poker Discussion

2nd Hearing in House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade held on November 18th

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 6 of 16

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Last

Page 6 of 16

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Last

11-17-2011 , 11:01 AM

#126

BananaJammers

centurion

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 198

Quote:

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

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.

This actually makes me all tingly inside. Instead of having a "cards are evil! Never legalize!" vibe to it, it seems her testimony is mainly "when it is legal, these are the things that should be addressed."

Quote

11-17-2011 , 11:20 AM

#127

spacegod

journeyman

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 371

Quote:

Originally Posted by repulse

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.

You can't find it because it's just a book chapter in a handbook to be released in 2012, and thus it's likely not even peer-reviewed. I found a journal article (2011) by the same authors of that chapter, and there was not one mention of poker in their sample, only video poker, with online blackjack being the most popular game played by the people in the sample (about 50% iirc). So I'm somewhat doubtful that the chapter she cites has anything to do specifically with poker at all. I'm also still not even convinced that any of these people know the difference between online poker and video poker.

Quote

11-17-2011 , 12:35 PM

#128

repulse

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,070

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacegod

Ah, good to know. Wasn't sure what "in press" meant. Lack of peer review seems unfortunate. I glanced over the titles of the other publications by those authors and none seemed relevant to poker or internet poker. If this study is indeed for all gambling rather than poker, then, in addition to whatever other concerns there would be, I think there would be legitimate concerns as to results on whether or not the particular issue of internet-to-problem gambling causation would carry over well to just poker. Assuming they know what poker is, of course.

Quote

11-17-2011 , 02:20 PM

#129

mapleleaf

adept

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 721

Quote:

Originally Posted by repulse

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacegod

You can't find [the Volberg "study"] because it's just a book chapter in a handbook to be released in 2012, and thus it's likely not even peer-reviewed.

Recall that the Shaffer article is not a single study. It's a comprehensive review of the entire body of peer-reviewed gambling literature.

Quote

11-17-2011 , 02:40 PM

#130

ZephyrSpy

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,286

Quote:

Originally Posted by sba9630

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

How do they define at-risk and pathological? Does this just mean that people who frequent cardrooms spend more time in the card room than people who frequent casinos spend time in the casino?

Quote

11-17-2011 , 02:43 PM

#131

LastLife

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 4,593

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapleleaf

Recall that the Shaffer article is not a single study. It's a comprehensive review of the entire body of peer-reviewed gambling literature.

She quotes sources that won't be released until 2012.

Quote

11-17-2011 , 02:43 PM

#132

LT22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 12,841

definitions of at-risk, pathological, and problem gambling are important...nearly all poker players could be defined as problem gamblers BASED ON A DEFINITION, it's all relative. We play long sessions, we play when stuck, we borrow/get staked

Quote

11-17-2011 , 02:58 PM

#133

ZephyrSpy

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1,286

Quote:

Originally Posted by LT22

I think 'playing when stuck' will be a common definition for problem gambling. We would probably have to explain that long sessions are played because many hands are played to reduce variance and that the only way to accomplish that in lollive is to play tons of hours and that less time would be required when played online. And that getting stacked is to reduce variance and is like someone investing in you, and that it is not done because of 'problem gambling'.

Quote

11-17-2011 , 04:00 PM

#134

repulse

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,070

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapleleaf

Recall that the Shaffer article is not a single study. It's a comprehensive review of the entire body of peer-reviewed gambling literature.

Thanks for the clarification. In that case, it should certainly carry more weight than a single unpublished study, I'd think.

Quote

11-17-2011 , 07:08 PM

#135

:::grimReaper:::

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 3,113

It tilts me knowing the fact that it's standard for people to lose 5-6 figures in the markets, yet we must save people from gambling addiction and them losing their homes from playing a little $0.05/$0.10 (on average).

Futures Trader Losses It All and Flips Out

When's the last time your typical 100NL fish lost $25,000 in a day?

Quote

11-17-2011 , 07:47 PM

#136

t_roy

veteran

Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 2,123

So what's happening with this? what time? how do can i get in? etc. I think I'm going to be tied up most of the afternoon but I would like to check the hearing out.

Quote

11-17-2011 , 07:52 PM

#137

LT22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 12,841

Quote:

Originally Posted by t_roy

So what's happening with this? what time? how do can i get in? etc. I think I'm going to be tied up most of the afternoon but I would like to check the hearing out.

9 am eastern tomorrow morning, there will be a live feed

Quote

11-17-2011 , 07:58 PM

#138

LT22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 12,841

CAN THE PPA PLEASE RECORD THIS? it's going to be mighty early in the morning for a majority of people who would be interested in watching!

Quote

11-17-2011 , 07:59 PM

#139

TheDarkElf

veteran

Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 2,667

Quote:

Originally Posted by :::grimReaper:::

Well, there was that day when I just lost every single 72 off suit, but I managed to keep the loss to $24K and change.

Quote

11-17-2011 , 08:04 PM

#140

ScreaminAsian

For President

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 33,330

Quote:

Originally Posted by LT22

CAN THE PPA PLEASE RECORD THIS? it's going to be mighty early in the morning for a majority of people who would be interested in watching!

+1

i was in class for today's and wanted to watch it nowish, but no sound on what i've got.

Quote

11-17-2011 , 08:16 PM

#141

sajeffe

banned

Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 5,058

Thanks for the cliffs, PX.

Quote

11-18-2011 , 12:22 AM

#142

Go Get It

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 12,530

Is this hearing at 9AM tomorrow? And link or link to the page that will have the link tomorrow?

Quote

11-18-2011 , 12:30 AM

#143

sajeffe

banned

Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 5,058

Quote:

Originally Posted by Go Get It

Is this hearing at 9AM tomorrow? And link or link to the page that will have the link tomorrow?

Yes, 9AM.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/hear...px?NewsID=9088

Quote

11-18-2011 , 01:32 AM

#144

:::grimReaper:::

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 3,113

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

Well, there was that day when I just lost every single 72 off suit, but I managed to keep the loss to $24K and change.

lol, i don't think you could lose 240 buyins in a day even if you tried.

Stars should hold a "biggest losing" competition. good for the game imo.

Quote

11-18-2011 , 01:36 AM

#145

repulse

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,070

More testimonies have been posted. Frank Wolf's reads as a traditional, uncreative moralist social argument against gambling, typed in large print for the comfort of its presumed audience. It has a few cute arguments:

http://republicans.energycommerce.ho...11811/Wolf.pdf

Quote:

According to a July 2011 Daily Finance article, “When it comes to severity, America’s gambling addiction isn’t too far behind the nation’s drug problem, and it’s growing. In 2007, Americans lost more than $92 billion gambling, about nine times what they lost in 1982, and almost 10 times more than what moviegoers in the U.S. spent on tickets that same year.”

Yes, he's trying to measure gambling addictions by some sort of measure of total gambling expenditures by EVERYONE. Kind of coincidental that he compares it to movie tickets, our go-to reference for a ~$10/week form of entertainment other than internet poker.

Quote:

Gambling also leads to increases in public corruption. Remember, the Abramoff scandal all started with gambling.

(These two sentences constitute an entire paragraph and his full argument for this particular point.)

Quote

11-18-2011 , 01:46 AM

#146

LT22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 12,841

what a tooooooooooollllllll, wow

people didn't "lose $92 billion" they were ENTERTAINED. How much is spent on video games each year? Video games are bringing us down as a society, BAN THEM.

How much has money inflated between 1982-2007?

Good lord it's people like him that should NOT be in office

Quote

11-18-2011 , 01:48 AM

#147

sajeffe

banned

Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 5,058

Chairwoman of tomorrow's hearing: http://www.facebook.com/bonomack/pos...50464700445664

She encourages feedback, so let's do it. I won't be up until 2PM or so, so I commented tonight.

Facebooked all of the subcommittee members.

Quote

11-18-2011 , 01:49 AM

#148

LT22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 12,841

Campbell: "If anything, Internet gambling is less safe today because of the UIGEA
ban, not in spite of it."

Quote

11-18-2011 , 02:06 AM

#149

DrewOnTilt

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 7,748

Quote:

Originally Posted by LT22

Campbell: "If anything, Internet gambling is less safe today because of the UIGEA
ban, not in spite of it."

Bingo and w00t w00t w00t. Somebody get that man a cookie.

Quote

11-18-2011 , 02:20 AM

#150

DrewOnTilt

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 7,748

ROFLMAO Frank Wolf is my new favorite jackass.

For years I drank two 20 ounce bottles of Diet Coke every day. Back in my college days (Roll Tide!) I could buy a bottle at the corner store for $0.65. Today it costs me $1.79.

Soooo...

Quote:

by this bunghole's logic, I now spend $3.58 daily on Diet Coke as opposed to $1.30, so my total soda consumption has increased by 275%.

Duhhhh, economics comprehension fail. **** jackass.

Quote

Page 6 of 16

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 6 of 16

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Last