http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4338365

Great article, you can digg it at:

http://digg.com/world_news/Online_po..._federal_gov_t

obg

A truly excellent article, everyone should be congratulated on the good press for poker, especially the PPA.

(Aside from two laughable pieces of hyperbole:

1. From FoF: "We're opposed to all forms of gambling. … It causes addiction, bankruptcy, crime, destruction of families, economic destabilization, suicide, domestic violence and child neglect," says Chad Hills, the group's analyst for gambling research and policy. Online gambling offers players 24/7 access anywhere, which makes it more addictive and risky than playing in casinos, Hills argues.
"You can lose your house with the click of a mouse," he says.

That is nonsense. It is clear you can lose your house with an inflated mortgage froom a irresponsble lender, but I do not see FoF foaming at the mouth in that instance. Conversely, no poker site I know of would extend credit against real estate located in the US. Nor allow a buy-in of that amount.

2. From the PPA: "It [the seized funds litigation] could be the battle of the O.K. Corral for Internet poker -- to determine, once and for all in a federal court setting, the legality of the game, which we contend is legal under current federal law," says John Pappas.

This unfortunate "once and for all" hyperbole ignores the Court of Appeals position from In re Mastercard, in favor of an entire industry going all-in on some as-yet-unseen District Court ruling in California or New York....... The PPA should not publicly over-betting a hand.

Okay, isn't THIS interpretation just as silly/out there? You know they didn't mean that, even as stupidity obtuse as FoF reps seem to be.

Greg Raymer say's:

"Well, we're the nuts on the flop. There's a chance, as things develop, we could lose right now, but we've got the nuts," he says. "And there's no reason to think we aren't going to be winning at showdown."


Shame he doesn't say how wet or dry the board is.

That was a great article. Kudos to the people who made it happen.

The quote above is especially ridiculous because there was a recent British study that concluded that online gambling was not more addictive than live gambling. I couldn't find it in a quick google search, but if someone could find it and link to it in the comments, that would be great.

Really ? What could they mean, if they did not mean that a poker player or other oline gambler could lose his house in one move ? Sorry, you will have to strain to come up with some rational content for their nonsensical hype ....

'click a mouse, lose your house" is a bullsh*t catch-phrase, even if it is an effective sound-bite. You seem to miss the "meaning" of a catch-phrase, which is not to have real meaning, but just create a bad/good association for the listener/reader.

U kidding? Come on how easy it is to load an account and sit in front of a computer and click a mouse? Much more addicting. I mean I don't care I oppose online gaming for other reasons but that study is complete bunk

Since you're saying the study is complete bunk you've obviously seen it. (Otherwise you couldn't possibly be in a positon to comment on it's accuracy since all you've seen is a one line summary in the earlier post.) Could you post a link for the rest of us to decide for ourselves?

Is this the study you're thinking of? I feel like there may have been a more direct UK study stating that claim, but I couldn't find it.

http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk...ey%20final.pdf

This study finds that the incidence rate of problem gambling has not changed since 1999, which precedes the widespread introduction of (legal and domestically-regulated) internet gambling in the UK. The result was surprising as the internet gambling represented a significant expansion of gambling in the UK. The suggestion, then, is that internet gambling is not more addictive than offline gambling.

Yes, the results are counterintuitive. That's why the results of this study are a big deal. Our country is similar to the UK, and one of the biggest concerns about domestic regulation of internet gambling/poker here is that it would increase the incidence of problem gambling. This result from the UK is strong evidence that regulation is a reasonable move from the perspective that and increase in problem gambling is unacceptable, even when it comes to issues of the rights of healthy adults.

The solitary nature of internet gambling would certainly seem to increase the risks of inducing problem gambling behavior. But there are certainly a few counterveiling factors. A few that come to mind:

- better control over deposit limits and problem gambling detection
- no hypnotic casino environment of flashing lights or environment of social pressure towards betting on sports
- players must own a home computer and an internet connection, which precludes the poorest people (historically, the people most vulnerable to gambling problems) from participating... when you think about it, it's also pretty darn easy to stop by the local bookie or convenience store on the way home from work to hand over cash for a sports bet or lottery ticket, and anyone can do this.

It's also quite possible that the vast majority of people who are problem gamblers online are people that were or would instead be problem gamblers in live or underground venues, in which case legalizing and regulating online gambling does not "create new" problem gamblers, rather, it allows for additional controls and detection methods to be in place for those that already exist.

Good luck getting an answer. I'm still waiting for one explaining these posts:

Not saying I have full understanding of this study or a study initiated by FoF...

...but here in my home I keep the temperature at a comfortable degree. In the casino the temp is kept colder so gamblers stay awake/alert longer.

In the casino, they intentionally make it difficult to find the exit. I have an exit button at the top right of my screen, and a brain that actively enforces bankroll management.

In the casino, the environment is social, where you're more likely to drink alcohol, which is provided to you for free. I don't drink alcohol when I'm home alone.

Point being yes the internet provides immediate and convenient access, but being at home and being in the casino are two completely different environments. Sites even provide self-exclusion options and have other restrictions if you're concerned about age (which could be better refined/enforced with reasonable government regulation). Not saying I know the answer to the question at hand here, but it's not as cut and dry as your assumptions make it out to be.

As for clicking a mouse and losing a house...well I've been clicking a mouse since I was 18 and am 25 now with three houses and a car paid in full. See? I can make sensationalist statements with misleading half-truths too...

I knew that when I posted. I was just highlighting that he was talking out his a** as usual.

"Hills and others who oppose online gambling believe they scored a victory in 2006 with the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which, among other things, penalizes banks for handling any transactions related to online gambling."

This is not a factual statement. In fact it only applies to deposits not withdrawals.

+EV

Kinda a strange quote. Makes me wonder if the PPA realizes that they are actually fighting an uphill battle in getting this legislation passed in favor of online poker. Plenty of powerful interests are against it.

Convenience doesn't equal addiction.

It's about "rewarding" behaviours.

In the end I think they won't be able to say no to the money to be made from taxes.

I'm still limited to $600 deposits per 24 hours (or something like that) at PokerStars. Assuming I go to the trouble of:

1. getting a home equity line of credit
2. transferring the entire available funds from the HELOC to a checking account
3. lose money at the tables at an astonishing rate
   

It will take me more than a year of depositing the max and losing it all before I've thrown away all the equity in my house.

Regarding #3: this assumes I move up to where people respect my raises rather than dropping down to .01/.02 after losing a few deposits. If that is how somebody behaves they are dead meat if they ever walk into a B&M casino.

Last I checked, internet casinos don't simply let you sign markers...

"At the WSOP in 2006, the legality of online gaming was so much in question that this player taped over the .com logo on his (bodog.com) hat."

wtf so random

y

Since the contention in court is that online poker is legal, how does it help when we go outside the court and pray for legalization of online poker?

Yes, John should have said regulated, not legalized.

That makes no sense either. If it's legal, then it either does not need regulating, or it already has needed regulations. Taking action to gain regulations is not consistent with the claim of current legality. Maybe the court won't notice this dilemma... or care.

Currently internet poker is not addressed by regulations and the DOJ considers it illegal. Whether their interpretation of the law is correct is unclear.

The PPA would like explicit legislation which makes internet poker an expressly legal activity, like interstate horse racing, which would take it outside the purview of the DOJ.

We probably should use "regulate" instead of "legalize" to avoid confusion, but supporting regulation is not the same thing as saying the current games are illegal.

Not true. As you've been told many times, but refuse to acknowledge, under the US system something is legal unless explicitly made illegal. The above implies that something is not legal until explicitly legalized. Something that is legal may still have a need for regulation.

As an example ponder the history of the banking industry in the US. During the early days of the country "soft money" banks were established in small frontier towns that issued their own currency. This was *legal* because there was no law against it. At some point regulations were passed standardizing on currency produced by a government agency. Then (and only then) the bank issued currency became illegal. Banks still remained legal although additional regulations are constantly being passed modifying what they can and can't do. That regulations change over time means that your statement that something which is legal "already has needed regulations" isn't really true either. Needs change over time and (in theory) regulations change to fit those needs.

This is an excellent point BTW. While this case is pretty important, we should NOT be presenting it as "must win" as the outcome is pretty murky.