Any business owner could try to use their business to launder money or something else scummy, but you don't get rid of the industry because of it.

I'm curious, you say you have three arguments against I-gaming, we disagree on these, but do you have more than 3 for it? Or would do you consider it completely unreasonable?

So would you say it is smarter to regulate poker and be able to somewhat track money laundering or continue with the route poker is on now and leave it up to unregulated sites for this? You also realize how hypocritical your arguement to ban online for collusion and money laundering is when there are land casinos. Too bad you weren't working hard at stopping stores from moving online such as amazon and ebay or we could all be saved today from these potential criminalistic operations and terrorism funding. If online stores are capable of these things then i am willing to give up my convenience of ordering for these demon operations.


Also in countries where online gambling is legalized there has to be studies of increased terrorism prior to legalization and after. Lets find data on this. As far as underaged gambling goes there has not been a reported case of it in the US on regulated sites. Your arguement is treading on thin waters. There will always be cheaters and colluders in this world as well and that is somewhat easy to track if players do it for any meaningful sample. We don't ban the stock market because there might be cheating going on, we enforce penalties to deter it.

True.

Your argument is "over the top."

(1) The debate is about whether I-gaming should be legalized nation-wide or not. It isn't, itt, about repealing I-gaming in states that currently allow it. However, there are some in government who would like to repeal I-gaming in states where it is currently legal.
(2) As it relates to problem (1), within the economy as a whole there is a range or continuum as to the dangers posed by each industry. Some have higher risk levels than others. Within each industry there is a spectrum of various business models; some models have a higher risk level than others for money laundering.

Putting money laundering aside for a second, the same principle can be applied when screening for various problems as it relates to differing individual businesses within the same industry. For example consider Stars versus Full Tilt in April 2011. Stars kept player funds in escrow. Whereas, Full Tilt used all funds to fund operations and expansion. It took quite some time before a brokered resolution occurred.

No.

I don't consider the following arguments against I-gaming "completely unreasonable." I consider them hypocritical and/or incorrect.

“The other arguments I've heard against I-gaming are either hypocritical or untrue. For example it has been argued by conservatives that (1) The addictive nature, ease of accessibility, and large sums of money (life savings and/or acquired debt) that can be lost by individuals, results in too great a consequence for society to bear. They argue I-Gaming poses too grave a threat to problem gamblers and those in the “at risk” category. (1a.) Counter: Ban equivalent industries and don't be a hypocrite. Addiction, ease of accessibility, and negative life altering consequences, that may occur due to making personal choices, occur in each of the following industries: marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes, state lotteries, casinos, the sex industry (strip clubs, porn, etc.). The same issues may arise when customers use predatory lenders, who work within the confines of usury laws, for personal financing (2) Professionals will take recreational players money and it's isn't “fair” (2a.) Counter: Are you going to eliminate the securities market? In every zero sum game, where the playing field is level, and all parties must abide by the same rules, professionals will beat non-professionals. (3) Poker is based on luck. It isn't a game of skill. (3a.) Incorrect.”

While on a personal level I feel for problem gamblers or those in the at-risk category and access to I-gaming, it is hypocritical when politicians allow other industries to thrive with their legislative actions (marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes, state lotteries, casinos, the sex industry (strip clubs, porn, etc.), legal predatory lending (pay-day loans, etc.)), and then in the same breath (or, “swipe of a pen”), declare that I-gaming crosses a “societal risk” threshold.

I believe your theory of vast increased money laundering is also over the top. We know this already. The danger is incredibly low, we disagree on the risk they go through, they get taxed on it, the possibility they chip dump each other is for ridiculously small amounts compared to what criminals are usually going for. Attempts at cheating is a terrible excuse to be against I-gaming. There is the same amount of chance as your local gas station employee sending their check to ISIS, or kids trying to break a claw machine at a D&B. Nothing you have said has come close to a good enough reason to be against I-gaming completely.

I know the arguments you consider unreasonable. I consider all your arguments unreasonable, just as you consider those other ones. We've been going in circles, your answers to those questions that you posed are some of the same I've used. You even used the banning of other industries as your answers as well, because it is true. You are choosing not to accept them as answers for certain questions but not others, when they do fit both. It of course fits to the broad and scary bogey man of "high risk business models".

?

No comment.

Don't misquote me. I stated that some of the other arguments against I-gaming are hypocritical coming out of the mouths of politicians who have lent their support in the past to the following industries in some way, shape or form: marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes, state lotteries, casinos, the sex industry (strip clubs, porn, etc.), and/or predatory lenders.

No comment.

Provide quotes.

No comment.

“The other arguments I've heard against I-gaming are either hypocritical or untrue. For example it has been argued by conservatives that (1) The addictive nature, ease of accessibility, and large sums of money (life savings and/or acquired debt) that can be lost by individuals, results in too great a consequence for society to bear. They argue I-Gaming poses too grave a threat to problem gamblers and those in the “at risk” category. (1a.) Counter: Ban equivalent industries and don't be a hypocrite. Addiction, ease of accessibility, and negative life altering consequences, that may occur due to making personal choices, occur in each of the following industries: marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes, state lotteries, casinos, the sex industry (strip clubs, porn, etc.). The same issues may arise when customers use predatory lenders, who work within the confines of usury laws, for personal financing (2) Professionals will take recreational players money and it's isn't “fair” (2a.) Counter: Are you going to eliminate the securities market? In every zero sum game, where the playing field is level, and all parties must abide by the same rules, professionals will beat non-professionals. (3) Poker is based on luck. It isn't a game of skill. (3a.) Incorrect.”

These are "your" words. Your quotes.

Also, are you for or against online poker on the national level? That is what I meant to ask, you have these 3 reasons, but if you had the choice, would you allow it?

Look carefully at what I said.

"I don't consider the following arguments against I-gaming "completely unreasonable."

Then I state:

"I consider the following arguments hypocritical and/or incorrect."

To expound upon what I meant:

Arguments 1 and 2 are hypocritical. 3 is untrue. Therefore I shouldn't have said "and/or", I should have just said "or".

And

Arguments 1 and 2 are hypocritical coming out of the mouth of politicians who have lended support during their careers to the following industries in any way, shape or form: marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes, state lotteries, casinos, the sex industry (strip clubs, porn, etc.), legalized predatory lenders.

Below are the arguments that I consider to be either hypocritical (qualified above) or untrue:

“The other arguments I've heard against I-gaming are either hypocritical or untrue. For example it has been argued by conservatives that (1) The addictive nature, ease of accessibility, and large sums of money (life savings and/or acquired debt) that can be lost by individuals, results in too great a consequence for society to bear. They argue I-Gaming poses too grave a threat to problem gamblers and those in the “at risk” category. (1a.) Counter: Ban equivalent industries and don't be a hypocrite. Addiction, ease of accessibility, and negative life altering consequences, that may occur due to making personal choices, occur in each of the following industries: marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes, state lotteries, casinos, the sex industry (strip clubs, porn, etc.). The same issues may arise when customers use predatory lenders, who work within the confines of usury laws, for personal financing (2) Professionals will take recreational players money and it's isn't “fair” (2a.) Counter: Are you going to eliminate the securities market? In every zero sum game, where the playing field is level, and all parties must abide by the same rules, professionals will beat non-professionals. (3) Poker is based on luck. It isn't a game of skill. (3a.) Incorrect.”

Both statements that you bolded above, where you thought I was suggesting banning equivalent industries, was a hypothetical counter argument against a politician. For example, if Senator Graham said to you (disclaimer: I'm not suggesting he has said this), "We should prevent I-gaming from going national because, the addictive nature, ease of accessibility, and large sums of money (life savings and/or acquired debt) that can be lost by individuals, results in too great a consequence for society to bear. I-Gaming poses too grave a threat to problem gamblers and those in the “at risk” category." You could easily reply with, "have you supported in any way, shape or form, any of these industries: marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes, state lotteries, casinos, the sex industry (strip clubs, porn, etc.), or legalized predatory lenders?" If his track record is Y, irrespective of his answer, you could point to that track record and ask the Senator why casinos are allowed to exist in nearly every state, but nationalized I-gaming, shouldn't be?

As for banning the securites market. I don't believe you actually believed I was suggesting that. I was drawing an analogy between another zero sum game (between investors/"gamblers") where professional have a clear edge over non-professionals.

Disclaimer: By professionals I am not referring to the players on "Fast Money."

*Chuckles*

-----

Gdsfather, do you know how to quote or multi-quote in the threads? It makes life easier.

CaptainCrazo

I am sorry for saying you considered them unreasonable I can see that easily now . I suppose I didn't mean unreasonable to the letter of the definition, I just meant we dismissed the arguments in some form. You say they are hypocritical or untrue, as do I. You have to be a lawyer right? It is early here(for me) I'll try to ninja edit it out, but the points are still the same, you used the same arguments for your answers.

Anyway, are you for or against online poker on the national level? That is what I meant to ask, you have these 3 reasons, but if you had the choice, would you allow it?

np. I misquoted a guy in another thread accidently. **** happens.

Where you from? I'm East Coast (PA, outside of Philly)

No worries.

I don't know what you mean here.

I see arguments both pro/con. From a practical vantage point, problems 1 - 3 (money washing, aliases being used, and cheating) are real. From a moral perspective I'm against nationalizing I-gaming.

CaptainCrazo

I travel between Baltimore and, right outside of Philly as well, but in NJ.

What I mean is that, your counter argument for 1a is that they are being hypocritical because of all the other industries that can do similar things. That is my same answer for potential money laundering and cheating, it could happen in countless places. Online banking, places like net teller, cryptocurrency, any small business can do or facilitate shady behavior. So it would be hypocritical to allow those, yet not online poker.

You've been going on about other reasons. This is the first time you brought up moral reasons. Moral reasons are why you are against it? What is your moral objection?

Correct.

Money laundering, aliases being used, and increased cheating (collusion, malicious software, etc.) are the practical reasons I have brought up against legalizing nationwide I-gaming.

True.

I'm confining my arguments to practical problems.

CaptainCrazo

Sup, neighbor. Eagles fan?

What I'm saying is the gambling industry in general has been, and continues to be, susceptible to money laundering, above and beyond the levels of most other industries. Many politicians and plenty in law enforcement state that I-gaming has increased risks for money laundering when compared to conventional gambling.

Agreed.

Same answer as my 2nd reply.

Eric

Is this your way of saying that you are not going to answer my question?

What I am saying is that I'm limiting my arguments to identified practical problems relating to the expansion of I-gaming. Divulging into what I believe is/isn't moral and/or what you believe is/isn't moral would be a discussion best suited for threads within the “Other Topics” section of 2+2 (e.g. Science, Math, Philosophy (or, Religion, God, Theology)).

CaptainCrazo

I didn't ask you what you are limiting your arguments to.

Is this your way of saying that you aren't going to answer my question about whether your post before the above quoted one was your way of saying you aren't going to answer my question?

What's your point?

My beliefs (and yours) on morality extend beyond the scope of this thread. Morality and ethics are thoroughly discussed in other areas of 2+2.

CaptainCrazo

Start another thread. This thread is getting derailed.

Paid troll destroys another thread. Where does Adelson find all these clowns?

Oh sure, there's a disagreement; start another thread. Don't make bull**** accusations boss.

Let's dissect the mind of Adelson, shall we. *chuckles*

http://www.igamingbusiness.com/news/...-online-gaming

Online gaming was the main event of the main event at this year's Global Gaming Expo (G2E) in Las Vegas, as highly anticipated keynote speaker Sheldon Adelson fielded questions about his controversial opposition to US igaming during the latter part of his one-on-one interview with Roger Gros, carried out in front of a large audience.
Adelson has been much maligned by the igaming industry for views deemed divisive and out of touch, but his occasional portrayal as an outcast may turn out to be misinformed.
During the one-hour session, the casino magnate elicited several ovations when he railed against online gaming – an indication that he may secretly enjoy broader support in the US gaming industry than commonly imagined.
After bulky discussions about Adelson's humble beginnings and business exploits in Asia, the conversation turned to online gaming, and stayed there for the remainder of the session.
Adelson seemed keenly aware of many of the objections typically levied against him, as shown by his immediate refutation of online gaming being a “states' rights” issue.
“This is not a states' rights issue - as the proponents would have us believe - because the Internet is all over the country, in every home, across borders. There's no place the Internet doesn't exist.”
Adelson fundamentally believes online gaming cannot be regulated as well as bricks-and-mortar gaming.
Tech-savvy children
“I've asked regulators in this state to name one land-based regulation we live by that you can enforce on Internet gaming. They couldn't come up with one.”
Gros tentatively suggested age and ID verification – quickly rebuked by Adelson for being no match for his young, tech-savvy children who can “get around anything” on the Internet.
“Any kid will get around this in a heartbeat. It won't take them long, because these kids are growing up on these electronic devices.”
In addition, Adelson worries there is no definitive way to keep players who have cleared the verification process from letting the gambling platform fall into the hands of a child.
The idea that online gaming is better off legalised because “it's already happening” seemed to downright anger Adelson. “Then why don't we legalise prostitution? Why don't we legalise cocaine, and heroin, since people are 'doing it already?' That's not a good reason, just because they are doing it anyway.” This drew considerable applause.
Prosecution, not regulation, is Adelson's measure of choice to combat illegal Internet gaming activity.
He called on federal law enforcement agencies to suppress unregulated US-facing online gambling, eschewing the need for regulatory intervention.
For all of the focus on these technical issues, Adelson repeatedly showed the basis for his opposition to be deeply rooted into an emotional aversion.
He frequently cited his family's struggles with excessive gambling habits, plus the death of one of his sons to a drug overdose, as forming his sensitivity to addiction.
Because online gambling is so accessible, Adelson says he worries it might become a gateway to serious gambling problems for children or those who are already at risk for addiction.
Harsh words for PokerStars
“To me, it's a matter of principle,” he said. “I was raised in a family that suffered from the scourges of uncontrolled gaming. I don't want people to get abused, because when I look at people like that, I see the faces of my parents.”
Adelson reserved some harsh words for current igaming operators. He called PokerStars “essentially lawbreakers”, a viewpoint unchanged by the company's recent acquisition by publicly-traded Amaya Gaming Group.
“It's the same organisation – just different stakeholders,” he said.
Without mentioning the company by name, Adelson also seemed to ridicule Caesars Entertainment's support for igaming.
“Why [should we legalise it]? Because one of our colleagues in the industry has a plan that they think is going to save their company?”
In the end, all safety and morality aside, US-regulated igaming's early revenue reports do not impress Adelson or stimulate his business acumen.
Nevada, Delaware and New Jersey have taken in “several millions a month,” as Adelson put it. “Why, any one of us [in the casino business] makes that in minutes!”
Adelson concluded by saying: “I just don't see any compelling reason to put an electronic casino in 318 million hands.”
Another round of applause.

Quoting the article:

"Tech-savvy children
“I've asked regulators in this state to name one land-based regulation we live by that you can enforce on Internet gaming. They couldn't come up with one.”
Gros tentatively suggested age and ID verification – quickly rebuked by Adelson for being no match for his young, tech-savvy children who can “get around anything” on the Internet.
“Any kid will get around this in a heartbeat. It won't take them long, because these kids are growing up on these electronic devices.”
In addition, Adelson worries there is no definitive way to keep players who have cleared the verification process from letting the gambling platform fall into the hands of a child."

Okay on this point I agree with Adelson. However, I question Adelson's sincerity and motives.

"The idea that online gaming is better off legalised because “it's already happening” seemed to downright anger Adelson. “Then why don't we legalise prostitution? Why don't we legalise cocaine, and heroin, since people are 'doing it already?' That's not a good reason, just because they are doing it anyway.” This drew considerable applause."

Yes, The Venetian and Sands are squeaky clean venues. *Chuckles*

"For all of the focus on these technical issues, Adelson repeatedly showed the basis for his opposition to be deeply rooted into an emotional aversion.
He frequently cited his family's struggles with excessive gambling habits, plus the death of one of his sons to a drug overdose, as forming his sensitivity to addiction.
Because online gambling is so accessible, Adelson says he worries it might become a gateway to serious gambling problems for children or those who are already at risk for addiction.
Harsh words for PokerStars

“To me, it's a matter of principle,” he said. “I was raised in a family that suffered from the scourges of uncontrolled gaming. I don't want people to get abused, because when I look at people like that, I see the faces of my parents.”"

I gotcha, so that's why you decided to go into the gaming industry?

"Nevada, Delaware and New Jersey have taken in “several millions a month,” as Adelson put it. “Why, any one of us [in the casino business] makes that in minutes!”"

Adelson's bottom line is the bottom line.

tl;dr

Stop bloviating... You're like this sober drunk that hangs out at bars telling people drinking is bad.

Read or don't read whatever you want to. Don't make false accusations.

Terrible analogy; I would describes the "drunks" of poker to be the long term -EV players who keep playing hoping for a different result. My tax returns, PTR, PT, HEM, and all other documented results, demonstrate a consistent long term +EV.

I disagree with legalized nationwide I-gaming on the basis of money laundering issues, players using aliases, cheating (collusion/malicious software usage), and for moral reasons.

CaptainCrazo

I'm not trying to make the case that igaming is used to launder money. I'm not going to go doing research to make someone else's case. As far as I know there are no cases of money laundering through online poker because no one making the argument has presented any.

Sure. If there's information about how they're laundering money and we've got it figured out then why not release the information. If people want to repeat a practice that we've already figured out how to track then great. We don't need to file charges to release information.

Do you think that a total lack of evidence is a reason to believe something is happening?

You both play online poker and are opposed to online poker for moral reasons?

I'm going to clarify my position. TheEngineer (And/Or Higher Ups) has/have taken actions that have removed my posts from another thread, and subsequently moved the conversation to this thread. He/They entitled the thread, “I Agree With (Senator) Lindsey Graham.” My stance is that the Senator Graham used the wrong choice of words when he asked, “would you agree with me that one of the best ways for a terrorist organization or criminal enterprise to be able to enrich themselves is to have, online gaming, that would be very hard to regulate?” I don't believe it would be “one of the best ways methods,” (though it may be), but that it would be an added viable option, for both terrorists, criminal enterprises, and/or petty criminals. To be balanced, I do however, agree with Senator Graham's underlying position, that I-gaming should not be nationalized.

I began playing poker around 2003. I played online poker as my full time occupation for 6+ years with a brief hiatus between the implementation of UIGEA in 2006 and “Black Friday,” on April 15th, 2011. I no longer participate in gambling because of all the aforementioned reasons that I've discussed. These reasons include having personal moral objections to gambling that go way outside the scope of this thread.

CaptainCrazo