It's not that they don't have the ability. I just don't think they should be allowed.

Why just have one argument against him, there are so many why not use them all?

I'm not saying attack him on only one thing or in just one way.

I wonder how much direct influence Adelson had on this op-ed piece.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns...t-web-gambling

Parts of it sounds like the USA Today piece.

And the opening line tells you exactly why trying to paint Adelson as a hypocrite is an ineffectual argument . . .

"Say what you will, Adelson is right on web gambling"

That is the position opponents will take, "it doesn't matter if he is a hypocrite, he's still right"

How can Adelson be right on web gambling being a bad idea when it comes to software restrictions as to who can play when he has a property that offers a form of web gambling? Answer is he can't be.

This needs to be pointed out.

Adelson is like a dog that has so much food he eats until full and then pisses on what is left so that other dogs won't eat the remains.

I don't think dogs really do this.

Best first post ever candidate.

It doesn't matter if they do or not it's the imagery that matters.

I think the best way to deal with Adelson is to co-opt his arguments at every opportunity.

As a poker enthusiast and as a member of society I, too, am concerned about the potential for harm to those who may have a gambling problem. Currently, those people are able to play in obscurity, with no protections and no detections. Thus, those problems currently exist and under prohibition go untreated. Through regulations we can assure that measures are taken by internet poker operators to detect behaviors known to be associated with problem gambling, and once detected steps taken to see that the player is made aware of his potential problem, and is directed to steps he/she can take for help in this area.

I am also concerned with underage persons getting access to games. Through regulations we can assure that great lengths are taken to assure the identity of the player, and that he/she is of age and within a jurisdiction where play is authorized and regulated.

Under licensing and regulations, players will go to those sites to play. Those operating outside of the regulations will quickly see their games dry up, and will be eliminated through attrition.

Adelson's arguments are actually arguments in favor of regulations.

^^^ This is genius Curt.

Let me make clear I 100% oppose Adelson. The argument that prohibition doesn't work is a weak one. We can't on the one hand say that stopping people from betting illegally is not possible while at the same time saying there are effective safeguards that stop underage gambling.

The best argument by far is to make this a federal vs. states rights issue. Whether or not people in the US should have the choice of whether to play online poker is something that should be worked out in state legislatures, not in Washington DC. This sidesteps the issue of whether it is a cancer to society or not. Each state gets to make its own determination. This is a core tenet of conservatism.

We should tie support of a new federal UIGEA bill banning everything to an ideology of embracing big government. The american people are sick and tired of big federal government. If you support this then you are an advocate of a big federal government. Enough is enough, etc. No Republican is gonna want to get labeled as someone who undercuts states rights.

There can be no doubt that prohibition doesn't work. If it did work, we wouldn't have these forums, the vast number of available sites, and the still large US market for those sites to reach. The only way the US Government could effectively stop internet gambling as it is today would be to take the Chinese approach and attempt to restrict where on the internet people can go. Americans won't stand for that, and such an attempt would bring in unlikely allies to fight against it.

I agree completely that this is a states' rights issue and should be left to the states to decide. But in no way does it sidestep the issue of whether it is a cancer to society or not. That will still be the primary argument used by opponents, even at the state level. It is still an argument that must be countered.

You underestimate just how many people are opposed to internet gaming. I don't give Adelson's study much credibility, but you can be sure that most people who are not into internet poker or other online games, are more than happy to see it banned in the name of the greater good.

Regulation is better than prohibition at reaching the shared goals of both proponents and opponents of internet gaming, that being the prevention of under aged players from gaining access, and a way for problem gambling behaviors to be detected and those players offered help.

Players would prefer regulated sites, where they are confident safeguards are in place to make sure there money is safe, and that they are not being cheated. Poker sites especially are dependent upon player liquidity, and as players flock to regulated US sites, those operating outside the regulations will fail from lack of market share.

I believe the states' rights argument will be big. It's an argument we will be making, for sure. After all, three states offer it now, with more to follow. In fact, this bill aims to ban states from authorizing online poker.

I know that state/federal is a big thing for many in the US but it is not the main argument on any emotive issue, never has been. People have their position then hope the state/feds agree with them and back whichever does.

You also misunderstand the effect of illegality vs responsible regulated suppliers. If you ban then only those willing to break the law offer the service, you have an immediate moral hazard - those doing it are criminals. This means that they will not help Problem Gamblers or care about under 18s or even the fairness of the games or protecting player monies.

If you have regulated sites then they do care about problem gamblers and under 18s as they will face fines and potential loss of their licence if they serve them or don't comply with proper rules. The people doing the business become proper vetted suitable business people not criminals. They are incentivised to do the right thing. It offers a far safer environment including help for degens (so long as the rules are set right).

This is a complete change in who is providing the gambling. Under 18 enforcement requires eternal vigilance, proper checks on every account, only the providers can do this. A ban on the other hand just leaves the market for illegitimate participants who have no rules and no incentive fo fair games, blocking under 18s or the rest.

Well, Curtinsea may not feel that calling someone a hypocrit is effective, but Adelson sure does.

FWIW, Curtinsea sure made some good points in his recent posts.

I agree with Adelson - online gambling presents serious dangers for the underage and compulsive gamblers.

But as you state above, regulation, not prohibition, is the better answer. Adelson's argument in his recent op-ed is obviously specious:

The technology under regulation works because it takes implementation of the technology by the sites to make it work. "Unscrupulous foreign websites" don't care and don't implement the safeguards. You can't implement technology from here to stop them from being unscrupulous. Law enforcement (blocking, seizures, indictments, etc.) have worked to some degree in some instances, but it hasn't stopped U.S. gamblers from playing online nor closed off the U.S. market to online casinos.

However, on the other side of the coin, there is a serious flaw in the U.S. regulated markets (NV, NJ, DE) in that the technology for protection for compulsive gamblers has not been properly implemented. Nowhere in the regulations or the implementation by the sites has there been any use of technology for what we argue is the advantage over live gaming: detection of problem gambling behavior.

Yes, there are self-limits and self-exclusions available, and regulated state-wide exclusion lists. But where are the detection safeguards? There are definite behavior patterns that could be flagged for follow up or referral to counseling - loss and reload patterns, player wagering patterns, etc. And with easy access to online gambling, it is easy for those with a compulsive addictive personality who don't currently gamble (but are addicted to online gaming activities, or even to non-gaming-related activities) to be lured into the more dangerous real-money gambling.

Until such time as these detection technologies are actually required and implemented under regulation, imo we have no right to claim that the US regulation of online gambling is effective in providing protections for compulsive gamblers. You can't say "it's okay because we have the technology to make it safe" and then don't. That's both specious and immoral.

<i>However, on the other side of the coin, there is a serious flaw in the U.S. regulated markets (NV, NJ, DE) in that the technology for protection for compulsive gamblers has not been properly implemented. Nowhere in the regulations or the implementation by the sites has there been any use of technology for what we argue is the advantage over live gaming: detection of problem gambling behavior.</i>

It is lagging everywhere but you may be interested in this conference, sponsored by remote gambling sites BTW. The technology is nearly there, the pop ups and self set limits are all sorted technology wise but some of the anlytics needs a bit more time effort and money.

Announcement
http://www.responsiblegamblingtrust....ference-Events

Programme
http://www.responsiblegamblingtrust....-%20latest.pdf

I'm trying to get registered and find time to get to central London on the 11th. If I do I might do a trip report, if anyone is interested.

The core risk behaviours should be easily as detectable by use patterns as fraud on a credit card and they have got pretty good at the later. Time money and research is needed, plus of course access to the real data.

I think a lot of Adelson's arguments can be countered, or at least undermined, by pointing out The Venetian offers online gaming to anyone in Nevada.

If Adelson ends the offering, it is on him and not us.

Perhaps he needs to be publicly on the record 'opposes and will always oppose online gambling and will never run online gambling companies'. So even if he ends the offering above, in the future he can't change his tune without suffering player boycott backlash.

In effect the louder one trumpets their staunch opposition now the harder it will be for them in the future to make a reversal.

Will be interesting if Eurovegas near Madrid goes ahead, if it will have any online offerings...

Here's an anti-online poker article by Adelson surrogates former Gov. George Pataki (R-N.Y.), former Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb (D): http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/191...ernet-gambling

I see there are seven comments, but I can't see the comments themselves.

The thing that jumps out at me is their whole premise that regulation will open the floodgates ignores the fact that online poker is already here. Just the non-US regulated variety for the most part.

I'm all about not being specious and immoral. Sadly in today's political climate such attributes are required to play the game effectively.

I think we should continue to trumpet the ability to identify and reign in pathological gambling that iGaming provides, whether or not a successful implementation of this ability exists today. It is an advantage of iGaming over land-based gaming no matter how you look at it. When pressed we can point to ongoing efforts to develop such implementations, such as the ones Richas links to above.

I actually do share the concerns of opponents regarding the issues of problem gambling, and I argue that there is a means to address the issue through technology. I know the technology exists, I can even suggest methods I think should be adopted. But I write neither the statutes or the regulations, and if those safeguards have not made their way into the practices so far, that is the shortcomings of those who have written those bills and regulations.

So while we may not be able to argue that regulations in these three states has worked to address this particular issue, we should, and I do, still advocate for such measures to be included in any legislation going forward.