I just watched some of the Tuesday, October 25, 2011 House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee hearing about the Status of Online Gaming. Our hands are in the future of these people, and they are very, very clueless.

Is there some legal reason why there's no expert in any of these meetings? And I use the term expert loosely. It could be an intelligent 2/4 grinder w/ a communications degree, any well respected pro with an understanding of the infrastructure, anyone that works for PokerStars support that has ever been a break even poker player, any tournament director that also plays online, etc. It certainly seems like the PPA should be paying someone to be at all of these hearings.

Barton thinks bots have some "secret system" that you can detect just by looking at winnings, and that if someone uses one for an hour, everyone at the table will know. He basically said, if anyone plays this well we can put them in jail.

They don't even have reasonable understandings on things like age verification. Parry Aftab had a whole spiel talking about ways to verify age, and when asked if a kid could use someone else's information, she just subtly slipped in the term "biometrics" into her answer as if everyone at home is going to have some kind of retinal scanner every time they play, and this word wasn't even acknowledged or questioned by anyone else.

Regulation is going to be based on what these guys decide. Shouldn't there be someone in there that knows what they are talking about?!

To be clear, my concern in this thread is not about the chance of poker being regulated in the US, but rather about the specifics of how it is regulated when it is.

I'm hoping someone will simply tell me, "The rules are not written in these hearings, and when the rules are written, experts are present". Having read some of the bills, and watching one of the amendment hearings... I don't know.

It was mentioned in another thread that it's simply a matter of credentials. Many people would like to be present at a meeting like this and ironically actually understanding the current state of online poker does not seem to be a relevant credential for being an 'expert witness' at a meeting about online poker. I'd certainly also like to know why this is. However, it was also mentioned that there does at least seem to be some behind the scenes knowledge being shared. It's been a while since I watched the video but somebody observed that Barton's aid was frequently passing him notes just prior to Barton bringing up relevant points or flaws in some of the "experts'" testimony.

I really have to +1 this. I watched the entire hearing and constantly found myself thinking "what you should have said was..." and the like.

Yea, this also happened when the chair asked what happens with something as simple as a player getting disconnected in the middle of a hand, there's was no real answer.

One important note tho is that there is a 10 day period (I think that's how I understood it) where these and a lot of other questions are suppose to be addressed by "the experts" (by writing) before they meet again.

We can only hope the written testimony carries at least the same weight as what happens on the floor.

Edit
I almost fell off my chair when no one came up with "password protected" when one of the committee asked about using dad's blackberry (laying around the kitchen table)

My understanding is that the committee decides who to invite. That is, I don't think the PPA had the option of bringing a poker expert. The invite may have only been for the PPA chairman, who turns out to not be very personally familiar with the basic details of online poker.

I also believe that indeed it is the case that the rules are not written in these hearings, and when the rules are written, experts are present. Someone more knowledgeable of the process than me can verify. But I don't think the discussions in hearings like this even necessarily inform the scope of the eventual regulations at all, when it comes to superbots, disconnect protects, etc.

as repulse said, the "rules" should be written by the regulators

Congress should be passing a bill that outlines the regulator, not the regulations themselves

Fossilman?

I don't think the intent of the OP was about making rules but more so about getting correct answers to the questions that come up that someone more familiar with ip could answer.

We aren't even close to the point of making rules.

this ^^^ as well, I couldn't help but have the same thoughts in my head, it should be a no-brainer to include an actual respected Online Professional in these hearings where so much is at stake. questions such as bots, disconnect, etc could all be referred to the "professional" at the hearing if thats allowed.

with the quality of minds in our profession it should be a non issue to find someone with the proper credentials, we have pro's with doctorates in their fields who have instead chosen to pursue poker.

and no NOT FOSSILMAN....we need an ONLINE professional, not some famous guy who bink'd a satty online and then ran good (not out of disrespect for Greg, he is a great ambassador), what we need though is someone with a very respectable academic career, who is young, and grew up in the Online world IMO.

+1 to Repulse and LT.

I don't know if an online pro is the person you would want. This committee doesn't really think that highly of pros because of their effect on casual players (I'm not getting into this discussion yet again, see other threads if you want more). Might not be the best idea to have one up there responsible for answering any question given to them. The person you would want is someone that owns a European site or that has worked for a poker site and is familiar with the technical aspects of the programs.

Also...there is a lot of written testimony that you do not see at the hearings. Both before and after the hearings the witnesses have opportunities to get information to the Reps and correct statements. These documents can address some of these questions.

"There is no wealth like knowledge, and no poverty like ignorance."

+1 to OP. Even it if it's just for a regulatory framework, the ignorance present in the current discussion is still downright scary. I find this amazing especially considering the efforts of the PPA to educate our lawmakers who passed the UIGEA thinking poker is just another -EV casino game. "Go pump gas" and all that.

This hearing wasn't an online poker hearing. It was a hearing on consumer protection and problem/underage gambling. The specifics of Ipoker were only brought up because the PPA was there. It is better for them to ask the question and we not know the answer at that point in time, then not being asked the question at all. If the purpose of the meeting was followed to the letter, then the PPA wouldn't have been invited at all.

We should be happy we had anyone that agrees IPoker should be regulated at all.

As unpopular as it might be with some people, I would like to see Dusty Schmidt get the opportunity to testify. I think he would be the most mature and most able to express opinions about online poker for the players. Raymer would also be great.

Surely, you jest about the PPA lacking an option to select a witness for a hearing on the Barton bill, for which they have been so supportive these many months. Although, after the PPA putting forth UB's Annie Duke in previous hearings, maybe this Committee insisted on Chairman Al.

In all seriousness, prior to the hearing date, I had recommended that Skall, the Litigation Support Network director and expert on gaming law, poker ,and skill gaming, should be selected as the PPA witness for this hearing and any future hearings, testimony, or even as an expert witness to loan out to poker-friendly litigants.

None of the flubbed questions you saw would have stumped the depth or breadth of a properly knowledgable PPA witness, like Skall, or TE, or PX et cetera.

That there was a hearing was good, that the PPA wasn't prepared to answer basic questions may have contributed to the Chair's ultimate conclusion that the matter needed more investogation and study.

Such is the Sissyphian process on Capitol Hill, year after year, with time out for Presidential Election years.

FYP. Don't get me wrong, I like Dusty and think his book on "How To Treat ..." provides a good addition to a general poker library, but he would not be a good hearing witness in my opinion.

An expert at the hearings? Good question. Because it's Washington and having an expert would make too much sense, that's why.

In practice, congressmen make up their minds about all this stuff behind closed doors, perhaps with discussions with experts or with staffers doing research or whatever, and bills get written behind closed doors as well, usually by staffers with experts and lawyers present.

I'm not really sure if the hearings actually have a point...

This.

We don't get to fill the committee room with everyone we'd like to have there. In fact, we don't choose any. The committee chooses its witnesses.

Is this serious? Does no one else disagree with this? Clearly all the meeting needed was someone who understood how poker worked online, and clearly Greg fits that criteria. And he can express himself clearly and intelligently without making poker players look bad. What advantage would a younger player bring?

I agree with you. I just didn't feel like going into it. Pretty laughable that a young kid would have an academic background that would be respected and have come up through the ranks of online professionals. Tends to be the younger pros skip the academic side. Besides Greg has been playing online longer than a lot of those young kids and he's a freaking lawyer. You want respected academic background? Greg has that too.

LOL. You obviously have never seen Greg Raymer interviewed about online poker by mainstream media. If I weren't so stupid, I'd embed the CNBC interview. But I'm too stupid to find it.

Raymer is super intelligent and articulates his points well. And, if the organizations were allowed to choose who to have as witnesses, if the PPA didn't choose Raymer, FPU prolly would have since he's on their board.

We could only be so lucky to have Greg as the expert. He has a very respectable academic career (he has a law degree and was an attorney),is highly intelligent and is extremely articulate.

While he is not young (he is 47), his age may be a benefit. He will not be viewed as just another degen kid playing online.

Also, he's not just some guy who ran good to win the WSOP ME in 2004, then faded away forever. He also finished 25th (out of 5,619 entrants) in the 2005 WSOP ME.

+1 he speaks well, and knows what he is talking about.