You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The DOJ has absolute discretion and immunity in choosing what to prosecute. Not one thing in your post is accurate and it terrifies me to know you think it is true.

Not a joke at all. Who are the victims in online poker?

Well - on second thought - there are victims from the UB superuser fiasco. That almost certainly would not have happened if the industry was fully regulated so you do have a point.

I thank the OP for trying to give some perspective regarding the events of 4/15. As a newbie can someone educate me on how flame wars and conspiracy theories help our community moving forward.

The players. The families. The government. Society in general. You have said alot of dumb things in this thread. You really should step back and think. It is a [B]FACT[B] that you are 3 times more likely to become a problem or chronic gambler by playing online. (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/adb-16176.pdf) Maybe you are perfect and have no problem gambling, but that does not mean that others dont. You might not think its the federal government's job to do this, but there are certainly victims of online poker.

As for your statement about the DOJ. Please check out your local library and read. The DOJ does not have discretionary authority. This is not Law and Order. Congress passed a law, and the DOJ has to enforce it.

Flame wars and conspiracy theories don't help. They actually hurt us quite a bit. Any time you see two guys going at it for no reason, remind them that we are all on the same side. Discussions are positive. Circular arguing and backbiting is negative.

No one who plays is being forced to do so. Self destructive people will simply find some other way of destroying themselves. Booze, drugs, w/e.

We are not all on the same side.

Right, because someone with a gambling problem is going to have trouble finding something else to gamble on (see state lotteries, horse tracks and casinos)

don't apologize--this was an awesome post, imo.

glancing over this I see some problems already. Will read it later though to see the integrity of the study/results

Just a quick glance, the sample size seems to be open to alot of bias. "The authors evaluated gambling behaviors, including Internet gambling, among patients seeking free or
reduced-cost dental or health care"

I completely agree. I am not anti-online poker. I think the only real solution is regulation. However, that does not mean it is not victimless. B&M casinos have the same problems as well. However, we as a poker community need to realize that online gambling is severly destructive. Once again, I state that the only way to address this problem is through regulation. But it is a destructive lifestyle/activity.

There are plenty of studies on the issue. Great Britian has done a few studies on the subject of online poker (because they legalize and regulate it) and the results are roughly the same. There is going to be problems with all studies, but that does not mean their results should be dismissed. Like I said prior, regulation is necessary to help alleviate the problem. But that does not mean its not a problem.

I have not seen any statistics but often times "severly destructive" behaivors are more than not overused in that most of the time you ONLY hear of the people who are "destructive" and not everyone else who enjoys it and is responsible.

So if it is regulated, meaning the federal and state governments collect a ton of revenues and a few jobs are created, then it's OK for a bunch of people to self destruct. Sure, that makes a load of sense.

This is, without a doubt, the single best post I have read since Black Friday.

I'll definitley look more into the studies. With what I've studied in college, however, is that you can change the statistics and draw whatever conclusion you want on those statistics. I tend to not believe them (the studies) unless I read and disect them, that's all. Not saying I disagree, I believe that online gambling can increase a person's "destructive" behaivor but also many times I have read studies and have seen so many things wrong with them

That does not change the fact that there are problems inherent in Ipoker. Again, we are still agreeing that Ipoker should be legal. But there are certainly problems with the system that we cannot brush under the rug. Great Britian legalizes Ipoker, and they have seen the percent of problem gamblers increase. You can take that for what you want. But we cannot ignore the problems of internet poker just so the few of us can enjoy the benefits.

Which is why my optimism is quickly turning into pessimism and i'm considering to just stop trying and pray Gary Loveman makes legalization/regulation happen. I am now realizing how divided we are and start to doubt that we can accomplish anything at this point.

Nope I am not talking about the federal government or states receiving proceeds. However, much like their B&M counterparts, Ipoker sites would be forced to address and counsel the problem gamblers. Of course this is a flawed system, but it is certainly better than these individuals receiving no help. Only if the government is involved and regulates that a certain percent needs to be devoted to assist problem gamblers, with the problem be addressed. Allowing problem gamblers to carry on and destroy their lives and the lives of people around them is not the answer.

Yea i'm not saying ipoker can not and does not lead to destructive behaivor, just what I have observed on other misc. stuff.
I believe (and hope) that regulation could minimize problem gamblers compared to where ipoker was at. Gonna do a quick google search later and see if I can find more info on Great Britian before/after and see if they did anything to regulate it to possibly decrease problem gamblers? If not I believe it is something we should definitly look into in order to minimize problem gambling.

(Also as you said, we are agreeing ) haha


EDIT: And pretty much you said this in your post right before mine haha

Personally, I'd like to see you try to knock the **** out of me. Good luck with that. I would be more than happy to take off my officer rank for the day so you wouldn't have to worry about getting in trouble and then I could proceed to plant my foot in your ***.

My attitude is a result of listening to the whinny, cry-baby, online poker players who have done little for their country or even to partake in civic responsibilities as U.S. citizens. They are quick to criticize the DOJ, who has no choice with regard to which laws they prosecute (which is an irrelevant discussion regarding this indictment anyway), yet these same people likely haven't gotten out from in front of their computers since 2006.

And as far as I am concerned, if you haven't voted, contacted/written a Congessional representative (or even the President), served in the military, or done anything else to help further and support the freedoms that you have here in America...then you don't deserve any sympathy when all you do is cry, whine and complain on an Internet poker forum about losing freedom. If you think that makes me think my opinion is more important than someone elses, then so be it...and as we say in New England...TOUGH ****!

How are you defining "severely destructive"?

That post is sad because someone who could provide honest and logical analysis of the situation has instead allowed their Libertarian viewpoint cloud their judgement.

There is plenty of stuff. I am/will try to find the study produced by the British government. I used that one in my senior thesis recently, which is why I know a bit about problem gambling.

They are the ones who tacked the UIGEA onto the Port Security bill. Do you really think they are going to go back now and repeal it?