The Beginning of the Death of Online Poker in the US

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It honestly was pretty shaky of even passing. That's the reason they tacked it on to that bill. That way, if you vote against it, you're voting for terrorists (or some other stupid argument).

It probably wouldn't have passed. There was something similar that went through years ago called the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. It was supported heavier by Republicans than Democrats (although there was some crossover). The Christian groups were heavily involved in trying to get it passed but it never got through.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

So pretty much everyone that matters that sees this as a crime worthy of enforcement. And even people who lean towards "free markets" generally don't include criminal enterprise in that ideal. Someone can believe that free markets work but still wish to enforce criminal activity. (And a fair free market requires criminal enforcement). Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Someone who leans towards "free markets" can still be against a free illegal drug trade, or an illegal sex trade. Someone who speaks highly of "free markets" isn't a hypocrite because they don't believe in total anarchy.

I personally think free markets are incredibly important, essential for individual freedom, and the way civilization moves forward. But I still believe in criminal enforcement, high taxes to target undesirable economic and environmental behavior, intense government regulation in government-created entities like corporations. I know that makes me a dirty hypocrite in your eyes, but there's few true 100% extremists in the world. (thank god).

No one is saying that believing in free markets means you can't fight crime. But things that are done by consenting adults and don't effect others are not a crime. Online gambling is technically legal in this country, it's just there are a number of rules and regulations on banks that cause it to be quasi-illegal.

And it is hypocritical. Free markets is an extreme. No civilized country has it and no civilized country ever will. But there are a lot of people who rally for it, use it as a talking point, and then go completely against that in their actions. Online gambling is one of many examples of this.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

A few reps with an agenda basically snuck the law through at the 11th hour under false pretenses.

And then retired and didn't face the heat for it.

[HeavyReign]

Originally Posted by molson

Of course, no matter what the fed did - you'd still be out of luck in Washington, right? (per last year's State Supreme Court ruling upholding Washington internet gambling laws). I don't how much Washington does or can enforce those state laws. But that would be the interesting next question if the federal laws change - along with how many states would try to ban internet gambling if the fed laws changed. (If Washington did, I imagine a lot would, per my previous point about legislators being much more willing and motivated to ban gambling than a lot of people think they are).

I know they tried a commerce clause challenge in Washington, but that's not an argument that's going to go anywhere. How about a federal constitutional right to play poker online? I'm sure someone can make that argument.

The thing about the Washington law is they pretty much admitted they had no intention of prosecuting anyone based on the law. The only thing I ever heard happen was someone who was running a poker website got a cease and desist letter so they sold the website to someone out of state.

[SirFozzie]

Without really wanting to get a R v D fight going, I find it interesting that the same week that this comes down, 42 senators send a letter to the AG accusing him of not doing anything to fight obscenity (read: Porn). The thing is, they actually tried to fight there, and lost their most visible case, BADLY. I wonder if this action is a better-chosen fight (in that it has a better chance to get a plead-guilty or guilty verdict.

But still, I'm very libertarian when it comes to what consenting people do, as long as it doesn't harm others. This shit is bogus

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But things that are done by consenting adults and don't effect others are not a crime.

Well sure, that's an argument about whether gambling should be illegal or not, it has nothing to do with free markets. That's my point. If something is illegal, it's not "anti-free market" to prosecute it. People can disagree what should be illegal.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And it is hypocritical. Free markets is an extreme. No civilized country has it and no civilized country ever will. But there are a lot of people who rally for it, use it as a talking point, and then go completely against that in their actions. Online gambling is one of many examples of this.

Who exactly has argued for an "extreme free market" with no exceptions? Total anarchy, no criminal laws, no government regulation. What politician is that? What poster is that? Most people understand that to utilize positive free market forces you do need regulation and a criminal justice system to keep things "free"? Is it fair to say you hate free markets (since its an all-or-nothing proposition, apparently?) So you're apparently anti-free market, but you run a small business. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite? Why can't people have moderate, balanced views about things?

[Lathum]

I think I mentioned it earlier, but a big part of the issue is whether or not poker is considered gambling or a skill game.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I think I mentioned it earlier, but a big part of the issue is whether or not poker is considered gambling or a skill game.

Overhere that isn't the argument anymore. It used to be, but even the lawyers are inconsistent about it. Precedent says it's a skill game, but only under certain circumstances.

Right now it's headed for the typical dutch "if you can't maitain it, legalize it" route.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Precedent says it's a skill game, but only under certain circumstances.

That's very curious phrasing... what circumstances is it not considered a skill game?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Radii

That's very curious phrasing... what circumstances is it not considered a skill game?

I don't know about for everyone else, but for me, it's a skill game when I win, and pure luck when I lose.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Radii

That's very curious phrasing... what circumstances is it not considered a skill game?

As soon as your ability determines which cards you're dealt, I'll consider it a skill game. Until then, it's a game of chance afaic.

Then again, I don't have anything generally against the legalization of games of chance, so my own definition is even more moot than it would be otherwise (i.e. nobody in authority has asked me to define it).

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Overhere that isn't the argument anymore. It used to be, but even the lawyers are inconsistent about it. Precedent says it's a skill game, but only under certain circumstances.

Right now it's headed for the typical dutch "if you can't maitain it, legalize it" route.

The only country I would ever go to live if I ever left the states.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As soon as your ability determines which cards you're dealt, I'll consider it a skill game. Until then, it's a game of chance afaic.

You could not be more wrong.

[Comey]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As soon as your ability determines which cards you're dealt, I'll consider it a skill game. Until then, it's a game of chance afaic.

And as soon as I find a game where not a single person folds, not a single hand...I'll consider it a game of chance.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Lathum

You could not be more wrong.

{shrug} I'm already on your side (presumably), what more do you want?

But since you highlight the point, I will admit that this sort of "we're so special" arrogance by poker players does leave me inclined to not particularly give a major shit whether it's legal or not. If online poker vanished from the face of the earth tomorrow it would just mean that a relative handful of people would have to find something else to be pretentious about.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{shrug} I'm already on your side (presumably), what more do you want?

But since you highlight the point, I will admit that this sort of "we're so special" arrogance by poker players does leave me inclined to not particularly give a major shit whether it's legal or not. If online poker vanished from the face of the earth tomorrow it would just mean that a relative handful of people would have to find something else to be pretentious about.

I'm not sure what you mean by pretentious. I just think we want to be treated fairly. If anything many online players are kind of degenerats.

[Marmel]

Skill or luck, it is an interesting question. I suppose if you are a good poker player, it is a skill game. If my wife sat at a table, it would be a game of pure luck.

I would think most players are not good, so I can see it being classified as a game of luck, but you can argue either way I think.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I'm not sure what you mean by pretentious.

There seems to be at least a (vocal) subset of the online poker community that I'd liken to the Sabermateric/nuevo-Saber crowd among baseball fans.

Basically that they're so over the top about the skill aspect/in denial of the luck aspect that it becomes pretty obnoxious for the rest of the world to listen to, so much so that it becomes a little hard not to root against them. I don't honestly pay enough attention to who-is-saying-what in any of the poker threads here to know whether you're one of those or not, so just FTR I'm not relegating you to that group.

If you want to argue that there's more skill than luck, fine, knock yourself out. I generally disagree, for the average online game I'd call luck as much a determinant as anything, but as I mentioned, my opinion on the subject is pretty meaningless, so it seems like a no-harm, no-foul sort of deal. Where I might find myself eventually inclined to push back on that would be if you drifted into the denial of the chance element that occasionally pops up & gets turned into a pretentious "online-players-are-just-soooooo-brilliant-because-this-game-is-sooooooo-hard" kind of thing. Given the very nature of the game, I just can't buy discounting chance quite that far.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Any skill game has a measure of luck involved, so I'm not sure why there always seems to be a "skill vs. luck" argument with poker, unless someone wants to claim that there's either no skill or no luck, in which case they're completely bonkers and you need not listen to them at all. Now, if the question comes down to whether poker is gambling or not, I think you'll get arguments that are a little more well-developed. Still, though, I've always felt that if you're putting money on the line and there's any element of luck, it is certainly gambling. If LeBron James challenged me to a money game of one-on-one, first one to hit 30 points wins, I wouldn't think he's really gambling. Of course he's going to win. If it's one shot from a specific spot on the floor, then it is gambling, because anything can happen on one shot that would cause him to lose.

Then again, what do I know? I eat paste.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Marmel

Skill or luck, it is an interesting question. I suppose if you are a good poker player, it is a skill game. If my wife sat at a table, it would be a game of pure luck.

I would think most players are not good, so I can see it being classified as a game of luck, but you can argue either way I think.

What makes it a skill game is the ability to find players such as your wife and exploit them.

You explination inherently makes it a game of skill. Once you claim someone is better at something than someone else it is no longer a game of chance.

[MJ4H]

As the sample size increases, the effect of luck decreases and the effect of skill increases.. This really is a simple concept. It amazes me how wildly far away from this simple idea most conversations about the concept get. Just stick with that. That's all there is to it.

[JediKooter]

Is it that money is involved that is causing such a ruckus? Is it poker if there is no money involved or are you just playing cards at that point? I just like to have fun and am not into any kind of strategy other than to be all over the place in my bets. Sometimes I win, most of the time I don't. But, most of the time, it's not the same person winning either.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Marmel

Skill or luck, it is an interesting question. I suppose if you are a good poker player, it is a skill game. If my wife sat at a table, it would be a game of pure luck.

I would think most players are not good, so I can see it being classified as a game of luck, but you can argue either way I think.

The argument is the exact same, MJ4H stated it most succinctly. There is a large amount of luck over the short term but over the long term the luck evens out and your skill determines whether you are a winner or a loser. Your wife may well win playing 200 hands, but over the course of 100000 hands her lack of skill would show.


I think many poker players do not understand exactly how long "the long run" is as far as canceling out the impact of luck on overall results, but the fact that over a large enough sample size poker is a game of skill that has very high variance due to short term luck is simply mathematically true.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Any skill game has a measure of luck involved, so I'm not sure why there always seems to be a "skill vs. luck" argument with poker, unless someone wants to claim that there's either no skill or no luck, in which case they're completely bonkers and you need not listen to them at all. Now, if the question comes down to whether poker is gambling or not, I think you'll get arguments that are a little more well-developed. Still, though, I've always felt that if you're putting money on the line and there's any element of luck, it is certainly gambling. If LeBron James challenged me to a money game of one-on-one, first one to hit 30 points wins, I wouldn't think he's really gambling. Of course he's going to win. If it's one shot from a specific spot on the floor, then it is gambling, because anything can happen on one shot that would cause him to lose.

Then again, what do I know? I eat paste.

Well I think you actually sum it up pretty well.

In the short term there is a lot more gamble to poker than skill, but you can't look at it on a short term basis. Not if you are a pro or a serious amateur. You have to have a large sample size, once you do the needle shifts from luck to skill.

As for Johns argument, there is a subset of players who are over the top about it, but it is annoying that the game is misrepresented by the people making laws. And the problem is the general population has no grasp of the facts.

In typical games of chance there is a house edge built in, the player can not win over time. In poker there is no house edge, the player who is more skilled than all the others can not lose in the long run.

[Lathum]

dola- had the window open for a while and didn't notice others posted similar responses

[Marmel]

But most people never reach the long run. In a true skill game, an amateur has no chance against a pro. In poker, my wife can get lucky and win a tournament at my local casino. A lucky player with limited skill can win the WSOP. The most skilled player in the world might never reach the final table in their lifetime. Again, I can see it both ways, but for the majority of people who have sat at a poker table, the game is luck.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Is it that money is involved that is causing such a ruckus? Is it poker if there is no money involved or are you just playing cards at that point? I just like to have fun and am not into any kind of strategy other than to be all over the place in my bets. Sometimes I win, most of the time I don't. But, most of the time, it's not the same person winning either.

Well it is literally a multi billion dollar industry so, yes, it is money causing a ruckus.

As for the same person not winning, play 100,000 hands together. Whoever is the most skilled player can't lose.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Well it is literally a multi billion dollar industry so, yes, it is money causing a ruckus.

As for the same person not winning, play 100,000 hands together. Whoever is the most skilled player can't lose.

So the government is pissed they aren't getting their cut basically and they are trying to take the ball and go home with it, is what it sounds like.

Oh I don't doubt that one minute. I'm sure I'd get a few in there where I had some good cards to start with and played off of that, but, I know I would not be able to do much with crap cards as opposed to someone that knows how to work with them.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I think all players should just throw 10 big blinds into the pot, get dealt cards, and turn 'em over face-up. Let's see those hoity-toity poker players try to claim it's a skill game then!!!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marmel

But most people never reach the long run.

And this is where the general statement about "game of chance" comes into play.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And this is where the general statement about "game of chance" comes into play.

Most people don't take jumpshots for a living either, but it would be a little weird to call shooting a basketball a game of chance just because any clown can make a few once in a while.

The above statement applies to everyone except the Minnesota Timberwolves.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Any skill game has a measure of luck involved, so I'm not sure why there always seems to be a "skill vs. luck" argument with poker, unless someone wants to claim that there's either no skill or no luck, in which case they're completely bonkers and you need not listen to them at all. Now, if the question comes down to whether poker is gambling or not, I think you'll get arguments that are a little more well-developed. Still, though, I've always felt that if you're putting money on the line and there's any element of luck, it is certainly gambling. If LeBron James challenged me to a money game of one-on-one, first one to hit 30 points wins, I wouldn't think he's really gambling. Of course he's going to win. If it's one shot from a specific spot on the floor, then it is gambling, because anything can happen on one shot that would cause him to lose.

Then again, what do I know? I eat paste.

I think I'm with you here, in that it seems weird to me that it matters whether it's skill or luck (as if it has to be one or the other). If I only play the lottery when there's a large jackpot, I'm maximizing my expected value -- so I'm showing my skills, right? Meanwhile, the stock markets has elements of luck and skill, and is a lot like poker in how luck and skill affect success.

The differences that I see between online poker and these is that a) it's not government-supported (i.e. they're not getting a big enough cut), and b) it's seen as more sinful because if you win, you're taking money from other citizens (I suppose that's true of the lottery, though it's not as direct).

What about online blackjack? That has the same combo of luck and skill as poker, but your winnings come from the site or casino or whatever, not another person. Is anyone concerned with killing that, or is there just not enough of a market for anyone to care?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

What about online blackjack? That has the same combo of luck and skill as poker, but your winnings come from the site or casino or whatever, not another person. Is anyone concerned with killing that, or is there just not enough of a market for anyone to care?

I can't honestly say that I even knew such a thing existed, at least not anywhere it was/claiming to be legal.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I think I'm with you here, in that it seems weird to me that it matters whether it's skill or luck (as if it has to be one or the other). If I only play the lottery when there's a large jackpot, I'm maximizing my expected value -- so I'm showing my skills, right? Meanwhile, the stock markets has elements of luck and skill, and is a lot like poker in how luck and skill affect success.

The differences that I see between online poker and these is that a) it's not government-supported (i.e. they're not getting a big enough cut), and b) it's seen as more sinful because if you win, you're taking money from other citizens (I suppose that's true of the lottery, though it's not as direct).

What about online blackjack? That has the same combo of luck and skill as poker, but your winnings come from the site or casino or whatever, not another person. Is anyone concerned with killing that, or is there just not enough of a market for anyone to care?

You and I agree.

I'm not thinking at all about why the government wants to crack down on it or any other games like online blackjack. I'm just saying that there's an element of skill and an element of luck to poker. Just like M4JH said, the more you play, the more important skill becomes.

[Lathum]

At the risk of sounding like on of the elitists John hates, to compare the skill vs luck aspect of poker and blackjack is absurd.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Lathum

At the risk of sounding like on of the elitists John hates, to compare the skill vs luck aspect of poker and blackjack is absurd.

+1

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Marmel

But most people never reach the long run.

True.

Originally Posted by Marmel

In a true skill game, an amateur has no chance against a pro.

True for chess, over a large sample size. Really, given a big enough skill difference, it gets pretty true over some pretty small sample sizes, too.

Originally Posted by Marmel

In poker, my wife can get lucky and win a tournament at my local casino.

Sample size of 1.

Originally Posted by Marmel

A lucky player with limited skill can win the WSOP.

Sample size of 1.

Originally Posted by Marmel

The most skilled player in the world might never reach the final table in their lifetime.

Only true because of the enormous fields. The most skilled player in the world would have a hard time never reaching a final table at all.

Originally Posted by Marmel

Again, I can see it both ways, but for the majority of people who have sat at a poker table, the game is luck.

Yes, until they play enough hands.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Overhere that isn't the argument anymore. It used to be, but even the lawyers are inconsistent about it. Precedent says it's a skill game, but only under certain circumstances.

Right now it's headed for the typical dutch "if you can't maitain it, legalize it" route.

Is online poker/gambling illegal in the Netherlands? I assumed it would be legal all across the EU.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I can't honestly say that I even knew such a thing existed, at least not anywhere it was/claiming to be legal.

Online Blackjack, roulette and slots are fairly common on UK gambling sites. Most of the big sites are split into sections for betting, poker and casino games.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Lathum

At the risk of sounding like on of the elitists John hates, to compare the skill vs luck aspect of poker and blackjack is absurd.

It only sounds elitist if you're saying that there is no skill to blackjack. To me, the bottom line is that both games have a combination of skill and luck.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

It only sounds elitist if you're saying that there is no skill to blackjack. To me, the bottom line is that both games have a combination of skill and luck.

They do, but the ratio is very far apart.

There are a handful of people in the world skilled enough to count cards and win at blackjack. The rest of us can play solid strategy and still lose in the long run. Except JBMagic of course, I hear that dude has a system that can't be beat.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

Is online poker/gambling illegal in the Netherlands? I assumed it would be legal all across the EU.

Yeah, it is, kinda... It's only legal if one particular state supported casino is affiliated with it. And that casino doesn't have an online poker room yet and appears to have no interest for it either.
Yet at the same time, there is a special form that one can fill out to pay taxes over your winnings (29% of your winnings in profitable months, 0% when you lost money over the course of a month).
It's likely that in a year or so it'll be legal afterall.

[MIJB#19]

To add to my previous posts, the fuss overhere is basically about what the last 40ish posts in this thread were about: is poker gambling or a skill game?

From what I understand, one lawsuit overhere had as a result that poker was considered a skill game, because the particular player at hand had trained himself enough to become a 'winning' player.
At the same time, it seems to imply that losing poker players are gamblers afterall and subsequently are involved in illegal activities.

So, in short:
winning = ok; please share your wealth
losing = illegal; please don't waste money


Yeah, I love this country.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Who exactly has argued for an "extreme free market" with no exceptions? Total anarchy, no criminal laws, no government regulation. What politician is that? What poster is that? Most people understand that to utilize positive free market forces you do need regulation and a criminal justice system to keep things "free"? Is it fair to say you hate free markets (since its an all-or-nothing proposition, apparently?) So you're apparently anti-free market, but you run a small business. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite? Why can't people have moderate, balanced views about things?

It's on virtually every tea party group mission statement (example hxxp://www.teapartypatriots.org/mission.aspx. It's part of countless campaigns. It's become a talking point used by a lot of people.

Heck, just a year or so ago there was talk about putting some regulations in to the banking/finance industry. The shit hit the fan over this by those on the right. The same thing happened when there was talk about expanding government oversight into health care. The government apparently had no business butting into private business. But in this scenario, they apparently do.

I understand that hypocrisy is part of that whole free market mantra. It's "free markets for things we want and regulation for things we don't". But that doesn't look as cute on a bumper sticker.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Lathum

They do, but the ratio is very far apart.

There are a handful of people in the world skilled enough to count cards and win at blackjack. The rest of us can play solid strategy and still lose in the long run. Except JBMagic of course, I hear that dude has a system that can't be beat.

Yes, the ratio is far apart. But the arguments are the same for it -- in a few games, you'll have varied experience whether you know what you're doing or not, but over several games, if you are more skilled, you'll do better. Regarding poker, the fact that the more skilled will certainly take money from the less skilled doesn't really help its case. And it's simply not the issue -- if there were a huge industry of online chess for money, it would still certainly be called gambling, wouldn't it?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

if there were a huge industry of online chess for money, it would still certainly be called gambling, wouldn't it?

I doubt it

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

Online Blackjack, roulette and slots are fairly common on UK gambling sites. Most of the big sites are split into sections for betting, poker and casino games.

Let me rephrase that ... I was unaware of blackjack sites legally available to US players.

[Lathum]

So may be a coincidence, but the NAPT was supposed to be on espn2 right now and instead there is some college football skills competition

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's on virtually every tea party group mission statement (example hxxp://www.teapartypatriots.org/mission.aspx. It's part of countless campaigns. It's become a talking point used by a lot of people.

Heck, just a year or so ago there was talk about putting some regulations in to the banking/finance industry. The shit hit the fan over this by those on the right. The same thing happened when there was talk about expanding government oversight into health care. The government apparently had no business butting into private business. But in this scenario, they apparently do.

I understand that hypocrisy is part of that whole free market mantra. It's "free markets for things we want and regulation for things we don't". But that doesn't look as cute on a bumper sticker.

Very few tea partiers or libertarians are for zero government regulation. They are for regulation that will allow fair trade, but not for regulation that has too wide sweeping power. Part of the anger over the Obama banking regulation and consumer protection agency was that the agency had too wide sweeping power, would be a presidential appointee with no accountability to congress and didn't have clearly defined rules on what they could or couldn't do.

I understand hypocrisy as well, and it isn't a cute bumper sticker on either side when the issues are glossed over, oversimplified or not looked at on both sides by the person making the accusation. You are the same person who said the government had spent all it's money investigating Bonds and that NOT ONE person had been tried for financial fraud.

Just so you know, I'm not a tea partier, though I agree with the republicans on the issue of a presidential appointee having unlimited oversite of the banking industry.

[Lathum]

Disney’s ESPN Drops Poker Programming After Websites Charged - Bloomberg