Wouldn't this be interesting?

#1 22nd September 2007, 7:28 PM

Just reading over threads on gambling legislation and it occurred to me that this question of "luck vs. skill" can be settled once and for all with a tournament of all 435 members of the U.S. House and 100 Senators, each with a freeroll buy-in vs. 535 poker professionals each with a buy-in of $10,000 (just to make it fair). "Luckiest" group takes the money AND the issue!

#2 22nd September 2007, 7:54 PM

I vote for that.

#3 23rd September 2007, 2:13 AM

I agree completely. It'll never fly tho.....makes too much sense.
Common sense has no place in politics.

#4 23rd September 2007, 2:25 AM

well the pro's couldn't get a read if the person doesn't know what they are doing but ya i do agree completely

#5 23rd September 2007, 2:56 AM

The Congressmen & ladies would cheat, it's just their nature.

#6 23rd September 2007, 9:48 AM

You have to understand that the law was not passed because of the "luck vs. skill" issue. That is total subterfuge. This bill was backed by US gambling interests that wanted to restrict competition. They gave lot's of money to select politicians under the guise of "moral values."

#7 23rd September 2007, 11:52 AM

HAHAHA i love it. Where do i sign?

#8 23rd September 2007, 12:06 PM

Just get all the politicians (scum ) to play in a tourney between themselves - their egos alone would defeat the luck idea.

Can you imagine a politician when asked 'was it luck or skill that won it for you' reply with anything apart from "skill obviously"

#9 23rd September 2007, 9:36 PM

yanno on second thought, this is a BAD idea. With our luck, Strom Thurmond would donk all the good players out early on in the tourney, and then have a heart attack. Then we'd have this huge chipstack sitter till the end of the tourney, or worse yet, he'd delegate play to one of his AIDES.

#10 23rd September 2007, 9:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HappyHowie

You have to understand that the law was not passed because of the "luck vs. skill" issue. That is total subterfuge. This bill was backed by US gambling interests that wanted to restrict competition. They gave lot's of money to select politicians under the guise of "moral values."

If your referring to casinos I don't really think that is the case. The major and even minor casino operators would love to get their hands into the online poker/gambling pie.

Online poker has helped their business not hurt it. You may not see them leading the charge to legalize online gaming but as soon as it becomes legal they will jump in with deep pockets and take over.

#11 23rd September 2007, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MississippiMud

If your referring to casinos I don't really think that is the case. The major and even minor casino operators would love to get their hands into the online poker/gambling pie.

Online poker has helped their business not hurt it. You may not see them leading the charge to legalize online gaming but as soon as it becomes legal they will jump in with deep pockets and take over.

Actually, I agree with you. The US casinos want to be able to start their own online sites that are government regulated. They don't want the competition from overseas operators. Banning the existing sites is only a first step.

I'm not sure, but I think that many are getting geared up to open sites when they can.

#12 23rd September 2007, 10:30 PM

difficult to say, good card players are great liars

but even bad politicians are even greater liars.

How do you get a read on that ?

#13 24th September 2007, 1:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HappyHowie

Actually, I agree with you. The US casinos want to be able to start their own online sites that are government regulated. They don't want the competition from overseas operators. Banning the existing sites is only a first step.

I'm not sure, but I think that many are getting geared up to open sites when they can.

I think what is likely to happen is the major casino operators will buy out the major online sites. MGM Mirage, Harrahs, Steve Wynn and others will look to buy the bigger sire. Or they might start up their own, compete for a while, let the value of the current sites drop and then buy em out.

#14 24th September 2007, 2:29 AM

Federal legislation is pending...
H.R. 2046, Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act
H.R. 2610, Skill Game Protection Act
H.R. 2140, Internet Gambling Study Bill
H.R. 2607, Internet Gambling Tax Act

And on the heals of the WTO violation it is only a matter of time before the US starts supporting, and profiting from internet poker, imho

#15 24th September 2007, 3:54 AM

Any Canadians want to speculate how our country will follow suit? Any criminal statutes in Canada touching on online gaming are currently not enforced.

#16 24th September 2007, 4:16 AM

haha thatd be great, and i believe skill would beat luck most days

Play Texas Hold'em Online Poker \| Wouldn't this be interesting?
BetOnline Poker is a top online poker site accepting all US players with an INSTANT cash bonus of up to $900 FREE. It also has a casino and sports betting available.	PokerStars is one of the best sites to play online poker. Using PokerStars marketing code CCHAT you get a $600 bonus. Note: No US Players Accepted.