While I don't disagree with the overall sentiment of the article (that Frist was a douchebag, land-base casinos
having an interest in shutting down online poker, etc), some of it is misleading if not downright false, and potentially harmful to the poker cause.
To wit (highlighting is mine):
First a very important figure. This is a figure Casinos, both online and land based, donít want you to know. On average, 8%of those who play online poker turn a profit in any given fiscal year. This is both a commonly known and fiercely protected figure in the gaming community. You can imagine why they donít want it to become common knowledge. Those in the Casino business are turning a profit against roughly 92% of those who either sit down in front of a computer or come through their doors!
The United States government was very unhappy that the money 92% of people were losing on gambling Web sites was going overseas. They have absolutely no problem with you losing money in State lotteries, United States based horse racing and or a Vegas Casino. It just doesn't want the money flowing to operators of these overseas Web sites.
Talking strictly poker, which is what this article is about, the casinos turn a profit against 100% of players, not just the 92% losers. This article makes poker sound like a pit game where the winners profit against the casino, and the casino profits against the losers. Those 92% are losing to the other players, not to the casino (aside from tournament juice). When you're talking cash games, the winners effectively pay 100% of the rake, while the losers pay none. So in fact, the argument could pretty easily be twisted to say that that in cash games, casinos only profit from the winners.
A writeup like this can actually hurt the poker cause by suggesting poker is on the same level as craps, roulette
, and other non-skill pit games. I'd like to leave a comment on the article saying as much, but really don't want to become a member to do so.