TheKAAHK
CardsChat Elite
Silver Level
Last edited:
Dreams of Tragedy
dreamsoftragedy.com
Silver Level
Stu_Ungar
Legend
Silver Level
Isn't that the basis of US democracy?
Each state being a sovereign entity.. so what is legal in one state isn't necessarily legal in another?
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
I'm starting to think you're not listening to me.
Erm... it is a zero sum game. There are no intermediaries, if you're winning money it's because someone else is losing it. And while certainly I rate my chances of winning better than the lottery or table games that's not the case for all people. Some people suck so bad at poker that in the long run they'll never win. After the site takes its cut in rake and tournament fees it stands to reason that there are more winners than there are losers in poker. Those losers really would be better off playing table games or the lottery or something - just please don't tell them that, because I want them to stay on my tables.
This may be true, but you still don't get it. Opponents of legalised online poker will have thousands upon thousands of degenerates and addicts lined up ready to tell their stories about how they lost their house, their job, their family or all of the above as a result of online gambling. Here is just one example:
They'll also have thousands upon thousands of people willing to vote the issue at the next election. You cannot make this about emotion because you cannot possibly win on those grounds. You can't argue that you should be allowed to play internet poker because you enjoy it and it's a fun game, because the opposition can turn around and say "how many people had to lose their houses for you to have your fun?!?" The same goes for your rights arguments - your right to gamble vs the right of a problem gambler's child to eat and have a roof over their head, which do you think wins?
It's also absolutely true that it's unfair other forms of gambling online are legal and poker isn't - the hypocrisy of it is even more startling where I'm from, FWIW. But do you know why those other forms of gambling are legal and poker isn't? It's because someone got in front of the people that mattered and did the numbers for them: this much in revenue for the government, this many jobs created and regulation so you can control it. I promise you they didn't make their case on the basis that horses really like to go for a run and it's every American's right to lose money on greyhound racing.
Erm... it is a zero sum game. There are no intermediaries, if you're winning money it's because someone else is losing it. And while certainly I rate my chances of winning better than the lottery or table games that's not the case for all people. Some people suck so bad at poker that in the long run they'll never win. After the site takes its cut in rake and tournament fees it stands to reason that there are more winners than there are losers in poker. Those losers really would be better off playing table games or the lottery or something - just please don't tell them that, because I want them to stay on my tables.
This may be true, but you still don't get it. Opponents of legalised online poker will have thousands upon thousands of degenerates and addicts lined up ready to tell their stories about how they lost their house, their job, their family or all of the above as a result of online gambling. Here is just one example:
They'll also have thousands upon thousands of people willing to vote the issue at the next election. You cannot make this about emotion because you cannot possibly win on those grounds. You can't argue that you should be allowed to play internet poker because you enjoy it and it's a fun game, because the opposition can turn around and say "how many people had to lose their houses for you to have your fun?!?" The same goes for your rights arguments - your right to gamble vs the right of a problem gambler's child to eat and have a roof over their head, which do you think wins?
It's also absolutely true that it's unfair other forms of gambling online are legal and poker isn't - the hypocrisy of it is even more startling where I'm from, FWIW. But do you know why those other forms of gambling are legal and poker isn't? It's because someone got in front of the people that mattered and did the numbers for them: this much in revenue for the government, this many jobs created and regulation so you can control it. I promise you they didn't make their case on the basis that horses really like to go for a run and it's every American's right to lose money on greyhound racing.
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
The thing that really struck me was the amounts of money involved were relatively small and yet it still somehow managed to "ruin his life".
As for trying to shift the blame away from poker I'm not sure I agree. Maybe he would've stolen money from his friends and ruined his life without poker but the fact remains that, in this case, he was addicted to internet poker and that was the reason he stole the money. I guarantee you that's the way Average Joe watching this video will see it.
PurgatoryD
Visionary
Silver Level
Yeah, that was a little suspect as well.
See, this is one of those situations where, sure, it may be the case that this person's life was ruined over a very small amount of money lost to internet poker. Or, it may be the case that this guy was bored out of his mind with his classes, didn't really want to go, was going to fail out anyhow, stole $10, pinned everything wrong in his life on internet poker, found a cause that somehow "legitimizes" the fact that he still doesn't have a job, found Jesus, and is enjoying his 15 minutes.
I guess there's really no way to tell which is the case.
Well, I think we're in a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation here. I'll agree that he was likely addicted to internet poker. But is that addiction the reason he stole? Or is that addiction the reason he wanted more money? I agree that the compulsion made him really want the money. But can that be enough to effectively force someone to steal it?
You got that right.
What frustrates me is this: internet poker in the US is not in trouble because it's addicting or costs society. Alcohol and cigarettes are miles ahead of internet poker on both fronts and they're both legal. Internet poker is in trouble because not that many people play it and it doesn't have a well enough funded political lobby.
I wish instead of people taking the attitude, "Well I don't play, so what do I care?" they would take the attitude, "What right does the government have to tell people how they can live their lives?" I don't buy McDonald's Happy Meals but I still think the laws created to ban them in certain parts of my state are absolutely ridiculous.
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
I swear I'm going to start tearing out my hair soon...
STOP TALKING ABOUT YOUR SO-CALLED RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!
MONEY is what really matters here. Revenue and regulations. Poker has had a well-funded lobbying organisation (the PPA) for years. The reason they haven't gotten anywhere is because they've been pushing the same stupid "It's my right to play this game of skill" line that people are putting forward in this thread and others as though it's a new idea!
Get over your "rights", get real and maybe you'll get somewhere.
STOP TALKING ABOUT YOUR SO-CALLED RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!
MONEY is what really matters here. Revenue and regulations. Poker has had a well-funded lobbying organisation (the PPA) for years. The reason they haven't gotten anywhere is because they've been pushing the same stupid "It's my right to play this game of skill" line that people are putting forward in this thread and others as though it's a new idea!
Get over your "rights", get real and maybe you'll get somewhere.
PurgatoryD
Visionary
Silver Level
LOL! Then I suggest you stop participating in these discussions.
Why? The government comes and takes away our rights to play poker and we shouldn't talk about it? They come and take away our rights to eat a Happy Meal and we shouldn't talk about it? If they come and take away our rights to alcohol (again), then we shouldn't talk about it? Sorry, I just don't see the point of your approach. This country was founded on individual rights. The Ninth Amendment in particular makes it pretty clear that we have a lot of rights.
Well, people thought that here in California when they tried to legalize marijuana but they were wrong.
And what kind of future is that for our nation: you have the right to do something only if the government can turn an additional profit from it. Thanks, but no thanks.
I'll get over my right to play poker as soon as you get over your right to free speech. After all, the government isn't taxing and regulating your words, so why should you be allowed to speak?
Besides, there's really no where to get. The government has been in the business of "protecting" people from themselves by taking away their rights for some time now and people in America are generally OK with that. This is just a byproduct of that whole movement. I expect we'll lose further rights in the name of "the greater good", "protecting the children", etc. Our forefathers must be turning in their graves.
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
OK, I'll rephrase:
If all you want to do is vent then by all means, continue to whine about your rights on an internet forum and understand that I've mistaken anyone you with someone who actually wants to change the situation.
If you really do want to achieve something though then drop the subject and go make a good argument to someone who matters. It's that simple.
If all you want to do is vent then by all means, continue to whine about your rights on an internet forum and understand that I've mistaken anyone you with someone who actually wants to change the situation.
If you really do want to achieve something though then drop the subject and go make a good argument to someone who matters. It's that simple.
Charade You Are
you can call me Frost
Silver Level
Most of us are (I hope), but that doesn't preclude us from posting here as well.
PurgatoryD
Visionary
Silver Level
Allow me to rephrase as well: if you interpret intelligent discussion -- regardless of the forum -- as "whining", then you really should stop participating.
Well, talking about a situation is often a useful precursor to change in that it can be helpful in learning varying positions. For instance, I had no idea until talking to you that there are people who support online poker but who also feel that they don't really have a right to it.
Dropping the subject is not going to achieve anything with respect to the right to play online poker. But you, of course, are welcome to bow out of the discussion at any time and save your hair.
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
LOL - way to selectively quote. I said drop the subject and go make a good argument to someone who matters.
Also, please show me where it says that I don't believe you have the right to play online poker. I guess it's possible I've made a typing error somewhere but that's certainly not what I believe. What I do believe is that the US government doesn't care about that "right", whether you have it or not, and that it's a losing argument in the legalisation debate. That's in no way in conflict with my personal view that you should be allowed to play.
Also, please show me where it says that I don't believe you have the right to play online poker. I guess it's possible I've made a typing error somewhere but that's certainly not what I believe. What I do believe is that the US government doesn't care about that "right", whether you have it or not, and that it's a losing argument in the legalisation debate. That's in no way in conflict with my personal view that you should be allowed to play.
PurgatoryD
Visionary
Silver Level
Dropping the subject and arguing to someone who matters are completely independent of each other. I could do one, the other, both, or neither. I wasn't trying to change the meaning of what you said, I was just responding to one of the two statements. I think it's fairly customary to quote the actual portion of text one is responding to instead of quoting their entire statement. I wasn't trying to twist your words.
If you say that you believe that we do have the right to play online poker, then I'll take you at your word.
I had got the impression that you felt otherwise since you had stated that no where is the right explicitly granted, that we should stop talking about such rights, etc. I see what you are getting at now.
And as I have stated before, I agree with you that it is a losing argument with respect to legalization.
I know that we're all on the same side here. I don't know how we got sidetracked, but I'm glad we're back on the same page.
I'd say "see you at the tables" but all my money is locked up with FT and UB. Although I might give the CC carbon freeroll a shot. So... see you, maybe, at the CC carbon freeroll tables! LOL!
C
chole
Rising Star
Bronze Level
I guess the bottom line that some of you are trying to make is that if something has a negative effect on certain people weather it's poker, the lottery, horse racing, gambling in general, fattening food, liquor, a bad marriage, having kids that go bad, talking to load, etc., etc., etc,. we better ban it and not allow anyone to enjoy it in order to protect the ones that can't handle it. Now that really sounds like freedom of choice to me.
But then again these stupid laws really do help some people! that bad guys, the ones that make loads of cash offering these outlawed services and products.
No income to the states or federal government, no income tax paid on the billions of dollars of profit, NOW THAT MAKES SENSE, don't it...
But then again these stupid laws really do help some people! that bad guys, the ones that make loads of cash offering these outlawed services and products.
No income to the states or federal government, no income tax paid on the billions of dollars of profit, NOW THAT MAKES SENSE, don't it...
Stu_Ungar
Legend
Silver Level
Your goal is legalisation.
If your argument is unlikely to bring about your goal then its the wrong argument.
I therefore have to agree with OZ.. forget about your "rights" they arent going to help you achieve your goal.
C
chole
Rising Star
Bronze Level
The biggest issue of all, much bigger than just poker is our rights to freedom of choice so long as we're not (directly) hurting someone else.
That's what this country was suppose to be all about. That's why so many people immigrated here. What went wrong?
That's what this country was suppose to be all about. That's why so many people immigrated here. What went wrong?
dj11
Legend
Silver Level
Oz, and a few others are just pressing for a more practical approach, and they are being met with emotional responses.
Of course all us US players feel threatened by this attack on a core belief that as US citizens we are free. It evokes an emotional response. Those core values are drummed into us early, and any affront to those core values is shocking, and thus the emotional response.
Correct procedure is to counter attack. How that counter attack occurs is where there is division. Crying ain't gonna do it, prying might. Leverage is the fundamental ingredient in prying. Leverage come in many forms.
A persuasive argument would be the happiest form, but we haven't heard the ultimate persuasive argument ....(yet I hope). Problem there is there can and will be counter persuasive arguments, and these we have begun hearing. Violence, on the opposite end is unacceptable. That leaves only the courts, where traditionally, in the USA, issues like this end up, where legal precedence will hold sway.
We will never see Stars again in the states, nor Tilt. Even if the courts decide in (what we consider) our favor, the machinery to regulate and control online gaming will be waiting in the wings and highly favor US entities.
In many ways there are great similarities to the circumstances that caused party poker (and others) to leave the states.
Viscerally, emotionally, I want the DoJ to be handed their asses on a legal plate and be forced to do something costly to remedy their arrogance.
Not gonna happen that way tho, and certainly not soon.
Of course all us US players feel threatened by this attack on a core belief that as US citizens we are free. It evokes an emotional response. Those core values are drummed into us early, and any affront to those core values is shocking, and thus the emotional response.
Correct procedure is to counter attack. How that counter attack occurs is where there is division. Crying ain't gonna do it, prying might. Leverage is the fundamental ingredient in prying. Leverage come in many forms.
A persuasive argument would be the happiest form, but we haven't heard the ultimate persuasive argument ....(yet I hope). Problem there is there can and will be counter persuasive arguments, and these we have begun hearing. Violence, on the opposite end is unacceptable. That leaves only the courts, where traditionally, in the USA, issues like this end up, where legal precedence will hold sway.
We will never see Stars again in the states, nor Tilt. Even if the courts decide in (what we consider) our favor, the machinery to regulate and control online gaming will be waiting in the wings and highly favor US entities.
In many ways there are great similarities to the circumstances that caused party poker (and others) to leave the states.
Viscerally, emotionally, I want the DoJ to be handed their asses on a legal plate and be forced to do something costly to remedy their arrogance.
Not gonna happen that way tho, and certainly not soon.
fletchdad
Jammin................
Loyaler
As I seem to find so often, I really think Oz brings up some great points. here. A lot of sober reflection in his comments. If you dont agree, thats fine. But I think it will be hard for anyone to dicount his arguments, especially since, as he mentioned, he is all FOR online poker being allowed.
In order for anyone to male any headway in getting any new laws passed, any change set in motion of any kind, it is imperative to know what the opposition has to say. If you only listen to your own convincing arguments, and are fueled by all your friends and supporters who insist that your arguments are sensible and irrefutable (as they may even be), you need to understand that the converted are not who you are trying to reach.
Listen to your foes, study their arguments. look for what makes sense and where they actually have valid points. Then look for solutions and alternatives to these points.
Gambling addiction exists, and is a very real problem that poker opponents can use and generate very real trepidation to the uninformed layman. To write these people off as idiots and unimportant, while even if occasionally true, will not help influence the uniformed public in any positive way. Only by addressing the inherent problems ourselves can we, as a poker community, create any understanding and support from the as yet uninvolved public.
In order for anyone to male any headway in getting any new laws passed, any change set in motion of any kind, it is imperative to know what the opposition has to say. If you only listen to your own convincing arguments, and are fueled by all your friends and supporters who insist that your arguments are sensible and irrefutable (as they may even be), you need to understand that the converted are not who you are trying to reach.
Listen to your foes, study their arguments. look for what makes sense and where they actually have valid points. Then look for solutions and alternatives to these points.
Gambling addiction exists, and is a very real problem that poker opponents can use and generate very real trepidation to the uninformed layman. To write these people off as idiots and unimportant, while even if occasionally true, will not help influence the uniformed public in any positive way. Only by addressing the inherent problems ourselves can we, as a poker community, create any understanding and support from the as yet uninvolved public.
Charade You Are
you can call me Frost
Silver Level
Gambling addiction does exist, but online poker didn't create the problem and banning online poker won't solve it. IMO it's a just a red herring since many forms of gambling in the US are legal and advertised heavily. Ironically, instead of just pure poker sites, if we end up with US based sites, they will be casinos offering all types of gambling, which is more likely to increase the numbers of addicts than just offering poker.
I wish more effort had been given towards just exempting online poker from the UIGEA specifically, as a game of skill, and be done with it. Then the government could have licensed payment processors in order to collect the taxes on w/d. But that was probably way too simple
and wouldn't accomplish the real agenda of restricting free trade.
PurgatoryD
Visionary
Silver Level
Let me start by saying that this is a great debate! I think we can all agree that there is much to be gained by sharing ideas, arguments, and counterarguments. I feel that even our friends outside of the US are really feeling this one.
In reading the comments regarding my argument (which has been presented in bits and pieces), I feel that I haven't made my position very clear. So please allow me to state my position more fully. It probably won't change many minds, but hopefully will open people up to some other ideas. So here it is.
The recent crackdown on online poker in the US is merely a symptom of a much larger problem in our country. It is this larger problem that I am interested in addressing, not the symptom. Yes, I enjoyed playing online poker and yes, I would love to play again. But I am not interested in making poker the exception to this greater rule -- I am interested in changing the rule itself.
The greater rule itself has to do with maintaining our rights as citizens. Our Constitution contains nothing in it which would preclude us a priori from playing poker online. Or from smoking marijuana. Or from marrying someone of the same sex. Or for gambling outside of an Indian reservation or state lottery system. Or from purchasing liquor on Sundays. Or from buying a McDonald's Happy Meal. Or from eating the meat of a horse. Yet, depending on where you live in the US, each and every one of these individual rights has been taken away.
So yes, there will be those who want their poker and they'll go fight for their poker. And there will be those who want to smoke their marijuana and they'll go fight for their marijuana. That's a fine approach and for the particular right in question, it can be restored. We did get the right to drink alcohol back, for instance.
But at some point, even the person who doesn't play poker has to realize that he has a vested interest in this right if for no other reason than to protect his own rights. That's why I voted to legalize marijuana even though I don't smoke it. That's why I voted to allow gay marriage even though I'm heterosexual and already married. That's why I voted against banning the use of horse meat for human consumption even though I've never even tried it and can't really imagine wanting to.
While we all have different interests, we all have a common interest in not allowing others to dictate how we live. United we stand divided we fall has never rung truer. I lose my right to play poker but you just let it go because you don't happen to play? You lose your right to smoke marijuana (yes, even if you get that right, you will most certainly lose it again) but I just let it go because I don't happen to smoke? So divided against each other in this manner we lose right by right by right.
Coming back to poker in particular, for those wishing to focus on legislating that right alone, let's take a glimpse of what that future potentially holds. Conventional wisdom tells us that, for the states that allow it, online poker will most likely be allowed within the boundaries of the state. So not only have you lost international play, but you've also lost the ability to play within the greater US.
But it could get even worse in states like California. With the current budget problems in the state, there is a political movement to take various state responsibilities and operations and shift them onto local governments. For those living in rural areas, could you imagine being confined to playing in your local county poker network? I'm not suggesting that that will necessarily happen. But it certainly could happen if we continue to delude ourselves into thinking that this has nothing to do with rights.
Some may see this argument as emotional. But our rights were founded on an emotional rationality. It doesn't get any more emotional than, "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!"
So that's my take on this whole thing. Thanks for reading. Comments of course welcomed.
-Dave
In reading the comments regarding my argument (which has been presented in bits and pieces), I feel that I haven't made my position very clear. So please allow me to state my position more fully. It probably won't change many minds, but hopefully will open people up to some other ideas. So here it is.
The recent crackdown on online poker in the US is merely a symptom of a much larger problem in our country. It is this larger problem that I am interested in addressing, not the symptom. Yes, I enjoyed playing online poker and yes, I would love to play again. But I am not interested in making poker the exception to this greater rule -- I am interested in changing the rule itself.
The greater rule itself has to do with maintaining our rights as citizens. Our Constitution contains nothing in it which would preclude us a priori from playing poker online. Or from smoking marijuana. Or from marrying someone of the same sex. Or for gambling outside of an Indian reservation or state lottery system. Or from purchasing liquor on Sundays. Or from buying a McDonald's Happy Meal. Or from eating the meat of a horse. Yet, depending on where you live in the US, each and every one of these individual rights has been taken away.
So yes, there will be those who want their poker and they'll go fight for their poker. And there will be those who want to smoke their marijuana and they'll go fight for their marijuana. That's a fine approach and for the particular right in question, it can be restored. We did get the right to drink alcohol back, for instance.
But at some point, even the person who doesn't play poker has to realize that he has a vested interest in this right if for no other reason than to protect his own rights. That's why I voted to legalize marijuana even though I don't smoke it. That's why I voted to allow gay marriage even though I'm heterosexual and already married. That's why I voted against banning the use of horse meat for human consumption even though I've never even tried it and can't really imagine wanting to.
While we all have different interests, we all have a common interest in not allowing others to dictate how we live. United we stand divided we fall has never rung truer. I lose my right to play poker but you just let it go because you don't happen to play? You lose your right to smoke marijuana (yes, even if you get that right, you will most certainly lose it again) but I just let it go because I don't happen to smoke? So divided against each other in this manner we lose right by right by right.
Coming back to poker in particular, for those wishing to focus on legislating that right alone, let's take a glimpse of what that future potentially holds. Conventional wisdom tells us that, for the states that allow it, online poker will most likely be allowed within the boundaries of the state. So not only have you lost international play, but you've also lost the ability to play within the greater US.
But it could get even worse in states like California. With the current budget problems in the state, there is a political movement to take various state responsibilities and operations and shift them onto local governments. For those living in rural areas, could you imagine being confined to playing in your local county poker network? I'm not suggesting that that will necessarily happen. But it certainly could happen if we continue to delude ourselves into thinking that this has nothing to do with rights.
Some may see this argument as emotional. But our rights were founded on an emotional rationality. It doesn't get any more emotional than, "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!"
So that's my take on this whole thing. Thanks for reading. Comments of course welcomed.
-Dave