Online Gambling Ending

I hear you. Do something about it... vote against the party that is in power, and is responsible. Tell those you know to do the same. Help make a change in November, and get a new group in power. It would be difficult for them to do a worse job. Damn near impossible, IMO.

I don't gamble, but I have friends who enjoy internet gambling for recreation. Or at least they did. I'm for freedom of choice, as long as it doesn't harm someone else. This was a horrible rider to a bill that never should have seen the light of day.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

This sucks....they need to worry about sexual predators instead of people having fun in their homes.

 

This is McCarthism all over again...time to swing back to the left......bring back the FREE love of the 60s.

DD

 

let me first say i dont gamble, not because i think its wrong, but because i would rather not part with my money that way.

but i am kinda mad they're ending it, and i dont think it will return as a taxed business either. this is going to go overseas and will be black marketed. much like prohibition, and the war on drugs it will continue, just as an underground sport... except online.

i'd like to agree with DD, and i hope he's right cause i'm voting against every incumbant in 34 short days... actually less cause i'm gonna early vote

 

I'd be curious to see the stats on the ages of people who gamble online and how many dorm rooms all over the country are full of online gamblers. Gambling can be addictive and destructive for young people. Until there are better controls to stop under age people from gambling online then I think this is a good idea. Even in my own limited experience with gambling, I've been shocked to see how wrapped up young people can get in gambling.

 

This is very true. However, half-assing a ban the government cannot enforce only makes matters worse.

It is an open secret that the US government cannot effectively shut down online gambling. The DOJ has been going after illegal off-shore sportsbooks for years, and recently they've even made several high profile arrests of CEOs of sportsbook companies.

But does that mean people are prevented from gambling or playing games online? No. Sure, some companies like Party Gaming have decided to shut out American players, but other companies, like Bodog and FullTilt, recently stated that nothing will change for them.

The thing is, most of these companies exists off shore. What can the US do? There are no assets to seize and as long as the employees do not travel to the US, they are ok. Sure there are extradition laws, but some countries believe the US ban on online gaming is actually in violation of a WTO ruling.

So, what happens now? Many Americans will continue playing online. Except now, they are going to be even more secretive about it. They might use less reputable payment services, go to smaller, less stable online gaming companies. The net result is that people will be forced to take more and more risks to play.

This could all be prevented if Congress regulated online gambling. Invite the big gambling operations to MOVE TO THE US, so we have a better way of regulating them. We can get lots of tax revenue and force the online casinos to adhere to the toughest anti-addiction and anti-underage programs we can think of.

Sure, this may sound burdensome to the online casinos, but they would actually LOVE to be regulated if it means opening up the US market and becoming more mainstream.

So why aren't we adopting this win-win scenario? It is beacuse online gambilng is a easy industry to attack: the corporations are offshore, and people who don't understand the internet will think that the government is being "tough on crime" and strong on "morality."

Moreover, I suspect certain established gambling establishments, such as state lotteries and horse races--which are conspicuosuly exempted form this bill btw--also have powerful lobbies fighting against online competition from becoming regulated and legal.

Even if you think gambling online is stupid, what about games of skills online? Poker, mahjong, scrabble, chess, Warcraft... all these games can and have been monetized. Why should adults not be allowed to compete against each other for money? Aren't we a country built on free competition and individualism?

Regulating online gambling is just the tip of the iceberg. Banning online gaming, the music DRM stuff, the net neutrality debate--these are all little ways the government is encroaching into our cyberspace.

Today, you say, "I don't gamble online, who cares." Well, maybe tomorrow they will censor something you DO care about, maybe political web cartoons, websites that talks frankly about adult issues, dungeons and dragons, etc.

What is next my friends. What is next?

 

I don't think this is a slippery slope. Gambling is already illegal with exceptions as you mentioned, online or not. If you're gambling in your garage and the cops stumble on it, you're gonig to get in trouble. Just because the net is a new medium doesn't mean they should stop enforcing the law. I don't really care if gambling is legal or not. My concern is its impact on kids and with the net in so many single parent homes in our society now, I think we need to do what we can to shut it down. I don't really see it as a civil liberties issue. You can gamble if you want, you just can't do it at 2am at home sitting in your underwear. Big deal...

 

Actually you can play poker in your garage and the police can't do anything about it - it isn't illegal.

Re: kids and gambling - single parents can block gambling sites, if we assume gambling is bad (for the sake of argument). OTOH it teaches a great bit about math, money management, and critical thinking. Of course I'm not sure it is the government's place to decide for us what our kids can and can't do in our homes. Unlike drugs where there is a reasonable argument for government interference, gambling of some sort is legal in most every state - from lotteries to horse racing to bingo to sports books to dice and cards. That this legislation is the baby of special interests and religious wacko's can hardly be concealed. It's probably for the best though since the kids will just go back to p*rn.

Re: civil liberties. Of course it is a civil liberty issue. Anytime the government tells the citizenry it cannot do something it likes to do it is a civil liberty issue. 30 million Americans play poker online. Over 70 million Americans play poker. The government is enacting a ban only an unholy alliance of casinos, Indians, and fundamentalists really want. Now the only choice is to go back to the illegal card rooms.


Great article from the MotleyFool

Did Congress Kill Online Poker?
Late last Friday, Congress passed a law aimed at shutting down online gambling in general -- including online poker -- in the United States. Jeff Hwang makes the case that poker isn't a form of gambling any more than buying stock is, and it should be exempt from the new law, as horse racing and state-run lotteries are.

By Jeff Hwang
October 3, 2006

I hate politics. I've never been into politics, I never will be, and I'll tell you why.

By now, you're probably aware that late last Friday, the U.S. Congress passed The Safe Port Act, a no-brainer bill to improve port security. So no-brainer, in fact, that the vote went 409-to-2 in favor of the bill in the House of Representatives. But attached to that bill was a completely unrelated set of provisions, entitled the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006," aimed at outlawing Internet gambling -- including online poker -- in the United States.

Mind you, this is how things get done in our country, for better or for worse. But according to the Poker Players Alliance, more than 70 million Americans play poker, representing almost a quarter of the U.S. population. Moreover, roughly one-third of poker-playing Americans play over the Internet. In addition, the game is played legally in public card rooms in Nevada, New Jersey, Florida, California, Washington, Missouri, Mississippi, Iowa, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, South Dakota, Michigan, etc., etc. Yet oddly, the new law -- upon its pending signing by President Bush -- protects state-run lotteries and horse racing from the new law, but lumps poker in with the games of chance such as craps and roulette. Frankly, I just find it sickening that such a controversial issue as online gambling was handled with little, if any, debate.

Now, the new law won't actually make playing poker online illegal; what it will do is make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to transfer funds from U.S. customers to online gambling sites. And by making it difficult (at the very least) for Americans to deposit cash in online gambling accounts, the law will significantly curb the flow of new cash into the online poker games.

The effect is already palpable. Online gambling giants Party Gaming and 888 Holdings -- which do roughly three-quarters and one-half of their business, respectively, in the U.S. -- have already announced that they will stop accepting business from U.S.-based customers once the President signs the bill into law. Sportingbet has announced that it will no longer pursue a merger with World Gaming. And nearly all of the U.K.-based online gaming companies saw their share prices more than halved in Monday trading, while Motley Fool Hidden Gems selection Cryptologic (Nasdaq: CRYP) -- which does less than 30% of its business in the United States -- saw its shares drop 18%.

Legislation regarding online gambling in the U.S. was inevitable, particularly with the recent explosion in the growth of online poker. However, the answer isn't prohibition.

Is poker really gambling?
First of all, the bill's specific exemption of horse racing and state-run lotteries, but not poker, must be predicated on the argument that poker represents a form of gambling. But is poker really gambling?

The answer really depends on the player.

Personally, I don't think poker is all that different from buying stocks. If you're patient and you've got a sound strategy, you're going to beat the market in the long run. The same applies to poker. If you trade too much and frequently speculate on trash stocks, you are probably going to have relatively poor results in the stock market. If you play too many hands, you're probably going to lose at poker.

In truth, the people who call poker a game of chance either have never played or probably just aren't very good at it. Granted, it's also probably true that a lot of people who think they are good at poker are, in fact, gambling.

But if you look at it that way, poker isn't gambling any more than buying stocks is. Of course, I don't really think of the lottery as gambling, either (It isn't gambling if you know you're going to lose, right?). Last I checked, buying stocks online wasn't illegal, and playing poker online shouldn't be targeted for death, either.

As Mike McDermott said in Rounders: "Why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table of the World Series of Poker every year? What, are they the luckiest guys in Las Vegas?"

Prohibition is not the answer -- regulation is
In Monday's HG Daily (for Hidden Gems subscribers only) regarding the effect of the legislation on Cryptologic, my colleague Jim Gillies noted a lecture on Al Capone and his role during Prohibition from a recent trip to Alcatraz:

"Prohibition's effect on alcohol prices was said to be on the order of a 275-fold increase within a year, and almost zero decrease in consumption of the now-illegal product. Does anyone believe that Americans en masse will stop gambling online, especially since there won't be any penalties for players? (Yeah, me neither.)"

Americans will continue to play online poker, albeit at a reduced rate (Americans still have brick-and-mortar card rooms to turn to). But that's not what the U.S. government should be concerned about; in my opinion, the real issue is that U.S. citizens account for the bulk of the $13 billion worldwide online gaming industry, yet the U.S. government receives zero tax dollars. And it's not because the online casino operators are nefarious thieves -- for the most part, the publicly traded online gaming companies are reputable businesses regulated by the respectable stock exchanges in the U.K. The reality is that the U.S. online gaming market is so profitable that these gaming companies would gladly share their profits and pay taxes in the U.S. By one estimate, the U.S. government is losing $3.3 billion in online gaming-related tax dollars to foreign governments.

And if Americans are going to play poker online anyway, doesn't it make more sense to legalize online gambling and regulate it, rather than make a futile attempt to ban it?

Direct parallels
There are direct parallels to this in the domestic casino market. In Council Bluffs, Iowa, for example -- which is located directly across the river from Omaha -- Nebraskans deposit the bulk of the nearly half a billion dollars in annual gaming revenues generated by the three casinos owned by Harrah's Entertainment (NYSE: HET) and Ameristar Casinos (Nasdaq: ASCA). While Nebraska is loath to legalize full-blown casinos, Nebraskans are going to gamble anyway, and it's inevitable that one day, the state will decide that its residents might as well deposit gaming tax dollars in Nebraska, rather than Iowa.

Similarly, rather than watch its residents spend all of their gambling budgets in New Jersey, Pennsylvania legalized as many as 61,000 slots at 14 locations in the state, which the state expects to generate $3 billion in gaming revenue, more than half of which will be paid back in taxes. Ohio faces a similar predicament, as Penn National's (Nasdaq: PENN) Argosy Lawrenceburg -- located in Indiana, roughly 25 miles across the state line from Cincinnati -- is the industry's most successful riverboat casino, partly because of the absence of real competition. The pending introduction of slots in neighboring Pennsylvania will likely speed up gambling legislation in Ohio, in an effort to keep gambling tax dollars within the state.

It may be a little sad that these states are somewhat forced, in a way, to legalize gambling, but it makes sense. What can you really do when the propensity to gamble is as human as the propensity to imbibe alcohol?

In my opinion, the regulation of online gaming seems to makes a heck of a lot more sense than an attempted ban. It's just not clear to me who this bit of legislation truly benefits, except perhaps a number of politicians up for election in November.

http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2006/commentary06100304.htm


More on the actual security bill:

Port security and internet gambling; Congress plugs security holes.

Earlier this summer, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would ban internet gambling in the United States, but the measure seemed to stall in the Senate. On Friday, the Senate passed a port security bill, with internet gambling as a rider.

Now you can say "Ok, that's the way congress works", it's a twist on pork barrel legislation, no different than a congressman promising to vote on a measure that would bolster social security as long as he gets a highway built to nowhere in his district.

If you're thinking this is going to be a pro-gambling article, keep reading, because it's not. Gambling is against the law here in the USA, and that's that, just a plain fact of life, unless of course you own a piece of land on the Las Vegas strip, or happen to have a vacant lot facing the boardwalk in Atlantic City, or own a riverboat on the Mississippi, or buy a big enough barge on the Gulf Coast, or run a state lottery, or live on an Indian Reservation, or have an old man that was a bookie in South Philly and you inherited the family business. Did I miss something? Yes I did. Bingo halls, race tracks, and OTB's [off track betting parlors]. I think that about covers it.

The bulk of the port security bill deals with cargo containers, thousands of which come into the country every day, uninspected. The bill calls for inspections at our 22 largest ports, including radiation screening, something that shouldn't have languished for 5 years after 9-11. The most ludicrous part of this legislative crawl is not that gambling got attached, but the issues that got canned instead.

Tighter security at courthouses - Not important.
Railroad and mass transit security - Nope.
Qualified screeners at airports - Who cares.

I would have thought things like that would have been a better fit with a security bill than say, Texas Hold-em. My obvious lack of understanding about how things work in DC is probably why I should never run for office. That being the case, let's see, where was I before I got off on this tangent... oh yeh... there's a ten jack ace showing, and I have a queen king.

I think I'm gonna go all-in...

http://www.bloggernews.net/2006/09/port-security-and-internet-gambling.html

 

Yep, I'm sure the Dems would never attach an unrelated rider to a bill they knew would pass to sneak some legislation through.

 

I play online poker regularly, but the fact is that gambling is ILLEGAL These companies were using loopholes in the law to keep up their operations.

 

If there was a legal loophole then how is it illegal? Think of it this way, what is illegal is sports betting over telephone wires. If I call a poker game in vegas and play over the phone that is not illegal. By the same token the game server is in another country. I might be giving instructions for playing poker over telephone wires (assuming I am not on satellite) but that is not illegal. And what if I live in Nevada or California - why shouldn't I be able to play poker at my desk?

 

The law is that gambling is illegal. Just because a company can get around that by setting up offshore doesn't mean that they should be allowed to continue to do so indefinitely.

 

No, that isn't the law. The law is that you can't book sports bets over the telephone. If 'gambling' was illegal you wouldn't be able to play the lotto, bingo, go to the track, or play the stock market (much less the casinos). And again, a loophole is by definition a gap in the law allowing a particular practice.

 

If that were the case, then I'd be able to open a casino next to Reliant Stadium. Playing the stock market isn't gambling though. And I know that's a loophole.

 

How is playing the stock market not gambling? You are betting that the company you bought stock in will make money to pay you dividends and that the price of their stock price will increase.

You either make money, break even, or lose money. How is that any different than gambling?

 

In gambling, the house almost always wins. The odds are set up against you. This is not the case with the stock market. When you invest your money in the stock market, you can invest it conservatively and diservify so that your chances of "losing" are small. Indeed, this is why people invest their hard earned money in mutual funds, not in blackjack.