Sponsored by Cisco WebEx
BEAR GRYLLS: Essential Lessons for Everyday Survival view!
webex.com - Join us! Learn to improve motivation & overcome adversity. Thu July 29, 10 AM PT. FREE Online Meeting. Register Now!
22 Comments
- grasshopp3r, on 07/23/2010, -2/+17The jobs went overseas, as well. Not just the customer service jobs, but the programmers, tech and networking talent, too. It takes many skilled engineers to make these sites work. There are also other applications for this technology.
This is all due to the self annointed social morality police of the far right wing of the Republican Party. How about minding your own business and let me do what I want? - TheEngineer2008, on 07/24/2010, -2/+7Sen. D'Amato has it right. We don't need big government to censor the Internet to "protect" us from the liberty of playing online poker.
- TheEngineer2008, on 07/24/2010, -0/+3There's nothing in the Constitution that ensures that states have the right to regulate gaming. To the contrary, the commerce clause gives this power to the federal government. Online poker is interstate and international by definition.
There's also nothing to your argument that obligates the federal government to aid the states in enforcing whatever laws they think they have on online poker. In fact, it's highly questionable if the states even have this right (I think it's superseded by the commerce clause). - TheEngineer2008, on 07/24/2010, -0/+2Why not? The commerce clause clearly makes the federal goverment the appropriate body for this. Also, states are too small to offer decent games. There aren't enough players to ensure a decent player pool.
- onlinehustla, on 07/24/2010, -2/+4It blows my mind that the US government hasn't realized that online poker is a game of skill (over the long term everyone's luck is the same and how you play the cards determines if you're a winner or loser). I can't win at online poker because my Texas Hold'em strategy sucks, but if it was all luck I'd have just as good a chance as everyone else. Stop telling me what I can and cannot do with the money I work hard to earn and pay taxes on. If I want to relax at home and blow $100 playing Internet poker every few weeks, I should have the right to do so.
- TheEngineer2008, on 07/24/2010, -0/+2@topapito,
Then how is it that I I make a regular, repeatable, reliable income stream from playing poker?
It is a game of skill. You may play it like it's a game of luck, but that doesn't make it one. What that actually means is that I really, really hope to see you at my table! - TheEngineer2008, on 07/24/2010, -0/+2@VociferUnbanned,
Sites today have procedures to ensure against chip dumping. The regulations in Congress today back these with the force of law. - topapito, on 07/24/2010, -0/+1By the way, I should add that such technology already exists and it would be simple to implement. Where each state can easily and with proper verification, collect taxes for the amount of gaming from it's residents. But go ahead, try and convince them this is going to work.
Legalization, or lack of, is nothing but sticking their heads in the ground in order to avoid a much larger issue. The internet will change the way humanity lives, but it will take a long time for humanity to allow it to do so. RIAA anyone? - TheEngineer2008, on 07/25/2010, -0/+1@topapito,
Some states choose to have casinos while others do not because -- for instate gaming -- that's their option. Online gaming, OTOH, is interstate. Congress can license and regulate it if they so choose.
The reference? The Constitution. - topapito, on 07/24/2010, -1/+2Follow the money. I can understand tax evasion issues exist, but no more than in any other industry. Money laundering? Not likely, with all digital money, money laundering is simply not an issue as the money can be traced from point A to point Z without a glitch.
The flow of money leaving the US is also not an issue as most of the money would then get spent in marketing and supporting services.
No, I am afraid you don't have much of an argument for the existence of outlawing gambling. - MillerBart, on 07/24/2010, -0/+1The federal government shouldn't be regulating this. This is an issue best left to each state. But of course anyone who supports states' rights is a racist.
- VociferUnbanned, on 07/24/2010, -0/+1You are 100% wrong. I have read about this and have donated money to the Poker Players' Alliance to fight the regulation.
Money laundering does indeed occur in what is called chip dumping. If I sit at a table with a friend without any history between us playing, I can "give" him thousands of dollars by purposely playing poorly. Without regulation, the sites would have no obligation to crack down on this sort of thing. There are also player-to-payer transfers which also would have no obligation by online poker sites to be reported to governments, even they are traceable.
As for the flow of funds, you misunderstand me. I'm talking about the funds of U.S. players who sit at tables to play games, who then lose hands to citizens of other countries. This was happening on a massive scale in the year or two before the laws were passed. - topapito, on 07/24/2010, -0/+1Ok, agreed on the constitution saying nothing about states regulating gaming. But why do Nevada and New Jersey allow gaming and others not? If it was a federal issue, then surely a country wide license could be obtained by any of these companies and they then could open casinos indiscriminately in any state of their choosing. No, I am sure that each state gets to decide on their own gambling regulations. Please provide some references if you have them, I would most certainly like to see them.
- topapito, on 07/24/2010, -0/+1Vocifer, I think where our difference lies is in the definition of money laundering. I define money laundering as the washing of dirty money. Chip dumping certainly does not involve washing of money which has already entered the digital stage. Converting illegal cash into bankable money is money laundering. Chip dumping cannot be considered money laundering unless the person benefiting from this chip dumping fails to declare his/her winnings from the chip dumping.
None of the sites in existence today owe the US Congress any jurisdictional compliance since they are outlaws by the very nature of their business. It is impossible to declare oneself legally in compliance when you are an outlaw on any other issue. So any law passed by congress is moot when it comes to these outlawed sites. As well, I seriously doubt any of these sites lose any sleep over what the congress thinks or does. - partrow, on 07/24/2010, -1/+1Another politician buffoon.
- Malefiicus, on 07/24/2010, -1/+1Topapito - Well thought out approach to the situation, but I think if you watch the hearing you'll understand why your thoughts on the matter are misinformed. There is a state opt out clause that was always planned to be in this bill, which we will hear more about by the time of the markup of HR 2267 (which happens on the 28th IIRC). The reason for it, is because we know we can't get any legislation passed if we're trying to force it on every state. I don't know much about the structure of state payouts, although I know the current plan is a 10% tax on deposits which will likely be absorbed by the poker sites in exchanging for a slightly higher rake. But you do have to verify yourself by license and usually a bill, which makes state payouts easier than you make it out to be.
Lastly, I should state that gambling on the internet, at least, playing poker on the internet is not illegal. The UIGEA (unlawful internet gaming enforcement act) only prohibits the transfer of funds from a financial institution to Internet gambling sites. That does not affect the player, just the sites. Here's some information on that. This first thing is the law people sometimes think applies to poker, and the second thing is the US federal appeals court upholding an earlier ruling that it only applies to sporting events or contests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Wire_Act
On November 21, 2002, the US Fifth Circuit Federal Appeals Court upheld Duval's ruling, stating: "The district court concluded that the Wire Act concerns gambling on sporting events or contests... We agree with the district court's statutory interpretation, its reading of the relevant case law, its summary of the relevant legislative history, and its conclusion."
For more information, consider this site http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57/poker-legisla ... specifically any thread talking about HR 2267
I've played online poker for a long time, some sites are really reputable (Full tilt, Pokerstars), other sites are a little shady (ultimate bet), but overall I've made a lot of withdrawls and deposits (when I was bad) on the first two sites with no trouble in regards to moving my money around. As it stands, if you want to play poker on the internet you can, and in order to keep that being the case we need to support legislation like HR 2267. - OutAndAbout, on 07/24/2010, -2/+1Title should read -Former- Sen D'Amato. Or even better; Former Sen, Current Poker Lobbyist, Al D'Amato.
- VociferUnbanned, on 07/24/2010, -3/+2This isn't a social morality issue, it is merely disguised as one. The reason that online poker and sports-betting sites are heavily regulated is because there are 1) money laundering and/or tax evasion possibilities and 2) high outflows of funds from U.S citizens to other parts of the world (with no goods or services returned).
I play poker and support legalization 100%, but it is understandable why the regulation exists. - CkMaverick, on 07/24/2010, -2/+1I play Full Tilt Poker all the time for real money, it is a pain in the ass to get your money out of it (you have to snail mail it back to yourself and it must be at least $100 and up), but actually putting your money in and gambling with it is a breeze, both depositing and losing it ;)
- topapito, on 07/24/2010, -2/+1There is better logic in the gambling prohibition than meets the eye. It has nothing to do with money laundering and even less to do with tax evasion. And for all it's worth, here is the real problem. The way the US system of government is played out, each state has the right to regulate gambling. Which means that for an operator, such as Fulltilt or Pokerstars for example, obtaining and maintaining a license in each of the 51 states will be a nightmare. Not to mention, allowing players to play players across state boundaries would also present a problem. The real money is made without any physical borders present as the internet believes in no physical borders. Hence the real problem, who has dibs on the tax money generated by an all encompassing license if one were to be granted? The political war which would ensue is enough to decide the issue is not worth it and it is easier to make it illegal.
The legal situation in the US is so that legalizing gambling to allow sites until now wholly unrestricted by geographical constraints is akin to forcing them to split their interests into a smorgasbord of sites which ultimately will make it impossible to operate. There is your quandary, and the REAL reason you are being lead into these ridiculous arguments about money laundering and whether or not poker is a sport or all that hogwash.
How does the federal government convince the states to work together into forming a sort of affiliate system whereby tax money is collected and distributed to each state and the gambling system can continue to rake unencumbered by geographical stupidity, while yet allowing each state to regulate gambling as they have done forever.
My take is that regardless of how they do it, you have not seen the end of "illegal" gambling as the system for a properly laid out structure simply does not exist, and good luck with trying to get all 51 states in agreement on anything. - topapito, on 07/24/2010, -2/+1Online poker is no more a game of skill than slot machines. That is just an angle that seems to be working for the poker lobby so they use it to their benefit. It's really that simple.
- digitalArtform, on 07/24/2010, -3/+2I hardly even know 'er.