jon_1van
07-12-2006, 01:08 PM
Honorable Senator Mikulski,
I am a concerned Maryland citizen against the banning of internet gambling. Specifically, I seek to protect my ability to play online poker. I realize your office is busy, so I will quickly list the core reasons why I believe the outright banning of internet gambling is wrong.
1. The legislation will be extremely difficult to enforce. I see no point in passing legislation that will be so difficult to enforce that it will be left under-enforced or it will absorb too many scarce crime-fighting resources.
2. This legislation will not protect those with legitimate gambling problems.
a. Because the legislation will be very difficult to enforce those with gambling addictions will not be deterred from placing online wagers because they will not fear being caught.
b. The current legislation provides exceptions for various forms of online gambling including online horse betting. How are you protecting a problem gambler when they are still allowed to gamble? Do you protect a drug addict by banning heroin yet legalizing cocaine?
3. Philosophically, I see no reason to ban gambling. I do not believe gambling is inherently wrong. I do not believe others should be able to limit my enjoyment of online poker because they believe it is bad.
4. Regulating online gambling is a better option. While I don’t agree with a ban, I do agree with regulation. Regulation could have many benefits – for example
a. A new tax revenue stream
b. Responsible online gaming provides a realistic hope of identifying and helping problem gamblers. Online gambling takes place on computers, thus it is prime territory for using software to identify gamblers that are likely to have a problem. Once identified these gamblers can be helped.
c. Obviously, the legality of online gaming is dubious at best. Due to this uncertainty no home grown companies could enter this market due to risk of various lawsuits. Regulation of online gaming would allow American companies to compete in this market. This would allow much of this industries revenue to remain in the states.
Now I would like to address my belief as to why poker should not be lumped with every other form of gambling. Poker is the only form of wagering when you don’t wager against the “house”. This is a hugely important detail that those who don’t gamble will underestimate.
Games like blackjack, roulette, and craps have evolved over time. Those games have evolved so that the gambler will always have a “chance” to come out a big winner. It’s those unlikely, yet possible, successes that keep people hooked on gambling. If the gambler wins all of the time the house goes out of business. If the gambler loses all of the time the house can’t find anymore customers. So the games must be “balanced”, yet always just barely favor the house.
Now imagine that you are playing a chess grand master like Gary Kasporov or Bobby Fisher. It won’t matter if you are Bill Gates playing for hundreds of dollars a game or if you are Joe Teenage playing for 5 bucks a game. You will lose every game you play against Bobby Fisher. How many games will it take before you decide you won’t play anymore?
Obviously poker is not as cut and dry like chess. But it is a game of skill. And those who aren’t skilled will lose too often to get hooked. Anyone who is susceptible to a gambling addiction will find their fix elsewhere. Perhaps, they’ll find it at a horse-track.
Respectfully yours,
A home-owning married father
Jon Parker
I am a concerned Maryland citizen against the banning of internet gambling. Specifically, I seek to protect my ability to play online poker. I realize your office is busy, so I will quickly list the core reasons why I believe the outright banning of internet gambling is wrong.
1. The legislation will be extremely difficult to enforce. I see no point in passing legislation that will be so difficult to enforce that it will be left under-enforced or it will absorb too many scarce crime-fighting resources.
2. This legislation will not protect those with legitimate gambling problems.
a. Because the legislation will be very difficult to enforce those with gambling addictions will not be deterred from placing online wagers because they will not fear being caught.
b. The current legislation provides exceptions for various forms of online gambling including online horse betting. How are you protecting a problem gambler when they are still allowed to gamble? Do you protect a drug addict by banning heroin yet legalizing cocaine?
3. Philosophically, I see no reason to ban gambling. I do not believe gambling is inherently wrong. I do not believe others should be able to limit my enjoyment of online poker because they believe it is bad.
4. Regulating online gambling is a better option. While I don’t agree with a ban, I do agree with regulation. Regulation could have many benefits – for example
a. A new tax revenue stream
b. Responsible online gaming provides a realistic hope of identifying and helping problem gamblers. Online gambling takes place on computers, thus it is prime territory for using software to identify gamblers that are likely to have a problem. Once identified these gamblers can be helped.
c. Obviously, the legality of online gaming is dubious at best. Due to this uncertainty no home grown companies could enter this market due to risk of various lawsuits. Regulation of online gaming would allow American companies to compete in this market. This would allow much of this industries revenue to remain in the states.
Now I would like to address my belief as to why poker should not be lumped with every other form of gambling. Poker is the only form of wagering when you don’t wager against the “house”. This is a hugely important detail that those who don’t gamble will underestimate.
Games like blackjack, roulette, and craps have evolved over time. Those games have evolved so that the gambler will always have a “chance” to come out a big winner. It’s those unlikely, yet possible, successes that keep people hooked on gambling. If the gambler wins all of the time the house goes out of business. If the gambler loses all of the time the house can’t find anymore customers. So the games must be “balanced”, yet always just barely favor the house.
Now imagine that you are playing a chess grand master like Gary Kasporov or Bobby Fisher. It won’t matter if you are Bill Gates playing for hundreds of dollars a game or if you are Joe Teenage playing for 5 bucks a game. You will lose every game you play against Bobby Fisher. How many games will it take before you decide you won’t play anymore?
Obviously poker is not as cut and dry like chess. But it is a game of skill. And those who aren’t skilled will lose too often to get hooked. Anyone who is susceptible to a gambling addiction will find their fix elsewhere. Perhaps, they’ll find it at a horse-track.
Respectfully yours,
A home-owning married father
Jon Parker