Letter from a poker site employee

[Grummin]

For those of you who don’t know me yet, my name is Douglas and I’m a US-born poker site game designer. The actions of my government have branded me a lawbreaker today and I’d like to take this opportunity to make a person response to their actions. I do not speak for my company with this response.

Today, the US Government voted on a Ports Security Bill and passed it. An eleventh-hour rider was snuck onto the bill that makes Internet Gambling more illegal than it already was and just like that, the online US poker-playing public was robbed of their voice.

Millions of players in the US log in to an online poker site each day to take a shot at a tournament or try their luck at a real money ring game. And yet many of them woke up today not knowing that their right to do so has just been ripped from them without any public debate of the issue. Our representatives slipped the American public a mickey and had their way with them while they were unconscious. But since the IG rider was attached to the Ports Security Bill, our representatives get to claim they were “voting on the Ports bill” when they are cornered (sounding very much like the “I didn’t rape her, I was drunk” defense).

As a conservative who was raised Catholic in the farmland of Midwest, today’s actions really let me down. The Republican party is about to get evicted and they are taking everything that’s not nailed down on their way out. As much as I dislike Harry Reid, I actually found myself smiling reading his comments about Republican’s shoving everything onto bills they couldn’t pass on their own.

In my 8 years of developing video games and my 25 years of playing them, I’ve NEVER seen a game like online poker when it comes to bringing the world closer together. Poker gets people playing folks from around the planet, chatting and having fun. Yes, some lose money and some win money, but that’s where the excitement lies in the game. But the important part is they’re losing money to each other when they lose a pot!

The online poker industry would welcome with open arms regulation and taxation on our games, effectively putting the US government’s mind at ease about the “dangers” of money-laundering and terrorist funding. Which then leaves their morality argument, one that dies on the vine with the carve-outs for Lottery, horse-racing, etc. Do they really believe that it’s morally acceptable to lose $5,000 on Frist Suxs to show in the 5th?

In the end, this bill will sadly push away those who just want to have fun and force the professional players in the US into hiding their actions even more. A game that’s found on nearly every TV channel today has once again been shoved into the darkly lit back rooms of the Internet. And as US viewers watch the new Bond film which revolves around a high-stakes poker game, they’ll leave the theater unable to find this thrill themselves unless they live within driving distance of their locally legal casino.

The best thing about the US is that laws can be changed or even overturned. Let's see what happens next.

[JOHNY CA$H]

Nice Hand, Sir.

[jah7_fsu1]

[ QUOTE ]
Our representatives slipped the American public a mickey and had their way with them while they were unconscious. But since the IG rider was attached to the Ports Security Bill, our representatives get to claim they were “voting on the Ports bill” when they are cornered (sounding very much like the “I didn’t rape her, I was drunk” defense).

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the Royal Flush of comments on this issue. Indeed, a very nice hand sir.

[RollinHand]

Excellent post!

[FastForward7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Our representatives slipped the American public a mickey and had their way with them while they were unconscious. But since the IG rider was attached to the Ports Security Bill, our representatives get to claim they were “voting on the Ports bill” when they are cornered (sounding very much like the “I didn’t rape her, I was drunk” defense).

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the Royal Flush of comments on this issue. Indeed, a very nice hand sir.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no. Yes it was impossible to vote against this bill one one hand. One the other it would most likely have easily passed on it's own. Sorry to say but it's the truth. Underhanded as it may seem the result would have been pretty much the same except for the score. Put the Seattle Seahawks up against your local HS team. Now run it again with Alexander out. What's really going to be the difference?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually found myself smiling reading his comments about Republican’s shoving everything onto bills they couldn’t pass on their own.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. They could have easily have passed the legislation on its own if given more time. There was wide support for an internet gambling bill.

[ QUOTE ]
In my 8 years of developing video games and my 25 years of playing them, I’ve NEVER seen a game like online poker when it comes to bringing the world closer together. Poker gets people playing folks from around the planet, chatting and having fun. Yes, some lose money and some win money, but that’s where the excitement lies in the game. But the important part is they’re losing money to each other when they lose a pot!

[/ QUOTE ]
Pure nonsense. They're losing as much money to the house as they are in a game like blackjack. There's absolutely no difference. The reason some players win is because most players lose so fast they cover the effects of the house's take AND give money to other players as well.

As for the "social" side of things, poker takes away from face to face contact with family and friends. You certainly can't argue that people are more social as a result of online poker. Perhaps a few closeted losers are.

In short, your letter is ridiculous.

[cking]

I was woundering why my ass hurt waking up this morning...

[jah7_fsu1]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. They could have easily have passed the legislation on its own if given more time. There was wide support for an internet gambling bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this is ridiculous. While it might have passed at least it would have gotten the discussion it deserved and not be attatched to something completely unrelated. Even if it did pass, it deserved its own discussion and its own vote.

[Phil153]

Of course, and I agree. The attaching of unrelated items to a bill is a gaping hole in your lawmaking system, and there should be rules put in place to stop it. Republicans have done this many times, one of the most infamous being a law that people couldn't sue a large drug maker, which was attached to a defense bill (also by Frist).

But the OP suggested that the bill wouldn't pass on its own, which is nonsense

[demon102]

In the legislationg forum I found a link that goes to a website called 911(something) dont remember exactly. But it had an article that said the many of congress didnt want this part of the bill to go through but we in favor of the major part of the bill having to do with protecting our ports from attacks or something and it says that they pretty much couldnt vote against the bill for that reason. I cant believe they can put 2 diffent big issues in 1 set package. Its pretty ridiculous and doesnt make sense to me.

[advilandy]

[ QUOTE ]
I cant believe they can put 2 diffent big issues in 1 set package.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't a big issue to anybody except online poker players and people "losing" money because it isn't taxed.

This legislation will ultimately fail just as the RIAA is failing...this isn't enforcable, and even if some group tries to enforce it, encryption will be available shortly. While I am still worried about what this will mean in the short term, I don't think internet poker is going to die in the US.

[robby.hart]

Very well said. I agree with the main point of your post.
Do you think it is likely that congress will re-legalize online poker?
I think they will and we will see (for instance) Bellagio.com, Mirage.com, etc. within several months. The online poker starved public will flock back and the games will be juicer than ever. But if the gap is years rather than months, perhaps the poker fad will die out and there will not be anywhere for US players to legally play online.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think they will and we will see (for instance) Bellagio.com, Mirage.com, etc. within several months.

[/ QUOTE ]

Several MONTHS? You're living in fantasyland.

[BluffTHIS!]

Ron,

I don't know why that poster bumped this old thread, but regarding the months thing it is possible. All it takes to be true is one state. If they license an existing site to run online poker within that state, the software platform is already in place and only needs to be mounted on servers in that state along with a funding processing server to get the ball rolling. Unlikely yes, but possible in the short term. Plus obviously the first state doing so will pave the way for others.

However this assumes one thing, which is that some states can authorize this immediately via legislation instead of having to enact a constitutional ammendment via referendum as is the case for many if not most states.

This is why a state level organization needs to be moving now in Texas as they have B&M casino legislation advanceing toward a referendum.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
regarding the months thing it is possible. All it takes to be true is one state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff, while technically correct... don't you believe more realistically, that anything like this will take years of discussion and debate on the specific wording as it makes its way thru commitees, etc?

Its not like they are just going to walk into the chamber one day, and make it happen cold... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

Sniper,

Let's take the case again of a state that doesn't need a constitutional ammendment, and that is already considering expanding gambling. West Virginia would fit the bill. They could easily have discussed this at the start of the session and had it in the current legislation that has already passed one house, with specific implementing regulations to follow later. So "months" here means one year actually, though still not several years.

[ozziepat]

Some thought should be given to business models, and I'm sure it has been by the big B&M establishments. Poker is, to them, almost a loss leader compared to slots and casino games. Note "almost."

The question for the business, say Bellagio, is, "What's in it for us today, as a first step into online poker, to set up a site under our brand solely for Nevada residents?" Until there is a significant positive-net-ROI business answer to that question, it ain't going to happen.

[BluffTHIS!]

ozzie,

The Nevada casino corporations are in fact interested in online gambling and if you would keep up with news you would know that. Furthermore they aren't the only ones a state could go to. WVA for example if it legalized online poker, could just license an existing online site like party poker to run separate games for its residents. Of course they would probably have to allow competition unless the state itself was spreading the games like they do with lotteries.

[ozziepat]

Bluffdude

"Interested in" doesn't cut it, and "online gambling" might include poker as a very low priority, or not. Where are the sites? When are the sites? "We are considering" is a non-starter until someone announces concrete action. Setting up a web site in a business in which you already have all the application domain expertise is almost trivial.

The point about Nevada is potential conflict with existing business, i.e., B&M casinos. It's rarely a good idea to create a new business that gets most of its customers from your existing business. They call it cannibalizing, and any astute businessperson will be wary of doing this unless it is an inherent part of their basic business model. For B&M casinos, it is not.

West Virginia and states having minimal investments in B&M casinos (hence a minimal lobby and minimal potential conflicting interests and/or potential investors) are a different matter. As for *interstate* internet poker, this is another someday-maybe-if proposition.

Bottom line for me: The big gaming businesses in the US have known about online gambling possibilities (including poker) for years. They have taken a pass. The UIEGA doesn't look to change their minds in the other direction.