stefluv1104
10-18-2006, 05:59 PM
So I know I'm noone big but I would like to think I happen to be quite philosophical and opinionated, and now more then ever would like to get the oppurtunity to share this article with the 2+2 community. I know it's rather long but I would like to think I make quite a few valid points. If anyone would like to post this on other sites, copy and paste things from it, print it and make a paper airplane out of it, or anything of that means feel free.
(please be patient with the wording as this was just a draft)
The article:
__________________________________________________ __________
One night while sitting around after a six hour poker session I began thinking about that ever so troubling question, What is the Legality of Internet Poker. I began looking up countless articles ranging from what countries it was clearly legal in; to interprutations of the "not-so-famous" and even more "not-so-clear" Wire Act and governments numerous attempts to ammend this bill to clarify how it applies to internet poker. But still nothing gave me a stone cold answer. The only thing i'm left actually knowing is that internet poker is quite highly frowned upon but not clearly illegal with the exceptions of random state laws. I did however skim across one article in particular that provided a little insight. The subject of this article was on North Dakota's attempt to make internet poker legal and regulated in the state of North Dakota. Needless to say this idea is merely that, an idea, with little support to make it officially go into action. Even despite a verbal commitment by an owner of one of the top internet poker site's to relocate their servers to North Dakota which would bring 10 million in tax revenues alone. One of the main arguements to this bill is that with the servers moving to their state, an increased crime rate would shortly follow as with all gambling based operations. I guess these Senators, Mayors, and all these other guys that sit around in their suits and ties are forgetting to factor in the countless US citizens all ready engaging in internet poker games under their own discretion into their thoughts that "crime will follow". Under their own philosophies, "if people start playing internet poker legally, then crime would follow" then wouldn't the crime allready be there? I don't know about you, but there's nothing that makes me want to go steal a car then being dealt AA.
Another article that grabbed my attention was one that stated the definition of gambling is an act majoring in consideration, prize, and chance and ALL of these have to be present to be considered gambling. To all those unfamiliar with what consideration is, it is basically that both parties involved offer something of value which can either be won or lost. Which I believe would relate to poker as "buy-ins" or "bets". Then prize pretty much speaks for itself in both what it means and how it applies. Then the final definetion, which is what i feel the cause for the controversy in the first place, is the word chance verses skill. Sure poker compromises an element of chance but it's manipulating that chance that makes it a game of skill. I mean would you consider all of Michael Jordan's game winning shots chance or skill? Had he not taken the time to refine how he manipulates shooting the ball would you even know who he is? Well according to legislation Michael Jordan should be arrested for gambling everytime he took one of those game winning shots. Let me provide the evidence. His consideration was his reputation, because we all know men value their reputation just as they do their car, their house, and their wife. Hell we all know Mike had a little bit of a gambling problem himself so he probably had his own money invested in that shot. The prize involved, the NBA finals or the money he had on that game. And last the chance would be that 35% he would miss the shot if he was shooting 65% FGs for the night. We'll I'd say I have enough to put him away. My next target would be all those people that invest in high-risk stocks. They give money to someone for a stock certificate with the potential to earn more money with the chance that the company could go bankrupt and you lose everything. I mean under legislation everyone would be guilty of some random sort of "gambling" act every single day. I don't know about you but anytime I drive my car I know i'm gambling with something a little more important then money. So does this mean cops standing on a corner should arrest everyone driving. Well this would be an extreme sence but do you kinda see what i'm saying?
I chose to drive my car, broker's chose to invest in IBM, Michael Jordan chose to practice all those countless hours to hit those clutch shots, and in poker someone chose to bet. As i'm sure you see what all these have in common is that people chose to do the things they do and truth of the matter is some people do it better then others. But any person no matter how smart or skillful they are can sit at a slot machine with the same results, a 90% pay out. Or they can go buy a scratch off ticket with a set 1:6 chance of winning and no room or possible way of manipulating these odds. This is the reason I feel they are considered a game of chance. In poker when you bet, your bet is not something you've automatically lost awaiting a random yet set event. Your bet is a thing with influence, and a very important part of the game. Your opponent can either fold to your bet, call it, or raise it. Thus making your "consideration" part of the game and not an object dependant on the game. How a person manipulates all these aspects and reacts to what his opponent does is what determines how skillfull a person is. If I bet Michael Jordan 10$ i could beat him in a game of one-on-one basketball, would that be gambling? According do the definition it wouldn't be because there is no chance i would ever beat Jordan. Yet if some Joe Shmoe on the streets bet 10$ he could beat Doyle Brunson in a poker game of his choice it would be because of the way people percieve the nature of cards? In any common dictionary you will find skill defined as Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or developed through training or experience or something relatively close to it. I'm fairly certain that Doyle is much more proficient at folding, betting, and raising then a common Joe Shmoe on the street from the experience he's had in the many tournaments he's played. Those same tournaments where every one had the same oppurtunities to do the same things Doyle did against other people just like themselves. So do I disagree with the fact that poker involves chance? No I don't, because everything in life involves chance. But when two or more people playing the same game against each other and all have the same chances and decisions then the person that does them the most skillfully should predominantly win. I say predominantly specifically because of that element of chance. That same element exists when any championship team loses in the regular season because of how they played that game and what luck they may have or may not have had. After all, if there was no luck what would sports center show instead of their top 10 plays, who would beat Tiger Woods, and would we still be using candles instead of light bulbs if not for Edison's 10,000th LUCKY attempt.
Now in conclusion let me go back to that question, what is internet poker's legallity? Well most say it's illegal due to the fact it's gambling and internet gambling is illegal. Then on the opposite side there are those few that can consistently win because they are skilled that feel that it shouldn't be since it doesn't fall under the definition of gambling. Me personally, would hate to go back to working a 10$/hr job because some suits don't understand the nature and free will on both sides involved in the game so i wrote this hoping somehow, someway, it would help. If someone doesn't like to lose then they should go increase their skill either through training or gaining experience through free games. So what if people are wagering actual money if they can handle the good, the bad, and the ugly luck aspects of the less skilled players. I mean why not legalize a 3$ billion dollar industry and finally let the US government start making money from a game they spend so much money questioning. It's kind of hard not to question the prosperity of a game where a person can make Three Million in a few days through a lot of skill and a little bit of luck as shown on ESPN's World Series of Poker. Of course unskilled player's that don't even know how the government stand are going to dable into the internet aspect of this game and feel like they're gambling while the skilled player's just keep on beating them. And, until i get a clear cut answer to this question you'll find me sitting at a cash game with more chips then i started with predominantly.
Anonymous
(please be patient with the wording as this was just a draft)
The article:
__________________________________________________ __________
One night while sitting around after a six hour poker session I began thinking about that ever so troubling question, What is the Legality of Internet Poker. I began looking up countless articles ranging from what countries it was clearly legal in; to interprutations of the "not-so-famous" and even more "not-so-clear" Wire Act and governments numerous attempts to ammend this bill to clarify how it applies to internet poker. But still nothing gave me a stone cold answer. The only thing i'm left actually knowing is that internet poker is quite highly frowned upon but not clearly illegal with the exceptions of random state laws. I did however skim across one article in particular that provided a little insight. The subject of this article was on North Dakota's attempt to make internet poker legal and regulated in the state of North Dakota. Needless to say this idea is merely that, an idea, with little support to make it officially go into action. Even despite a verbal commitment by an owner of one of the top internet poker site's to relocate their servers to North Dakota which would bring 10 million in tax revenues alone. One of the main arguements to this bill is that with the servers moving to their state, an increased crime rate would shortly follow as with all gambling based operations. I guess these Senators, Mayors, and all these other guys that sit around in their suits and ties are forgetting to factor in the countless US citizens all ready engaging in internet poker games under their own discretion into their thoughts that "crime will follow". Under their own philosophies, "if people start playing internet poker legally, then crime would follow" then wouldn't the crime allready be there? I don't know about you, but there's nothing that makes me want to go steal a car then being dealt AA.
Another article that grabbed my attention was one that stated the definition of gambling is an act majoring in consideration, prize, and chance and ALL of these have to be present to be considered gambling. To all those unfamiliar with what consideration is, it is basically that both parties involved offer something of value which can either be won or lost. Which I believe would relate to poker as "buy-ins" or "bets". Then prize pretty much speaks for itself in both what it means and how it applies. Then the final definetion, which is what i feel the cause for the controversy in the first place, is the word chance verses skill. Sure poker compromises an element of chance but it's manipulating that chance that makes it a game of skill. I mean would you consider all of Michael Jordan's game winning shots chance or skill? Had he not taken the time to refine how he manipulates shooting the ball would you even know who he is? Well according to legislation Michael Jordan should be arrested for gambling everytime he took one of those game winning shots. Let me provide the evidence. His consideration was his reputation, because we all know men value their reputation just as they do their car, their house, and their wife. Hell we all know Mike had a little bit of a gambling problem himself so he probably had his own money invested in that shot. The prize involved, the NBA finals or the money he had on that game. And last the chance would be that 35% he would miss the shot if he was shooting 65% FGs for the night. We'll I'd say I have enough to put him away. My next target would be all those people that invest in high-risk stocks. They give money to someone for a stock certificate with the potential to earn more money with the chance that the company could go bankrupt and you lose everything. I mean under legislation everyone would be guilty of some random sort of "gambling" act every single day. I don't know about you but anytime I drive my car I know i'm gambling with something a little more important then money. So does this mean cops standing on a corner should arrest everyone driving. Well this would be an extreme sence but do you kinda see what i'm saying?
I chose to drive my car, broker's chose to invest in IBM, Michael Jordan chose to practice all those countless hours to hit those clutch shots, and in poker someone chose to bet. As i'm sure you see what all these have in common is that people chose to do the things they do and truth of the matter is some people do it better then others. But any person no matter how smart or skillful they are can sit at a slot machine with the same results, a 90% pay out. Or they can go buy a scratch off ticket with a set 1:6 chance of winning and no room or possible way of manipulating these odds. This is the reason I feel they are considered a game of chance. In poker when you bet, your bet is not something you've automatically lost awaiting a random yet set event. Your bet is a thing with influence, and a very important part of the game. Your opponent can either fold to your bet, call it, or raise it. Thus making your "consideration" part of the game and not an object dependant on the game. How a person manipulates all these aspects and reacts to what his opponent does is what determines how skillfull a person is. If I bet Michael Jordan 10$ i could beat him in a game of one-on-one basketball, would that be gambling? According do the definition it wouldn't be because there is no chance i would ever beat Jordan. Yet if some Joe Shmoe on the streets bet 10$ he could beat Doyle Brunson in a poker game of his choice it would be because of the way people percieve the nature of cards? In any common dictionary you will find skill defined as Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or developed through training or experience or something relatively close to it. I'm fairly certain that Doyle is much more proficient at folding, betting, and raising then a common Joe Shmoe on the street from the experience he's had in the many tournaments he's played. Those same tournaments where every one had the same oppurtunities to do the same things Doyle did against other people just like themselves. So do I disagree with the fact that poker involves chance? No I don't, because everything in life involves chance. But when two or more people playing the same game against each other and all have the same chances and decisions then the person that does them the most skillfully should predominantly win. I say predominantly specifically because of that element of chance. That same element exists when any championship team loses in the regular season because of how they played that game and what luck they may have or may not have had. After all, if there was no luck what would sports center show instead of their top 10 plays, who would beat Tiger Woods, and would we still be using candles instead of light bulbs if not for Edison's 10,000th LUCKY attempt.
Now in conclusion let me go back to that question, what is internet poker's legallity? Well most say it's illegal due to the fact it's gambling and internet gambling is illegal. Then on the opposite side there are those few that can consistently win because they are skilled that feel that it shouldn't be since it doesn't fall under the definition of gambling. Me personally, would hate to go back to working a 10$/hr job because some suits don't understand the nature and free will on both sides involved in the game so i wrote this hoping somehow, someway, it would help. If someone doesn't like to lose then they should go increase their skill either through training or gaining experience through free games. So what if people are wagering actual money if they can handle the good, the bad, and the ugly luck aspects of the less skilled players. I mean why not legalize a 3$ billion dollar industry and finally let the US government start making money from a game they spend so much money questioning. It's kind of hard not to question the prosperity of a game where a person can make Three Million in a few days through a lot of skill and a little bit of luck as shown on ESPN's World Series of Poker. Of course unskilled player's that don't even know how the government stand are going to dable into the internet aspect of this game and feel like they're gambling while the skilled player's just keep on beating them. And, until i get a clear cut answer to this question you'll find me sitting at a cash game with more chips then i started with predominantly.
Anonymous