Barney Frank to Seek Poker "carveout" [Archive]

vinyard

04-03-2007, 06:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gamblin...rank_43794.html (http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/internet_gambling_law_to_be_challenged_in_april_by _barney_frank_43794.html)

Not sure if his plan to introduce a poker "carveout" has been brought up here yet, so here it is:

"Also explained by Frank in the interview is that he will be taking the PPA's poker carve-out idea and implementing it as a small portion of his bill."

[/ QUOTE ] Take that article with a block of salt. Amongst other inaccuracies Berkeley isn't a Senator and Downey never was.

cowboy.up

04-03-2007, 07:01 PM

isn't it a grain of salt? a block of salt is massive and would suck to be hit with one. i hope his carve-out is like a block of salt, that'd deal some serious damage to the UIGEA.

flafishy

04-03-2007, 07:43 PM

The hell with a carveout. We need the whole damn UIGEA law repealed. To me, this issue is about much more than just the OK to play online poker, which is all a carveout is about.

Coy_Roy

04-03-2007, 07:49 PM

I don't give a squirt about sports betting, but I do sympathize.

Poker has to stand alone to survive, sorry.

valdosta

04-03-2007, 07:57 PM

Poker isn't going to be accepted by your typical person anyways. You can try to hide behind "skill", but sorry that's not really accurate. Their are plenty of sports bettors who are skilled. If you go to a typical place and tell people that poker is not gambling and that sports betting is people will laugh you right out. Rightfully so, a lot of people have lost a lot of money playing poker. Be as optimistic as you want but poker won't get a carve out and rightfully so.

TheJokerIsWild

04-03-2007, 08:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Poker isn't going to be accepted by your typical person anyways. You can try to hide behind "skill", but sorry that's not really accurate. Their are plenty of sports bettors who are skilled. If you go to a typical place and tell people that poker is not gambling and that sports betting is people will laugh you right out. Rightfully so, a lot of people have lost a lot of money playing poker. Be as optimistic as you want but poker won't get a carve out and rightfully so.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much have you lost, fish?

TreyWilly

04-03-2007, 08:07 PM

valdosta

04-03-2007, 08:12 PM

I could have post something like "YAY, THE BAN IS GOING TO END". LOL, realistically, poker isn't getting a carve out. Some people see what they want to see and others see what is there. Some people try to say that the UIGEA doesn't even include poker. Realistically all of the public poker room actions (pulling out of the US market), kind of say otherwise. Frank has ZERO chance of getting anything through.

TreyWilly

04-03-2007, 08:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Realistically all of the public poker room actions (pulling out of the US market), kind of say otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this is why I can't find a game.

valdosta

04-03-2007, 08:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker isn't going to be accepted by your typical person anyways. You can try to hide behind "skill", but sorry that's not really accurate. Their are plenty of sports bettors who are skilled. If you go to a typical place and tell people that poker is not gambling and that sports betting is people will laugh you right out. Rightfully so, a lot of people have lost a lot of money playing poker. Be as optimistic as you want but poker won't get a carve out and rightfully so.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much have you lost, fish?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to much. I play poker here and there for fun. I have followed all of the UIGEA stuff though because it has a effect on myself not dealing with poker. I am just a realist, some people don't like that but oh well. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

valdosta

04-03-2007, 08:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Realistically all of the public poker room actions (pulling out of the US market), kind of say otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this is why I can't find a game.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many publically owned places do you play at now? Privately owned companies are a different story. You can't be a public company and break the law like the poker rooms were doing so they pulled out. They had no choice.

Coy_Roy

04-03-2007, 08:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am just a realist, some people don't like that but oh well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you should understand that sports betting in the US will always be associated with point shaving, match fixing, and scandal.

The beautiful and fair game of poker doesn't need that type of burden. It can only hinder.

I wish you luck legalizing your sports betting, but aside from the uncertain legality, has nothing in common with poker.

I'm proud of the poker industry, I can't say that about sports betting.

wax42

04-03-2007, 09:04 PM

If Frank's bill will repeal the UIGEA, what is the point of including a poker carve out in it? Unless that carve out is a carve out from the Wire Act, which would be really cool.

valdosta

04-03-2007, 09:09 PM

Poker is gambling, it's already hindered. As for fixed games and such, [censored] happens. Whether you can bet sports online legally or not there is this big place called Las Vegas (among others) where people can bet sports. My point is don't pretend like poker isn't gambling BECAUSE IT IS. In fact I remember someone saying poker is the crack/cocaine of online gambling. Addictive as hell, I would have to agree with that. I think people should be able to do what they want with their own money so I am against any law like the UIGEA but poker is most definantely gambling.

Our House

04-03-2007, 10:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In fact I remember someone saying poker is the crack/cocaine of online gambling. Addictive as hell, I would have to agree with that.

[/ QUOTE ]
O RLY? How many professional crack users do you know?

Homer

04-03-2007, 10:33 PM

Screw a carveout for poker. It should all be legal. People that are willing to live with a carveout while leaving sports betting and such in the dust suck.

Coy_Roy

04-03-2007, 10:43 PM

I see alot of sports bettors are here crying on the forum instead of forming a special interest group as the poker players have done.

You guys know that sports bettors could never get a carveout in a million years and you're jealous.

Bring it to TheRx where they give a damn.

This is a poker forum.

Homer

04-03-2007, 10:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I see alot of sports bettors are here crying on the forum instead of forming a special interest group as the poker players have done.

You guys know that sports bettors could never get a carveout in a million years and you're jealous.

Bring it to TheRx where they give a damn.

This is a poker forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically you only care about freedom to do the things you're interested in, and everyone else can go to hell. That's not freedom, baby.

Coy_Roy

04-03-2007, 11:03 PM

TreyWilly

04-03-2007, 11:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see alot of sports bettors are here crying on the forum instead of forming a special interest group as the poker players have done.

You guys know that sports bettors could never get a carveout in a million years and you're jealous.

Bring it to TheRx where they give a damn.

This is a poker forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically you only care about freedom to do the things you're interested in, and everyone else can go to hell. That's not freedom, baby.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not. But show me one regular poker player on this forum who would reject a carveout on principle.

If a carveout is our best chance -- and I don't know for certain whether it is -- it makes sense for us to leave the other gamblers behind.

I think smoking pot should be legal. But if alcohol were illegal, and the pot smokers wanted to tag along with the drinkers for an all-or-nothing fight against the "substance" ban, I don't think it would be smart to let them in.

EDIT: Also, your livelihood as a sports bettor isn't going to be as crippled by UIGEA. You don't need a crop of sports bettors who are less skilled than you in order to make a living. You can find a bookie and move on. Your betting isn't any better or worse depending on the popularity or public acceptance of your trade.

Unless, of course, you are a bookie. If that's the case, UIGEA might actually help your cash flow.

Michael C.

04-03-2007, 11:34 PM

I hope poker gets a carveout. But I've also thought for a long time the argument that poker is skill but sports betting is gambling is problematical. Someone can analyze sports and put probability into it and make +EV bets just like someone can analyze poker bets and put probability and psychology into it and make +EV poker plays. And it isn't true that in sports you're beating the house either. The lines are determined by other betters, same as the pots in poker, with the house just taking a percentage in each case. So as I see it, both are games of skill with short-term luck involved, and smart players can beat them.

Homer

04-03-2007, 11:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I hope poker gets a carveout. But I've also thought for a long time the argument that poker is skill but sports betting is gambling is problematical. Someone can analyze sports and put probability into it and make +EV bets just like someone can analyze poker bets and put probability and psychology into it and make +EV poker plays. And it isn't true that in sports you're beating the house either. The lines are determined by other betters, same as the pots in poker, with the house just taking a percentage in each case. So as I see it, both are games of skill with short-term luck involved, and smart players can beat them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post. I don't see any arguments being made for poker that cannot also be applied to sports betting.

coachkf

04-04-2007, 04:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is gambling, it's already hindered. As for fixed games and such, [censored] happens. Whether you can bet sports online legally or not there is this big place called Las Vegas (among others) where people can bet sports. My point is don't pretend like poker isn't gambling BECAUSE IT IS. In fact I remember someone saying poker is the crack/cocaine of online gambling. Addictive as hell, I would have to agree with that. I think people should be able to do what they want with their own money so I am against any law like the UIGEA but poker is most definantely gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Driving down the road is gambling. What's your point? If you're trying to compare skill vs. gambling in poker and sports betting, there is really no comparison.

Making a long term profit playing poker is not all that difficult for folks willing to put in the study time. Making a long term profit in sports betting is rare. Just ask Stu Ungar if you can get in touch with him.

As an affiliate, I'd like to see it all legalized, but a poker carveout would be a great start. The fact that long term poker results are determined by skill, not luck/gambling is a good argument. Whether it will happen or not is another thing...

Anywhoooooo -- if your point is simply that poker has gambling in it, we got ya. If on the other hand you think that poker is just gambling or on par with things like sports betting, you'd be wrong.

Dane S

04-04-2007, 04:42 AM

Homer, I agree there isn't really a fundamental difference between poker and sports betting with regard to the skill vs. luck debate. I agree on principle that sports betting should be legal.

However, I also support a poker carve out because I am selfish. Sorry.

MiltonFriedman

04-04-2007, 08:48 AM

"The in depth interview "

The article is a mess. It quotes people directly, even thought they are NOT there in the interview.

Also, not only is Shelley Berkeley NOT a Senator, she is NOT from Arizona.

Look, if the issue is will Barney Frank introduce legislation to repeal the UIGE Act, the answer is likely Yes, SO WHAT ?

April 18 will see MANY bills introduced, but NONE will get real press coverage. (April 18 is also the day Alberto Gonzales is scheduled to testify on the Hill.)

asterion

04-04-2007, 09:28 AM

No argument there that there will be no coverage of a bill just being introduced. If Gonzales testifies, that'll fill up most of the pundit shows that night. The only other thing I see being talked about would be how long it takes the House and the Senate to reconcile the supplemental funding bill and get it passed and whether or not Bush really will veto it if it has a withdrawl deadline in it.

Tuff_Fish

04-04-2007, 09:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope poker gets a carveout. But I've also thought for a long time the argument that poker is skill but sports betting is gambling is problematical. Someone can analyze sports and put probability into it and make +EV bets just like someone can analyze poker bets and put probability and psychology into it and make +EV poker plays. And it isn't true that in sports you're beating the house either. The lines are determined by other betters, same as the pots in poker, with the house just taking a percentage in each case. So as I see it, both are games of skill with short-term luck involved, and smart players can beat them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post. I don't see any arguments being made for poker that cannot also be applied to sports betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker players would do well to keep the a distinction from sports bettors. Sports betting has a sullied history of corruption. Poker players don't need the additional burden.

T
.

kartinken

04-04-2007, 09:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope poker gets a carveout. But I've also thought for a long time the argument that poker is skill but sports betting is gambling is problematical. Someone can analyze sports and put probability into it and make +EV bets just like someone can analyze poker bets and put probability and psychology into it and make +EV poker plays. And it isn't true that in sports you're beating the house either. The lines are determined by other betters, same as the pots in poker, with the house just taking a percentage in each case. So as I see it, both are games of skill with short-term luck involved, and smart players can beat them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post. I don't see any arguments being made for poker that cannot also be applied to sports betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker players would do well to keep the a distinction from sports bettors. Sports betting has a sullied history of corruption. Poker players don't need the additional burden.

T
.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tuff,

you're a moron here too. Everything with money involved has a history of corrution. Corruption is the introduction of money into a system. AS soon as money hinges on results, corruption follows.

Poker has a history of robbery and murder. Who gives a flying F about the history. Let's talk about now. And now people are sick of having their freetime regulated when it hurts no one.

KK

disjunction

04-04-2007, 09:53 AM

Tuff is right on this. The topic of sports betting makes people say totally irrational things. You just can't talk sense to them, and mentioning it will ruin the whole conversation. Poker doesn't quite share this distinction.

TreyWilly

04-04-2007, 10:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post. I don't see any arguments being made for poker that cannot also be applied to sports betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are already places in this country where poker is legal and most other forms of gambling aren't. This California model serves as a precedent we poker players feel is a realistic goal for us to achieve on a broader scope.

Can you say the same about sports betting?

stigmata

04-04-2007, 10:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Sports betting has a sullied history of corruption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whereas poker, on the contrary, has a strong reputation built upon a history of respect and trust?

Nairb

04-04-2007, 10:26 AM

Sports betting is "placing a wager to gain or lose based on the outcome of an event you are not involved in" In poker, you are directly responsible for being a losing player or a winning player based on decisions and your own skill level. Poker should be viewed on a completely different level than sports betting. How is entering a poker tourney for $20 with the chance to win thousands based on your Skill level any different than a bull rider or snowboarder or water skier etc... that enter a competition with an entry fee with the prospect of winning more than it costs to enter?

jafeather

04-04-2007, 10:30 AM

Yes, I'd like to see a poker carveout. Yes, I'd like to see a sports betting careveout.

Let's be rational, though. There's no way in hell I'm going to tell one side or the other they can't have there's if I can't have mine. If the carveout includes poker, but not sports....so be it. It's not even close to perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. If the carveout were to include sports betting, but not poker....same line of thought.

If there's one key to success in both poker and sports, it's patience. We can't expect the situation to get flipped immediately into our favor overnight (even if that is how it was taken away.) We have to take the steps we can; we have to take them when we can take them, and then move on to the next challenge.

kartinken

04-04-2007, 10:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice post. I don't see any arguments being made for poker that cannot also be applied to sports betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are already places in this country where poker is legal and most other forms of gambling aren't. This California model serves as a precedent we poker players feel is a realistic goal for us to achieve on a broader scope.

Can you say the same about sports betting?

[/ QUOTE ]

This post is awfully results oriented for someone claiming to be a poker player.

Michael C.

04-04-2007, 11:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]

There are already places in this country where poker is legal and most other forms of gambling aren't. This California model serves as a precedent we poker players feel is a realistic goal for us to achieve on a broader scope.

Can you say the same about sports betting?

[/ QUOTE ] There are way, way more places in the country in which horse racing is legal and poker isn't. So by your logic, does that mean horse racing is more of a skill game than poker? Again, like I said in my post, I am in favor of a poker carve out. But I think a lot of poker players don't realize how much skill there is in sports handicapping. A good handicapper can win just about every year, the same as a good poker player can. If it weren't skill based, how would that be possible? So, again, carveout= good. But I don't think you have to say sports betting doesn't have a similar level of skill to make your point.

Michael C.

04-04-2007, 11:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I'd like to see a poker carveout. Yes, I'd like to see a sports betting careveout.

Let's be rational, though. There's no way in hell I'm going to tell one side or the other they can't have there's if I can't have mine. If the carveout includes poker, but not sports....so be it.

[/ QUOTE ] I agree with this. Poker should try to get a poker carveout by whatever means necessary. And its going to be much easier to do that than to get a sports betting carve out. I just wish people wouldn't blindly say how only poker is a game of skill when others aren't. I think its stupid to take sides, when any carveout is good for everyone who gambles.

Michael C.

04-04-2007, 11:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Sports betting is "placing a wager to gain or lose based on the outcome of an event you are not involved in" In poker, you are directly responsible for being a losing player or a winning player based on decisions and your own skill level. Poker should be viewed on a completely different level than sports betting. How is entering a poker tourney for $20 with the chance to win thousands based on your Skill level any different than a bull rider or snowboarder or water skier etc... that enter a competition with an entry fee with the prospect of winning more than it costs to enter?

[/ QUOTE ] First of all, they have handicapping contests too, where for a small entry fee you can win a lot of money. So what does that prove? And you certainly aren't arguing that poker is as much luck-free as skiing or bull riding or tennis, are you? I am nowhere near a world class poker player, but if I played the best in the world heads up in a freeze out, I'd win a certain percentage of the time. But a very good tennis player or bull rider would beat the best in the world zero percent of the time. Again, though, you could find arguments where poker has more skill than sports betting, and counter-arguments where sports betting or any kind of handicapping is more skillful. In all contests there are elements we control, and elements we don't. I don't really see how its productive to say one is more skillful than the other. If someone can beat a game every year, I'd say its more skill based than luck...

Nairb

04-04-2007, 11:36 AM

I agree that sports betting has an element of skill but I think the distinction has to come that poker is wagering money on the outcome of ones "own" actions but the sports betting is based solely on the result of an event which the person making the wager has no control whatsoever on the outcome. I would like to see both totally legal but as an avid poker player my personal interest is in the poker carve out. I can always find a local bookie to place a sports bet but taking hours upon hours away from my family time to play poker at a local home game is troubling to me. I also think that sports gaming gets a bad rap in the US because of the bad press( Pete Rose for one) and the fixing of games that was so prevalent in previous years. I just think the best chance for a carveout is the poker carveout because of the general publics acceptance of poker and their overall indifference when it comes to sportsbetting. How else would you explain the explosion of the PPA? I have not heard of a similar lobby being formed with high level people like Frank involved stepping up to lobby for legalized online sports betting.

TreyWilly

04-04-2007, 11:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There are already places in this country where poker is legal and most other forms of gambling aren't. This California model serves as a precedent we poker players feel is a realistic goal for us to achieve on a broader scope.

Can you say the same about sports betting?

[/ QUOTE ] There are way, way more places in the country in which horse racing is legal and poker isn't. So by your logic, does that mean horse racing is more of a skill game than poker? Again, like I said in my post, I am in favor of a poker carve out. But I think a lot of poker players don't realize how much skill there is in sports handicapping. A good handicapper can win just about every year, the same as a good poker player can. If it weren't skill based, how would that be possible? So, again, carveout= good. But I don't think you have to say sports betting doesn't have a similar level of skill to make your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before using my logic against me, it might be a good idea to understand it. Where do I mention skill?

Because poker is legal in some places where other gambling isn't, a poker carveout is more likely. Show me where sports betting -- not horse racing -- is legal and poker isn't.

I don't think, for a second, sports bettors can utilize skill to the same degree as poker players. But if it makes you feel better about yourself, I'll concede that argument because it's irrelevant to poker players who want to play in a legal environment.

I'd love to see a day where sports betting and poker were legal, but the former will most likely slow the latter at this point.

TreyWilly

04-04-2007, 12:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This post is awfully results oriented for someone claiming to be a poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

This could be the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum.

whangarei

04-04-2007, 12:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't give a squirt about sports betting, but I do sympathize.

Poker has to stand alone to survive, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. This is awesome news if you're a poker player IMO! /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

RonMexico

04-04-2007, 12:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The stock market is "placing a wager to gain or lose based on the outcome of an event you are not involved in" In poker, you are directly responsible for being a losing player or a winning player based on decisions and your own skill level. Poker should be viewed on a completely different level than the stock market. How is entering a poker tourney for $20 with the chance to win thousands based on your Skill level any different than investing your life savings into an instrument whose complexity and mechanics you have zero to little understanding of or whose movement you have no control over?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nairb

04-04-2007, 12:52 PM

Good point Ron.

Homer

04-04-2007, 03:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There are already places in this country where poker is legal and most other forms of gambling aren't. This California model serves as a precedent we poker players feel is a realistic goal for us to achieve on a broader scope.

Can you say the same about sports betting?

[/ QUOTE ] There are way, way more places in the country in which horse racing is legal and poker isn't. So by your logic, does that mean horse racing is more of a skill game than poker? Again, like I said in my post, I am in favor of a poker carve out. But I think a lot of poker players don't realize how much skill there is in sports handicapping. A good handicapper can win just about every year, the same as a good poker player can. If it weren't skill based, how would that be possible? So, again, carveout= good. But I don't think you have to say sports betting doesn't have a similar level of skill to make your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before using my logic against me, it might be a good idea to understand it. Where do I mention skill?

Because poker is legal in some places where other gambling isn't, a poker carveout is more likely. Show me where sports betting -- not horse racing -- is legal and poker isn't.

I don't think, for a second, sports bettors can utilize skill to the same degree as poker players. But if it makes you feel better about yourself, I'll concede that argument because it's irrelevant to poker players who want to play in a legal environment.

I'd love to see a day where sports betting and poker were legal, but the former will most likely slow the latter at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you don't know anything about sports betting, obviously.

KidLifeCrisis

04-04-2007, 03:36 PM

I can understand the people saying that a poker carve-out would be easier and could potentially lead the way for a sports betting carve-out or something like that, but the people who are saying that sports betting is all luck and no skill and has a bad history/reputation obviously don't understand sports betting.

It's true that you can simply gamble in sports betting by making -EV bets and just hoping to get lucky, but isn't that also true with poker? I mean, it is those people who don't know the strategy behind poker who allow you to make money in the game.

These posters who are pro-poker carve-out but anti-sports betting carve-out are not recognizing that poker is exactly the same as sports betting in that: people who don't understand the skill behind sports betting assume it is just gambling because it takes place at casinos; and, if you look at the history of poker, it has its own reasons for people to be sketchy about it (just listen to the things Doyle Brunson has gone through in his heyday) just as sports betting might.

Basically, the poker players in this thread who are denouncing sports betting as being "bad" are on the same level of non-poker players who denounce poker as being "bad". You're just like the government in that you're uneducated on the topic, but trying to say that you know what's best for the people being affected here.

dustyn

04-04-2007, 03:39 PM

It's much easier for a poker carveout than a sports betting carveout for one reason: history. The wire act targets sports betting; sports betting has been way more scrutinized in past laws than poker. There are a lot more casinos in the United States where one can play poker than one can bet on sports. Sports betting has lots of mass media stories involving corruption, and is not "officially" supported by any of the major professional sports.

Poker, on the other hand, is becoming a cultural staple of America. Professionals are turning into celebrities. It's all over mass media. Growth in the industry is huge worldwide. Do you see why poker is easier to carveout than sports betting? And why poker players must separate themselves from sports bettors, regardless of their opinion about betting on sports?

Nairb

04-04-2007, 03:45 PM

Excellent post Dustyn.

Ditto

TreyWilly

04-04-2007, 05:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There are already places in this country where poker is legal and most other forms of gambling aren't. This California model serves as a precedent we poker players feel is a realistic goal for us to achieve on a broader scope.

Can you say the same about sports betting?

[/ QUOTE ] There are way, way more places in the country in which horse racing is legal and poker isn't. So by your logic, does that mean horse racing is more of a skill game than poker? Again, like I said in my post, I am in favor of a poker carve out. But I think a lot of poker players don't realize how much skill there is in sports handicapping. A good handicapper can win just about every year, the same as a good poker player can. If it weren't skill based, how would that be possible? So, again, carveout= good. But I don't think you have to say sports betting doesn't have a similar level of skill to make your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before using my logic against me, it might be a good idea to understand it. Where do I mention skill?

Because poker is legal in some places where other gambling isn't, a poker carveout is more likely. Show me where sports betting -- not horse racing -- is legal and poker isn't.

I don't think, for a second, sports bettors can utilize skill to the same degree as poker players. But if it makes you feel better about yourself, I'll concede that argument because it's irrelevant to poker players who want to play in a legal environment.

I'd love to see a day where sports betting and poker were legal, but the former will most likely slow the latter at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you don't know anything about sports betting, obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, I'm sure you've got a big [censored] and all, but show me one successful pro sports bettor, and I'll show you 1,000 successful pro poker players.

And, for those who think anyone on this thread is "anti" sports betting carveout, your ego is getting in the way of your reading comprehension.

We are not "anti" sports betting. I'm sure some of us love to sports bet and very much agree it should be legal. We are saying we refuse to absorb your plight because it will likely lead to the failure of both.

KidLifeCrisis

04-04-2007, 05:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, I'm sure you've got a big [censored] and all, but show me one successful pro sports bettor, and I'll show you 1,000 successful pro poker players.

And, for those who think anyone on this thread is "anti" sports betting carveout, your ego is getting in the way of your reading comprehension.

We are not "anti" sports betting. I'm sure some of us love to sports bet and very much agree it should be legal. We are saying we refuse to absorb your plight because it will likely lead to the failure of both.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, [censored] size obviously has nothing to do with what Homer is saying. You clearly brought it up to try to sound like a big man, but your arguments prove otherwise.

Anyway...just because there are more poker players doesn't mean that one's freedom should stop short. As a poker player, which I'm assuming you are, I'd think you'd understand that your "positive" short term results of this solution would be outweighed by the long term negative results. You're caving in if you're merely focusing on poker instead of the whole of online gaming. By allowing only some freedoms now, you're only setting yourself up for losses of similar freedoms in the future.

B00T

04-04-2007, 06:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
but show me one successful pro sports bettor, and I'll show you 1,000 successful pro poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

There are plenty of people here making a better arguement for your side, let them do it. It's stupid comments like this that are giving the sports betting side more fuel to prove their point.

TreyWilly

04-04-2007, 06:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but show me one successful pro sports bettor, and I'll show you 1,000 successful pro poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

There are plenty of people here making a better arguement for your side, let them do it. It's stupid comments like this that are giving the sports betting side more fuel to prove their point.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't even the point. It's an aside. I don't believe there are anywhere near as many sports bettors who can be as successful over the long run.

That's my belief on the matter. Shoot me. I don't care whether I change anyone's mind. It has ZERO bearing to the issue at hand.

The point is, even if sports betting was MORE subject to skill than poker, I still wouldn't think it would be smart for poker players to demand a carveout for both poker and sports betting.

There are a lot of freedoms in this country being pissed upon. Are we, as poker players, responsible for all?

whangarei

04-04-2007, 06:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
...I'd think you'd understand that your "positive" short term results of this solution would be outweighed by the long term negative results ... By allowing only some freedoms now, you're only setting yourself up for losses of similar freedoms in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wishful thinking and no basis in fact. Once Congress says "pokah goot" it's not likely to reverse it, whether or not it says "sports betting goot" at the same time. This post is similar to an earlier one which claimed a poker carve-out would be a "pyrhhic" victory -- it would be a very real victory indeed.

I do feel for the sportsbettors, but I think Dustyn's historical post is a good explanation of why poker players' best option now is a poker exemption.

whangarei

04-04-2007, 06:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of freedoms in this country being pissed upon. Are we, as poker players, responsible for all?

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

B00T

04-04-2007, 06:37 PM

So what you're basically saying is "I have no idea what the [censored] I am talking about, but I will say whatever I can come up with to argue my side"

Great, can't wait for your future posts.

Just so I am not trolling you 100% I will just take the opposite of what you say, and make an arguement (that has legs) for you.

Sportsbetting does in fact take more skill to beat. Any moron can be a lifetime winner at 1-2 if they spent ~50 hrs studying the game. There are lots more winning poker players than sportsbettors by both volume and percentage.

It is that reasoning why poker should be pushing for a carveout. It doesn't do as much damage with such a high population of overall losers, when compared to other forms of gambling.

Skallagrim

04-04-2007, 06:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of freedoms in this country being pissed upon. Are we, as poker players, responsible for all?

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[/ QUOTE ]

INDEED. Should we reject a poker carve out until marijauna is legalized? How is that different from sportsbetting?

Please dont doubt my libertatian credentials, I really do support the right of people to gamble as they choose.

But I also know that successful politics is the art of the practical. There was not a lot of publicity or support of the UIGEA, but it got passed by the work of an influential few who cut the right deals. The reverse could just as easily happen.

Especially with poker, because RIGHT NOW it is easier to convince the average joe that poker is a skill based competition and really deserves to be treated like all the other sports on ESPN.

I have been convinced that for those who really work at, just like poker, sportsbetting can be a +EV game of significant skill. But the work involed is very disimilar - the skills called for are vastly different, and never in sportsbetting can you steal a win by a bluff. And, for the historical reasons talked about above, there are inherent "corruption of sports" issues that will have to be answered, unlike in poker.

So sportsbetters, continue to make your points, but dont condemn or not support a poker carveout; its cutting off your nose to spite your face. Because if they aint gonna make online poker legal, they are never gonna make online sportsbetting legal.

So I suggest support the poker carveout and the general principle of legal online gaming and then hope and wait till poker is legal a few years and the world hasnt ended and then push for adding sportsbetting to the OK list (after you figure out how to insure against corrupting the sports players).

Skallagrim

PS - Hooray for BARNEY FRANK!!!

TreyWilly

04-04-2007, 07:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So what you're basically saying is "I have no idea what the [censored] I am talking about, but I will say whatever I can come up with to argue my side"

Great, can't wait for your future posts.

Just so I am not trolling you 100% I will just take the opposite of what you say, and make an arguement (that has legs) for you.

Sportsbetting does in fact take more skill to beat. Any moron can be a lifetime winner at 1-2 if they spent ~50 hrs studying the game. There are lots more winning poker players than sportsbettors by both volume and percentage.

It is that reasoning why poker should be pushing for a carveout. It doesn't do as much damage with such a high population of overall losers, when compared to other forms of gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, man. Don't call me stupid while simultaneously failing to see my point.

I never connected the skill argument with the carveout argument. My thoughts on the skill of sports bettors are irrelevant.

Poker carveouts exist today while sports betting carveouts don't. Therefore, a sports betting carveout would most likely serve as an albatross to the cause of poker players.

Sorry if you disagree with my by-the-way thoughts on sports betting. I didn't realize they would cause such a hissy, and I'm sorry I brought them up, because they've given you a red herring to dangle without addressing the real issue.

So, because of that, I'll bury the fish. Sports bettors are like polished pro athletes whose skill is to be celebrated and cherished. I bow humbly to them.

They still should fight on their own.

Dondoh

04-04-2007, 08:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of freedoms in this country being pissed upon. Are we, as poker players, responsible for all?

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[/ QUOTE ]

INDEED. Should we reject a poker carve out until marijauna is legalized? How is that different from sportsbetting?

Please dont doubt my libertatian credentials, I really do support the right of people to gamble as they choose.

But I also know that successful politics is the art of the practical. There was not a lot of publicity or support of the UIGEA, but it got passed by the work of an influential few who cut the right deals. The reverse could just as easily happen.

Especially with poker, because RIGHT NOW it is easier to convince the average joe that poker is a skill based competition and really deserves to be treated like all the other sports on ESPN.

I have been convinced that for those who really work at, just like poker, sportsbetting can be a +EV game of significant skill. But the work involed is very disimilar - the skills called for are vastly different, and never in sportsbetting can you steal a win by a bluff. And, for the historical reasons talked about above, there are inherent "corruption of sports" issues that will have to be answered, unlike in poker.

So sportsbetters, continue to make your points, but dont condemn or not support a poker carveout; its cutting off your nose to spite your face. Because if they aint gonna make online poker legal, they are never gonna make online sportsbetting legal.

So I suggest support the poker carveout and the general principle of legal online gaming and then hope and wait till poker is legal a few years and the world hasnt ended and then push for adding sportsbetting to the OK list (after you figure out how to insure against corrupting the sports players).

Skallagrim

PS - Hooray for BARNEY FRANK!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Skallagrim is right here I think.
Though we bemoan as unfair the carve-outs granted to Horse Racing and Lotteries, those very carve-outs are the main basis of our hope. If Congress instead had drawn a dark line across the breadth of the online wagering spectrum, there would be little hope for repeal in poker or sports betting. But having allowed for these exeptions to the rule, we can work to have poker allowed.
So, if we are successful and there is a carve-out for poker in the future, it should serve as a cause for celebration among sports bettors who could then apply many of the same arguments in their quest to engage in online legal betting.