New Report: Inernet Gambling Does Not Lead to Problem Gambling

[JeffreyS]

Here is a press release that we just put out. It should help respond to opponents of legalized online gambling who claim that regulation will lead to an increase in problem gambling.

Jeffrey Sandman
Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative
www.safeandsecureir.org (http://www.safeandsecureir.org)

New Report: Regulated Internet Gambling Does Not Lead to Increase in Problem Gambling

U.K. survey shows rate of problem gambling remains unchanged since 1999

September 19, 2007 – A report released today by the U.K. Gambling Commission, which regulates Internet gambling in Britain, reveals that problem gambling has not increased over the last eight years despite the availability of Internet gambling. The British Gambling Prevalence Survey 2007 found that the rates of problem gambling were 0.6 percent and 0.5 percent of the gambling population, the same percentage of problem gamblers as reported in the last gambling participation survey conducted in 1999.

“The Commission’s report shows that Internet gambling opponents are using scare tactics to argue that regulated Internet gambling will result in an increase in compulsive gambling,” said Jeffrey Sandman, spokesman for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. “The reality is that regulated Internet gambling, which is clearly working in the U.K., can offer better controls and protection for underage and vulnerable gamblers in the U.S.”

The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, proposed by Representative Barney Frank (D-MA), would protect U.S. consumers by establishing a regulatory and enforcement framework to combat compulsive and underage gambling. Safeguards that have proven effective in protecting against problem gambling include the ability to control the amount of money wagered, set limits on amounts deposited, restrict the duration that somebody can play, identify and stop players whose gambling patterns seem out of the ordinary and allow for consumers to be excluded from online gambling.

About Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative
The Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative promotes the freedom of individuals to gamble online with the proper safeguards to protect consumers and ensure the integrity of financial transactions. For more information on the Initiative, please visit www.safeandsecureig.org. (http://www.safeandsecureig.org.) The Web site provides a means by which individuals can register support for regulated Internet gambling with their elected representatives.

###

[MiltonFriedman]

Good post. I'll look for your release on Google Alerts.

Be prepared for the following negative comments..... Your release mistates that problem gambling has not increase. Rather, the survey at most says that the RATE of problem gambling is not affected. This does not mean there aren't MORE, due to the growth of Internet exposure, just that the rate at which people develop problems is unchanged.

The most you could say is that this survey seems to indicate that Internet gambling is no more addictive than any other form.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
The most you could say is that this survey seems to indicate that Internet gambling is no more addictive than any other form.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. My reading of the report is that it makes clear that even though Internet gambling has become available and has grown significantly in the UK the number of problem gamblers is unchanged. Legal access to online gmbling does not increase the number of problem gamblers.

The knockers will instead point to the figure that shows that 7.3% of the relatively small number of online gamblers do have a problem. They may use this to claim it is more addictive but what is far more likely is that problem gamblers are attracted to online gambling and are amongst the early adopters (availability, annomonymity and speed ofgambling being attractive to problem gamblers).

[JeffreyS]

Appreciate your reply.

For anyone interested, here is a link to the report: http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/Client/detail.asp?ContentId=288

[MiltonFriedman]

...."what is far more likely is that problem gamblers are attracted to online gambling and are amongst the early adopters (availability, annomonymity and speed ofgambling being attractive to problem gamblers)."

I am sure you see why if the arguments are necesary at that level, you've lost already politically. You can't win by saying "It's not more addictive, its just a more effective delivery system for potential addicts".

Video Poker (in a casino/supermarket/bar/7-11) is as close to crack for gamblers as is readily available in Nevada. It gains little to say "Yes, but the population of Nevada is self-selectively skewed toward problem gamblers." or "Yes, but video poker players find their poison more readily than people who are not .... whatever.

[JeffreyS]

However, despite the availability, anonymity and speed of Internet gambling, the structure of the Internet does provide a unique opportunity to protect consumers and prevent problem gambling. For example, a possible safeguard only available online is to have a self exclusion list, where problem gamblers can sign up and voluntarily choose to not be allowed to gamble online. This type of safeguard couldn’t be available anywhere else except for online.

The message we are trying to get across to elected officials is that, despite the prohibition, people are continuing to gamble online. Rather than leave American consumers vulnerable in an unregulated marketplace, we are better off legalizing Internet gambling and finding a way to protect consumers.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
...."what is far more likely is that problem gamblers are attracted to online gambling and are amongst the early adopters (availability, annomonymity and speed ofgambling being attractive to problem gamblers)."

I am sure you see why if the arguments are necesary at that level, you've lost already politically. You can't win by saying "It's not more addictive, its just a more effective delivery system for potential addicts".

Video Poker (in a casino/supermarket/bar/7-11) is as close to crack for gamblers as is readily available in Nevada. It gains little to say "Yes, but the population of Nevada is self-selectively skewed toward problem gamblers." or "Yes, but video poker players find their poison more readily than people who are not .... whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are good points. In addition, from my reading of the report unless I missed a good portion of it, the number of on-line gamblers let alone on-line problem gamblers was relatively small when compared to the total population study sample size.

Any attempt to use this study beyond simply blunting some opponets studies is really beyond it's reach IMPO. Anyone reading it to learn something striking about the prelevance of problem gamblers involved in on-line gaming let alone trying to reach a vlaid conclusion to the "addictive nature" of on-line gambling is going to be left wanting.

If I missed something striking please let me know because that is what I was looking for in part from this report.


D$D

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sure you see why if the arguments are necesary at that level, you've lost already politically. You can't win by saying "It's not more addictive, its just a more effective delivery system for potential addicts"

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you are right. My main point remains that Internet Gambling does not create addicts. Restricting access does not reduce the number of problem gamblers or the harm they do themselves, indeed you leave them with those providing illegal gambling services who are also happy to give credit with the addicts kneecaps as security. A ban helps the Mafia and the local spieler without helping the problem gambler.

[MiltonFriedman]

"Rather than leave American consumers vulnerable in an unregulated marketplace..."

Excuse me while I puke. Where is this "need for consumer protection" arising ??? Where is the evidence that the market, especially in poker, doesn't provide for operator discipline ?

That "unregulated marketplace" built online gambling to what is is. Consumers would have NO choices to play online except for the entrepeneurs who created the market to meet their demands and desires.

The incidence of operator fraud, especially in poker, is pretty damn low. Show me a need for regulation by pointing to some facts, don't just lay down and politically spread your legs because you think it will please your opponents.

"Safe" "Secure" .... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

As for your assertion about "compulsive" gambling: "This type of safeguard couldn’t be available anywhere else except for online.'

Nonsense, of course it can. New Jersey has such a provision. If you want to make it effective, just allow a self-excluded person to recover any losses post-exclusion from the venue which allows them to gamble on.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
If I missed something striking please let me know because that is what I was looking for in part from this report.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK - why do I think this is important?

The opponents of Internet Gambling base their case on the idea that it harms people. That it will create addicts ready to bankrupt their families, steal from their employer and ultimately kill themselves buried in debt.

The UK study shows that there was no increase in problem gambling in the UK between 1999 and 2007. In this period there has been a big increase in the number of bookmakers and they have all installed fixed odds betting terminals the so called crack cocaine of gambling. These machines are now readily available in every high street. More casinos have opened, casinos have been allowed to advertise, casinos no longer have to stop people coming in for 24 hours after they join and Internet gambling has gone from virtually nothing to having more than a million taking part. 3% of the adult population in the UK gamble online in any given week.

This is a huge expansion in the availability of hard core gambling activities and yet there are no more problem gamblers AT ALL. This is a pretty significant - now we can argue that Internet Gambling does not increase problem gambling. It is also possible to show that the UK system making gambling providers sign up to social responsibility criteria, prevent underage gambling, fund research and help for problem gamblers really does work. Regulation allows more help for problem gamblers without increasing the rate of problem gambling.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
Excuse me while I puke. Where is this "need for consumer protection" arising ??? Where is the evidence that the market, especially in poker, doesn't provide for operator discipline ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch our opponents use Annette_15 against us. I for one don't think it is unreasonable to ask operators to make sure 15 year olds are prevented from gambling or to make it mandatory for them to get users to set deposit limits and mandatory for them to allow self exclusion.

[JPFisher55]

It's just my opinion, but I think that online casino gambling is not fun like the real thing. It's different for poker, online poker beats live poker for me. I guess online sports betting beats live sports betting. Since most gamblers are casino gamblers and do not seem to be playing at online casinos in UK, then maybe alot of folks share my opinion.
Thus, online gambling will not affect the addiction statistics very much because not many people seem to enjoy gambling online. Of course, it is also possible that addicted online poker players are addicted because they win and thus are not included in the addiction statistics.

[MiltonFriedman]

I think you just blew any credibility.

First: her ScreenName is Annette_15, not her age.

"Watch our opponents use Annette_15 against us. I for one don't think it is unreasonable to ask operators to make sure 15 year olds are prevented from gambling."

Whose side are you on ? Annette Obrestad is reported to be 19. If she were an American she could vote, serve in the Army, and enter into legally binding contracts.

Second, what was more disturbing was your idea that players cannot be trusted to know their own limits:

"[M]ake it mandatory for them to get users to set deposit limits and mandatory for them to allow self exclusion."

You clearly do not trust the 98% of gamblers who have no problem gambling stigma to look after themselves. Instead, you want Mandatory Limits ? Whose side are you on, adults who want the freedom to play poker or Friends of Family and other Nanny-staters ?

If your views are those of our friends, who are the enemy ?

(I have no problem with self-exclusion, it is commonly offered in US casinos now. Even though you do not seem to know that.)

[Richas]

Milton - Annette_15 started playing online when she was 15 building her roll from a freeroll win. She did not appear on her 18th birthday as a leading online player and did not develop her skills in one year to take down the WSOPE.

I also think you misunderstand what user set deposit limits are. They are set by the user not the government or the site. The point is to trust users to set their limits - in advance of their gambling. They are a sensible protection for problem gamblers that have n adverse affect on the rest of us, it is just bankroll management.

I think I'm on your side. I want legal, regulated poker. You might wish for the old days of no regulation or limits but that ain't coming back. The California gold rush is history, the trip west to stake out new land build a log cabin and farm what you find is history and the days of unregulated onlne poker are similarly behind us. You might want to go back to then but it can't happen. There is no way it will go back to pre UIGEA the only option is regulated legal online poker.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Good post. I'll look for your release on Google Alerts.

[/ QUOTE ]

A similar article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7001329.stm

[Richas]

I love the Conservative Party having a dig at spread betting. Someone should tell them that their single largest donor over the past few years at about $8m (there is a lot less money in UK politics) was the founder of IG Index....I look forward to a slight shift in the Conservative Party position over the next few days. LOL.

[Richas]

This article from a few days ago helps show how significant the real results of this survey are:

Barking preview of Gambling commission report (http://www.ateonline.co.uk/60/75/80/articles/12892.php)

[ QUOTE ]
The Gambling Commission's eagerly awaited prevalence study is expected to report that the number problem gamblers in Britain has doubled in the past eight years. The UK's Independent and Telegraph newspapers both said that around 600,000 people were now problem gamblers, while the more right wing Daily Mail put the figure closer to 800,000.

The report, carried out by research specialist NatCen, will be Gordon Brown's benchmark for new gambling policy and legislation, and is based on a study of more than 9,000 people.

The British Gambling Prevalence Study is also expected to say that the number of Britons who gamble has soared from 33million to 40 million. The findings match estimates from gambling experts and charities.

[/ QUOTE ]

The findings match.....LOL

[Skallagrim]

Richas is right, and should be thanked for providing the information.

The inescapable conclusion, to confound our oppoenents, is that the emergence of online gambling has little or no effect on the overall prevelance of "problem gambling." TAKE THAT KYL AND FOF, YOU WERE WRONG. "Crack cocaine of gambling" my ass.

And as much as I hate to say it, he is also probably right about regulation - its the political reality if we want open, legal access. We need to keep any regulation to a minimum, certainly, but I have no problem with mandated age verification and mandated "problem gambling" programs and reporting for taxes. I cant see that affecting my play, or choices of where to play, and so its a small price to pay to get a good part of the general, non-gambling population supporting us.

Skallagrim

[Uglyowl]

Thank you (I assume Richas updated this section) for updating Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_gambling

I think it is very important to have accurate and fair information on there. It is well worth the time as they are highly viewed and appear high on all search engines.

[MiltonFriedman]

'I think I'm on your side. I want legal, regulated poker."

Why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ? We HAVE legal poker, the Wexler Bill would remove it from government interference under the poorly drafted UIGEA, a really clean fix.

Poker IS legal. Why do you keep saying it is not ? Unless you are "on the side" of folks who are afraid to enter this already legal market ?

My "side" wants to get/keep the government off the backs of US players.

What your apparent "side" wants is a green light to enter the market and to throw sh*t on it in the meantime.

There is no need to "go back to then", Poker's legality NEVER changed. Read the UIGEA, nothing changed. The real fight is to keep unwarranted interference OUT of the legal poker market, not to invite regulation in because that suits your US-based casino interests.

Legal need not mean "regulated". The trend for the US is actually toward de-regulation and freeing of markets and trade. Why do you think de-regulation, free trade, and private business is a thing of the past ?

Why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ?

By the way, the California Gold Rush analogy stinks, unless what you really mean the analogy is between the Internet and California; then believe is that everything Internet needs to be regulated. That is where your Nanny Statism leads you. Nope, you are not on my side and are not even a good ally in this fight for US players.

Again, why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ? A conflict with vested interests in US gaming ?

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker IS legal. Why do you keep saying it is not ? Unless you are "on the side" of folks who are afraid to enter this already legal market ?


There is no need to "go back to then", Poker's legality NEVER changed. Read the UIGEA, nothing changed. The real fight is to keep unwarranted interference OUT of the legal poker market, not to invite regulation in because that suits your US-based casino interests.


Legal need not mean "regulated". The trend for the US is actually toward de-regulation and freeing of markets and trade. Why do you think de-regulation, free trade, and private business is a thing of the past ?


Why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ?

Again, why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ? A conflict with vested interests in US gaming ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
Good post. I'll look for your release on Google Alerts.

Be prepared for the following negative comments..... Your release mistates that problem gambling has not increase. Rather, the survey at most says that the RATE of problem gambling is not affected. This does not mean there aren't MORE, due to the growth of Internet exposure, just that the rate at which people develop problems is unchanged.

The most you could say is that this survey seems to indicate that Internet gambling is no more addictive than any other form.

[/ QUOTE ]

Smart point about rate vs numbers.

But we should also remember that prohibition doesn't mean zero usage.

Even if a person only looked at the increase in problem gambling cases and ignored the rate, and used the increased numbers to argue for prohibition, the number of problem gamblers that would still use online gaming even in a prohibitive scheme would have to be subtracted out to get a reliable total.

This is the fallacy of prohibition. Prohibition may slow, but rarely stops a behavior. Our opponents always conveniently forget that point. We should never let them.

[MiltonFriedman]

You write "This is the fallacy of prohibition. Prohibition may slow, but rarely stops a behavior. Our opponents always conveniently forget that point.'

Our opponents do not care. They are happy to "slow" the behavior and punish those who support it. ... All the while denying to everyone their right to the 'pursuit of happiness".

Do not forget, the other side is quite happy with a legal system which:

slows sinful behavior,
punishes sinful behavior, and
deters behavior.

That it is not 100% effective is not a problem to them.

Our "friends" want a legal system to

Tax sinful behavior,
monopolize profits from sinful behavior,
amd, in the interim, prohibit and punish sinful behavior

The Wexler Bill does the least to interfere with your "pursuit of happiness" by playing poker online.

Why settle for less ?

[Grasshopp3r]

This is the correct site address:

http://safeandsecureig.org/

[Skallagrim]

Milton, methinks thou doest protest too much.

I doubt there is anyone on this board who actually wants government regulated online poker as their first choice. I certainly do not.

But neither do I like the current situation where half the world's poker sites wont let me play and its a damn difficult chore to move money around the other half.

If I thought we had the clout to get the Wexler passed as is, I'd not even mention the other "minimal regulations" that I have previously expressed tolerance towards.

So lets all agree:

Best result: Wexler Bill, online poker is a skill game with almost no government interference.

Second Best result: Wexler bill with minimal regulations regarding age verification, etc...

Third best result: Status quo

Fourth result: Highly regulated government and big business run online poker.

Worst result: outright poker prohibition.

Some folks might mix my 3rd and 4th result (i.e. prefer massive regulation to the status quo) but until we are at a point where option #2 is unavailable, why argue over it?

My analysis of the political climate leads me to advocate for #2 because that same analysis tells me we are not going to get #1 but can get #2.

Skallagrim

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
'I think I'm on your side. I want legal, regulated poker."

Why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ? We HAVE legal poker, the Wexler Bill would remove it from government interference under the poorly drafted UIGEA, a really clean fix.

Poker IS legal. Why do you keep saying it is not ? Unless you are "on the side" of folks who are afraid to enter this already legal market ?

My "side" wants to get/keep the government off the backs of US players.

What your apparent "side" wants is a green light to enter the market and to throw sh*t on it in the meantime.

There is no need to "go back to then", Poker's legality NEVER changed. Read the UIGEA, nothing changed. The real fight is to keep unwarranted interference OUT of the legal poker market, not to invite regulation in because that suits your US-based casino interests.

Legal need not mean "regulated". The trend for the US is actually toward de-regulation and freeing of markets and trade. Why do you think de-regulation, free trade, and private business is a thing of the past ?

Why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ?

By the way, the California Gold Rush analogy stinks, unless what you really mean the analogy is between the Internet and California; then believe is that everything Internet needs to be regulated. That is where your Nanny Statism leads you. Nope, you are not on my side and are not even a good ally in this fight for US players.

Again, why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ? A conflict with vested interests in US gaming ?

[/ QUOTE ]

You might as well make the same argument for alcohol, guns, porn, age of consent, etc, etc.

You want zero government intreference with what you want to do. Ain't gonna happen in this world.

So, take what is doable, or tilt at windmills.

Tuff

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
'I think I'm on your side. I want legal, regulated poker."


[ QUOTE ]
Why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ? We HAVE legal poker, the Wexler Bill would remove it from government interference under the poorly drafted UIGEA, a really clean fix.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one that I know of doesn't support the Wexler Bill.

[ QUOTE ]
Poker IS legal. Why do you keep saying it is not ? Unless you are "on the side" of folks who are afraid to enter this already legal market ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your side of the argument or the "pond?" I'm possibly confused.

But if you mean current US players! Then while poker might be legal to play and fine if you don't need to put any new money on an existing US "friendly poker site". But as some one who is at this very moment in the process of trying to deposit the current legal enviroment SUCKS! At a minimum I have to pay an e-wallet at least 5%, without any US banking protection to an e-wallet that might be the next NetTeller or worse! Not to mention all the fishy games on poker sites I can't deposit to!

[ QUOTE ]
My "side" wants to get/keep the government off the backs of US players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee my side is that the US government can have some portion, but not all of my 5% to give me save, secure, legal deposits to all poker sites. If to get that I have to throw the under aged players under the bus, F'em! If I have to let the government fund a dozen annual problem gambler studies or 12 step clinics out of lisencing fees from the on-line poker sites, under the bus they go as well! Finally if I have to take a pay cut or volunteer what ever talents I have to help the PPA become a grassroots organization that will address the F'ed up poker taxes, I'll crawl under the bus my wife is going to drive over my head and ass. Yes I know that some of you, like she thinks that is where my head is located most of the time.

[ QUOTE ]
What your apparent "side" wants is a green light to enter the market and to throw sh*t on it in the meantime.

There is no need to "go back to then", Poker's legality NEVER changed. Read the UIGEA, nothing changed. The real fight is to keep unwarranted interference OUT of the legal poker market, not to invite regulation in because that suits your US-based casino interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pure BS. See above for complete disclosure on my motives.

[ QUOTE ]
Legal need not mean "regulated". The trend for the US is actually toward de-regulation and freeing of markets and trade. Why do you think de-regulation, free trade, and private business is a thing of the past ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Heck I even favor some sort of on-line gaming commission if for no other reason than I don't ever want to see another "on-line poker is rigged" post or comment!


Sure over regulation will kill on-line poker. The minimum regulation I have seen discussed and supported in this site, others, and by the PPA doesn't come close IMPO to any where near any over regulation. Barring entry to a free market by existing US friendly poker sites would be a step in that direction. Making the regulator bar much higher that proposed is a step in the wrong direction and I would oppose.

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ?

By the way, the California Gold Rush analogy stinks, unless what you really mean the analogy is between the Internet and California; then believe is that everything Internet needs to be regulated. That is where your Nanny Statism leads you. Nope, you are not on my side and are not even a good ally in this fight for US players.

Again, why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ? A conflict with vested interests in US gaming ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be happy to support the Wexler Bill all the way. But IMPO it is not politically pratical given the leg up the other side has in this political fight. So I fully support the bill I do not expect it nor am I personally willing to only accept such a deal.

So if you want to call me a 1/2 a loafer to be able to eat so be it. In my opinion the status quote SUCKS as well. For me to get what I consider is a full loaf I'm willing to give away a few in my opinion crumbs. I get it you may not agree to my view of the size of the loaf and you opinion of what constitutes crumbs.


But there it is since you asked,


D$D

[TheEngineer]

Nice post Skallagrim; I agree with you. We don't prefer regulated poker to unregulated, explicitly legal, poker. Rather, we're being pragmatic.

We lost the HR 4411 vote 317-93. To me, that was a huge wake-up call.

Some comments:

- I think #1 and #2 are virtually the same. If Wexler's bill passes, age verification will surely be included (it's there now).

[ QUOTE ]
SEC. 4. SAFEGUARDS.

(a)(1) Appropriate safeguards to ensure that the individual participant depositing funds is 18 years of age or older.

[/ QUOTE ]

- I think #3 and #4 are close. Highly regulated poker would bring back a lot of fish. Also, the environment would be a lot more stable than the status quo, which could get worse at the whim of the DoJ, the UIGEA regs, or any other number of things. I mention it because fighting for #4 (IGREA) helps us to keep #3, by allowing us to have this tool to use politically to show our opposition to UIGEA.

- There is a fifth result, where bad UIGEA regs are created that significantly hamper our ability to play but are short of an outright prohibition. Or, a Reno or Giuliani-type AG decides to "clean up" the country of whatever s/he personally considers "illegal Internet gambling" by harrassing the industry just short of testing the Wire Act. Again, our advocacy of #1/#2 and #4 help us here as well.

[Skallagrim]

All good points Engineer. I forgot that Wexler's bill had age verification in it. I think it will take just a few more bones (RNG certification, problem gambling ID software, money laundering ID and reporting, full tax reporting, US agent, and (maybe) a licensing fee or cut of the rake/money transferred - I definitely wouldnt give up these last 2 unless absolutely necessary) and we can have enough votes to pass it late next year and get a Dem pres to sign it in '09.

And yes, its very important to remember that the "status quo" is ever subject to change and could get a lot worse very fast. In fact, I think at this stage all we really need to argue for politically is openly legal online poker in any form - as our enemies attack us with scare stories we give up the "bones" as needed to make sure the fence sitters fall on our side.

Skallagrim

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
...
Third best result: Status quo

Fourth result: Highly regulated government and big business run online poker.

...

Some folks might mix my 3rd and 4th result (i.e. prefer massive regulation to the status quo)

[/ QUOTE ]

#4 >>> #3, if you play poker to make money and not just for the competition/fun.

but [ QUOTE ]
why argue over it?

[/ QUOTE ]

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...
Third best result: Status quo

Fourth result: Highly regulated government and big business run online poker.

...

Some folks might mix my 3rd and 4th result (i.e. prefer massive regulation to the status quo)

[/ QUOTE ]

#4 >>> #3, if you play poker to make money and not just for the competition/fun.

but [ QUOTE ]
why argue over it?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

#3 > #4 (or at least could be) if #4 results in higher rakes and no rakeback. Not only would high taxes and government monopolies do this -- the AGA says Internet sites should have no competitive advantage over B&M rooms.

------------------

Everyone,

That being said, it doesn't really matter. It's not like we have an option of just sitting back and keeping the status quo. We lost in the House 317-93 last year. We have no choice but to fight for our rights as hard as we can. I've said it before...we have to fight as hard as we can for our rights. There is no other option. We can win iMEGA only to lose to an updated law by Congress. We can win the WTO, only to have the U.S. pull out and pay off (as we're seeing now). These other things can win for us IF we build, maintain, and demonstrate our politican strength and resolve. So, want #3? Fight for #4! Because, if you don't, we'll get that last option...prohibition.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt there is anyone on this board who actually wants government regulated online poker as their first choice. I certainly do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mmm no. I am pro regulation because I think it helps me.

Ok let us look at the UK regulatory regime and see if it has benefits for the customer.

The site has to:
keep my money in a seperate trust account - good.
pay out in a timely manner - good.
show the real odds of any game - not important for poker but good.
be independently inspected to show that the games are fair - good
exclude under 18s - good (especially if like Annette they would kick my ass)
offer self exclusion - good
have user set deposit limits - good
contribute towards helping problem gamblers - good
contribute towards research to help problem gamblers - good
advertise responsibly - good
act in a socially responsible way - that is help to identify and help problem gamblers - good.

On top of this "Safe" regulated sites able to advertise attract new fish - good.

Now where is the downside? The government make the companies pay a bit for the license, this covers the regulatory costs. They also tax the sites at 15% of their gross profits. Ok this is money "out" of the poker economy but at the same time I pay no tax on my winnings - it is taxed already at the site.

So my money is safer, the games are safer, I have better access to fish, I don't pay tax on my winnings, the problem gamblers get help, children are protected and criminals are kept out of running sites. Sh*t yes I'll take regulated poker over the mess in the US.

Milton - Did you notice that at the WSOP Main event FT there was one native born brit but 2 more that live here? Ask yourself why rather than put your ideology of unfettered free markets first. Regulation works and it brings with it public acceptance. It is both the possible and the better option.

[MiltonFriedman]

Poker IS legal, so why pretend it is not ?

A regulatory scheme is justified ONLY if there is some defect or problem in the industry affecting consumers.

I am saying that "regulation" is NOT inevitable.

What would you propose to "regulate" ? What is the rampant problem you seek to cure ? Are you just trying to appease your political foes by saying "regulate", so as to isolate FoF's position ?

The only problems affecting online poker are artificially created by government interference, through UIGEA and DOJ harassment*. How do you propose to "regulate" to solve those problems.

Underage gambling is a red herring. Problem gambling is a red herring. Either can and is dealt with by the industry itself. (If a site does not act itself to limit these areas, an underage gambler can chargeback purchases and recover losses. Problem gamblers can do the same.)

As for the unspoken issue, I am sure that all US poker players report their winnings and pay their taxes, so not IRS reporting is necessary.

"You might as well make the same argument for alcohol, guns, porn."

Precisely, there is room for elements of all three histories:

1. Alcohol ..... Prohibition was clearly a failed policy ?
2. Guns ........ The PPA is modelled on the NRA, which tilts against gun regulation. There are laws against murder. What the NRA tilts against are regulations restricting lawful firearm use/ownership.
3. Porn ........ The greatest chance of success in overturning the UIGEA lies in the precedent set in the ACLU v. Gonzales case law, all the way to the Supreme Court and back enjoining the Child Porn Act.

*Poker IS legal, so why pretend it is not ? You have yet to see the tip of the iceberg of DOJ harassment of online poker. Every time you chime in that it is "illegal", you are digging a deeper hole.

[Merkle]

As having owned video stores that handled both mainstream movies and porn I would like to point out that pornography is legal as ruled by the Supreme Court. Obscenity is illegal. And yes, according to the courts there is a difference.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker IS legal, so why pretend it is not ?

A regulatory scheme is justified ONLY if there is some defect or problem in the industry affecting consumers.

I am saying that "regulation" is NOT inevitable.

What would you propose to "regulate" ? RNG, safety of funds, age verification. And, no, I don't particularly trust the sites for any of this. What is the rampant problem you seek to cure ? Are you just trying to appease your political foes by saying "regulate", so as to isolate FoF's position ?

The only problems affecting online poker are artificially created by government interference, through UIGEA and DOJ harassment*. How do you propose to "regulate" to solve those problems. If it is regulated and/or deemed entirely legal by the government, these artificial problems go away.

Underage gambling is a red herring. It is a genuine problem. I would not object if microstakes were open to teenagers (with appropriate safegaurds) Problem gambling is a red herring. No it isn't. Just as there are alcoholics, there are problem gamblers. There needs to be mechanisms in place both to identify and to help these folks. Either can and is dealt with by the industry itself. That is not necessarily the pervue of the industry. Does McDonalds actually give a hoot if you are fat? (If a site does not act itself to limit these areas, an underage gambler can chargeback purchases and recover losses. Problem gamblers can do the same.) And losers who feel remorseful and want their money back. The sites will look out for themselves, not anyone else.
As for the unspoken issue, I am sure that all US poker players report their winnings and pay their taxes, so not IRS reporting is necessary.

"You might as well make the same argument for alcohol, guns, porn."

Precisely, there is room for elements of all three histories:

1. Alcohol ..... Prohibition was clearly a failed policy ? But it is a highly regulated industry.
2. Guns ........ The PPA is modelled on the NRA, which tilts against gun regulation. There are laws against murder. What the NRA tilts against are regulations restricting lawful firearm use/ownership. And what we need to tilt against is regulations restricting lawful poker playing, funding, and advertisments.
3. Porn ........ The greatest chance of success in overturning the UIGEA lies in the precedent set in the ACLU v. Gonzales case law, all the way to the Supreme Court and back enjoining the Child Porn Act. Go for it. We are with you.

*Poker IS legal, so why pretend it is not ? You have yet to see the tip of the iceberg of DOJ harassment of online poker. Every time you chime in that it is "illegal", you are digging a deeper hole.




[/ QUOTE ]

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker IS legal, so why pretend it is not ?

A regulatory scheme is justified ONLY if there is some defect or problem in the industry affecting consumers.

I am saying that "regulation" is NOT inevitable.

What would you propose to "regulate" ? What is the rampant problem you seek to cure ? Are you just trying to appease your political foes by saying "regulate", so as to isolate FoF's position ?

[/ QUOTE ]

You act like we are willing to give away the store so we can play on-line in the US with greater ease.

IMPO we are not. Even you point out that most of what we are "willing to give away" will likely either be created by a freer marker or simply blunts "red-herrings" of our opponets.

In an effort to take the political "high ground" and appear as "men of reason" what is the harm compared to the unltimate value? Every position that I've seen is a direct and reasoned re-buttal of the National Gambling Impact Study that our opponets used as the "sicentific foundation" for their cause. IMPO you have to be able to politically at least crumble that foundation to get heard. I think the UK and NZ studies as well as the sucess of various other countries reasonible regulations screams that Comgress F'ed up with the UIGEA.

[ QUOTE ]
The only problems affecting online poker are artificially created by government interference, through UIGEA and DOJ harassment*. How do you propose to "regulate" to solve those problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why piss and moan on the golden opportunity to show the Hill exactly what an abject failure their kow-towing to the knee-jerk "solution" offered by our opponets is in exact detail?

The CEO embezeler story is a prime example of this IMPO! There are hundreds more anti-gambling "news stories" that we can completely turn on their ear and show that with the most modest regulations would solve 98% of any problems.

[ QUOTE ]
Underage gambling is a red herring. Problem gambling is a red herring. Either can and is dealt with by the industry itself. (If a site does not act itself to limit these areas, an underage gambler can chargeback purchases and recover losses. Problem gamblers can do the same.)

[/ QUOTE ]

If all of these sites are so responsible and don't need any regulatory "push" why aren't they doing all of these things now!!!!! Every story where one of these issues makes an appearance shows that self-regulation isn't working and will not unless forced upon the entire on-line poker community. No one has been willing to step up and take action on their own. I don't blame them one bit. Why give up part of the market with an unpopular move? If the MBA types thought there was a profit in it it would alread be done. But given current market conditions it will not happen, and some how suggesting the it might happen on it's own in the future is a looser.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the unspoken issue, I am sure that all US poker players report their winnings and pay their taxes, so not IRS reporting is necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is our bigest stick IMPO. Some number of Billions of dollars of uncollected revenue!! Of course most US players don't fully report their poker winnings. Why should they? This is a big bitch of mine. IMPO the PPA and anti-UIGEA groups with a vested interest in "legal" poker are willing to throw the individual poker player under the bus on this issue and hope to address this issue later after they get a better game for themselves.

Politically this is a major mistake IMPO. All that will happen is the inevitible future story of the PPA pushing for a "tax-break for poker players" with the GAO studies to show how much the action will "cost" the American people.

If BluffThis has any merit to his concerns about acts of ommission by a short sighted PPA board, he gets my full support on this one!

Not addressing the tax issue right at the start as part of any overall comprehensive deal on any UIGEA modification or repeal effort is a BIG looser. Trying to fix this later with what ever is left of a grassroots poker organization is throwing individual US players to the wolves, both to those on the Hill and the people who want to run the games.


D$D