CNN Article putting Poker in a more positive light, highlighting skill [Archive]

TheEngineer

11-14-2007, 02:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I really think that arguing the skill factor is a complete waste of time. After all, what skill is involved in a lottery?

Skill is a ruse that politicians hide behind. The real determining factor is raw political power. When online gaming gets to the point where politicians see more benefit in supporting it than banning it they will sudden have a revelation (like they did with lotteries) and see a reason to vote for gaming.

We just waste our energy even arguing about skill until that point - its just a deception that politicians invented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many states outlaw only games of chance. If we prove our game is a game of skill in a court of law, we'll significantly improve our standing. You may want to read some prior threads about this topic, as we've discussed it once or twice before. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

El_Hombre_Grande

11-14-2007, 06:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I really think that arguing the skill factor is a complete waste of time. After all, what skill is involved in a lottery?

Skill is a ruse that politicians hide behind. The real determining factor is raw political power. When online gaming gets to the point where politicians see more benefit in supporting it than banning it they will sudden have a revelation (like they did with lotteries) and see a reason to vote for gaming.

We just waste our energy even arguing about skill until that point - its just a deception that politicians invented.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. There is established caselaw regarding the skill v luck debate in several states. Not only that, but most people with an open mind who seriously examine poker will ultimately determine that skill predominates. Thus this is established precedent that favors the legality of poker.

I agree that raw political power can get a law passed one way or the other, but in many instances you have to work with what you have. I don't think many Judges are predisposed to hate poker. I think we would do very well with such a rule.

oldbookguy

11-14-2007, 09:53 AM

the 'skil' / 'luck' difference is important.

Simply look at MSN / YAHOO! / AOL games.

Skill games can be played there for money, card, board, puzzle and other games.

To paraphrase Sen. Kyl, if you want poker legalized, go to court and have a judge say it is skill.

obg

OB-Wan222

11-14-2007, 12:08 PM

"If we prove our game is a game of skill in a court of law, we'll significantly improve our standing."

"There is established caselaw regarding the skill v luck debate in several states."

And politicians can change that law overnight. Sorry, no matter what's been said before its obvious to me that this is not a matter for the courts.

If you win in the courts politicians will just attack the "activist judiciary" and pass another law to the cheers of the "legislate morality' crowd. Court decisions can only delay prohibition.

I mentioned lotteries before because that typifies the approach we need. Lotteries are a great evil until more people are for them in a state then are against them. Then they become friends of education, tax reduction or whatever fig leaf the pols choose to hide their flip-flop behind.

Debates about skill are just a sham. Today a rep from the DOJ is going to Congress to talk about how online gaming is a hazard to children and the addicted, how its a haven for money-launderers and a criminal element. Funny, there's no talk about skill vs. luck on the part of those attacking online gaming.

Know the old joke about bringing a knife to a gun fight? That's what I fear we do when we argue about skill. We don't need finesse in our legal arguments. Because that won't settle anything while we still have pols that think they can get votes by sponsoring anti-gaming bills to replace the ones that the courts find flawed.

Politicians come and politicians go. We need to elect pols that see the benefit of supporting us. They don't need to agree with our fine logic. We don't need their hearts and minds just their fear.

soulvamp

11-14-2007, 12:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"If we prove our game is a game of skill in a court of law, we'll significantly improve our standing."

"There is established caselaw regarding the skill v luck debate in several states."

And politicians can change that law overnight. Sorry, no matter what's been said before its obvious to me that this is not a matter for the courts.

If you win in the courts politicians will just attack the "activist judiciary" and pass another law to the cheers of the "legislate morality' crowd. Court decisions can only delay prohibition.

I mentioned lotteries before because that typifies the approach we need. Lotteries are a great evil until more people are for them in a state then are against them. Then they become friends of education, tax reduction or whatever fig leaf the pols choose to hide their flip-flop behind.

Debates about skill are just a sham. Today a rep from the DOJ is going to Congress to talk about how online gaming is a hazard to children and the addicted, how its a haven for money-launderers and a criminal element. Funny, there's no talk about skill vs. luck on the part of those attacking online gaming.

Know the old joke about bringing a knife to a gun fight? That's what I fear we do when we argue about skill. We don't need finesse in our legal arguments. Because that won't settle anything while we still have pols that think they can get votes by sponsoring anti-gaming bills to replace the ones that the courts find flawed.

Politicians come and politicians go. We need to elect pols that see the benefit of supporting us. They don't need to agree with our fine logic. We don't need their hearts and minds just their fear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100% with this. It's all about politicians seeking money and power and has nothing to do with the intricacies of the game.

Skallagrim

11-14-2007, 12:42 PM

The skill argument is already the law in about 35 states. So we should just ignore the current law in these states while you go generate that "raw political power?" And just what are you doing to achieve that by the way?

Also, the skill argument separates poker from slots and thus makes getting changes to the law for poker that much easier.

Finally, the single best piece of legislation for poker out there at the moment is the "Skill Games Protection Act" that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers just signed on to. Lets tell him he is full of **** and its all about raw political power and money, that will surely help advance the cause wont it.

You guys can think what you want about the skill argument, but to suggest its time to drop it is just plain stupid. Or maybe 3 post OB-Wan222 is actually an FOF shill trying to get us to drop one of our most useful tactics?

Skallagrim

oldbookguy

11-14-2007, 12:45 PM

Though true, the court quote was from and is on Sen. Kyl's Senate Website, just a suggestion he proposed.

http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=273370
Next to last paragraph.

There is case law on this other than state law and the Master Card case, a few months ago a Federal Court in N.J., ruling on Fantasy Gaming defined contests as not covered and the description of contests covers most poker games.

See Chuck Humphries case filed prior to the UIGEA before Fantasy Wagering was exempted, though the ruling came afterwards.

http://www.wvgeneralstore.com/gaming/njruling.htm

obg

TheEngineer

11-14-2007, 01:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The skill argument is already the law in about 35 states. So we should just ignore the current law in these states while you go generate that "raw political power?" And just what are you doing to achieve that by the way?

Also, the skill argument separates poker from slots and thus makes getting changes to the law for poker that much easier.

Finally, the single best piece of legislation for poker out there at the moment is the "Skill Games Protection Act" that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers just signed on to. Lets tell him he is full of **** and its all about raw political power and money, that will surely help advance the cause wont it.

You guys can think what you want about the skill argument, but to suggest its time to drop it is just plain stupid. Or maybe 3 post OB-Wan222 is actually an FOF shill trying to get us to drop one of our most useful tactics?

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

He sounds more like a disgruntled sports bettor who wants to chain us to his cause.

Hey 3-post Obi: As no one here knows who you are, please post some of the letters you've written to Congress this year so you can establish some credibility. And at least introduce yourself before assuming the right to tell us what to do and how to do it. Thanks.

Richas

11-14-2007, 01:37 PM

Skill has become important in some states and in some cases elsewhere such as the UK gutshot case or where the Russians designated it a sport so escaping gambling restrictions but it is a bit hypocritical given the popularity and acceptance of lotteries and horse racing with no and less skill involved.

For me the civil liberties and the adverse consequences of prohibition are more important but in some states and some courts skill is the issue.

Skallagrim

11-14-2007, 01:49 PM

A simple point: virtually no one wants to ban playing any and every game for money; a fair number of folks, however, want to ban gambling. In many places the political compromise is to ban playing for money those games that are games of chance but allow playing for money those games that are games of skill.

I see little chance of overcoming that political compromise in most states, and hence the key for poker is, again, to establish it as game of skill.

Do I wish the only issue up for debate was personal freedom? Yes. But it isnt, and it isnt likely to be in the current political climate.

Skallagrim

grapabo

11-14-2007, 01:49 PM

There may be distinctions in the state law defining games of skill and games of chance, but in how many states does this make a difference? In Missouri, where I live, there is a statute defining games of skill and a statute defining games of chance. Both of them, however, are called "gambling" if you are wagering money on the outcome, and unless it's a specifically carved out exception (like the state lottery), then it's illegal no matter how it's defined.

Skallagrim

11-14-2007, 02:11 PM

Actually, MO changed its law when it passed its "excursion boat casino" legislation. The provisions you refer to apply only to what is or is not allowed on casino excursion boats - it exists to encourage new casino games with a skill element.

Outside of the boats, poker is gambling in MO (and therefore illegal) if it is a game of chance, which is defined as a game where the outcome "depends to a material degree on an element of chance, notwithstanding that skill may also be a factor." I think it is fair to argue that in regular poker skill is the material element, notwithstanding that chance is also a factor.

There is A MO case finding video poker to be game of chance because the random dealing of the cards is the material element, notwithstanding that choosing which cards to hold is a skill factor. There is a MO Supreme Court case from before the law changed finding regular poker more skill than chance. There is no MO Supreme court case on regular poker decided under the new law.

Skallagrim

TheEngineer

11-14-2007, 03:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Skill has become important in some states and in some cases elsewhere such as the UK gutshot case or where the Russians designated it a sport so escaping gambling restrictions but it is a bit hypocritical given the popularity and acceptance of lotteries and horse racing with no and less skill involved.

For me the civil liberties and the adverse consequences of prohibition are more important but in some states and some courts skill is the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. We have many tools at our disposal, and we should use them all. For me personally, it's an issue of individual liberty, but I'm not trying to convince me that Internet poker should be legal /images/graemlins/grin.gif , so I agree with you totally.

OB-Wan222

11-14-2007, 04:40 PM

I joined this forum because I thought it was favored by people that were more thoughtful in their comments. But as Kurt Vonnegut said, "And so it goes..."

First let's deal with what I DIDN'T say.

Skallagrim "So we should just ignore the current law in these states while you go generate that "raw political power?"..."

Skallagrim "Lets tell him he is full of **** and its all about raw political power and money, that will surely help advance the cause wont it."

I didn't say that any current court cases should be abandoned. And I certainly didn't say that we should offend any of our political allies. And I resent your attempts to put foul language in my mouth, whatever **** means. Why would you assume that I would say such a thing? You don't even know me, so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't try to put words in my mouth, especially since I think I have a better way with the English language than you assume.

What I DID say was that the courts can only postpone prohibition if the politicians think they can court votes by supporting it. Postponment is not a bad thing, but I think that it is a losing strategy in the long run - a temporary stop-gap at best. We need to change the political envirnment, not re-arrange the furniture.

Continue the court cases, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we are winning the REAL battle. As I DID say, our enemies do not talk in terms of skill vs. luck, they seek a total ban - so we must divert the time and energy we spend arguing among ourselves about skill vs. luck and present a united front.

IF lotteries are legal than how can games of luck be illegal? That is what I mean by skill vs. luck being a red herring. Politicians don't care about reality. If they can pass a law saying that bingo can be played for money but only for charities, then they can pass a law saying that bingo can be played for money by anyone licensed by the state. Skill or luck has NOTHING to do with it.

================

Skallagrim "Or maybe 3 post OB-Wan222 is actually an FOF shill trying to get us to drop one of our most useful tactics?"

Oh boy, not this nonsense. Okay, for those of you who never participated in a debate in middle school, let alone high school...

- It is not a valid debating tactic to attack the speaker instead of debating their facts or their conclusions. (It might surprise you to learn that there are a great many intelligent people that have NEVER posted on this forum - honest, look it up.)

- It is not a valid debating tactic to assume the motives of the speaker instead of debating their facts or their conclusions. (Who's the FOF?)

- It is possible for people who agree on some things to disagree on others. (Beleive it or not I'm on your side, we just disagree on tactics. What is it about our culture that makes people attack anyone that disagrees with us in the slightest?)

================

Skallagrim "And just what are you doing to achieve that [raw political power] by the way?..."

Now THAT'S a good question. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or money to become a lobbyist. I do have some ideas, but not surprisingly, I don't have a complete answer - No one does. That is why we find ourselves in this position.

I do have the unmitigated gall, apparently, to suggest that we should forget the skill vs. luck debate. There are already lawyers hashing that out and they will do what they will, but that is not where our primary efforts should be directed.

We do need to be more aware of the message. We need to frame the argument not just in terms of privacy, but capitalism. Risk versus reward is one of the cornerstones of free enterprise. Gambling is the ultimate risk versus reward.

PPA seems to be doing a better job and they have raised more seed money. I do worry about their connection to the Global Poker Strategic Thinking Society, the group encouraging teaching gambling as a decision-making tool. I fear that the message might get confused with encouraging underage gambling.

There is a lot to be done and it is certainly an uphill battle, but it can be done.

JPFisher55

11-14-2007, 04:45 PM

Ob-Wan222, if we win the legal battle over the WTO, then Congress cannot change the laws because doing so would violate the WTO. If we win the legal battle over the constitutionality of the UIGEA and/or the right to play online poker in our homes, then it would take an amendment to the US constitution to change that victory.
So court and legal victories are very difficult for Congress or state legislatures to change. Heck, right now, Congress cannot pass all the budget bills. And the UIGEA was only passed by attaching it to a very important national security bill concerning our ports.

oldbookguy

11-14-2007, 04:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Skallagrim "Or maybe 3 post OB-Wan222 is actually an FOF shill trying to get us to drop one of our most useful tactics?"

[/ QUOTE ]

The trouble OB, we have had 'shills' from the FoF and opposition appear here and post, and yes, we go there as well.

The difference though is, speaking for myself and observations, we identify ourselves, they, being the good Christians they are, generally do not.

Instead, they post telling us our stance and plans are all wrong while generally offering no better plan, just we are fighting a losing cause.

obg

KEW

11-14-2007, 04:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Skallagrim "Or maybe 3 post OB-Wan222 is actually an FOF shill trying to get us to drop one of our most useful tactics?"

[/ QUOTE ]

The trouble OB, we have had 'shills' from the FoF and opposition appear here and post, and yes, we go there as well.

The difference though is, speaking for myself and observations, we identify ourselves, they, being the good Christians they are, generally do not.

Instead, they post telling us our stance and plans are all wrong while generally offering no better plan, just we are fighting a losing cause.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how the Fof has "fun"....

Skallagrim

11-14-2007, 05:34 PM

OB-Wan, if you are going to become a useful poster here on 2+2 you are, as TheEngineer said, going to have to establish credibility first.

You establish very little credibility by taking one of the single most useful arguments we have in the fight to get online poker expressly legal and trashing it because in your mind you have discovered the great observation all the rest of us missed: legislators can change laws. Duh....

You dont show any evidence that they are working to change these skill v. chance laws now; nor do you show any evidence that they will rise up and change those laws if we win in the courts.

It is apparent that you came in here, and if you are not a shill, briefly looked around without any real research and decided that you know better than the folks who have worked on these issues for well over a year how to get to our goal. If you are offended by my tone to you, so be it - you deserved it.

Perhaps you might want to realize that the only reason you are still capable of playing online poker at the moment (if, in fact, you do) is because the FBI and the DOJ recognize the "poker is skill" argument as real challenge to them in court. That is the reason ALL their prosecutions so far have been against sportsbetting sites.

And, of course, other than objecting to my putting un-named foul words in your mouth (just like a Friend Of the Family member would) you really have no clue that the Skill Games Protection Act is our best hope right now. Its called the SKILL games protection act for a reason.

Skallagrim

Skallagrim

11-14-2007, 06:11 PM

And, since I didnt say it above, nowhere have I or anyone else said that the skill argument should be our only argument. Nor is it the case that pushing the skill argument detracts from our other efforts at getting legislation in our favor, it is PART of that effort. It is one part of the arsenal. And we need to use ALL our weapons.

Skallagrim

OB-Wan222

11-14-2007, 06:17 PM

I fear that we are getting far away from the OP about the CNN story, but following the train of thought...

JPFisher55 "...if we win the legal battle over the WTO... If we win the legal battle over the constitutionality of the UIGEA and/or the right to play online poker in our homes..."

The International pro-gaming forces have already won the UIGEA/WTO dispute. And it does not involve skill vs. luck, it involves wired transmission of wagers. It boils down to rather the International community will impose sanctions that the US cannot live with. Right now the Administration is using its favorite tactic - defining things the way it wants to regardless of reality (shades of 1984!) - to postpone the consequences of its unilateral action. But it is not and never was an argument based on skill vs. luck.

The major Constitutional argument against the UIGEA is that it is vague to the point of being unenforceable. Again Congress can address that with a more detailed attempt to define "illegal internet gambling", but again we end up in the legislativive areana, not the courts.

The major point being - there is no Constitutional right to games of skill or luck - or games at all. And when we discuss the Constitution and its interpretation by The Court (not lower case, the courts) let's not forget that we almost have a Scalia Court and Scalia is not someone that to whom I would trust my personal privacy, since he doesn't believe in any such thing.

JPFisher55 "Heck, right now, Congress cannot pass all the budget bills. And the UIGEA was only passed by attaching it to a very important national security bill concerning our ports."

I agree that in general gambling is a very low priority, but it seems that politicians can still find time to get their jabs in. And here we are again discussing legislations, i.e. politicians, not judges.

Courts have their place but we shouldn't take our eye off the ball. Drawing room debates about skill vs. luck are fun but that's all they are. Who ever won that debate about how many Angels could dance on the head of a pin? No one remembers because they weren't important to the REAL debate.

If you believe that people should be allowed to gamble in the privacy of their homes then it doesn't matter if its poker or slots or horseracing or bingo or a chess game. Just as if you believe in people being able to drink in the privacy of their homes it doesn't matter if its beer or brandy or wine or scotch.

No seriously what's the FOF?

DeadMoneyDad

11-14-2007, 06:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A simple point: virtually no one wants to ban playing any and every game for money; a fair number of folks, however, want to ban gambling. In many places the political compromise is to ban playing for money those games that are games of chance but allow playing for money those games that are games of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you add in the "locational" control as evidenced by B&M's staying out of the on-line issue on a Federal Level but doing all they can to fight each battle on the State Level you begin to understand the full force of Skall's premise.

Their rational seems to be a total ban keeps the issue a State by State political battle, removes the WTO issue with a total ban, an provides the "only" outlet for poker players to continue to play poker. This puts "us" in their corner politically and they don't have to do a thing but "assist" the banking industry (which is represented on their board) in furthering the Fear on-line Fun (FoF) cause.

[ QUOTE ]
I see little chance of overcoming that political compromise in most states, and hence the key for poker is, again, to establish it as game of skill.

Do I wish the only issue up for debate was personal freedom? Yes. But it isnt, and it isnt likely to be in the current political climate.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly! Given Valarie A Bend's refusal to answer the timing issue at all, is further evidence that almost all Federal efforts to date are delaying tatics at best. Only a few see the UIGEA as a sucess in furthering the total ban on remote gaming (and fun!).

If you want quicker and cheaper poker in the near term the only possible action is to make the banking indusrty tell the DOJ and the Federal Reserve Board to tell Congress that the UIGEA is unenforcable as written. Even that is likely a year away given the regualtory "time frame" within the proposed regualtion document.

Unless we indend to await a legal challenge of an implemented UIGEA regualtion which itself would be many years in resolving there is no other short term "solution" that I can forsee.

D$D

Skallagrim

11-14-2007, 06:53 PM

The point is, OB, we on these boards have been over this numerous times. Do some searching. When the Libertarian party has control over one of the houses of congress then maybe we can succeed on the personal freedom issue alone.

You dont realize that its you wanting to put all our eggs into one questionable basket, do you?

And in case you didnt get it from my last post, FOF is Focus on the Family, the main "gambling is evil, addictive, ruinous, did i say evil?" group. Please do some homework before telling us we are going about this all wrong.

Skallagrim

OB-Wan222

11-14-2007, 07:25 PM

Skallagrim "OB-Wan, if you are going to become a useful poster here on 2+2 you are, as TheEngineer said, going to have to establish credibility first."

I'm not the least bit interested in gaining credibility in your eyes. Especially considering that you take your first three paragraphs to attack me personally (again) before you even begin to posit competing opinions. You and TheEngineer seem more interested in evaluating the person instead of the ideas.

Next time can we get to the debate over ideas first?

BTW, You are not the gatekeeper of ideas. I am free to have my opinions evaluated on their merit as are you. If you disagree with my ideas then fine, but none of you have the right to decide if I'm entitled to have an opinion.

If you don't believe me then ask the mods. I'm guessing you're not one of those, are you? But don't worry, I'm not going to use that as an argument against you. After all, you don't have to be a mod to have an opinion, do you?

Skallagrim "Perhaps you might want to realize that the only reason you are still capable of playing online poker at the moment (if, in fact, you do) is because the FBI and the DOJ recognize the "poker is skill" argument as real challenge to them in court. That is the reason ALL their prosecutions so far have been against sportsbetting sites."

Not at all. After all, people break the law all the time without consequence (or so I'm told). People drive drunk, use drugs, rob banks and, yes, even gamble on-line without being prosecuted. It's not that the authorities don't think people are breaking the law, its just that they don't have the resources to stop everyone breaking the law.

From today's testimony before the House Committee by the DOJ rep: "The Department’s view for some time has been that all forms of Internet gambling, including sports wagering, casino games, and card games, are illegal under federal law... "

And yet, despite that opinion those of us who gamble online are not in jail. So the "you are capable of gambling because poker is skill" argument is not convincing. The DOJ considers online poker illegal despite all your skill vs. luck arguments.

Skallagrim "...you really have no clue that the Skill Games Protection Act is our best hope right now. Its called the SKILL games protection act for a reason."

And the world goes around in a circle. You mean that a legislative act is our best hope? Not the courts? Are you sure? Because that sounds an awful lot like what I have been saying all along.

It matters not rather the pols call it skills or manna from heaven act. As I have said politicians don't care about reality - if it suits them to call it a skill they will, if it doesn't then they will deny its a skill no matter what evidence you present. You can scream until the mountains fall and the rivers rise - nothing but political muscle with change the legal landscape.

If pols will pass a law under the fig leaf of calling it a skill then fine, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that's why they act. Again (and again) all kinds of games of luck - lottery, bingo, wheels, etc - are legal for some reasons (usually state lotteries or charity games) so it is illogical to think that skill vs. luck is the deciding factor.

Don't forget I am on your side, I just think that political change is more useful than arguing among ourselves (I never spoke against arguing in court in the near term) about skill vs. luck is a a waste of time.

adanthar

11-14-2007, 09:01 PM

There is nothing stopping any interested party from pressing both prongs of attack. In fact, that is likely the best option, the difference being the playing field.

Trying to wedge a distinction between luck and skill on the federal level is an interesting challenge but one that is ultimately futile, because it will never pass. The main reason for this is that we are only as far along as we are because the WTO issue is pressing our case for us; if we remove the WTO from the equation, legalization before January, 2009 is utterly impossible. Therefore, since the WTO argument ignores luck vs. skill entirely, there's no point rehashing it on the federal level.

On the other hand, *if* the WTO argument wins and online gambling is "legalized", the likely result is that many states, forced to allow access to everyone on equal terms but probably retaining the right to ban whatever categories of gambling they see fit to, will start by banning all non-lottery games of chance. This is where the skill game argument comes in and can be used effectively. In addition, it should also be argued right now in states where chance vs. skill is already the deciding factor.

However, trying to get a skill game exemption federally *right now* is thoroughly pointless. The first Congressman to point out that this gets the US nowhere re: the WTO will win an FOF-branded cookie and that'll be the end of that. I think OB-Wan is entirely correct on this one.

BluffTHIS!

11-14-2007, 09:34 PM

OB-Wan,

3 Questions:

1) Is your opposition to discussing and using the skill argument rooted in a desire to see poker lumped in with -EV casino gambling?

2) Do you derive income, other than purely as a player, from an online gambling enterprise, which includes affiliates?

3) If your posting account's IP address were run for matches against other older accounts, which such account(s) would it match?

Skallagrim

11-14-2007, 11:01 PM

Adanthar, you seem to ignore that with the sign-on of Chairman Conyers, it is precisely the skill games argument that IS gaining ground in Congress. Where in this argument is the Sports Bettors Alliance? The Slot Players Alliance?

Also, you seem to place all our hopes on the WTO. What if the WTO sanctions and compensation are not that big. The Bush Admin has already indicated it plans to give up a bit to keep the online status quo. If the "bit" is small enough to not make big noise, where do we go?

Also, because its anathema to their way of thinking, the "skill games v. gambling" distinction was not put before the WTO by the Bush Admin. It is perfectly acceptable for the US, under the WTO, to ban all online gambling, but openly allow online skill games (so long as foreign sites are not discriminated against). How one fairly separates the two then becomes a new round of WTO litigation, and a new opportunity for negotiation and compromise. The first congresperson to point this out wins a much bigger cookie from all the industries possibly affected by sanctions.

To say OBWan is right that the skill argument is useless at the federal level ignores the progress the Wexler bill has made, assumes the WTO will force congress to make all online gambling legal thus leaving us no fall back position if it doesnt, and fails to recognize the usefulness of the distinction at the WTO itself. Do you really want us to be in a position where we must agree that the only way to have legal online poker is to also have legal online slots and sportsbetting?

And thats the same question to you OBWan; stop feeling bad about the attacks I made ON YOUR STATEMENTS. Other than suspecting you might be a shill for FOF (you wouldnt be the first if so) I attacked the postion you staked out. I still attack it. To give up on maintaining that poker is different because its a skill game is too give up way too much and only plays into the hands of our enemies who have realized that criminalizing online poker (as opposed to other "gambling") is the weakest point of their argument. They would love nothing more than for us to agree that poker should be treated the same as online slots.

Skallagrim

OB-Wan222

11-14-2007, 11:08 PM

Before I go on (and on and on) I would like to thank soulvamp and adanthar the "Possibly Too Level Headed" /images/graemlins/laugh.gif for their words of support.

Now BluffTHIS! since you asked me nicely, without accusations of being a plant or someone's puppet, I will gladly respond--

1) Is your opposition to discussing and using the skill argument rooted in a desire to see poker lumped in with -EV casino gambling?

Not at all. I honestly think that it's a smokescreen. That it's a sham invented by politicians to justify their opposition or support based solely on political favor. I've had this idea for years, but every time I try to express it I get attacked from a variety o circles.

Let me tell you a real story about American politics - I remember when the original Geo. Bush made his "no new taxes" pledge. The thing that astounded everyone with a clue was not that years later he went back on that promise. For those that were politically aware the real betrayal was that AS SOON AS HE SAID IT EVERYONE WITH A CLUE KNEW IT WAS A LIE. We were stunned that he would have the nerve to make such a worthless promise, but it wasn't until the die was finally cast that the American people were surprised to learn that he had "gone back on his word." His word was worthless from the moment it was uttered, but not enough people could separate the hard truth from what they wanted to believe. And that is what politics in America is REALLY like.

Once you've been through the ringer a few decades you realize that politicians will say whatever they think will go down good and then do whatever they think they have to and that makes skill vs. luck a worthless exercise without the political power to back it up.

2) Do you derive income, other than purely as a player, from an online gambling enterprise, which includes affiliates?

Not a bit. My username is OB-Wan222. That is the name I use on FTP, PS, AP, UB, FTP forum and here. If you look me up on SharkScope you will probably find a fish by my name. I wish I were a better player but I don't give up hope.

But I don't believe that my ability to win money or my time playing poker online (a few months) or my age (older than the average bear) has anything to do with whether my opinions on this issue are noteworthy. I can take a debate about ideas, but attacking the person shows a weakness in your ability to argue logically.

I have considered starting an online Poker Blog centered on poker news and information instead of my own modest exploits, but I have not launched such a project and I am not sure I will. It is just something I am considering. And I have no sponsors, just a website and some blog software.

3) If your posting account's IP address were run for matches against other older accounts, which such account(s) would it match?

Don't be silly. I'm just a regular joe. My IP is provided by my landlord via Comcast cable and I share it with the other apartments. I don't even think that its a stable one, but I might be wrong as much time as I spend online. I don't have any old accounts. I don't have multiple accounts under this name or any other.

As hard as it may be to believe my opinions are my own and they are developed solely in my head. And I am open to changing them if someone presents info that lead me to question my beliefs. But I am a survivor of the political school of hard knocks and it would take a lot to convince me that pols are out for anything but political advantage.

If online gaming can provide that advantage than the pols will be on our side, if we can't than no matter what we do, we're on the short stack and no amount of clever skill vs. luck arguments will be of any worth.

Jay Cohen

11-14-2007, 11:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Adanthar, you seem to ignore that with the sign-on of Chairman Conyers, it is precisely the skill games argument that IS gaining ground in Congress. Where in this argument is the Sports Bettors Alliance? The Slot Players Alliance?

Also, you seem to place all our hopes on the WTO. What if the WTO sanctions and compensation are not that big. The Bush Admin has already indicated it plans to give up a bit to keep the online status quo. If the "bit" is small enough to not make big noise, where do we go?

Also, because its anathema to their way of thinking, the "skill games v. gambling" distinction was not put before the WTO by the Bush Admin. It is perfectly acceptable for the US, under the WTO, to ban all online gambling, but openly allow online skill games (so long as foreign sites are not discriminated against). How one fairly separates the two then becomes a new round of WTO litigation, and a new opportunity for negotiation and compromise. The first congresperson to point this out wins a much bigger cookie from all the industries possibly affected by sanctions.

To say OBWan is right that the skill argument is useless at the federal level ignores the progress the Wexler bill has made, assumes the WTO will force congress to make all online gambling legal thus leaving us no fall back position if it doesnt, and fails to recognize the usefulness of the distinction at the WTO itself. Do you really want us to be in a position where we must agree that the only way to have legal online poker is to also have legal online slots and sportsbetting?

And thats the same question to you OBWan; stop feeling bad about the attacks I made ON YOUR STATEMENTS. Other than suspecting you might be a shill for FOF (you wouldnt be the first if so) I attacked the postion you staked out. I still attack it. To give up on maintaining that poker is different because its a skill game is too give up way too much and only plays into the hands of our enemies who have realized that criminalizing online poker (as opposed to other "gambling") is the weakest point of their argument. They would love nothing more than for us to agree that poker should be treated the same as online slots.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think allowing skill games everywhere, but not games of chance will satisfy the WTO decision.

A couple of points, how can you say you don't have a moral aversion to skill games, but you do have a moral aversion to games of chance when you offer lotteries on such a grand scale? What is the skill involved in picking numbers, or scratching a ticket?

Isn't betting on sports a skill, handicapping games? It's your wits against the oddsmaker's wits. It's certainly more of a skill than scratcher tickets.

Finally, you still have the horse racing problem. If you offer remote horse racing, which we know is not going away, as well as remote sports wagering in Nevada, or remote lotteries, you haven't come close to solving the WTO issue.

Now, if you add more remote wagering games of skill, how has that brought you into compliance?

Skallagrim

11-14-2007, 11:20 PM

"But I am a survivor of the political school of hard knocks and it would take a lot to convince me that pols are out for anything but political advantage.

If online gaming can provide that advantage than the pols will be on our side, if we can't than no matter what we do, we're on the short stack and no amount of clever skill vs. luck arguments will be of any worth."

My issue with you and adanthar as expressed above is that you fail to see that the skill argument is, in fact, a politically advantageous argument for us. Its not the only argument, it may not turn out to be the decisive argument, but to discount it because it doesnt comport with you view of why legislators make the decisions they make, is a big mistake. It is ONE important part of the battle; dont neglect your flanks when you are concerned with an advance on your center.

Skallagrim

Skallagrim

11-14-2007, 11:27 PM

You miss my point, Jay. I agree that simply allowing poker as a game of skill will not bring the US into compliance. The US would also have to ban ALL remote "gambling" at the same time. How you split this up between various activities is what then becomes the next round of WTO litigation - and this may well include having to allow sportsbetting or having to make betting on horse racing illegal, thats what gets litigated (and this happens after Antigua gets its sanctions for what we have already done - but not necessarily requiring us to compensate the EU and others, as we would no longer have to withdraw our commitments - the US could then advance the moral argument on remote "gambling" going forward).

Skallagrim

DeadMoneyDad

11-14-2007, 11:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]

No seriously what's the FOF?

[/ QUOTE ]

FoF or Family Research Council http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ABOUT_FRC, I think FoF stands for Focus on Families.

After today's exchange perhaps "Fear of Fun" or "Fear on-line Fun" is parhaps more appropiate.

D$D

DeadMoneyDad

11-14-2007, 11:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Before I go on (and on and on) I would like to thank soulvamp and adanthar the "Possibly Too Level Headed" /images/graemlins/laugh.gif for their words of support.

Now BluffTHIS! since you asked me nicely, without accusations of being a plant or someone's puppet, I will gladly respond--

1) Is your opposition to discussing and using the skill argument rooted in a desire to see poker lumped in with -EV casino gambling?

Not at all. I honestly think that it's a smokescreen. That it's a sham invented by politicians to justify their opposition or support based solely on political favor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps that is true that pols are only interested in self preservation, it is a lesson we as voters have helped re-enforce from time to time.

But the real underlying truth is all politics is local. That locality is only as large as the geograhical area that encompasises the registered voters who decide any pols fate in the next election.

Because of that and almost only because of that and our Consitutional history many laws in this country are controled at the most apporpiate local level. Gambling before it became an internet phenom was exclusively controled due to geography "local" politics.

We do not choose to have a skills game argument. It is simply the political "lay of the land." We can choose to fight from the political "highground" we have avilable to us, or wish for an ideal battleground.

A collariary of all politics is the fact that politics is the art and battle of the doable. Those that choose to fight crusades or tilt at windmills, seal their own fate from the outset.

This is why Sun Zu, Clausewitz, Machiavelli, among others are almost required reading in political science and always in good campaign schools. You do not have to aspire to nor be a "Prince" to need the ability to think like one, as Niccolo teaches in his often over looked preface to his work.

Ignoring history, the lay of the land, and the teachings of others that often died for their mistakes is not some college exercise but a foundation for sucess in both life as well as essential in politics.

The old saying is "wish in one hand and spit in the other, which fills up faster?"; shows the sheer futility of any strategy of any endavor that ignores reality infavor of hope for anything including the ideal.

So we face this "battle" on the best understanding of the true nature and offensive as well as defensive nature of the ground the battle field the battle will be fought, using as much of our talents, knowledge, dedication, and heart used in the most effective manner possible to reach our goals based on the science of the warefare to be conducted, politics.

D$D

OB-Wan222

11-15-2007, 12:08 AM

Skallagrim "stop feeling bad about the attacks I made ON YOUR STATEMENTS. Other than suspecting you might be a shill for FOF (you wouldnt be the first if so) I attacked the postion you staked out."

YOU'RE A LIAR. You make it sound like I'm piqued because of your comments about the FOF but in fact you attacked me for being a 3-poster and implied that I didn't have sufficient credentials to post an opinion - isn't that the truth?

Well, regardless, let's move on. We can all check your previous post and determine the truth abut your attacks on me.

Skallagrim "To give up on maintaining that poker is different because its a skill game is too give up way too much and only plays into the hands of our enemies who have realized that criminalizing online poker (as opposed to other "gambling") is the weakest point of their argument. They would love nothing more than for us to agree that poker should be treated the same as online slots."

You just don't get it. Our enemies already treat poker the same as slots. Can you tell me the name of ONE online gaming opponent that makes a difference between poker and slots? And I'm not asking for some yahoo that has signed onto a bill. I want a quote from ONE anti-online-gaming politician that draws a distinction between a game of skill and a game of chance.

Can you find one? - I'll be surprised if you do.

The DOJ doesn't agree with your assessment, does it? Is there anything in the Treasury Dept. testimony that give you hope that skill is treated any differently than luck?

We are in a battle of political wills and fighting among ourselves about "who struck john" is exactly what our enemies want. If you're looking for the mole in the woodshed direct your attention to those that want to convince you that "skill vs. luck" is something we should be expending our energies on.

We should be wrestling the politicians to the ground based on our freedom as Americans to risk our money on the chance of greater rewards.

"YOU BET I WANT TO VOTE ON IT" should be our battlecry - not, "We want to participate in game of skill but not luck".

OB-Wan222

11-15-2007, 12:43 AM

Thank you, Jay Cohen

Especially when you say - "how can you say you don't have a moral aversion to skill games, but you do have a moral aversion to games of chance when you offer lotteries on such a grand scale?"

You are echoing my point, or perhaps I am echoing yours.

DeadMoneyDad "FoF or Family Research Council"

Thanks D$D - see I know about you from FTP. I've heard of this Internet-born sub-culture, of course. I didn't know them by the FoF label though. No I have not now or ever been someone that supports this organization. They're a bunch of sheepeople.

Skallagrim "...the "skill games v. gambling" distinction was not put before the WTO by the Bush Admin."

Of course, as I said earlier the WTO is not a case of skill vs. luck. It is about whether the Bush Admin will accept the sanctions imposed for violating the WTO.

Skallagrim "Do you really want us to be in a position where we must agree that the only way to have legal online poker is to also have legal online slots and sportsbetting?"

There it is. So you have no problem with online gaming so long as it fits YOUR definition of gambling. You're not afraid of online gambling in the USA you're just afraid that if won't fit your definition of gambling. Perhaps you are the mole, trying to prevent Americans from being able to bet in the privacy of their homes because you don't approve of what they might bet on.

Well, well, well... puts that whole skill vs. luck argument in a whole new light doesn't it? I support the right for ME to gamble at my game but you shouldn't be allowed to gamble at YOUR game.

Tuff_Fish

11-15-2007, 12:45 AM

My guess is that OB-Wan222 is a sports bettor.

Possibly a blackjack player but probably a sports bettor.

He sure seems intent on pulling poker into the same category as sports betting and online casinos.

Go carry your own water sir, we are fighting for poker here.

There is no argument you can make that will convince most of us that we stand just as good a chance of obtaining our goals by pushing for our "right" to gamble online.

Tuff

2easy

11-15-2007, 12:46 AM

Maybe he is just prioritizing his fights.

DeadMoneyDad

11-15-2007, 12:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Skallagrim "...the "skill games v. gambling" distinction was not put before the WTO by the Bush Admin."

Of course, as I said earlier the WTO is not a case of skill vs. luck. It is about whether the Bush Admin will accept the sanctions imposed for violating the WTO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not for the Administration.

We saw the Administration's point of view from the DOJ rep today in legal terms, the Wire Act is controling, and the WTO response in Congressional Reps and the response from the DOJ rep under direct questions both favorable and against; the US never intended nor will accept a "group of foreigners" over riding US laws and our unique Constitutional system.

I agree their position seems weak and the potential consequences quite dire as I agree with Joseph Weiler in his predictions that others will likely use this position no matter how it is resolved against us in the future.

But the fact remains the WTO will not solve the fundemental structural challenges faced by this or future congresses in attempting to write a Federal solution to a historically State issue. They can try, but even the current 48 State Attorney Generals they count as in their corner would abandon them in a heartbeat if they tried anything other than a Federal ban.

If their was an easier solution politically or legally it would have been discussed long before now.

D$D

TheEngineer

11-15-2007, 01:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that OB-Wan222 is a sports bettor.

Possibly a blackjack player but probably a sports bettor.

He sure seems intent on pulling poker into the same category as sports betting and online casinos.

Go carry your own water sir, we are fighting for poker here.

There is no argument you can make that will convince most of us that we stand just as good a chance of obtaining our goals by pushing for our "right" to gamble online.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, he's just some sports bettor who wants us to carry his water.

The last one who did this went after Skallagrim as well.

Skallagrim

11-15-2007, 01:25 AM

I have never placed a poster on ignore before, but OB is about to be the first.

Where have we who have actually worked to further the poker cause, unlike you, ever said amongst ourselves - "oh no, dont say anything about freedoms, or taxes or privacy, lets only talk about skill"? You sir, have no clue.

If you think pointing out THE FACT that you are/were a 3-post newcomer is a personal attack, you sir, have no clue. You so obviously have no knowledge of what has been happening here, and no willingness to learn, that what you say we believe is also worthless.

I have no problem with online gambling so long as it fits MY definition? Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows full well that has NEVER been my position.

But why should facts interfere with precisely what it is now obvious you are here to do - get us poker players to piggyback your sportsbetting or slots/casino games play onto our success.

No poker player posting here has ever argued for other forms of gaming/gambling to be illegal. No bill supported by the PPA or the regular posters here says other forms of gambling SHOULD be illegal.

All we have done is recognize the political reality that it is far easier to convince the average person and their legislators that online poker should be legal than it is to convince them that EVERY form of online gambling should be legal. That you refuse to accept that obvious fact shows your true colors and renders even your "opinions" worthless.

That you decry dissension among the people actually doing the work to establish expressly legal poker and yet seek to create it in every post is further evidence of what you really are.

And finally, that you have absolutely no clue as to the actual current legal status of online poker (as shown by your complete faith in DOJ opinons) means you really have nothing meaningful to add to this discussion.

Skallagrim

OB-Wan222

11-15-2007, 01:56 AM

Skallagrim "You are now ignoring this user. You will no longer see the body of any of their posts." /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Yippee Kai-ayyye.

I'm perfectly comfortable leaving the members of this forum to draw their own conclusions.

BTW I am not a sport bettor or a blackjack bettor so your losing streak is intact.

OB-Wan222

11-15-2007, 02:24 AM

Oh, BTW I asked this before and didn't get an answer.

Can you tell me the name of ONE online gaming opponent that makes a difference between poker and slots? And I'm not asking for some yahoo that has signed onto a bill. I want a quote from ONE anti-online-gaming politician that draws a distinction between a game of skill and a game of chance.

Can you find one? - I'll be surprised if you do.

If what's his name isn't forthcoming I'd invite anyone to respond with a vaid quote.

OB-Wan222

11-15-2007, 03:02 AM

Still waitng...

PPAdc

11-15-2007, 03:22 AM

Congressman Pete Sessions from TX might just fit that bill. He is a perenial 90+ on the Christian Coalition and other religous groups scorecards. After meeting with "average joe" PPA member consituents as well as poker pros Clonie Gowen and Robert Williamson III (from the Dallas area) he was conviced by the skill arguements and signed on to Rep. Wexler's Skill Game Protection Act.

John A. Pappas
Executive Director
PPA

PPAdc

11-15-2007, 03:23 AM

oh, and he had been a UIGEA supporter in the past...

DeadMoneyDad

11-15-2007, 03:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that OB-Wan222 is a sports bettor.

Possibly a blackjack player but probably a sports bettor.

He sure seems intent on pulling poker into the same category as sports betting and online casinos.

Go carry your own water sir, we are fighting for poker here.

There is no argument you can make that will convince most of us that we stand just as good a chance of obtaining our goals by pushing for our "right" to gamble online.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, he's just some sports bettor who wants us to carry his water.

The last one who did this went after Skallagrim as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

If indeed this is the same poster as he claims he is of the same or similar name from Full Tilts forum, I can say he is a regular there and from memory only, I know of a number of poker related threads he has been involved in there.

I do not have any personal knowledge nor kinship or friendship with the poster. I can state that there is an OB-Wan222 who has posted 243 posts there and has been a member of that forum since June 30th 2007.

FT is a pretty open forum and anyone with (or without I think) an account there can check out his post and full posting history.

One of his recent posts there on the MA subject did imeadeatly go towards the sports betting aspects of that law. However in fairness, my understanding is that proposed legislation, would make illegal any bet or wager concucted outside of a lisenced casino.

Other than these I make no representations beyond any public facts readilable accesable by almost anyone.

I am concerned about the "regular welcome" almost any new poster recieves who doesn't "toe the party line." While in many ways the resiliance needed to be a "regular" or even "valued" member by one proving ones self over time does indeed have great value. I am concerned that while we easily make short work of simple minds we might as a group intimidate some portion of potential "resources" for the overall on-line poker cause.

So sink or swim seems fine in most of life's endavors, in this cause we might not need any dedicated sports bettors, we do need all the true poker players we can attract.

So OB-Wan222, as a poker player welcome, you have to "prove yourself". As a possible sports bettor, you face an uphill challenge to your arguments not only here, but in the reality a number of us feel sports bettors face in the US both legally and politically.

D$D

Legislurker

11-15-2007, 05:46 AM

Why the damn schism? Im a poker player because Im poor. Sports betting is as American, more skill-based, and better paying if youre capitalized in the medium 6 figures(and Pinnacle comes backto America). despite all this work, poker's best hope is still having its water carried by sports-betting. Its bigger by volume than poker, maybe not mass participation online. More sports bettors would be willing AND able to donate and act politically as they tend to be older and wealthier. This vitriol their way is baffling. We need every voting and donation person we can get, and donating more than voting. Its harder to reach them as I thin kthe books are loathe to part with email lists and serious punters a bit more leery of the gov't.

whangarei

11-15-2007, 06:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No seriously what's the FOF?

[/ QUOTE ]

FoF or Family Research Council http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ABOUT_FRC, I think FoF stands for Focus on Families.

After today's exchange perhaps "Fear of Fun" or "Fear on-line Fun" is parhaps more appropiate.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

FoF == "Fear of Fun" /images/graemlins/grin.gif Very nice! For once I appreciate your contribution D$D. Note that it was contained in a very terse post as well.

whangarei

11-15-2007, 06:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Why the damn schism? Im a poker player because Im poor. Sports betting is as American, more skill-based, and better paying if youre capitalized in the medium 6 figures(and Pinnacle comes backto America).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the connection between large bankroll and favoring sports betting over poker. I think the best sports bettors say they can only get like 10% ROI long term. It's not hard to beat that if you're a good poker player at any stakes. I wouldn't say sports betting is more skill-based than poker. I also don't think it is as American as poker. Wagering on athletic events has been around for millenia, but poker is home grown in America.

But after listening to a couple of sports bettors on PokerRoad radio I am now convinced that sports betting is a skill practice. I kind of assumed that, but hearing professional sports bettors discuss their art cemeneted it. This is probably similar to how the PPA-sponsored pros are getting through to Congressman that poker is a skill game.

Skallagrim

11-15-2007, 09:47 AM

As I have stated before, in no way am I against legal sports betting, and I do think that serious sports bettors are engaged in an activity of skill.

Their problem isnt the skill argument, their problem is the general consensus in this country that sports betting is BAD FOR SPORTS. The leading proponent of this argument is the very powerful sports leagues themselves - thats why there is an opt out provision for them in the Frank bill.

Given the leagues' political clout, there is no way sports betting will be made legal in this country anytime soon (unless the WTO sanctions are huge - and even then I worry that the leagues are powerful enough to force Congress to adopt the other out: all online gambling, including Horse racing and even state lotteries, becomes illegal).

I see no reason for the PPA or us poker players to take on sports betting's powerful enemies. So concentrating on POKER legislation is the smart move for us.

That sports bettors get upset when I say this is now routine...but too bad. We have enough difficulty getting our legislation moving forward (even though thanks mostly to the PPA, and to small extent our skill games argument, we are truly seeing positive results there, like the growing support of the Wexler bill mentioned above). One task we have no need to take on is convincing the general public and the legislators that legal sports betting would ALSO be good for America. If sports bettors can do that themselves, good for them.

Skallagrim

JPFisher55

11-15-2007, 12:42 PM

Skall, I really doubt that the NBA, NFL, MLB and nhl, it is almost a minor sport, PGA etc. are powerful enough to kill all online gambling. Yesterday, someone, I think a Congressman, cited statistics that more people watch poker on TV than the NBA or MLB. I knew that more people watched poker than NHL, but not NBA or MLB. Also, the states depend on lotteries to balance their budgets. No way state lotteries are going offline.

Skallagrim

11-15-2007, 03:46 PM

I hope you are right JP, I am just not so sure. If you are right, and the WTO hits the US with large penalties/concessions, then the online fight is over, we win.

If the WTO penalties and concessions are not that burdensome, or if you are wrong about the sports leagues, we will need some other argument to continue to advance our cause.

Skallagrim

JPFisher55

11-15-2007, 04:46 PM

Skall, I basically agree with you. If the WTO does not grant Antiqua its requested IP sanction, then two bad events will occur.
One, the WTO will be rendered meaningless which could cause the international trade system to collapse. The last time that happened was in the late 1920's and was mostly caused by the Smoot-Hartley tariffs passed by our friendly politicians in Washington, D.C. This greatly contributed to the world wide Great Depression which greatly contributed to the rise of Adolf Hitler. Worse the US is much more dependent on international trade than in the 1920's or even the late 1960's when in a social studies class, we reviewed an article about how the US was almost self-sufficient. The next committee hearing badly needs an economist to point out to Rep. Goodblatte that we might not so easily survive ignoring the WTO.
Second, you are correct. We would have to resort to litigation and politicing for change which would greatly include your quite valid skill argument and other privacy arguments. In the political arena, we would have a tough time overcoming the sports leagues unless we could separate poker from gambling.
So, I really hope that the WTO grants the IP sanctions to Antiqua. I believe that would overcome the sports leagues because the music and entertainment industry are huge contributors to the Democrats. If the Republicans controlled Congress, then I would agree with you that not even IP sanctions would move them to act.
In conclusion, what a mess this is and all about a relatively minor issue. You would think that the WTO had told us that we had to permit all abortions, not all online gambling.

DeadMoneyDad

11-15-2007, 04:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Skall, I really doubt that the NBA, NFL, MLB and nhl, it is almost a minor sport, PGA etc. are powerful enough to kill all online gambling. Yesterday, someone, I think a Congressman, cited statistics that more people watch poker on TV than the NBA or MLB. I knew that more people watched poker than NHL, but not NBA or MLB. Also, the states depend on lotteries to balance their budgets. No way state lotteries are going offline.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be as a selective use of information and just as mis-guided as the Foe of Fun guy's.

Combined professional sports draw a much larger audience than all forms of poker. How many live poker events draw a 100,000+ admission paying crowd? Even NASCAR does that 36 weeks out of the year.

Numbers are numbers and stats are tricky things.

D$D

adanthar

11-15-2007, 06:02 PM

Skallagrim,

[ QUOTE ]
Adanthar, you seem to ignore that with the sign-on of Chairman Conyers, it is precisely the skill games argument that IS gaining ground in Congress.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we were talking about a 10+ year timeframe and the current political climate (Bush administration + Democratic Congress combo) were to be stable through that entire time, the skill game argument would be far better for us politically.

However, what we seem to be after right now is legalization prior to 2009. Critically, because 2008 is an election year and nothing controversial ever gets passed in one of those, the only way a reversal can possibly take place is if the WTO issue overrides that trend. Without that particular 800 pound gorilla in the room, it's a lost cause. (It really is. Right or wrong, nobody's going to stick up for any kind of internet gambling when the gamblers are up against the FOF in an election year. We'd be much better off with this argument in '09-'10, and preferably under a Democratic administration.) Therefore, to get what we want *now*, we have to stick as close to the WTO argument as possible.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you seem to place all our hopes on the WTO. What if the WTO sanctions and compensation are not that big. The Bush Admin has already indicated it plans to give up a bit to keep the online status quo. If the "bit" is small enough to not make big noise, where do we go?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a gamble we have to make if we want to take this particular window of opportunity.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, because its anathema to their way of thinking, the "skill games v. gambling" distinction was not put before the WTO by the Bush Admin. It is perfectly acceptable for the US, under the WTO, to ban all online gambling, but openly allow online skill games (so long as foreign sites are not discriminated against). How one fairly separates the two then becomes a new round of WTO litigation, and a new opportunity for negotiation and compromise. The first congresperson to point this out wins a much bigger cookie from all the industries possibly affected by sanctions.

[/ QUOTE ]

First and foremost, this isn't going to happen because we've got that pesky horse racing exemption that isn't going away.
Second, it's a far, far better tactic to say "we need to pass this bill to be compliant with the WTO or lose $100 billion dollars over it" than "if we pass this, the WTO may or may not decide it's not enough."

[ QUOTE ]
To say OBWan is right that the skill argument is useless at the federal level ignores the progress the Wexler bill has made, assumes the WTO will force congress to make all online gambling legal thus leaving us no fall back position if it doesnt, and fails to recognize the usefulness of the distinction at the WTO itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody said we need to keep this position for all time. In fact, if we're still here in '10, pressing for skill games will be a far better idea than it is right now. But if we want poker legalized within the next 12 months, the WTO case is by far our best opportunity to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really want us to be in a position where we must agree that the only way to have legal online poker is to also have legal online slots and sportsbetting?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like it any more than you do, but we are operating from a very much unforeseen position of strength, and one that is liable to evaporate the minute somebody from the Bush admin enters negotiations with various trade ministers at the table. In the short term, the skill game option sounds attractive but ignores our biggest asset.

adanthar

11-15-2007, 06:14 PM

Incidentally, we don't need to fight the NFL. The way I read Antigua's (and Jay Cohen's) stance, Congress' washing its hands of the whole thing and leaving it up to the states is WTO-compliant. Of course, 49 states would immediately ban sports gambling, but that isn't our problem, and at *that* point, we can much more easily advance a skill game argument on the state level, unencumbered by federal bank regulations in the meantime.

Jay Cohen

11-15-2007, 06:30 PM

Not quite, the WTO decision trumps the states. I posted this a few days ago.

States rights and state sovereignty don't carry any weight here. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause subordinates states’ rights to the national treaty power. When a nation enters into a treaty, it undertakes an international obligation that binds all of its organs (executive, legislative and judicial) and all its constituent jurisdictions (state and federal). A state is responsible for carrying out the obligations of an international agreement.

The US can't hide behind regional laws. I am told there have been cases brought by the US against other countries where other countries used provincial laws as a defense and the US made it clear that was not allowed.

If it happens in one town, it happens in the country.

But glad to have you aboard.

TheEngineer

11-15-2007, 06:40 PM

Everyone,

I hope we'll use all the tools at our disposal. The skill argument is great for some states. In other arenas, we should focus on individual freedoms. Some legislators will support our freedom argument. Others will support poker but not games of chance. And, most supporters of explicit legalization are poker players, and squeaky wheels get grease.

Recall when Goodlatte said "(my) state (Virginia) offers "limited gambling"? Well, it's not like the vast majority of Virginians all supported having exactly that. Some wanted more, and some wanted less, so they ended up with something in the middle. Likewise, some want to legalize all Internet gaming, others wish to ban it all. We may end up explicitly legal as part of this implied compromise.

Finally, some in the industry see poker as being legal sooner than later. Check out the thread on Harrah's and MGM saying legalization for U.S.-based servers is on the horizon, at http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...=0#Post12975652 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=12975652&an=0&page=0#Pos t12975652) .

Skallagrim

11-15-2007, 06:41 PM

-Edited out the call for Jay Cohen to clarify WTO position on state opt outs, because he answered it before I could ask him to.

On your other point we are not really in disagreement except that I am more optimistic about what the PPA can accomplish, especially in light of their recent efforts and successes, but your time frames are not that far from mine (excluding WTO forcing something) - I see/hope that Wexler gets through end of 08 or early 09 to be signed by the new Democratic President, after an election we have some influence on. I dont see anything good happening while Bush remains in office, though, unless the WTO sets a truly staggering price - otherwise its too easy for him to punt it till when he is gone.

And, of course, all of your hope for an earlier result depends on the WTO setting that staggering price - I can only hope that occurs. I am not willing to give up other efforts in the meantime, just because it may not. A Democratic Congress still approves 300+ billion a year for a war 70% of Americans want out of. A few billion to maintain our current gambling laws pales in comparison.

Skallagrim

whangarei

11-15-2007, 06:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
... Foe of Fun ...

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

TheEngineer

11-15-2007, 06:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... Foe of Fun ...

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I started calling them Foes of Fun, along with the reason, on a conservative site. Hopefully it will catch on. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Skallagrim

11-15-2007, 06:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... Foe of Fun ...

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I started calling them Foes of Fun, along with the reason, on a conservative site. Hopefully it will catch on. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, "Foes of Fun" from here on /images/graemlins/smile.gif .

TheEngineer

11-15-2007, 06:57 PM

Here's the post:

FoF = Foes of Fun

The social cons are going too far in the advocacy of big government to force their vision of what America should be. The latest assault on our freedoms, of course, was UIGEA, a bill that purported to ban Internet gaming. Focus on the Family has pushed hard for a national gaming prohibition, of course, because they think our values come from D.C. Like the mullahs in Iran, they look to government to strip us of our freedoms.

Yesterday, a House committee held a hearing on Internet poker, at http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=396 (click "video webcast). An amusing dialog occurred between FoF's Tom McClusky and Rep. Steven Cohen of Tennessee (at around 3:33:45 of the video):

[following McClusky's advocacy of a total gaming prohibition in the U.S.]
Rep. Steven Cohen: Is there any fun that you’re for? [laughter in background]
Tom McClusky: Any what?
Rep. Steven Cohen: Fun.
Tom McClusky: Umm...well, we’re for this, and this seems like a lot of fun.
Rep. Steven Cohen: Hearings?
Tom McClusky: [no response...laughter in background]
Rep. Steven Cohen: Good, good.

I'll start calling FoF Foes of Fun! LOL. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

JPFisher55

11-15-2007, 07:48 PM

The good news is that we will know what the WTO will within 90 days and probably sooner. Somehow I think that the panel decision on the request for sanctions by Antiqua will leak out before Christmas.
Anyone think that the WTO decision and the iMEGA ruling come out about the same time and mirror each other, just speculating not predicting?

Tuff_Fish

11-15-2007, 11:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]

.
.
despite all this work, poker's best hope is still having its water carried by sports-betting.

.
.
grab a bucket and start carrying. Start with a highly publisized rally on Capitol Hill..
.
.

More sports bettors would be willing AND able to donate and act politically as they tend to be older and wealthier.
.
.
money talks, actions talk louder.. BS walks.. .
.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tuff

BluffTHIS!

11-15-2007, 11:43 PM

Engineer et al.,

Glad you're having fun with Foes of Fun. However I would like to say, as I have in the past, that it's a lot more productive to our cause to attack the baseless arguments of our FOF foes, than to attack directly their organizations or motivations. We don't want them to thus be able to energize their own base by claiming we are attacking moral values. Rather, by demonstrating the flaws in their arguments, we will de-energize their base.

attacking stupid arguments > attacking the stupid arguer

JPFisher55

11-16-2007, 12:14 AM

Calling FOF, Foes of Fun, does attack their arguments. It implies that they oppose gambling for the sole reason that they do not like it and not for any other real reason.

BluffTHIS!

11-16-2007, 12:17 AM

JPF,

I do actually agree with that label, as ridicule is a great rhetorical method *if properly used* (not overused). I just mean that beyond that, it is more productive to attack their side arguments which are flawed, and which after such rebuttals, make it clear that they are really only seeking to have their moral standards/views on gambling imposed on others by force of law. And the argument that we should be able to spend our money as we wish, just as do shopaholics, is also a better tactic than attacking the motivations of FoF.

DeadMoneyDad

11-16-2007, 12:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer et al.,

Glad you're having fun with Foes of Fun. However I would like to say, as I have in the past, that it's a lot more productive to our cause to attack the baseless arguments of our FOF foes, than to attack directly their organizations or motivations. We don't want them to thus be able to energize their own base by claiming we are attacking moral values. Rather, by demonstrating the flaws in their arguments, we will de-energize their base.

attacking stupid arguments > attacking the stupid arguer

[/ QUOTE ]

No the hearing didn't rally congress to run off an vote on poker yesterday. Yes there is a ton of work to be done.

But having a little fun at your opponets mistakes is part of politics.

We are not directly attacking their morals, just pointing out as the Congressman did that their moral crusade can easily be painted as the total elimination of fun.

That added to Annie's testimony that the average US player spends about $10 a week to me makes us more mainstream. We play poker, some of us, because it is entertaining and a very enjoyable way to spend $10 and a few hours time.

IMO that is the blind spot of current efforts. We have the pros and a number of the semi-pros, who suport or are netrual in part because some portion of their income is derived from poker. "We" haven't attempted to motivate your casual entertainment player.

IMO these are the players the grinders miss the most and the ones who left on-line because of the UIGEA myths, Site scandals, and some the ever present "on-line is rigged" sci-fi fears.

US grade A approval stamp and ease of deposit just might drag most of them back into the pre-UIGEA waters for all of you sharks to devour. Right now they are finding other outlets to enjoy the game of poker in bar leagues, home games, and fueling the expansion of B&M poker rooms.

IMO it is a bell curve, we have portions of either ends of the distribution in our numbers of 800k, the profit protecting motivated and the low hanging fruit of the freerollers. I've gone out an spoken to a couple of hundred fo the previous PP fan type former on-line players. They are still playing poker, but no matter how good our on-line reach is, we'll not gain enough. Someone perhaps all of us will have to go out and beat the bushes and round them up.

Just an opinion,

D$D

TheEngineer

11-16-2007, 12:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
JPF,

I do actually agree with that label, as ridicule is a great rhetorical method *if properly used* (not overused). I just mean that beyond that, it is more productive to attack their side arguments which are flawed, and which after such rebuttals, make it clear that they are really only seeking to have their moral standards/views on gambling imposed on others by force of law. And the argument that we should be able to spend our money as we wish, just as do shopaholics, is also a better tactic than attacking the motivations of FoF.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Some people won't read the multi-page explanation of what's wrong with FoF, but they'll get the three-word version. The best thing is that it's not mean-spirited, so no one will get fired up over it.

It's like many elections in the past, where candidates debate the fine points of their positions for a year, but the election moves on who couldn't spell "potato" or who looked like a dork riding a tank. Too bad the writers' strike is this week...we'd have had a shot of getting that clip on the Daily Show.