The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

Online Gambling: Will New Law Be Repealed - Don't Bet On It
By Jon Kyl
Apr 30, 2007

Last week, Arizona authorities raided four illegal online gambling rings, centered in Phoenix but operating in three states, seizing millions of dollars in cash, cars, and property. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said millions of dollars were being collected, and often extorted, from gamblers visiting online sites based overseas. This recent crackdown highlights one of the major problems our state and local authorities face: enforcing existing state laws prohibiting gambling over the Internet.

Until recently, authorities were forced to search for other violations – in this particular case, money laundering and extortion – to go after criminals trying to evade our laws prohibiting gambling over the Internet. Last October, the President signed into law the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), culminating a 10-year effort by Congress to provide law enforcement with the means to stop offshore gambling businesses from circumventing our existing federal and state gambling laws. The Justice Department is now working to draft regulations to implement this new law.

The bill did not, as some have alleged, make online gambling illegal. Online gambling is already illegal under existing federal and state laws. The UIGEA simply provides the legal mechanisms necessary for authorities to enforce those laws. Principally, the UIGEA requires financial systems to block fund transfers associated with illegal Internet gambling, which is the most effective way to curb illegal activities of offshore websites beyond the reach of traditional law enforcement.

One of the fastest-growing forms of online gambling is poker. Many of the largest online poker gambling sites withdrew from the U.S. market immediately after the law was enacted.

But some online poker operators are lobbying Congress to exempt online poker from the UIGEA. They allege it deserves an exemption because poker is “a game of skill” and an “American tradition.” There are several reasons why Congress should reject this claim. Exempting online poker would undermine state gambling laws, making it much more difficult, if not impossible, for states to enforce their laws against gambling on online poker, and would override any policy decisions made by state legislatures.

It is important to note that the UIGEA does not affect online poker for entertainment. If a poker player does not bet with a gambling entity or stake anything of value on the game, it does not constitute “gambling” and does not violate the law. Your Saturday night poker game is not affected. Nor are “dot-net” and other poker sites that are free to play. Poker enthusiasts are not deprived of the opportunity to play the game – only online financial gambling is affected.

Online poker is currently the most addictive form of gambling activity among American youth. The National Annenberg Risk Survey of Youth (ages 14 to 22) over the last few years has identified rising trends in poker and Internet gambling as significant and worrisome. The research finds that online poker players are more likely to exhibit problem gambling symptoms than other types of gamblers and over half of young people who gamble on the Internet weekly display signs of problem gambling. Exempting online poker would, thus, exacerbate the two most pernicious aspects of Internet gambling: addictiveness and easy access for youth.

And finally, if poker gambling enthusiasts truly believe it is a “game of skill,” they can gain an “exemption” by proving that to a court. Under most definitions of “gambling” in state laws, games of skill are not “gambling” even if there is an entry fee and a prize to be won. While poker, like other card games, involves an element of skill, the hands that win or lose are a result of chance – “the luck of the draw.” If enthusiasts could prove otherwise to the satisfaction of a court, then they would not be subject to online gambling restrictions.

<Groan>

Protecting the youth, even though 98% of them don't need it, should start with anyone under 25 not being able to buy a motorcycle or a plasma big screen TV OR be allowed to go to Vegas NOT by barring them from playing 50-$1 in their dorm room.

MS Sunshine

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

[ QUOTE ]
If a poker player does not bet with a gambling entity or stake anything of value on the game, it does not constitute “gambling” and does not violate the law. Your Saturday night poker game is not affected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Riiiiiiight, so you Americans play on saturday night for air? atoms? even matchsticks have "value".

What a crock.

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

i believe Sklansky's mentioned before that poker can be proven to be a game of skill simply determined by how easy it is for you to lose your money without relying on chance.

not sure if that's a good argument for the court...

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

[ QUOTE ]

While poker, like other card games, involves an element of skill, the hands that win or lose are a result of chance – “the luck of the draw.”



[/ QUOTE ]

Kyl represents what infuriates me most about the anti-poker groups, ignorance of the game itself.

The best hand doesn't have to win in poker. You can't bluff in blackjack, baccarat, or any of the other multitude of card games offered in casinos, but in our game you can.

I'm still waiting for the horse-racing/lottery carve-out explanation. Seems that no UIEGA supporter has the balls to release one. Oh, we know why, yes indeedy we do, but let's hear it from the horse's (pun intended) mouth.

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

[ QUOTE ]
i believe Sklansky's mentioned before that poker can be proven to be a game of skill simply determined by how easy it is for you to lose your money without relying on chance.

not sure if that's a good argument for the court...

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this really differ from Blackjack? I can just draw till I bust.

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

While poker, like other card games, involves an element of skill, the hands that win or lose are a result of chance – “the luck of the draw.”



[/ QUOTE ]



Kyl represents what infuriates me most about the anti-poker groups, ignorance of the game itself.

The best hand doesn't have to win in poker. You can't bluff in blackjack, baccarat, or any of the other multitude of card games offered in casinos, but in our game you can.



[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you 7n7, I have been making this point for quite some time now and have a fully prepared argument to take on Kyl's challenge: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=2&vc=1

In that same thread the CEO of True Poker posted how a sample of 600,000 hands at his site showed that only 35% of all hold-em and omaha hands go to showdown. At the very least this proves that most poker hands are won not by what the cards are but by what players guess the cards are. Isnt guessing your opponents hand skill? OF F***ING COURSE! Isnt fooling your opponent about your hand skill? DITTO!

I bet Kyl has never played poker in his life.

Skallagrim

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

While poker, like other card games, involves an element of skill, the hands that win or lose are a result of chance – “the luck of the draw.”



[/ QUOTE ]

Kyl represents what infuriates me most about the anti-poker groups, ignorance of the game itself.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ironically, what Kyl says is true if you are playing a player of very low skill (which I assume he is): a calling station. From his point of view: I get cards, I keep calling, and I either win or lose. All luck.

It's such a joke that shallow thinkers rise to the top in positions of authority.

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

[ QUOTE ]

In that same thread the CEO of True Poker posted how a sample of 600,000 hands at his site showed that only 35% of all hold-em and omaha hands go to showdown. At the very least this proves that most poker hands are won not by what the cards are but by what players guess the cards are. Isnt guessing your opponents hand skill? OF F***ING COURSE! Isnt fooling your opponent about your hand skill? DITTO!


[/ QUOTE ]


From playing at True I'm calling shenanigans on that. No way less than 60% of hands reach showdown. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

[ QUOTE ]
.......
But some online poker operators are lobbying Congress to exempt online poker from the UIGEA. They allege it deserves an exemption because poker is “a game of skill” and an “American tradition.” There are several reasons why Congress should reject this claim. Exempting online poker would undermine state gambling laws, making it much more difficult, if not impossible, for states to enforce their laws against gambling on online poker, and would override any policy decisions made by state legislatures.


[/ QUOTE ]

So, the fact that exempting Poker would rob the States of their right to enforce their own laws is an excuse to leave poker in, and deny an exemption? Isn't keeping it in the act then depriving the States their own rights? What a crock of crap.

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

[ QUOTE ]

So, the fact that exempting Poker would rob the States of their right to enforce their own laws is an excuse to leave poker in, and deny an exemption? Isn't keeping it in the act then depriving the States their own rights? What a crock of crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

The act specifically states that it takes a backseat to state laws.

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

[ QUOTE ]
Protecting the youth, even though 98% of them don't need it, should start with anyone under 25 not being able to buy a motorcycle or a plasma big screen TV OR be allowed to go to Vegas NOT by barring them from playing 50-$1 in their dorm room.


[/ QUOTE ]

In other news, missouri gambling boats have set record numbers in 2006, so protecting broke ass farmers and old people gambling away their social security is not a priority.

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, the fact that exempting Poker would rob the States of their right to enforce their own laws is an excuse to leave poker in, and deny an exemption? Isn't keeping it in the act then depriving the States their own rights? What a crock of crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

The act specifically states that it takes a backseat to state laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Backseat or front seat, his argument, as posted from his own words, makes no sense. Taking poker out or leaving it in has no impact on the part quoted.

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

They can ban poker right after they ban Alcohol and Tobacco.. These 2 substances ruin more lives then poker ever will.

I am a smoker, so don't hate TY.

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

What I find most disgusting is the Replubicans allowed the bill to be attached to the Safe Port Act assuring that the bill would be passed without any debate. Once the bill was attached to port security, it was pretty much no debate, no chance of it being delayed, no chance of any meaningful discussion on why it shouldn't be passed.

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I find most disgusting is the Replubicans allowed the bill to be attached to the Safe Port Act assuring that the bill would be passed without any debate. Once the bill was attached to port security, it was pretty much no debate, no chance of it being delayed, no chance of any meaningful discussion on why it shouldn't be passed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what happens when one party is in power too long or too completely. The extremists take hold and run rampant. Core Republican values are supposed to be for personal freedoms, smaller government, fewer regulations . . . pretty amazing how far they've strayed. I would say I hope they're learning a lesson, but I hate the sound of the laugh it produces.

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

From the tone of this statement and others he has made in the past, I'm guessing that one of Kyl's family members (or close friends) was a hardcore gambling addict, like on the pathological level - maybe even he himself was. He reminds me of the reformed addict who has way overcompensated the other way. I mean, there are some logical aruments out there for restricitng/making illegal online gambling (not that I agree with them, but that are at least rational), yet everything coming from him is way over the top irrationality.

Kind of like the school counselor who tried to scare you into never doing drugs by implying one puff of marijuana would lead to full blown hardcore drug use/addiction within a short period of time.

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

[ QUOTE ]
And finally, if poker gambling enthusiasts truly believe it is a “game of skill,” they can gain an “exemption” by proving that to a court.

[/ QUOTE ]

donks say the funniest things. kyl sounds bitter than he gets pwnd at .02/.04. oh, and all us pros are making a living off of this game cause we're just superduper lucky! go to hell kyl.

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

Does this scare anybody else sh-less? I mean...i dont have millions in assets laying around or anything like that, but I'm from a very conservative state...

It seems like if you rub one of these block-headed morons the wrong way, they could easily turn your entire life upside down and act like they're doing gods work in the process.

Who wants to move to canada with me?

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

I know how to prove it. Let's get Kyl to sit down with Doyle in a series of 100 heads up matches. That should prove to be statistically significant. If Doyle doesn't win more than 60% I'll give up poker for ever (again)...

Chips

Re: The Senator I so wanted to lose last fall speaks........
 

[ QUOTE ]
From the tone of this statement and others he has made in the past, I'm guessing that one of Kyl's family members (or close friends) was a hardcore gambling addict, like on the pathological level - maybe even he himself was. He reminds me of the reformed addict who has way overcompensated the other way. I mean, there are some logical aruments out there for restricitng/making illegal online gambling (not that I agree with them, but that are at least rational), yet everything coming from him is way over the top irrationality.

Kind of like the school counselor who tried to scare you into never doing drugs by implying one puff of marijuana would lead to full blown hardcore drug use/addiction within a short period of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are way off here. He is a politician. This is just sanctimonious [censored] he does not actually believe. It would be less offensive coming from a sincere but misguided attempted well doer. This is the worse kind of hot air; its misinformed in its statements of the prior state of the law, and the author doesn't even believe it. We know this because he didn't propose the "ban all gambling whatsoever act, including government sanctioned lotteries and casinos", which return far, far, far, less money to players than online poker. It would make much more sense for an actually concerned senator to be worried about, for example, slot machines, which NO ONE EVER WINS AT. See, that is not a game of skill; there is no such thing as a professional slot monkey. Or, roulette, which has an unbeatable house advantage and NO ONE EVER WINS AT. A truly concerned Senator would take the time to know the difference. But the real sad truth is that our government is not against gambling, no sir. It's against competition against the highly organized and well funded Brick and Mortar bazillion dollar industry. You can tell because they both present the same alleged evil and only the online poker rooms are being targeted. It is as if a Ford family member were in Congress and attempted to get GM products outlawed. So he can blather on all he wants, but he needs to answer some questions. First, how can he say this stuff when the bill's sponsor (Frist) takes money from Brick and Mortars? Two, is he in any way shape or form concerned about protecting our youth from IEDs in Iraq, or is his alleged concern for the youth limited only to the presumed evils of poker, and not the evils of death and disfigurement for no apparent reason? I don't need to hear anyone in Congress claiming concern for the 20 somethings right now in light of their reprehensible lack of a backbone with respect to this never ending war that we supposedly won years ago. And next, is he aware that the amount that online poker rooms charge for their services --ie the rake-- is a fraction of what his favorite brick and mortar charges? And finally, does he beleive that ignoring the rulings of the WTO is appropriate, or could it be termed "illegal" for a signatory country to do so?

This has apparently devolved into a "rant." So I go now. Suffice it to say that you give him far too much credit on the sincerity meter.