CONGRESS VOTES TO BAN ONLINE POKER
 

The House voted to ban internet gambling, including online poker, yesterday by a vote of 317-93. If this bill becomes law, it will prohibit banks from transferring customers' funds to online poker sites and companies like Neteller and will force banks to work with law-enforcement agencies to stop money from being transferred to online poker sites and companies like Neteller.

The Senate will vote on this bill next. If the Senate passes it, the bill will become law because President Bush supports it and will sign it. This will effectively prohibit Americans from playing at online poker sites.

Cardplayer.com and several other sites have been warning about this for months and encouraging poker players to contact their Representatives and Senators and voice your opposition to this bill. It's too late to contact your Representative now, since the House has already passed the bill. However, you better contact your Senators soon to voice your opposition to this bill or it's going to become law. It's already halfway there.

If you don't do something, one day you're going to wake up and find that you can't play poker online anymore. You better do something before it's too late. Here's a link to the Cardplayer.com story on the passage of this bill by the House yesterday:

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news...lass=PokerNews

To the moderators - Please do not move this thread to the Legislation Forum where only a few people will see it. This is very important to everyone who posts in this forum, so please leave it here so that everyone here will see it and we can try to stop this bill from becoming law. The reason that the bill was able to pass the House is because not enough poker players knew about it and voiced their opposition to it. Thank you.

*

Edit/MH: There have been a dozen posts in the Zoo about this important matter in the last day or two. Some are still here. There will probably be a dozen more. I would doubt if any Twoplustwoer hasn't read a few of them and doesn't know exactly what they should do.

Re: CONGRESS VOTES TO BAN ONLINE POKER
 

Quit spamming all the forums with this crap you [censored] idiot. This is a POKER site. We are all well aware of what happened yesterday. If you don't have something less vague than "YOU BETTER DO SOMETHING BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!" or "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!" to say then please just STFU. There are already a million threads on this. You're not breaking any news to anybody.

Re: CONGRESS VOTES TO BAN ONLINE POKER
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quit spamming all the forums with this crap you [censored] idiot. This is a POKER site. We are all well aware of what happened yesterday. If you don't have something less vague than "YOU BETTER DO SOMETHING BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!" or "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!" to say then please just STFU. There are already a million threads on this. You're not breaking any news to anybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're the idiot, because the sky IS falling. The bill is halfway to becoming law because not enough online poker players knew about it.

All these threads keep getting moved to this forum where the same 25 people keep reading the same posts. There are lots of 2+2ers who know nothing about this because these threads keep getting moved to this forum that nobody comes to. Check out the NVG forum if you don't believe me.

Re: CONGRESS VOTES TO BAN ONLINE POKER
 

Ban pls.

Re: CONGRESS VOTES TO BAN ONLINE POKER
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ban pls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: CONGRESS VOTES TO BAN ONLINE POKER
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of 2+2ers who know nothing about this because these threads keep getting moved to this forum that nobody comes to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Find one. Just one.

Re: CONGRESS VOTES TO BAN ONLINE POKER
 

Kind of ironic that Lawman would turn into Chicken Little. I'm sure Oliver Tse would get a chuckle out of that.

Re: CONGRESS VOTES TO BAN ONLINE POKER
 

Until I read the Slate article about that self-professed "professional poker player" who gambled away his entire bankroll and then went through nearly all of the family's untouchable rainy day reserves, I would have been 100% dead set against this bill - couldn't see the other side. Now, I must admit that I find myself thinking about the damage that is done to families by problem gamblers. I'm no longer so sure that my position is as well-founded as I once believed it to be.

There are definitely real innocent victims out there, but I still feel that the greater good is served by the US government staying out of it. But I feel for innocent victims such as the family in the Slate article.

I'm still a regular internet player, but I don't feel very good about it right now.

Re: CONGRESS VOTES TO BAN ONLINE POKER
 

[ QUOTE ]
Until I read the Slate article about that self-professed "professional poker player" who gambled away his entire bankroll and then went through nearly all of the family's untouchable rainy day reserves, I would have been 100% dead set against this bill - couldn't see the other side. Now, I must admit that I find myself thinking about the damage that is done to families by problem gamblers. I'm no longer so sure that my position is as well-founded as I once believed it to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy who was the subject of the Slate article is a 2+2er (handle: cero_z) with 1500 posts who many in the high stakes forums respect. Both he and his wife (who authored the article) posted here and admitted her article made the situation sound worse than it truly was.

The thread is here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...page=&vc=1

Re: CONGRESS VOTES TO BAN ONLINE POKER
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Until I read the Slate article about that self-professed "professional poker player" who gambled away his entire bankroll and then went through nearly all of the family's untouchable rainy day reserves, I would have been 100% dead set against this bill - couldn't see the other side. Now, I must admit that I find myself thinking about the damage that is done to families by problem gamblers. I'm no longer so sure that my position is as well-founded as I once believed it to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

The guy who was the subject of the Slate article is a 2+2er (handle: cero_z)with 1500 posts who many in the high stakes forums respect. Both he and his wife (who authored the article) posted here and admitted her article made the situation sound worse than it truly was.

The thread is here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...page=&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I read that thread completely. In my opinion, the subject of that article has some very well-developed table skills, but has a serious tilt problem and no money management skills. Right now, he's far from a professional - in my opinion.

And I do feel very sorry for his wife and kids (and for him), and for many unknown others who didn't have a miracle comeback once they lost $73.5k out of their $65k bankroll and $10k rainy day fund.

We all love poker, but we need to be honest and admit that the other side has a few pretty solid arguments to make. There are real victims here.