[Hince]

[ 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.

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I think you are entitled to your opinion, I don't think it is well thought out.

Let's just examine the cero's case or any professional for that matter. Cero considered himself a professional. The article even said he paid taxes. I'm assuming he files his taxes as a business. ANY entrepenuer of ANY industry knows there is some level of risk involed. To say that Cero is a victim is totally absurd.

Is a restaurant owner who takes a morgage on his house to pay his business expenses a victim? Should we ban all people from starting businesses or investing in a business because there is some level of risk involved?