The War on Poker: the current state

1p0kerboy · #1 01-17-2007, 09:26 AM

The Neteller founders got arrested.

Reading through the threads, one can see a lot of different reactions. Some say that this is not a big deal because Neteller was on their way out the door anyways. Others say that this is the beginning of the end and it is going to come sooner than you think. Which is it?

I spent a lot of yesterday worrying about the developments. I play poker full time because I enjoy it and I make good money at it. The truth is that it will probably become increasingly difficult and stressful over the coming months and years. But that's okay with me and I'm going to tell you why.

1. We are in the beginning stage of the War on Poker. This move by the DOJ should have been anticipated. I'm ready for war. While I'm not a hotshot lawyer and don't have resources to start up an organization, I do have the means to show the U.S. government that prohibition doesn't work. I'm going to find ways to keep playing. Game on.
2. The fish are going to keep playing. When the government makes moves like this one it might deter action for a little bit. But the truth is that when these players realize that thousands of others are still playing online poker they will come back. We saw this happen once already.

Also we need to consider that the arrests yesterday were on two people who are no longer employed by Neteller. This might end up not having any impact whatsoever.

stigmata · #2 01-17-2007, 09:30 AM

Won't a democrat government have a more even-handed approach to poker? e.g. is it that much of a long-term worry that this hardline stance will be continued by future administrations? Sure, the IGB won't be revoked but a softer attitude all-round is more likely.

[Phill] · #3 01-17-2007, 09:43 AM

I dont know true 2 is.

Prohibition didnt work because there was no option but to drink illegal alcohol if you wanted some booze.

In this case if you want to gamble you can, just only on state lotteries, horse racing (lol) and in local casinos - not to mention prop betting with friends.

Whilst there are several similarities with prohibition, its a lot like apples and oranges - both are fruit but the colour and texture is quite different.

1p0kerboy · #4 01-17-2007, 10:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In this case if you want to gamble you can, just only on state lotteries, horse racing (lol) and in local casinos - not to mention prop betting with friends.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apples and oranges dude.

While there are some similarities these are vastly different games. Many people who enjoy playing poker simply can't substitute a lottery ticket instead.

MiltonFriedman · #5 01-17-2007, 10:10 AM

"Prohibition didnt work because there was no option but to drink illegal alcohol if you wanted some booze."

This is the first NEW thought I have read on this topic in months, good post. This raises the issue of whether a "b&m experience" is really a market substitute for online gambling. I do not believe so. The b&m gaming experience has many gradients, but none touches the "stay-at-home" convenience of online poker.

What you say is, unfortunately, likely accurate. However, the marriage of the internet and stay-at-home convenience can overcome the "b&m market substitute".

1p0kerboy · #6 01-17-2007, 10:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Prohibition didnt work because there was no option but to drink illegal alcohol if you wanted some booze."

This is the first NEW thought I have read on this topic in months, good post. This raises the issue of whether a "b&m experience" is really a market substitute for online gambling. I do not believe so. The b&m gaming experience has many gradients, but none touches the "stay-at-home" convenience of online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many, many people do not have B&M available to them. Even IF they did, I hardly see it as a substitute.

I believe that prohibition doesn't work if the following criteria are met:

1. The act you are prohibiting has little chance of hurting someone
2. The act you are prohibiting is acceptable throughout most of the rest of the world

Sciolist · #7 01-17-2007, 10:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Many, many people do not have B&M available to them. Even IF they did, I hardly see it as a substitute.

I believe that prohibition doesn't work if the following criteria are met:

1. The act you are prohibiting has little chance of hurting someone
2. The act you are prohibiting is acceptable throughout most of the rest of the world

[/ QUOTE ]
3. The act you are prohibiting is something that was already available to the masses prior to prohibition.

[Phill] · #8 01-17-2007, 10:55 AM

However ironically whilst drinking alcohol was legal, online gaming has always been illegal (according to the DoJ).

Whilst i think for the most part people will continue playing, its the scare tactics of the media reporting that will drive people to do other things than actively seek out online poker - all whilst Fox is running reports about how these illegal companies have now been shutout from draining the US economy etc etc.

dippydoo · #9 01-17-2007, 11:00 AM

The war is not a war on poker. It is a war on online sportsbetting. Online poker and casinos will just be collateral damage.

The Wire Act was one of the first attacks in this war and the UIGEA was another attack.

Arresting the 2 ex-driectors at Neteller was just the latest attack.

KurtSF · #10 01-17-2007, 12:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In this case if you want to gamble you can, just only on state lotteries, horse racing (lol) and in local casinos - not to mention prop betting with friends.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apples and oranges dude.

While there are some similarities these are vastly different games. Many people who enjoy playing poker simply can't substitute a lottery ticket instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his point was that to a fish they will substitute.

Sure, its not a replacement to a poker-player, but to an action-player? I think its similar to alcohol and marijuana. Smoking bud is much safer than drinking, but when you add in legal complications, its not worth the hassle for all but the die hards.