Shouldn't We Be Focusing On The Poker Carve Out?

[David Sklansky]

Keeping in my that I am breaking my usual rule and offering an opinion on a subject I'm not well versed in.

It seems to me that that arguments for internet poker, perhaps regulated in a way not previously done, are a lot stronger than arguments for allowing unfettered internet casino gambling.

The possibility of fly by night foreign internet casinos cheating children, or not paying, or ruining thousands of compulsive gamblers, would persuade the average American to stop it a lot more than the esoteric political or philosophical arguments on the other side.

Poker on the other hand is a lot less likely to have these problems. Plus it is a game that teaches many traits used in life. Thus the average American is a lot more likely to give their blessing to intenet poker sites.

Before this legislation passed, poker sites were reluctant to stress their differences with internet casinos because they wanted to use all the arguments available to them without appearing disingenuous. But it is now clear that most American's aren't concerned about technical arguments that Libertarian types put forth. They are concerned about foreign, unregulated casinos that don't pay taxes.

If poker players spout these libertarian type arguments in their quest to play poker on the internet they are likely hurting their cause. The arguments that will work apply only to poker. I think we should focus on that. (Not to mention the argument that the present bill doesn't even apply to poker. I don't know enough to comment.)