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.)

[disjunction]

I agree.

Especially with paragraphs 1-4, although I am still up in the air about paragraphs 5 and 6. Mr. Sklansky you are on a roll today.

[xorpheous]

If you make a carve out for poker as a game of skill, does that mean that a carve out for blackjack should be made as well?

[Wynton]

I believe that such an argument should be made, as part of a comprehensive strategy to legitimize poker. But don't underestimate how unlikely it will be to get a poker carve-out on the federal level.

As I've said a couple of times already, my review of the legislative history makes it perfectly clear that many in Congress had poker in mind when enacting this statute.

[TruePoker CEO]

It is about time ....

However, PLEASE do not push for any poker carveout until next year's Congress.

Also, the PPA has been pretty inept. Online Poker needs a better voice.

[bestcellar]

I don't know about you fish, but I roll dice with more skill than anyone else I know, especially online.

[Phil153]

Online poker has similar social and financial costs to other forms of gambling. The various studies (most notably the one mentioned in the recent bill), lump poker in with the rest, as they rightly should. From what I've seen, poker is probably the biggest online scourge right now when it comes to underage gambling, and has plenty of compulsive gamblers also. You only need to read these forums for a while to see numerous examples of both, as well as the site's incredibly lax controls on same.

However, I agree that the public are likely to be more accepting of online poker than other forms of gambling, and I agree that as poker players we should push for a "carve out"

[TruePoker CEO]

It would not hurt to get express poker carveouts at the State level..... i.e something like

The State of Nevada has determined that poker is an educational game and so exempts poker playing by the residents of Nevada from the definition of unlawful gambling, for purposes of State and Federal law, provided that no Establishment, Building, or structure within the State shall be used for operation of poker games for profit, unless expressly licensed for unlimited gaming under Nevada law.

Then charge Internet poker companies a tax for a "pass" under the UIGE Act to access your residents...... are you listening Senator Kaspar, MAKE your State government an Affiliate

[bestcellar]

Seriously though, I personally think the main point we should be stressing is that we are ready, willing and able to have the government regulate and perhaps even tax online poker.

We have to disarm their set of arguments. If their argument is that there are foreign companies, then we suggest that they set up a stateside, government-monitored one. If their argument is that it's too easy for teenagers to run up their parents' credit cards, suggest that said stateside, government monitored website require multiple ID checks.

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming the average American can be taught enough about poker to understand that it does teach these traits.