To regulate or not to regulate?

[Petomane]

The government is upset because millions of Americans are sending money overseas daily. Whose fault is that? If we didn't have arcane gambling laws, the Internet gambling businesses wouldn't be driven offshore in the first place - they'd be registered and taxed in America.

So America missed out on the enormous worldwide Internet gambling industry in its infancy - others are making a killing and they're not.

Should the PPA or any other poker players association formed here be lobbying congresspeople to "regulate" (regulate means hand it over to American corporations) or should we be arguing that antiquated mid-20th century laws are not applicable to cyberspace?

Online poker boomed because of the competition - low stakes poker is beatable online, but not in corporate B&M casinos. If we fight for the return of online poker, might we not unwittingly be helping usher in a "state run" monopoly, that might create very bad poker conditions, thus dooming online poker.

If we lobby, we have to lobby to keep online poker competitive and to allow many different sites to compete. Handing over the whole kit & kaboodle to one entity like Harrah's or the WPT might be our worst nightmare.

[caguma]

Honestly, I'd much much rather have no government regulation. There's really no reason for it. Without regulation sites like SBR and Casinomeister popped up telling people about rouge casinos or sportsbooks. True, there is a little more risk involved, but I think its worth it not having the government stick its paw into my business.

That being said, the only way we're going to be able to get any kind of legalization passed is if there's regulation involved. It'd be way too easy for the anti-gambling people to complain about how its for the sake of the kids and Washington isn't going to do anything without getting its cut.

[Doom_Switch]

"Honestly, I'd much much rather have no government regulation." Supposedly, all sites are regulated by other countries such as Costa Rica, Antigua, Gibraltar etc.. I would much rather have US regulation over Costa Rican legislation and would even be happy paying taxes on my earnings. I do not see any logical arguement for not regulating. It is extremely frustrating to hear poker players argue against regulation. I think the whole poker community should just concentrate on a carve out and regulation.

"return of online poker, might we not unwittingly be helping usher in a "state run" monopoly, that might create very bad poker conditions, thus dooming online poker"

Dooming online poker? Are you joking? This would be absolutely fantastic. Take the Swedish Svenl as an example of a state run poker site. It has been a huge success both with the players and government. We've had politicians attempt to put regulation in place but lack of support from the online poker rooms and community have been cited as the main reasons these efforts have failed.

[dikshit]

Was may be worth it ...not now... and definately not if the pressure is kept up.

Regulation is the only way US players will have a secure future playing online Poker. If it happened could they do it in a way so that only US companies (I'm thinking Harrah's here) are eligible or would this be counter to free trade agreements?

Even if it were, the way the DOJ is now even gunning against companies like Party and 888 who FELL INTO LINE when the new law was passed, suggests these companies may no longer benefit were a change in law to occur.

Poker Freedom USA

Whatever, a change in Administration is probably needed before any chance of regulated legalization.

[ekdikeo]

Right now, gambling is regulated by state laws. The reason the feds are involved, is because taking it online takes it across state and country boundaries. The UIGEA specifically gave states the right to allow state-based gaming. The question is, are there any states that would allow anyone to build anything like that now? AND would they have enough business to make it worth it?

[GMan42]

[ QUOTE ]
"return of online poker, might we not unwittingly be helping usher in a "state run" monopoly, that might create very bad poker conditions, thus dooming online poker"

Dooming online poker? Are you joking? This would be absolutely fantastic.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't put it past our casinos to all charge their usual 10% up to $4 rakes, probably with some monthly "membership charge" on top of everything, if there's no further competition from offshore sites when they open their online business? Don't be so sure.