D$D's idea

[DeadMoneyDad]

This is a little long so bear with me please.

Let me start by asking a question.

You are on "Let's Make a Deal."

You are told that behind one of three doors it a new Lambo, behind the other two are donkeys.

You pick a door say #3, Monte reveals door number #1 to show one of the two donkeys, and offers you the chance to change your answer.

Do you?


I suggest that some of us were operating on the belief that Congress passed the UIGEA to appease the Religious Right on anti-gambling grounds.

Now we have new evidence that perhaps the US banking industry itself for some reason doesn't want at least off-shore banking interests to be handling the some 3/4 of a trillion dollars that is "gambled" each year. About 1/2 of which we are told is now done on-line.

We've gained this new evidence in the form of the primary reason stated for not only the Congressional action, but the primary justification listed by the Agencies in the Proposed Rule itself.

I suggest that if you look at the possible outcomes from the PPA's suggested course of action "helping the Agencies define the term UIG to specifically include or exempt poker are not only unrealistic but even if possible is a bad bet.

Even if there was a better than 50/50 chance that the Agencies would actually take this step there is only at best a 50/50 chance they would decide in on-line poker's favor.

Given my suggestion that the Agencies would not attempt to define what they admit is an unclear law, let alone take on Congress' job of defining a UIG.

Given the presures in the form of the interests or even "customers" of the Agencies and the fact Congress gave the affected parties a libality free pass to do what in effect they are already doing on other grounds what makes rational person let alone a Baysian think the Banks will fight against a rule they pushed in the first place? Let alone the very Agencies that regulate their industry will suddenly buck their customers?

To suggest that we will in effect hit a runner runner winner is looking for a bad beat IMO.

I don't hold myself out to be the smartest guy on the planet, or even in the top 5%, but the Jesuits and some poker skills tell me this PPA direction is a looser.

To suggest that it is wrong to question the motives of any organization who not only suggests such a course of action let alone being public pillory for suggesting repeatedly there might be another way that has a better chance of a better on-line poker world is just amazing to me. The fact that there are a lot of willing sheep to follow blindly along does not.

I do not know the reason for this decision. I did ask for the reasoning behind the decision before being told this is the way it is, before offering some possible motives.

Perhaps it is as simple as the lobbiests look at see that if the banks even a single US bank sides with Doyle's room or any other on-line operator they will loose a paying lobbing customer. I don't know and I don't care.

I've stated what I care about and TE suggested the PPA's my personal goals are pretty much the same. All we are left with is a discussion on how we best achieve them. Either the members of the PPA have a say in things or we don't. No I am not saying it is my way or the highway, but suggesting that is the impression we are left with in the answers we are given.

By the way you should always change your beliefs in the case of the 3 door situation given new information.

Most people would say the odds and probability haven't changed, but in fact according to Bayes Theorem you should change your answer to increase you chance of winning given new evidence.





D$D

[Orlando Salazar]

Umm, you're wrong about the Donkey/Ferrari door.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Now we have new evidence that perhaps the US banking industry itself for some reason doesn't want at least off-shore banking interests to be handling the some 3/4 of a trillion dollars that is "gambled" each year. About 1/2 of which we are told is now done on-line.

We've gained this new evidence in the form of the primary reason stated for not only the Congressional action, but the primary justification listed by the Agencies in the Proposed Rule itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be "new evidence" to you, but there's really nothing new here. Banks didn't like the credit card chargebacks, so many started declining Visa and MasterCard Internet gaming transactions some time ago (even prior to the act that restricted credit card transactions on Internet gaming a few years ago). That doesn't mean they WANT to ban all transactions. Rather, it means they want to get paid.

You've shown no evidence that banks drove UIGEA. Evidence you cited says nothing about banks WANTING UIGEA. Why would they? You think they wanted to police the Internet? Sorry, but they're far better off with legality. Their issue is simple....they don't want to get stiffed by gamblers who don't want to pay up. Explicitly legalize gaming and that goes away.

[ QUOTE ]
To suggest that it is wrong to question the motives of any organization who not only suggests such a course of action let alone being public pillory for suggesting repeatedly there might be another way that has a better chance of a better on-line poker world is just amazing to me. The fact that there are a lot of willing sheep to follow blindly along does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to have very thin skin. It's like you think no one is allowed to disagree with you. That's not how it works here on 2p2. If you post an opinion, we're allowed to discuss it. That's what "discussion boards" are all about. If you want to make a positive contribution here, you may want to grow a pair. That would work better than calling people who disagree with you "sheep" and getting all bent out of shape at everyone.

Your new avatar says it all. Your old one was conveyed feelings of working together toward a common goal. Your new one conveys an attitude of trying to force your opinions on everyone and then banging your head out of frustration at being unsuccessful. I hope you'll return to posting with us instead of at us. You were far more effective then.

[ QUOTE ]
Either the members of the PPA have a say in things or we don't. No I am not saying it is my way or the highway, but suggesting that is the impression we are left with in the answers we are given.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't contact the PPA with your questions. You asked me, and I shared my opinion with you. If you want to contact the PPA, they can be reached at email@pokerplayersalliance.org.

[JPFisher55]

D$D, even if we choose the wrong door and online poker is defined to be UIG, then we get another chance, i.e. litigation in federal court. In that deal there are 3 doors and behind 2 of them is affirmation of precedent already set in federa court that federal gambling laws do not cover online poker.
With those odds, IMO we are better off than no definition of UIG. With no definition of UIG, we have 3 doors and behind 2 is the outcome that in practice the banks will enforce the regs so that online poker is UIG. Then the litigation deal is worse because of standing and other procedural issues. They cause the the number of litigation doors to increase to at least 4 with favorable results behind only 2 doors.
I'm sorry that this is hard to follow, but I am trying to stay within the bounds of D$D's post.

[omgwtf]

First of all, yes you pick the other door. It increases your chances of getting the ferrari. This is a somewhat classic math story problem.

But you're right about the overall problem here. There is no way the regulators are going to view UIGEA as anything other than Congress' intention to ban all internet gambling, including poker. If they decide to clarify what constitutes UIG, it will be with the understanding that it was the intention of the bill's authors to ban poker.

The PPA's strategy here is a sure loser. The equivalent of saying "Excuse me officer, you forgot to ticket me for my broken tail light."

I just can't figure out why the PPA would be advocating such an obviously doomed course when dealing with the UIGEA regs. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but one could certainly be forgiven for thinking that such an obvious mistake is an intentional one.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
D$D, even if we choose the wrong door and online poker is defined to be UIG, then we get another chance, i.e. litigation in federal court. In that deal there are 3 doors and behind 2 of them is affirmation of precedent already set in federa court that federal gambling laws do not cover online poker.
With those odds, IMO we are better off than no definition of UIG. With no definition of UIG, we have 3 doors and behind 2 is the outcome that in practice the banks will enforce the regs so that online poker is UIG. Then the litigation deal is worse because of standing and other procedural issues. They cause the the number of litigation doors to increase to at least 4 with favorable results behind only 2 doors.
I'm sorry that this is hard to follow, but I am trying to stay within the bounds of D$D's post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. D$D stated a belief that banks want UIGEA. I don't concur, but if that were so, we'd definitely not want to leave it to them to define UIG, I think, especially as there's no penalty for overblocking and massive penalties for underblocking (if the banking regs are not deemed sufficient).

As for D$D's doors, the example is applicable only if each decision is of equal probability. For example, if you knew door #1 had a 98% likelihood of having a Lambo behind it, and the others a 1% likelihood each, you'd stick to door #1 even if door #3 was shown to be a donkey. Likewise, we KNOW FoF had a lot to do with UIGEA. There's absolutely no question about it. This (not so) new info on banks changes little.

[Orlando Salazar]

The NFL also had a bunch to do with it.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The NFL also had a bunch to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, yes you pick the other door. It increases your chances of getting the ferrari. This is a somewhat classic math story problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, it is a famous "ask Marilyn" problem. Quite a fascinating problem to think through. Summary below. D$D: Sorry to sidetrack.

Monty Hall problem

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
D$D, even if we choose the wrong door and online poker is defined to be UIG, then we get another chance, i.e. litigation in federal court. In that deal there are 3 doors and behind 2 of them is affirmation of precedent already set in federa court that federal gambling laws do not cover online poker.
With those odds, IMO we are better off than no definition of UIG. With no definition of UIG, we have 3 doors and behind 2 is the outcome that in practice the banks will enforce the regs so that online poker is UIG. Then the litigation deal is worse because of standing and other procedural issues. They cause the the number of litigation doors to increase to at least 4 with favorable results behind only 2 doors.
I'm sorry that this is hard to follow, but I am trying to stay within the bounds of D$D's post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. D$D stated a belief that banks want UIGEA. I don't concur, but if that were so, we'd definitely not want to leave it to them to define UIG, I think, especially as there's no penalty for overblocking and massive penalties for underblocking (if the banking regs are not deemed sufficient).

As for D$D's doors, the example is applicable only if each decision is of equal probability. For example, if you knew door #1 had a 98% likelihood of having a Lambo behind it, and the others a 1% likelihood each, you'd stick to door #1 even if door #3 was shown to be a donkey. Likewise, we KNOW FoF had a lot to do with UIGEA. There's absolutely no question about it. This (not so) new info on banks changes little.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why on page 27 of the proposed regulation is the first benfit mentioned is the banking industry's credit and collection concern?

The FoF types tried for 15 years with the AG's to stop the spread of gambling and worked even harder after after the poker boom to stop the "crack" of gaming on-line poker.

One of my bank's T&C's printed in May of 2005 says it will not accept any electronic gaming transaction including horse racing and on-line lottery sales.

You may think the FoF types got this bill and they might think they got this bill, but I think it was the banks that used the existing leverage of the FoF to push and take the political heat for this. I suggest we put the heat where it belongs.

We can not know the exact probibility of the two remaining doors, I can assign some if you like.

The probability the Agencies will play congress and write new law 0.01

The probability the Agencies will tell the banks they are going to write the proposed regualtion to specifically allow one of the most popular forms of on-line gaming? Again about 0.01

So even if you get your dream of the Agencies to write UIG to include poker we end up in court ot back to Congress hat in hand begging for a Wexler Bill. Which we can push without any effort on the proposed reg and the undefined keeps all of our options.

In truth I think we are playing a rigged game and there is no Lambo at this point of the process, as the odds of the PPA organizing a real concerted grassroots effort at the banks is also about 0.01.

This might also be the read of the board and John, to see how much muscle the PPA can manage before FT and PS throws more money at him, as for them either dream senario helps.

In truth the Lambo is behind a door on Capital Hill.


D$D