New Report: Inernet Gambling Does Not Lead to Problem Gambling - Page 2

Richas · #11 09-20-2007, 01:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Excuse me while I puke. Where is this "need for consumer protection" arising ??? Where is the evidence that the market, especially in poker, doesn't provide for operator discipline ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Watch our opponents use Annette_15 against us. I for one don't think it is unreasonable to ask operators to make sure 15 year olds are prevented from gambling or to make it mandatory for them to get users to set deposit limits and mandatory for them to allow self exclusion.

JPFisher55 · #12 09-20-2007, 05:28 PM

It's just my opinion, but I think that online casino gambling is not fun like the real thing. It's different for poker, online poker beats live poker for me. I guess online sports betting beats live sports betting. Since most gamblers are casino gamblers and do not seem to be playing at online casinos in UK, then maybe alot of folks share my opinion.
Thus, online gambling will not affect the addiction statistics very much because not many people seem to enjoy gambling online. Of course, it is also possible that addicted online poker players are addicted because they win and thus are not included in the addiction statistics.

MiltonFriedman · #13 09-20-2007, 06:14 PM

I think you just blew any credibility.

First: her ScreenName is Annette_15, not her age.

"Watch our opponents use Annette_15 against us. I for one don't think it is unreasonable to ask operators to make sure 15 year olds are prevented from gambling."

Whose side are you on ? Annette Obrestad is reported to be 19. If she were an American she could vote, serve in the Army, and enter into legally binding contracts.

Second, what was more disturbing was your idea that players cannot be trusted to know their own limits:

"[M]ake it mandatory for them to get users to set deposit limits and mandatory for them to allow self exclusion."

You clearly do not trust the 98% of gamblers who have no problem gambling stigma to look after themselves. Instead, you want Mandatory Limits ? Whose side are you on, adults who want the freedom to play poker or Friends of Family and other Nanny-staters ?

If your views are those of our friends, who are the enemy ?

(I have no problem with self-exclusion, it is commonly offered in US casinos now. Even though you do not seem to know that.)

Richas · #14 09-20-2007, 06:33 PM

Milton - Annette_15 started playing online when she was 15 building her roll from a freeroll win. She did not appear on her 18th birthday as a leading online player and did not develop her skills in one year to take down the WSOPE.

I also think you misunderstand what user set deposit limits are. They are set by the user not the government or the site. The point is to trust users to set their limits - in advance of their gambling. They are a sensible protection for problem gamblers that have n adverse affect on the rest of us, it is just bankroll management.

I think I'm on your side. I want legal, regulated poker. You might wish for the old days of no regulation or limits but that ain't coming back. The California gold rush is history, the trip west to stake out new land build a log cabin and farm what you find is history and the days of unregulated onlne poker are similarly behind us. You might want to go back to then but it can't happen. There is no way it will go back to pre UIGEA the only option is regulated legal online poker.

TheEngineer · #15 09-20-2007, 07:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Good post. I'll look for your release on Google Alerts.

[/ QUOTE ]

A similar article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7001329.stm

Richas · #16 09-20-2007, 08:39 PM

I love the Conservative Party having a dig at spread betting. Someone should tell them that their single largest donor over the past few years at about $8m (there is a lot less money in UK politics) was the founder of IG Index....I look forward to a slight shift in the Conservative Party position over the next few days. LOL.

Richas · #17 09-20-2007, 09:00 PM

This article from a few days ago helps show how significant the real results of this survey are:

Barking preview of Gambling commission report

[ QUOTE ]
The Gambling Commission's eagerly awaited prevalence study is expected to report that the number problem gamblers in Britain has doubled in the past eight years. The UK's Independent and Telegraph newspapers both said that around 600,000 people were now problem gamblers, while the more right wing Daily Mail put the figure closer to 800,000.

The report, carried out by research specialist NatCen, will be Gordon Brown's benchmark for new gambling policy and legislation, and is based on a study of more than 9,000 people.

The British Gambling Prevalence Study is also expected to say that the number of Britons who gamble has soared from 33million to 40 million. The findings match estimates from gambling experts and charities.

[/ QUOTE ]

The findings match.....LOL

Skallagrim · #18 09-20-2007, 11:25 PM

Richas is right, and should be thanked for providing the information.

The inescapable conclusion, to confound our oppoenents, is that the emergence of online gambling has little or no effect on the overall prevelance of "problem gambling." TAKE THAT KYL AND FOF, YOU WERE WRONG. "Crack cocaine of gambling" my ass.

And as much as I hate to say it, he is also probably right about regulation - its the political reality if we want open, legal access. We need to keep any regulation to a minimum, certainly, but I have no problem with mandated age verification and mandated "problem gambling" programs and reporting for taxes. I cant see that affecting my play, or choices of where to play, and so its a small price to pay to get a good part of the general, non-gambling population supporting us.

Skallagrim

Uglyowl · #19 09-21-2007, 01:43 AM

Thank you (I assume Richas updated this section) for updating Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_gambling

I think it is very important to have accurate and fair information on there. It is well worth the time as they are highly viewed and appear high on all search engines.

MiltonFriedman · #20 09-21-2007, 11:56 AM

'I think I'm on your side. I want legal, regulated poker."

Why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ? We HAVE legal poker, the Wexler Bill would remove it from government interference under the poorly drafted UIGEA, a really clean fix.

Poker IS legal. Why do you keep saying it is not ? Unless you are "on the side" of folks who are afraid to enter this already legal market ?

My "side" wants to get/keep the government off the backs of US players.

What your apparent "side" wants is a green light to enter the market and to throw sh*t on it in the meantime.

There is no need to "go back to then", Poker's legality NEVER changed. Read the UIGEA, nothing changed. The real fight is to keep unwarranted interference OUT of the legal poker market, not to invite regulation in because that suits your US-based casino interests.

Legal need not mean "regulated". The trend for the US is actually toward de-regulation and freeing of markets and trade. Why do you think de-regulation, free trade, and private business is a thing of the past ?

Why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ?

By the way, the California Gold Rush analogy stinks, unless what you really mean the analogy is between the Internet and California; then believe is that everything Internet needs to be regulated. That is where your Nanny Statism leads you. Nope, you are not on my side and are not even a good ally in this fight for US players.

Again, why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ? A conflict with vested interests in US gaming ?