Don't Seperate Poker from other forms of Gambling

[tsearcher]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the strongest lobbyist against our cause were the NFL and NCAA. They only cared about sports betting and we were collateral damage.

Poker is more socially (and probably politically) acceptable than sports betting at this point. I am sure there are politicians who play that would never admit to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know they were both against it, but they were being hypocritical in the process.

Anyway, I do not know a single person that doesn't bet on sports at least casually. As far as social acceptance sports betting is way above poker.

[tsearcher]

[ QUOTE ]



Some of the traditional conservatives would like to stand for pro gaming (make your own choice). But all the ones who run for office want to appeal to religious voters.


[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly is the religious right's beef with online gambling? Are they opposed to capitalism in general? Are they afraid it will cut into their bingo revenue? What is it? Perhaps someone that belongs to that group could answer.

[repulse]

I strongly believe that poker needs to be properly distinguished from other forms of gambling. While the benefeits of ignoring this distinction mentioned so far are good, I think the benefits and, well, necessity of demanding the distinction outweigh them. Some random thoughts...

While the overall legislative restrictions of gambling as a whole brings about many significant issues about the government overstepping its roles, legislating morality, etc., I feel it is important to differentiate poker from other forms of gambling because an IDEAL legislative system must treat it differently. It would be hard to argue that online poker (a game which, even ignoring the skill factors, tends to attract affluent and educated players) should be treated the same way as various lotteries (frequently shown to be most populat in the lower income levels and offering no social interactivity benefits or strategic/professional opportunities to make up for this negative economic effect) seems absurd to me.

In terms of allaying issues from voters/politicians who are overly concerned about the addictive nature of gambling, every study I've ever seen shows the incidence rate of "problem gambling" to be much less for poker than for sports betting, casino games. This is significant. Particularly, the incidence rate of problematic behavior for poker in the modern age may be much, much closer to the incidence rate of problematic behavior in uninformed/impulsive investors than it is to the incidence rate of problematic behavior in sports bettors/roulette players. Naturally, all laws already afford many freedoms and regulations to investing and trading industries that poker players would love to have.

Poker is a game that encourages strategic and social interaction between people from all walks of life. It offers the casual player an opportunity to enjoy himself in friendly competition while simultaneously offering the strategic players an opportunity to reap financial profits if they are disciplined and dedicated enough. At the risk of sounding cheesy, poker is my idea of the American Dream, and I can't see how anyone could see that for mindless -EV nonstrategic gambling.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize there are problems with sports betting. But why not work with the gambling lobby as a whole? It has more resources and experience. Fight for American owned and operated online gambling. The lobby will probably have to concede sports betting is covered by the Wire Act (Wire tapping refers to spying on peoples phone conversations), and use that as a concession.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gambling's basically poison to our cause.

I've known how to play blackjack and roulette since I was 7. My father's a pit boss in a high stakes room in a casino in this country.

Even with all that, I myself hate casinos. I hate the games, hate the owners who make games no one can win, kick out those who are good enough to beat the ones you can beat.

I also hate the lottery, based on family members who blow $10 bucks a week on it and consider my home poker game I go to once every 2-3 months gambling and is worried I might lose a lot of my money there.

IMO, a lot of people also dislike the casinos and lottery. We don't need them on our side. If we get some of them on our side, the NFL/NCAA will oppose us and we'll be caught in their crossfire.

Poker's been hit hard enough due to sportsbooks/I casino's. Poker needs to fight this one on its own.

Just my opinion, thanks for sharing yours.

[Skallagrim]

Sorry tsearcher, my 2 cents here is to agree pretty much whole heartedly with Bluffthis - "gambling" has too few friends out there, but "competing for money" (for want of a better term) is something people do all the time. The majority will always disapprove of the former (except in very limited circumstances) and support the latter. Getting poker viewed as part of competing for money is, IMHO, 90% of the way to insuring its legal for us to play.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
The lobby will probably have to concede sports betting is covered by the Wire Act (Wire tapping refers to spying on peoples phone conversations),

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, my typo- I meant the Wire Act, obviously.

In summary, I think there are too many negative connotations, both political and historical, connected to gambling as a category. I don't think trying to fight that entire battle is winnable, perhaps never.

Whether poker would ever successfully be "separated" from other forms of gambling, in the public mind, is questionable regardless. However, my uninformed opinion is that presenting poker as a skill-based form of gambling might be better- you are not playing against the house and you can use skill to manage luck.

[downrange]

To very many ppl, when you say "gambling" it invokes images of slot machines, roulette wheels, prostitutes and degenerates and organized crime.

When you say "poker" the images are likely more of their dad playing with his buddies on Wednesday evenings, or themselves playing for match sticks at their grandpa's house. Gramps never brought out a roulette wheel on Thanksgiving

Personally I don't think there's any benefit, short term or especially long term, worth not trying to distinguish poker once and for all from other forms of gambling. If that had been done long ago poker might now already be an exemption.

[tsearcher]

Larry, sorry about funning with you. If you you'll notice I have a big typo in the header of this thread.

Thanks everyone for your well thought out responses. Even if we do separate poker from gambling, I don't think we should use skill, +ev as our marketing points. The lawmakers just don't make that distinction. I realize some states have, specifically California, but they still have lotteries, casinos and bingo.

But if you look at the Federal level the distinction is just not there. Sports betting, which involves skill and is +ev is not allowed. While betting on the horses, a subset of sports betting, is allowed. And then of course lotteries which have no skill and are about as -ev, as you can get, are allowed.

Can you imagine politicians giving speeches about ev. Look a few threads down. It's not that easy to describe poker in terms of skill.

I think the best way to promote Poker is as the great American past time. The game was created, and all popular variations of it were developed here. Americans should be allowed to play the great American game. Bring out guys like Doyle Brunson and Barry Greenstein. It promotes math literacy. Things like that.

And then discuss the more general topics of the Nanny state, individual freedoms, rugged individualism, State's rights.

Lastly, at least don't discount the other gambling lobbies. If they manage to get online casino games, poker should be a shoe in.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
If they manage to get online casino games, poker should be a shoe in.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is obvious. But it is also obvious that:

1) Their chances are much less than ours;

2) Our getting a carve-out enhances their chances for them getting legalized later.


And the bottom line again is that there is every reason for us not to hitch our horse, which is already slow, to theirs, which are definitively lame in more than 1 leg.

[Sand]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



Some of the traditional conservatives would like to stand for pro gaming (make your own choice). But all the ones who run for office want to appeal to religious voters.


[/ QUOTE ]


What exactly is the religious right's beef with online gambling? Are they opposed to capitalism in general? Are they afraid it will cut into their bingo revenue? What is it? Perhaps someone that belongs to that group could answer.

[/ QUOTE ]


Catholics play Bingo. The religious right does not. Gambling is seen an an enabling activity to greed, lust, etc.

They do, however, conveniently ignore the fact that gambling is specifically endorsed in the Bible. Funny how that works.