Myths about UIGEA from "semi-pro"

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen this posted from Bill Rini's blog; a link if I may...

[/ QUOTE ]
Bill Rini (Rini?) is billman on 2p2 and is very active on this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I discovered that about an hour after posting. His profile mentions the blog. Anyway, the myths (and known facts) need to be read, discussed, disproven, or verified as part of our process to plan and attack.

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I didnt agree with everything in this article, especially the part about poker not being a game of skill under legal definitions/Dominant factor test. Just because a poker hand CAN be decided by chance does not mean that chance is the Dominant factor in the game - that ignores bluffing and inducing folds, for example which are the far more common way in which a hand is resolved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you should probably read several experts on gaming law. I am not a lawyer and did not make that part up. Some of the most respected minds in gaming law will tell you that there's a difference between a game being mostly skill and being predominately a game a skill. And if you don't understand that distinction you should invest the 10 minutes it would take to educate yourself. I'm not talking wild stuff here. I took this opinion from some of the most respected legal minds on the subject.

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]
Decent link, were it not for the logical fallacies, misunderstanding, and utter [censored].

I laughed especially hard at the part where he used the American heritage dictionary as a source for the definition of jurisdiction. That's funny in so many ways, and totally indicative of his level of knowledge on the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you could share a better definition rather than being a complete tool. Please cite your law degree and your expertise on this subject before responding. I've put my credentials on the line.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I didnt agree with everything in this article, especially the part about poker not being a game of skill under legal definitions/Dominant factor test. Just because a poker hand CAN be decided by chance does not mean that chance is the Dominant factor in the game - that ignores bluffing and inducing folds, for example which are the far more common way in which a hand is resolved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you should probably read several experts on gaming law. I am not a lawyer and did not make that part up. Some of the most respected minds in gaming law will tell you that there's a difference between a game being mostly skill and being predominately a game a skill. And if you don't understand that distinction you should shut your trap because you are so uninformed on the subject you can't help but make a complete ass of yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cant take a little disagreement without name calling?

I think that is a good reason to ignore you and your blog from now on.

You may wish to know that I am an attorney, I have a great deal of familiarity with gambling law and criminal law, And If I am so wrong, how do you explain the state courts (not all admittedly) that have ruled that poker is a game of skill under the test? (California and Missouri, for example - if you hadnt taken such an ****** attitude, I might have provided you with the cites to those cases (though maybe you dont even know what a 'cite' is). And a final note, you even state the test wrong (for most states): the test usually is "predominantly subject to CHANCE" not "predominantly subject to SKILL." And if you cant see the difference there ... oops, I dont do name calling.

Skallagrim

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
And if you don't understand that distinction you should shut your trap because you are so uninformed on the subject you can't help but make a complete ass of yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Billman, I thought it was well written and some good points to think about. While some of this is up in the air, they are some good arguments for the "other side".

Your above statement though is immature and I would have expected better from you

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And if you don't understand that distinction you should shut your trap because you are so uninformed on the subject you can't help but make a complete ass of yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Billman, I thought it was well written and some good points to think about. While some of this is up in the air, they are some good arguments for the "other side".

Your above statement though is immature and I would have expected better from you

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, the joke is on you for expecting more form me. :-)

Seriously I was in a bit of a pissy mood and fired something off. I re-read it and edited the post because I realized it came off as pissy as it did.

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]

Cant take a little disagreement without name calling?


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. I'm a very thin skinned individual. If you look at me cross I might cry. Please don't look at me cross.

[ QUOTE ]

I think that is a good reason to ignore you and your blog from now on.


[/ QUOTE ]

No please don't do that. Being an a-hole (which I freely admit to) and being wrong are two different things. Andy Rooney is an a-hole b ut it doesn't make him wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

You may wish to know that I am an attorney, I have a great deal of familiarity with gambling law and criminal law, And If I am so wrong, how do you explain the state courts (not all admittedly) that have ruled that poker is a game of skill under the test? (California and Missouri, for example - if you hadnt taken such an ****** attitude, I might have provided you with the cites to those cases (though maybe you dont even know what a 'cite' is). And a final note, you even state the test wrong (for most states): the test usually is "predominantly subject to CHANCE" not "predominantly subject to SKILL." And if you cant see the difference there ... oops, I dont do name calling.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

cite is a word, right? I think it means the singular form of a city.

And I'm sorry. I either misquoted Chuck Himphrey who actually is an expert on gaming law or your familiarity and his differ.

[ QUOTE ]
Some commentators have argued that the operation of online poker Websites should be excluded from the reach of the new law because poker, being a skillful game, is not a game of chance. Under current state law that argument does not hold water. Most U.S. jurisdictions apply the Dominant Factor test to determine if a contest is a game of skill or a game of chance. That test looks to which elements predominate (51%) in determining outcome of the game. If the elements of chance predominate, then it is a game of chance, notwithstanding that skill elements are important, but not predominant. Furthermore, the outcome is to be determined by the considering the nature of the game and the abilities of the average player coming to the game. See: Is Poker a Game of Skill? Online poker operators should consider mathematical analysis of their vast data bases of poker results to support attempts to overturn the case law that views the "luck of the draw" aspect of poker as resulting in its being a game of chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, if your familiarity outweighs his expertise then I'm willing to give you the kudos you deserve.

[Billman]

Listen folks, I'm more than willing to debate the topics I included in my post. I have never edited comments on my blog other than pure spam so I'm used to defending myself for taking controversial points of view. I'll debate anyone here on the topic. However, do keep in mind that throwing around terms logical fallacies without even doing the honor of stating what they are is likely to earn you some negative remarks in your permanent record. :-)

Also, if you think I'm an idiot, you;re likely correct. However I do know how to use the interwebs so don't assume I can' t understand big words like "cite." Pretend we're in the same room having a civil conversation and I'm more than willing to give you the same credit (offer not valid if I happen to read your post after returning from a pub in a bad mood).

[Uglyowl]

1. The dictionary definition and the practical application of jurisdiction are very important and can’t be ignored. If they are unable to do anything to foreign corporations, what teeth does this have?

2. [ QUOTE ]
If the US government is able to raise the cost of providing online gaming to US residents above a certain threshold

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken, how plausible do you think this scenario is?

3. The case against Netellers’ founders is very very important. Yes, Netellers withdrawal from the U.S. market was HUGE, but it was inevitable anyway and what is done is done.

The era of public companies in the U.S. market is over. The Neteller founders’ case is huge, IMHO for the direction of online gambling. Is poker different? That may be the next thing we find out if the Neteller case is a big win for the DOJ.

4. The Democrat vs. Republican difference has been discussed at length. Is neutral vs. very bad (D vs. R) reasonable Bill?

5. Strongly agree about the WTO.

6. Important issues about how the Wire Act (and other more minor laws) pertains to online poker are glossed over.
7. Prohibition: UIGEA can only “prohibition lite”. Imagine the war on drugs only criminalized dealers? The consumer could attempt to buy with impunity, walk around with drugs in the open, etc.

Anyhow Bill, I think your arguments are well layed out and there are some great discussions points within.

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The dictionary definition and the practical application of jurisdiction are very important and can’t be ignored. If they are unable to do anything to foreign corporations, what teeth does this have?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I think this is a debate we're never going to agree upon. If you ask the DOJ if they have jurisdiction over foreign operators conducting business with US citizens then I think you're going to find that they do. Like I said in a previous post, if you murder 50 people and then hop on a plane to anti-death penalty France the US isn't going to be able to get you back to the US as long as you may face the death penalty. But the US can still convict you without you even being there.

I think the disconnect between our views is that having the right to do something and being able to do it are two different things. Jurisdiction is having the right.

[ QUOTE ]

2. [ QUOTE ]
If the US government is able to raise the cost of providing online gaming to US residents above a certain threshold

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken, how plausible do you think this scenario is?


[/ QUOTE ]

Depends. I mean right now the gov has raised the price of customer aquisition considerably for US facing companies. Without a easy way for people to move money onto and off of sites they have to market to a much larger number of people in order to get each signup. If they can also get advertising banned (going after affiliates, websites, etc) then the cost to reach each American goes up even more. I don't know what the pain threshold is for each company but if it costs you $300 a player in Europe and $1000 a player in the US sooner or later the fact that the US has an overall larger market isn't going to be a big enough factor. I've got to imagine that the threshold is going to be roughly the average lifetime value of each customer. So if the LTV is $600 and it costs the site $601 then it's losing money.

[ QUOTE ]

3. The case against Netellers’ founders is very very important. Yes, Netellers withdrawal from the U.S. market was HUGE, but it was inevitable anyway and what is done is done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't disagree with you there.

[ QUOTE ]

The era of public companies in the U.S. market is over. The Neteller founders’ case is huge, IMHO for the direction of online gambling. Is poker different? That may be the next thing we find out if the Neteller case is a big win for the DOJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's another cost to consider. How much money did Stars' and Tilts' founders walk away from? They can't go public now. Both had indicated intentions to go public before the US ban so their founders did want that big payday.

[ QUOTE ]

4. The Democrat vs. Republican difference has been discussed at length. Is neutral vs. very bad (D vs. R) reasonable Bill?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that was my very point.
[ QUOTE ]

5. Strongly agree about the WTO.

6. Important issues about how the Wire Act (and other more minor laws) pertains to online poker are glossed over.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I think they get glossed over because talking about them might make people feel bad and then you would be a doom and gloomer. :-) Don't bum people's highs.

[ QUOTE ]

7. Prohibition: UIGEA can only “prohibition lite”. Imagine the war on drugs only criminalized dealers? The consumer could attempt to buy with impunity, walk around with drugs in the open, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think a better anology would be Cuban cigars. They're illegal in the US. I know plenty of people who can get them but most people just smoke Dominican cigars because their easier to get. If online poker becomes too difficult to access people will just go to live casinos and hold more home games.

[ QUOTE ]

Anyhow Bill, I think your arguments are well layed out and there are some great discussions points within.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.