For all the "pro-regulation" advocates dancing on Absolute's head ...

[Michaelson]

Word.

Especially given the likely result of all of this, wrt Scott Tom at least, is that a guy who until a day or two ago they denied was even a part of Absolute Poker, is being suspended from his position at the company...

I mean, they didn't even stop for a second to acknowledge that Tom had still been involved in the company in recent months. They just jumped straight from "Scott Tom's not involved with us," to "Scott Tom will no longer remain involved with us for the short/medium term."

And at least for now it looks like that line is flying (probably because everyone already knew that Tom was involved with AP). Nevermind why we should be expected to believe that Tom won't just involve himself in the company's operations from out of sight, as he already had been doing for a year now...

This thing all makes me so mad, and I'm just a low limit grinder on FTP.

Anyway, the point is that they have been able to present their organisational structure in whatever way suits their corrupt needs precisely because they're unregulated.

[Richas]

We can test how regulation would have worked by pretending that Absolute was a UK licensed operation.

First the consequences for the "players" cheating. They would have committed an offence punishable by up to 51 weeks in gaol and a fine.

The senior managers at Absolute would be facing 2 years in gaol. They would face this either for collusion with the cheaters or for "negligence". Absolute would face a level 2 fine (sorry can't find how much that is - it is not in the Act). Al would be banned from ever working in the gambling industry again.

The company license would have been suspended by now so they would be closed down. The Gambling Commissions own inspectors would be crawling all over their systems. They would also have helped in the investigations and been willing to take on consumer complaints so it might have saved some people from (some)unpaid work. They would also have the power to search and seize computer equipment from both the company and the "players" for evidence. The Company would also face the prospect of having bets declared void so forced to pay punters back. Plus the Gambling Commission can fine the company.

In short Absolute would be history and the gits would be facing prison. We would be able to sue the company and they could be forced to pay players back. Sounds better to me.

[Skallagrim]

As someone whose political views are primarily libertarian, I would love to agree with Milton on this one. But I cant. The poker market currently is not "free." If it were free there would be US sites I could play at and be sure that if they cheated me or anyone else I could use the court system to insure that the cheating was punished and the victims compensated. Even strident libertarians agree that for a free market to work there must be protections against, and consequences for, "force and fraud."

Absolute, by virtue of its quasi-legal offshore status, is effectively immune from the consequences of its fraud, other than our right to shift our play to the handful of other sites operating in the same quasi-legal status.

As I have said twice, if the government would just leave us alone by acknowledging poker as a legal game, I might be inclined to let the free market run things (knowing I then have the ability to limit my play to sites where I have access to normal legal redress for cheating and other unfair practices). Since that is not going to occur, Richas and Adanthar win this argument hands down.

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

Adanthar, you are not wrong. However, you forget about some problems with US regulation.
One, the US Congress and government regulate and tax way too much when they start regulating. Once they start, the costs of operating the regulated business make it more expensive for everyone; especially the customers.
Two, the US goverment is so inefficient and ineffective that their regulation does not prevent cheating like AP's. In addition, the US judicial system can punish the cheaters, but it is not very good at compensating the victims. Also, with US regulation, some good operators will have to spend significant money to defend against baseless lawsuits and claims by regulators.
Three, customers of US regulated businesses tend to overrely on the regulation to protect them. Thus, when bad operators ignore the regulations and steal from their customers, the customers lose more than they would have if they had exercised more prudence. In addition, customers, like you, do less to uncover the cheating and the US regulators take a very long time to discover cheating if they do. Thus, the damage to all concerned by the cheating is much worse than without regulation and the cheaters make more than without regulation. I am sure that your great efforts prevented the cheaters at AP from stealing more than they would have been able to with US regulation.
For these reasons, I believe that an unregulated free market is better for customers than US regulation and the costs and taxes that it causes.

[MiltonFriedman]

Okay, Skall ... I can see your point. A "truly-free market" would more directly allow US customers to choose a site within the purview of the US legal system, it would incorporate that legal system as an available attribute for providers to offer.

Pass the Wexler Bill into law and that is what you get ... no need to "regulate" the industry, just make it legal.

Thereafter, if a site wants to compete for US player business, then it COULD offer access to the US civil/criminal system to players for redress of grievances. You do not need any elaborate, burdensome federal licensing agency or protectionist regulations favoring US companies, just legalization ... which allows a company to voluntarily submit itself to US jurisdiction for player grievances.

Elitists may cry "Lemmings" because in the absence of such a market choice, AP players apparently have discounted the scandal, and MAY do so even if offered a "US-legal" site. (Personally, I would NOT play at AP, but I do not denigrate those who choose to do so.)

However, the Wexler Bill remains based in the same trust in individual decision making which justifies a offer to US players their decision to even PLAY poker, or other "skill" games.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Adanthar, you are not wrong. However, you forget about some problems with US regulation.
One, the US Congress and government regulate and tax way too much when they start regulating. Once they start, the costs of operating the regulated business make it more expensive for everyone; especially the customers.
Two, the US goverment is so inefficient and ineffective that their regulation does not prevent cheating like AP's. In addition, the US judicial system can punish the cheaters, but it is not very good at compensating the victims. Also, with US regulation, some good operators will have to spend significant money to defend against baseless lawsuits and claims by regulators.
Three, customers of US regulated businesses tend to overrely on the regulation to protect them. Thus, when bad operators ignore the regulations and steal from their customers, the customers lose more than they would have if they had exercised more prudence. In addition, customers, like you, do less to uncover the cheating and the US regulators take a very long time to discover cheating if they do. Thus, the damage to all concerned by the cheating is much worse than without regulation and the cheaters make more than without regulation. I am sure that your great efforts prevented the cheaters at AP from stealing more than they would have been able to with US regulation.
For these reasons, I believe that an unregulated free market is better for customers than US regulation and the costs and taxes that it causes.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree with everything problem you identify and more.

This is why, IMO, if sites don't do more now it will cost us all later.

Because the US is such a large part of the on-line market, even if a fairly heavily regulated US site opens it will have to compete with the less regulated EU or Centeral Amer. sites this will always be a constant disadvanatge.

Unless the plan of Congress, assuming they have a plan, is to block all sites that don't conform to US regulations.

Given the UIGEA action I don't see it any other way.

Just like the admin's stance on the WTO; do it our way or else. The sheer size of the US market has the chance to shape the world poker future.

For good or bad.

The outcome is pretty much up to us.

But then again I am a bit of a '60's dreamer, that if we actually could organize and get the sites to act responsibily now that future deal would be much better.

Right now John Pappas' job is about as much fun as hearding cats! Unless that changes we will end up having to live with whatever the Hill comes up with. Ultimately the actions of the members of the US poker community end up with the responsibility deciding the fate of the world on-line poker market.


D$D

[Skallagrim]

Yeah. we are back in agreement, Milton.

If Wexler passed (and even it has minimal regulation requirements like age verification) then I would have the free choice to play at US and EU sites where I am confident that I have redress for fraud. I would also play at FTP (and Stars or TruePoker or a few others I trust - if they would get Mac software, or when I upgrade to a Mac with an Intel chip).

If FTP or some other offshore site in a jurisdiction where I couldn't effectively sue or complain to a regulatory agency then ripped me off, well, THEN its my fault for playing there and taking the chance. Thats a free market.

Skallagrim

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]
Your faith in "regulation" is touchingly naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

say what tf you want

i'd rather have the gaming commission than not have it. somethin is better than nuthin. only naive people think otherwise.

and i'm looking forward to the days when all those caribbean/latin america/tax haven cowboy outfits are pushed aside by well-regulated american casino-run enterprises.

[TheEngineer]

I don't think we're let strong enough to get to choose HOW we'll get explicitly legal poker....we just have to agitate for our right to play, IMO. If the Wexler bill goes through, the first U.S. sites will probably be in NV (NV is the only state that licenses online gaming sites), so there will be regulation via the Nevada Gaming Commission. If someone chooses to play an offshore site rather than MGMpoker.com or Harrahspoker.com, shame on them.

Bottom line...I don't know that people who want regulation have much to worry about.

[Skallagrim]

Politically, I am 100% with Engineer on this: we are not going to get unregulated legal poker no matter how much we want it. Its either regulated and legal, or it will be made illegal explicitly. This will happen one way or the other once the UIGEA is shown to be the worthless tool it is.

That said, I will play FTP as long as they let me and feel no shame (I dont think thats the way you meant it TE, but I had to respond anyway). I would hope FTP would be one the first licensed legal sites, but if they are prevented from becoming one, I will still play there out of thanks for their being there for us after the UIGEA passed and the others split. The same can be said for Stars and the other US friendly sites - except Absolute for obvious other reasons.

Skallagrim