New Report: Inernet Gambling Does Not Lead to Problem Gambling

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...
Third best result: Status quo

Fourth result: Highly regulated government and big business run online poker.

...

Some folks might mix my 3rd and 4th result (i.e. prefer massive regulation to the status quo)

[/ QUOTE ]

#4 >>> #3, if you play poker to make money and not just for the competition/fun.

but [ QUOTE ]
why argue over it?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

#3 > #4 (or at least could be) if #4 results in higher rakes and no rakeback. Not only would high taxes and government monopolies do this -- the AGA says Internet sites should have no competitive advantage over B&M rooms.

------------------

Everyone,

That being said, it doesn't really matter. It's not like we have an option of just sitting back and keeping the status quo. We lost in the House 317-93 last year. We have no choice but to fight for our rights as hard as we can. I've said it before...we have to fight as hard as we can for our rights. There is no other option. We can win iMEGA only to lose to an updated law by Congress. We can win the WTO, only to have the U.S. pull out and pay off (as we're seeing now). These other things can win for us IF we build, maintain, and demonstrate our politican strength and resolve. So, want #3? Fight for #4! Because, if you don't, we'll get that last option...prohibition.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt there is anyone on this board who actually wants government regulated online poker as their first choice. I certainly do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mmm no. I am pro regulation because I think it helps me.

Ok let us look at the UK regulatory regime and see if it has benefits for the customer.

The site has to:
keep my money in a seperate trust account - good.
pay out in a timely manner - good.
show the real odds of any game - not important for poker but good.
be independently inspected to show that the games are fair - good
exclude under 18s - good (especially if like Annette they would kick my ass)
offer self exclusion - good
have user set deposit limits - good
contribute towards helping problem gamblers - good
contribute towards research to help problem gamblers - good
advertise responsibly - good
act in a socially responsible way - that is help to identify and help problem gamblers - good.

On top of this "Safe" regulated sites able to advertise attract new fish - good.

Now where is the downside? The government make the companies pay a bit for the license, this covers the regulatory costs. They also tax the sites at 15% of their gross profits. Ok this is money "out" of the poker economy but at the same time I pay no tax on my winnings - it is taxed already at the site.

So my money is safer, the games are safer, I have better access to fish, I don't pay tax on my winnings, the problem gamblers get help, children are protected and criminals are kept out of running sites. Sh*t yes I'll take regulated poker over the mess in the US.

Milton - Did you notice that at the WSOP Main event FT there was one native born brit but 2 more that live here? Ask yourself why rather than put your ideology of unfettered free markets first. Regulation works and it brings with it public acceptance. It is both the possible and the better option.

[MiltonFriedman]

Poker IS legal, so why pretend it is not ?

A regulatory scheme is justified ONLY if there is some defect or problem in the industry affecting consumers.

I am saying that "regulation" is NOT inevitable.

What would you propose to "regulate" ? What is the rampant problem you seek to cure ? Are you just trying to appease your political foes by saying "regulate", so as to isolate FoF's position ?

The only problems affecting online poker are artificially created by government interference, through UIGEA and DOJ harassment*. How do you propose to "regulate" to solve those problems.

Underage gambling is a red herring. Problem gambling is a red herring. Either can and is dealt with by the industry itself. (If a site does not act itself to limit these areas, an underage gambler can chargeback purchases and recover losses. Problem gamblers can do the same.)

As for the unspoken issue, I am sure that all US poker players report their winnings and pay their taxes, so not IRS reporting is necessary.

"You might as well make the same argument for alcohol, guns, porn."

Precisely, there is room for elements of all three histories:

1. Alcohol ..... Prohibition was clearly a failed policy ?
2. Guns ........ The PPA is modelled on the NRA, which tilts against gun regulation. There are laws against murder. What the NRA tilts against are regulations restricting lawful firearm use/ownership.
3. Porn ........ The greatest chance of success in overturning the UIGEA lies in the precedent set in the ACLU v. Gonzales case law, all the way to the Supreme Court and back enjoining the Child Porn Act.

*Poker IS legal, so why pretend it is not ? You have yet to see the tip of the iceberg of DOJ harassment of online poker. Every time you chime in that it is "illegal", you are digging a deeper hole.

[Merkle]

As having owned video stores that handled both mainstream movies and porn I would like to point out that pornography is legal as ruled by the Supreme Court. Obscenity is illegal. And yes, according to the courts there is a difference.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker IS legal, so why pretend it is not ?

A regulatory scheme is justified ONLY if there is some defect or problem in the industry affecting consumers.

I am saying that "regulation" is NOT inevitable.

What would you propose to "regulate" ? RNG, safety of funds, age verification. And, no, I don't particularly trust the sites for any of this. What is the rampant problem you seek to cure ? Are you just trying to appease your political foes by saying "regulate", so as to isolate FoF's position ?

The only problems affecting online poker are artificially created by government interference, through UIGEA and DOJ harassment*. How do you propose to "regulate" to solve those problems. If it is regulated and/or deemed entirely legal by the government, these artificial problems go away.

Underage gambling is a red herring. It is a genuine problem. I would not object if microstakes were open to teenagers (with appropriate safegaurds) Problem gambling is a red herring. No it isn't. Just as there are alcoholics, there are problem gamblers. There needs to be mechanisms in place both to identify and to help these folks. Either can and is dealt with by the industry itself. That is not necessarily the pervue of the industry. Does McDonalds actually give a hoot if you are fat? (If a site does not act itself to limit these areas, an underage gambler can chargeback purchases and recover losses. Problem gamblers can do the same.) And losers who feel remorseful and want their money back. The sites will look out for themselves, not anyone else.
As for the unspoken issue, I am sure that all US poker players report their winnings and pay their taxes, so not IRS reporting is necessary.

"You might as well make the same argument for alcohol, guns, porn."

Precisely, there is room for elements of all three histories:

1. Alcohol ..... Prohibition was clearly a failed policy ? But it is a highly regulated industry.
2. Guns ........ The PPA is modelled on the NRA, which tilts against gun regulation. There are laws against murder. What the NRA tilts against are regulations restricting lawful firearm use/ownership. And what we need to tilt against is regulations restricting lawful poker playing, funding, and advertisments.
3. Porn ........ The greatest chance of success in overturning the UIGEA lies in the precedent set in the ACLU v. Gonzales case law, all the way to the Supreme Court and back enjoining the Child Porn Act. Go for it. We are with you.

*Poker IS legal, so why pretend it is not ? You have yet to see the tip of the iceberg of DOJ harassment of online poker. Every time you chime in that it is "illegal", you are digging a deeper hole.




[/ QUOTE ]

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker IS legal, so why pretend it is not ?

A regulatory scheme is justified ONLY if there is some defect or problem in the industry affecting consumers.

I am saying that "regulation" is NOT inevitable.

What would you propose to "regulate" ? What is the rampant problem you seek to cure ? Are you just trying to appease your political foes by saying "regulate", so as to isolate FoF's position ?

[/ QUOTE ]

You act like we are willing to give away the store so we can play on-line in the US with greater ease.

IMPO we are not. Even you point out that most of what we are "willing to give away" will likely either be created by a freer marker or simply blunts "red-herrings" of our opponets.

In an effort to take the political "high ground" and appear as "men of reason" what is the harm compared to the unltimate value? Every position that I've seen is a direct and reasoned re-buttal of the National Gambling Impact Study that our opponets used as the "sicentific foundation" for their cause. IMPO you have to be able to politically at least crumble that foundation to get heard. I think the UK and NZ studies as well as the sucess of various other countries reasonible regulations screams that Comgress F'ed up with the UIGEA.

[ QUOTE ]
The only problems affecting online poker are artificially created by government interference, through UIGEA and DOJ harassment*. How do you propose to "regulate" to solve those problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why piss and moan on the golden opportunity to show the Hill exactly what an abject failure their kow-towing to the knee-jerk "solution" offered by our opponets is in exact detail?

The CEO embezeler story is a prime example of this IMPO! There are hundreds more anti-gambling "news stories" that we can completely turn on their ear and show that with the most modest regulations would solve 98% of any problems.

[ QUOTE ]
Underage gambling is a red herring. Problem gambling is a red herring. Either can and is dealt with by the industry itself. (If a site does not act itself to limit these areas, an underage gambler can chargeback purchases and recover losses. Problem gamblers can do the same.)

[/ QUOTE ]

If all of these sites are so responsible and don't need any regulatory "push" why aren't they doing all of these things now!!!!! Every story where one of these issues makes an appearance shows that self-regulation isn't working and will not unless forced upon the entire on-line poker community. No one has been willing to step up and take action on their own. I don't blame them one bit. Why give up part of the market with an unpopular move? If the MBA types thought there was a profit in it it would alread be done. But given current market conditions it will not happen, and some how suggesting the it might happen on it's own in the future is a looser.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the unspoken issue, I am sure that all US poker players report their winnings and pay their taxes, so not IRS reporting is necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is our bigest stick IMPO. Some number of Billions of dollars of uncollected revenue!! Of course most US players don't fully report their poker winnings. Why should they? This is a big bitch of mine. IMPO the PPA and anti-UIGEA groups with a vested interest in "legal" poker are willing to throw the individual poker player under the bus on this issue and hope to address this issue later after they get a better game for themselves.

Politically this is a major mistake IMPO. All that will happen is the inevitible future story of the PPA pushing for a "tax-break for poker players" with the GAO studies to show how much the action will "cost" the American people.

If BluffThis has any merit to his concerns about acts of ommission by a short sighted PPA board, he gets my full support on this one!

Not addressing the tax issue right at the start as part of any overall comprehensive deal on any UIGEA modification or repeal effort is a BIG looser. Trying to fix this later with what ever is left of a grassroots poker organization is throwing individual US players to the wolves, both to those on the Hill and the people who want to run the games.


D$D