CNN Article putting Poker in a more positive light, highlighting skill

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Adanthar, you seem to ignore that with the sign-on of Chairman Conyers, it is precisely the skill games argument that IS gaining ground in Congress. Where in this argument is the Sports Bettors Alliance? The Slot Players Alliance?

Also, you seem to place all our hopes on the WTO. What if the WTO sanctions and compensation are not that big. The Bush Admin has already indicated it plans to give up a bit to keep the online status quo. If the "bit" is small enough to not make big noise, where do we go?

Also, because its anathema to their way of thinking, the "skill games v. gambling" distinction was not put before the WTO by the Bush Admin. It is perfectly acceptable for the US, under the WTO, to ban all online gambling, but openly allow online skill games (so long as foreign sites are not discriminated against). How one fairly separates the two then becomes a new round of WTO litigation, and a new opportunity for negotiation and compromise. The first congresperson to point this out wins a much bigger cookie from all the industries possibly affected by sanctions.

To say OBWan is right that the skill argument is useless at the federal level ignores the progress the Wexler bill has made, assumes the WTO will force congress to make all online gambling legal thus leaving us no fall back position if it doesnt, and fails to recognize the usefulness of the distinction at the WTO itself. Do you really want us to be in a position where we must agree that the only way to have legal online poker is to also have legal online slots and sportsbetting?

And thats the same question to you OBWan; stop feeling bad about the attacks I made ON YOUR STATEMENTS. Other than suspecting you might be a shill for FOF (you wouldnt be the first if so) I attacked the postion you staked out. I still attack it. To give up on maintaining that poker is different because its a skill game is too give up way too much and only plays into the hands of our enemies who have realized that criminalizing online poker (as opposed to other "gambling") is the weakest point of their argument. They would love nothing more than for us to agree that poker should be treated the same as online slots.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think allowing skill games everywhere, but not games of chance will satisfy the WTO decision.

A couple of points, how can you say you don't have a moral aversion to skill games, but you do have a moral aversion to games of chance when you offer lotteries on such a grand scale? What is the skill involved in picking numbers, or scratching a ticket?

Isn't betting on sports a skill, handicapping games? It's your wits against the oddsmaker's wits. It's certainly more of a skill than scratcher tickets.

Finally, you still have the horse racing problem. If you offer remote horse racing, which we know is not going away, as well as remote sports wagering in Nevada, or remote lotteries, you haven't come close to solving the WTO issue.

Now, if you add more remote wagering games of skill, how has that brought you into compliance?

[Skallagrim]

"But I am a survivor of the political school of hard knocks and it would take a lot to convince me that pols are out for anything but political advantage.

If online gaming can provide that advantage than the pols will be on our side, if we can't than no matter what we do, we're on the short stack and no amount of clever skill vs. luck arguments will be of any worth."

My issue with you and adanthar as expressed above is that you fail to see that the skill argument is, in fact, a politically advantageous argument for us. Its not the only argument, it may not turn out to be the decisive argument, but to discount it because it doesnt comport with you view of why legislators make the decisions they make, is a big mistake. It is ONE important part of the battle; dont neglect your flanks when you are concerned with an advance on your center.

Skallagrim

[Skallagrim]

You miss my point, Jay. I agree that simply allowing poker as a game of skill will not bring the US into compliance. The US would also have to ban ALL remote "gambling" at the same time. How you split this up between various activities is what then becomes the next round of WTO litigation - and this may well include having to allow sportsbetting or having to make betting on horse racing illegal, thats what gets litigated (and this happens after Antigua gets its sanctions for what we have already done - but not necessarily requiring us to compensate the EU and others, as we would no longer have to withdraw our commitments - the US could then advance the moral argument on remote "gambling" going forward).

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

No seriously what's the FOF?

[/ QUOTE ]

FoF or Family Research Council http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ABOUT_FRC, I think FoF stands for Focus on Families.

After today's exchange perhaps "Fear of Fun" or "Fear on-line Fun" is parhaps more appropiate.


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Before I go on (and on and on) I would like to thank soulvamp and adanthar the "Possibly Too Level Headed" [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] for their words of support.

Now BluffTHIS! since you asked me nicely, without accusations of being a plant or someone's puppet, I will gladly respond--

1) Is your opposition to discussing and using the skill argument rooted in a desire to see poker lumped in with -EV casino gambling?

Not at all. I honestly think that it's a smokescreen. That it's a sham invented by politicians to justify their opposition or support based solely on political favor.

[/ QUOTE ]



Perhaps that is true that pols are only interested in self preservation, it is a lesson we as voters have helped re-enforce from time to time.

But the real underlying truth is all politics is local. That locality is only as large as the geograhical area that encompasises the registered voters who decide any pols fate in the next election.

Because of that and almost only because of that and our Consitutional history many laws in this country are controled at the most apporpiate local level. Gambling before it became an internet phenom was exclusively controled due to geography "local" politics.

We do not choose to have a skills game argument. It is simply the political "lay of the land." We can choose to fight from the political "highground" we have avilable to us, or wish for an ideal battleground.

A collariary of all politics is the fact that politics is the art and battle of the doable. Those that choose to fight crusades or tilt at windmills, seal their own fate from the outset.

This is why Sun Zu, Clausewitz, Machiavelli, among others are almost required reading in political science and always in good campaign schools. You do not have to aspire to nor be a "Prince" to need the ability to think like one, as Niccolo teaches in his often over looked preface to his work.

Ignoring history, the lay of the land, and the teachings of others that often died for their mistakes is not some college exercise but a foundation for sucess in both life as well as essential in politics.

The old saying is "wish in one hand and spit in the other, which fills up faster?"; shows the sheer futility of any strategy of any endavor that ignores reality infavor of hope for anything including the ideal.

So we face this "battle" on the best understanding of the true nature and offensive as well as defensive nature of the ground the battle field the battle will be fought, using as much of our talents, knowledge, dedication, and heart used in the most effective manner possible to reach our goals based on the science of the warefare to be conducted, politics.


D$D

[OB-Wan222]

Skallagrim "stop feeling bad about the attacks I made ON YOUR STATEMENTS. Other than suspecting you might be a shill for FOF (you wouldnt be the first if so) I attacked the postion you staked out."

YOU'RE A LIAR. You make it sound like I'm piqued because of your comments about the FOF but in fact you attacked me for being a 3-poster and implied that I didn't have sufficient credentials to post an opinion - isn't that the truth?

Well, regardless, let's move on. We can all check your previous post and determine the truth abut your attacks on me.

Skallagrim "To give up on maintaining that poker is different because its a skill game is too give up way too much and only plays into the hands of our enemies who have realized that criminalizing online poker (as opposed to other "gambling") is the weakest point of their argument. They would love nothing more than for us to agree that poker should be treated the same as online slots."

You just don't get it. Our enemies already treat poker the same as slots. Can you tell me the name of ONE online gaming opponent that makes a difference between poker and slots? And I'm not asking for some yahoo that has signed onto a bill. I want a quote from ONE anti-online-gaming politician that draws a distinction between a game of skill and a game of chance.

Can you find one? - I'll be surprised if you do.

The DOJ doesn't agree with your assessment, does it? Is there anything in the Treasury Dept. testimony that give you hope that skill is treated any differently than luck?

We are in a battle of political wills and fighting among ourselves about "who struck john" is exactly what our enemies want. If you're looking for the mole in the woodshed direct your attention to those that want to convince you that "skill vs. luck" is something we should be expending our energies on.

We should be wrestling the politicians to the ground based on our freedom as Americans to risk our money on the chance of greater rewards.

"YOU BET I WANT TO VOTE ON IT" should be our battlecry - not, "We want to participate in game of skill but not luck".

[OB-Wan222]

Thank you, Jay Cohen

Especially when you say - "how can you say you don't have a moral aversion to skill games, but you do have a moral aversion to games of chance when you offer lotteries on such a grand scale?"

You are echoing my point, or perhaps I am echoing yours.

DeadMoneyDad "FoF or Family Research Council"

Thanks D$D - see I know about you from FTP. I've heard of this Internet-born sub-culture, of course. I didn't know them by the FoF label though. No I have not now or ever been someone that supports this organization. They're a bunch of sheepeople.

Skallagrim "...the "skill games v. gambling" distinction was not put before the WTO by the Bush Admin."

Of course, as I said earlier the WTO is not a case of skill vs. luck. It is about whether the Bush Admin will accept the sanctions imposed for violating the WTO.

Skallagrim "Do you really want us to be in a position where we must agree that the only way to have legal online poker is to also have legal online slots and sportsbetting?"

There it is. So you have no problem with online gaming so long as it fits YOUR definition of gambling. You're not afraid of online gambling in the USA you're just afraid that if won't fit your definition of gambling. Perhaps you are the mole, trying to prevent Americans from being able to bet in the privacy of their homes because you don't approve of what they might bet on.

Well, well, well... puts that whole skill vs. luck argument in a whole new light doesn't it? I support the right for ME to gamble at my game but you shouldn't be allowed to gamble at YOUR game.

[Tuff_Fish]

My guess is that OB-Wan222 is a sports bettor.

Possibly a blackjack player but probably a sports bettor.

He sure seems intent on pulling poker into the same category as sports betting and online casinos.

Go carry your own water sir, we are fighting for poker here.

There is no argument you can make that will convince most of us that we stand just as good a chance of obtaining our goals by pushing for our "right" to gamble online.

Tuff

[2easy]

Maybe he is just prioritizing his fights.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Skallagrim "...the "skill games v. gambling" distinction was not put before the WTO by the Bush Admin."

Of course, as I said earlier the WTO is not a case of skill vs. luck. It is about whether the Bush Admin will accept the sanctions imposed for violating the WTO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not for the Administration.

We saw the Administration's point of view from the DOJ rep today in legal terms, the Wire Act is controling, and the WTO response in Congressional Reps and the response from the DOJ rep under direct questions both favorable and against; the US never intended nor will accept a "group of foreigners" over riding US laws and our unique Constitutional system.

I agree their position seems weak and the potential consequences quite dire as I agree with Joseph Weiler in his predictions that others will likely use this position no matter how it is resolved against us in the future.

But the fact remains the WTO will not solve the fundemental structural challenges faced by this or future congresses in attempting to write a Federal solution to a historically State issue. They can try, but even the current 48 State Attorney Generals they count as in their corner would abandon them in a heartbeat if they tried anything other than a Federal ban.

If their was an easier solution politically or legally it would have been discussed long before now.


D$D