Reply from Michigan Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R)

[tangled]

The FBI was talking about unregulated online gaming. If not, then the same threat of money laundering already exists in the areas of online Horse Racing and lottery sales which you voted to sanction by voting for the UIGEA. So, I have to ask you Congressman, (using your own argument): why do you aide terrorists and criminal organizations? Don't you care about America?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This situation illustrates again why we need to make clear the distinction between poker and sports betting. Any ties to crime have totally to do with sports betting, and any use of online gambling for money laundering for very large sums again is mostly tied to sports betting.

So when you write your congressman, or get a negative reply like this and intend to write again, stress that you recognize the potential problems with other forms of gambling, but that poker is a skill game played by people directly against other people, and mostly for aggregate sums much smaller than that involved in sports betting. And that thus you as a constituent expect your congressman to be smart enough to recognize this difference and in fact treat poker differently, and more favorably.



[/ QUOTE ]

I call bs on this. I am a poker player and do not indulge in casino gambling or sports betting. But this distinction is malarkey, no more a valid argument than Rep. Knollenberg was making.

[/ QUOTE ]


You are in the minority around here if you don't think both that there is a difference between poker and other forms of gambling, and that we shouldn't state that is so in our arguments. There is *obviously* a difference between +EV and -EV gambling. And between poker and sports betting, which are both +EV, there is the *huge* difference that sports betting has way more opposition than does poker, which is why we need to distance ourselves from sports betting in order to give ourselves a better chance to get poker legalized.

And as far a distinction between poker and sports betting in which one is more likely to be connected to criminal elements and money laundering, it should be clear which it is. Obvioulsy if sports betting were legal that wouldn't be so, but that's not currently the case.

[1meandog4u]

[ QUOTE ]
There is *obviously* a difference between +EV and -EV gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree wholeheartedly. For years, over 20, I was a prop in live card rooms in So.Calif. We use to have a statement when people would say, "You gamble for a living?" We use to say, "It ain't gambling if you're skilled enough to win consistently, no matter how little the win might be."

The point being, we have to push hard the aspect of poker being a skill game where ANYONE CAN be winning player if they learn/study the game and apply the proper principles. Poker is NOT gambling... unless you're one of the many "maniacs" who cap preflop with junk and pray they hit. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is *obviously* a difference between +EV and -EV gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree wholeheartedly. For years, over 20, I was a prop in live card rooms in So.Calif. We use to have a statement when people would say, "You gamble for a living?" We use to say, "It ain't gambling if you're skilled enough to win consistently, no matter how little the win might be."

The point being, we have to push hard the aspect of poker being a skill game where ANYONE CAN be winning player if they learn/study the game and apply the proper principles. Poker is NOT gambling... unless you're one of the many "maniacs" who cap preflop with junk and pray they hit. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that the law separates games of skill and chance, but doing so makes no sense.

The +EV/-EV thing shouldn't make a difference in any of this. Poker is the same as any casino game. Money flows from the party with -EV to the party with +EV. In poker, the +EV players are just playing the same role as the Casino does in other games. Thus the legal and moral issues are the same. The "ANYONE CAN be a winning" poker player simply isn't true and again doesn't distinguish it from other casino games in any relevant way. Yes, you can say a losing poker player deserves to lose cause he isn't as good as the winning player, but then the same should be said that the losing roulette player deserves to lose because he doesn't know better either.

This is really a question of liberty. People should either be free or not free.

[yahboohoo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm very disappointed in his reply...

[/ QUOTE ]
Next time, enclose a check for $1,000 and see what he says.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm very disappointed in his reply...

[/ QUOTE ]
Next time, enclose a check for $1,000 and see what he says.

[/ QUOTE ]


actually something to think about.

Any thoughts on a concerted campaigen by us poker players
to actually have a generic letter we can use and choose 2 or so presidential candidates on each side and shower them with 10.00 dollar bills from a few thousand of us?

Certainly 40 bucks each will not break most of us.

obg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm very disappointed in his reply...

[/ QUOTE ]
Next time, enclose a check for $1,000 and see what he says.

[/ QUOTE ]


actually something to think about.

Any thoughts on a concerted campaigen by us poker players
to actually have a generic letter we can use and choose 2 or so presidential candidates on each side and shower them with 10.00 dollar bills from a few thousand of us?

Certainly 40 bucks each will not break most of us.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]


Something to think about. I've been thinking about it since you sent me the IM on it. You should start a thread with a poll to see who'll do it and who they will support.

The main issue would be getting people to agree. For example, the Republicans would be Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani, for the obvious reason that the other eight are actively working against us (plus Fred Thompson, who voted against us in 1998 on S 2260, a bill that was quite similar to Goodlatte's HR 4777). Will thousands of us (are there thousands of us?) send money to both of them, or will we divide on other issues? I guess we can discuss that on your thread, if you do it.

At least there are more options with the Democrats, as none are fighting hard to ban Internet gambling. Many will vote against us if they get the chance, though. We had a thread on this once, at http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...=1#Post10351539 . We gave Obama a B-, Edwards a C, Clinton a C-, and Richardson an A- (he's made pro-Internet gaming statements).

[oldbookguy]

I'll work something up and post either later this evening or the A.m., will take some thought.

obg

[yahboohoo]

The point isn't really who we send the money to, just that we start putting our money where our mouths are. I know guys who will shove $2,000 allin preflop in a $20-20 cash game, but don't give a penny to the politicians they bitch about not supporting online gaming.

For as much cash as there is floating around online poker, I'm sure there's more than one Congressman who wonders why none of it flows his/her way.

Remember: They aren't "the voice of the people." They don't think for themselves. They get paid to think, and you've got to pay for them to listen.

[ProsperousOne]

I actually did this about 2 months ago. When the thread(s) on Ron Paul started, I sent $50, and thanked him for his pro-liberty stand.

{totally unrelated: Wow! I actually started a non-inconsequential thread!}