For all the "pro-regulation" advocates dancing on Absolute's head ... - Page 2

Legislurker · #11 10-21-2007, 01:16 AM

Its not jumping to a conclusion to say the free market doesn't work for poker. Poker is a like a problem of the commons. Someone has to protect the marketplace, the fish pool, whatever you want to call it. Sooner or later, something will come out bigger and worse that will push poker back. Not one single room has ever stood up and laid their integrity out. No one has given away power to shut them down, or confiscate assets if they cheat. You think they are just going to play nice forever? Some people just shouldnt be allowed to take Econ10 because they always come out screaming about free market this, and free market that.
The market is a great thing, but not an unfettered one. Smith and Ricardo got that.

kidpokeher · #12 10-21-2007, 01:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There is NO way that "regulation" would be a net benefit to US players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, for one, it would give the fish and the "online is rigged" crowd an incentive to come back.

bigbb33 · #13 10-21-2007, 02:44 AM

And what are the odds that if this does make it to lawmakers OR some poker laws come up for review that this will end in more of "we need to protect hard working citizen's and our children from dishonest offshore conglomerates by banning this industry" vs "make it open, legal (in the US), and regulated" ?

Uglyowl · #14 10-21-2007, 06:23 AM

First off a giant thank you to adanthar and crew. You went above and beyond for the good of everyone.

I am on the fence about regulation vs. status quo (of course I wish we could go back to the "old days"). It is hard to tell what "regulation" means, but most things the government gets it's hands on is a giant failure.

DING-DONG YO · #15 10-21-2007, 10:52 AM

grunch

Not all regulation is created equal, OP. That's the whole point.

DeadMoneyDad · #16 10-21-2007, 11:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is NO way that "regulation" would be a net benefit to US players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, for one, it would give the fish and the "online is rigged" crowd an incentive to come back.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do we just get the fish back.

I'm tired of educating the tin foil hatters....

D$D

DeadMoneyDad · #17 10-21-2007, 11:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And what are the odds that if this does make it to lawmakers OR some poker laws come up for review that this will end in more of "we need to protect hard working citizen's and our children from dishonest offshore conglomerates by banning this industry" vs "make it open, legal (in the US), and regulated" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well given the current position of the US has been to ban or make attempts to ban it seem future legislation is the only way we will every get open poker.

IMO that means going through the Hill.

At that point the industry will claim that a combination of the free market and self regulation will work just fine.

A couple more scandals between now any that time and crappy responses from the sites and that argument will not stand a chance of getting past the first hearning.

If however there was a history of very positive action by the sites that had be created by their action between now and that day we would have a shot at less regulation.

My fear is that out of individual greed or stupidity the cumulative record will leave the future legislators no choice by to "fix" all these past problems in that future legislation.

D$D

JPFisher55 · #18 10-21-2007, 12:45 PM

Adanthar, as others have pointed out, for US citizens a free market for online poker does not exist. Despite federal appellate court case law that ruled that no federal law bans online poker sites offering their service to the US, the campaign of intimidation by the DOJ has caused most online poker sites to not accept US players. In addition, only 1 ewallet, Epassporte, serves US citizens and it is not available at some poker sites that do accept US citizens.
This is not a free market. US players do not have many large poker sites to patronize. Thus, many of them will figure that lightning will not strike twice and play at AP. Still over time AP will lose business. Should the WTO or court cases force a change in the position of the DOJ, or force Congress to pass legislation changing the current situation, and US players have as many options as European, I predict that AP and UB will be the first to suffer from the increased competition.

Skallagrim · #19 10-21-2007, 02:29 PM

AP has been running some pretty nice ads on the TV Poker shows.

Only the dedicated really know the details of the scandal, and the average small time player figures (rightly or wrongly) that this high stakes cheating is not going to affect his game.

There is too much fear of regulation here, IMHO. I say too much because if we wont accept regulation, the governments alternative will be more measures to prevent play. And no law is going to tell a poker room how to give bonuses or rakeback, set up the tables, or any other similar thing. Its going to madate some safety things (age verification, etc..) and its going to get taxes (one way or another). It is most likely the taxes (other than income taxes) will have to be paid by the site.

Give up your free poker market dreams, they died with the UIGEA. Its like arguing whether we ever should have gotten into Iraq, when the only real argument should be about how we go about getting out (or not, for you die-hards).

Skallagrim

girlsCanPlay2 · #20 10-21-2007, 09:00 PM

JPFisher55 and Skallagrim make great points:

As a US citizen who use to be a 2BB+ player at 5/10 limit, I have no faith in the current situation. I have reduced my bankroll to 2/4 or less.

1) for US citizens a free market for online poker does not exist
2) high stakes cheating is not going to affect 2/4 or less