November 14th: House Judiciary Committee Hearing Thread

[JPFisher55]

Depositing would be easy, but what about withdrawal? What about transferring money from one site to another?
Would Pay-Pal reenter the business if they could not serve most online poker sites because they did not separate their customers' poker accounts from their other accounts?
I know that we want to be separate from sports betting. In a court of law, we must be separate because we have much better legal arguments than any other form of online gambling. However, I am not so sure in the political arena. IMO if the WTO grants Antiqua its requested relief from US IP laws, then we should push for legalization of all online gambling to conform to the WTO decision.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see the Wexler bill pass. However, I wonder if it would help us transfer money between online poker sites and our bank accounts. Currently, we have one ewallet Epassporte open to the US and it serves a minority of poker sites open to US.
So if online poker is exempted from UIGEA and the Wire Act, would online gambling sites separate their poker sites from the rest of their gambling services so that Epassporte would service them. How many ewallets would service only online poker sites? I fear that to get back a Neteller type company that serves all online poker sites, we need legalization of all online gambling.
Also, Skall, I think that Jay is right about the WTO stance on gambling. I do not think that the WTO will accept separation of poker from gambling. I suspect that they would include betting on backgammon, bridge and chess, which the DOJ strangely (given Ms. Hanaway's testimony) does not prosecute, as gambling under the WTO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think we'd need e-wallets with Wexler's bill, as poker would be explicitly legal. Seems we'd just move money into and out of poker-only sites just via standard methods (echecks, credit cards, etc).

As for the WTO, I guess we don't know what they'd do if the U.S. presented a plan that doesn't discriminate between foreign and domestic suppliers and claimed it settled the dispute. After all, the current U.S. strategy has been to tell the WTO that "we're doing what we're doing and screw off if you don't like it". I tend to agree with you and Jay here, but there is a potential that they could accept different non-discriminary options. This would have been more likely three or four years ago. The judgments against the U.S. since then have reduced this likelihood, of course.

I hope it all opens up via WTO pressure, of course. That would be ideal.

[Richas]

I just got to the FOF guy talking about the UK prevalence survey. He was alleging that fixed odds terminals and computer based gambling had higher problem gambling rates and talked of an "increasing" problem. This is a real abuse of the research in an area that is important to the debate.

His claim is that online makes more problem gamblers. This would be a powerful argument so it is important to be able to refute it - fortunately the research he quoted did not show what he claimed at all! In fact it showed that between 1999 and 2007 FOBTs, spread betting and Internet gambling became much more widely available and much more widely used but the number of problem gamblers remained the same.

He abused the research by cherry picking a couple of bits of data that showed that a higher proportion of those involved in spread betting, FOBTs and Internet gambling have a problem - what he failed to mention was that these have relatively low participation rates. Problem gamblers are a bit like early adopters in other industries, they seek out the new opportunities of the new technology and so make up a higher proportion in these areas solely because they are used by relatively few. Problem gamblers bet on anything and everything - the new technology DOES NOT increase their number or make new addicts. That is what the research showed instead he makes up an increased threat via the Internet and mumbles of crack cocaine.

Now I don't know much about FoFs inteligence or morals but as the research headlined with the number of problem gamblers in the UK and highlighted the no change since 1999 I doubt this mistake was due to a lack of intelligence, it does after all only require the ability to read so I must assume that the FoF rep deliberately lied and that somehow this is acceptable in his moral framework.

Seriously it is important to know that internet gambling may be used by problem gamblers, even loved by problem gamblers but it does not make more problem gamblers (even if it has compromised the morals of at least one FoF spokesman-liar).

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see the Wexler bill pass. However, I wonder if it would help us transfer money between online poker sites and our bank accounts. Currently, we have one ewallet Epassporte open to the US and it serves a minority of poker sites open to US.
So if online poker is exempted from UIGEA and the Wire Act, would online gambling sites separate their poker sites from the rest of their gambling services so that Epassporte would service them. How many ewallets would service only online poker sites? I fear that to get back a Neteller type company that serves all online poker sites, we need legalization of all online gambling.
Also, Skall, I think that Jay is right about the WTO stance on gambling. I do not think that the WTO will accept separation of poker from gambling. I suspect that they would include betting on backgammon, bridge and chess, which the DOJ strangely (given Ms. Hanaway's testimony) does not prosecute, as gambling under the WTO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to suggest it but we're stuck with some form of 5% to deposit.

In the end it is easy money the on-line poker market has show it is willing to pay. I don't know how well the other on-line skill games would accept it but any bank and the gov't under this outline would have to be pretty uniform.

I'd forsee ATM type fees for banks, little or no credit cards, and the rest going to a stealth tax to oversee on-line gaming and ship a few bucks to the people really willing to treat problem gamblers as more than a political tool.


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
His claim is that online makes more problem gamblers. This would be a powerful argument so it is important to be able to refute it - fortunately the research he quoted did not show what he claimed at all! In fact it showed that between 1999 and 2007 FOBTs, spread betting and Internet gambling became much more widely available and much more widely used but the number of problem gamblers remained the same.

He abused the research by cherry picking a couple of bits of data that showed that a higher proportion of those involved in spread betting, FOBTs and Internet gambling have a problem - what he failed to mention was that these have relatively low participation rates. Problem gamblers are a bit like early adopters in other industries, they seek out the new opportunities of the new technology and so make up a higher proportion in these areas solely because they are used by relatively few. Problem gamblers bet on anything and everything - the new technology DOES NOT increase their number or make new addicts. That is what the research showed instead he makes up an increased threat via the Internet and mumbles of crack cocaine.

Now I don't know much about FoFs inteligence or morals but as the research headlined with the number of problem gamblers in the UK and highlighted the no change since 1999 I doubt this mistake was due to a lack of intelligence, it does after all only require the ability to read so I must assume that the FoF rep deliberately lied and that somehow this is acceptable in his moral framework.

Seriously it is important to know that internet gambling may be used by problem gamblers, even loved by problem gamblers but it does not make more problem gamblers (even if it has compromised the morals of at least one FoF spokesman-liar).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the Foe of Fun guy really showed himself to prefer arguing his cause more than any regard for anything else.

You are absolutely correct that we need to show unemotionally and sciencetifically exactly how he is willing to distort the facts.

This is also true in the legal claims made by Catherine, as she has a bad habit of "over playing her hand". She has done this politically through out her life. She lost her newly won Speaker position by attempting to "take over" MO politics by trying to move everone up a notch way too soon. She lost he bid to become Sec of State by over reaching IMO.

John has indicated that there is an agreement to have questions submitted to the pannelists for the record. We have members willing to submit them if we do the work.

I am not equiped to take on Catherine in her current position but might be able to help shape the way the questions are asked of her from my knowledge of her, but I do not posses the legal background.

I am willing to help in the presure on Valerie Abend, on the propose regulation questions as needed.


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What we should try to get is a list of solid questions that a friendly member can submit for the record to the panel. So that if something doesnt come up, it can be gotten in writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that most have had a chance to watch the hearing, anything in this area you suggest.

Not a guarantee it could happen, but worth considering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we to assume that a poker-only internet site would enjoy freedom from prosecution from the DOJ - if they set up business, here, on US soil?

[/ QUOTE ]

All you need is a willing banker IMO. If you restrict your activites to the skills game arena you could operate until the proposed regualtions were finalized.

There is a lot involved to insure you comply with State laws but it is technologically possible.

But considering the potential risks vs the profits, I'm not sure that even being the first in the market has the long term potential to make this a viable enterprise.


D$D

[Uglyowl]

You are right, the FOF arguments used in his favor by cherry picking logically is similar to “There are more car accidents today than in 1940; therefore cars are much more dangerous than 67 years ago”.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is Annie Duke's Transcript from the Chat she just did with the Washington Post, it on the Post's Website now.

Annie Duke's chat transcript from Washington Post

Bryan Spadaro
Membership Relations, Manager
Poker Player Alliance

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome chat. I liked this:

[ QUOTE ]

Baltimore, Md.: Who's better, you or Howard?


Annie Duke: Howard :-) But he's a freak and a very weird dude. I'd stay away.



[/ QUOTE ]

[JPFisher55]

It does not surprise me that the FOF guy was about as honest as Ms. Hanaway. At least he is not an attorney.
To be honest, Ms. Hanaway's statements bordered on violating a Missouri Rule of Professional Conduct that requires honesty to courts and tribunals. However, I am not sure that a Congress committee hearing is a tribunal. In addition, this rule is rarely enforced. The good news is that she was not persuasive so it did not matter.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
It does not surprise me that the FOF guy was about as honest as Ms. Hanaway. At least he is not an attorney.
To be honest, Ms. Hanaway's statements bordered on violating a Missouri Rule of Professional Conduct that requires honesty to courts and tribunals. However, I am not sure that a Congress committee hearing is a tribunal. In addition, this rule is rarely enforced. The good news is that she was not persuasive so it did not matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

"she was not persuasive" IMO is imaterial, what is, is the weakness she showed in her direct testimony. Do not be fooled by her public demeanor. The person you saw on the video bares no resemblance to her "true" nature. As you can imagine, with my disregard for authority, I have seen bothsides of her wrath. I would bet she will attempt to "revise and extend her comments" for the record.

There were enough favorable "admissions" by Mrs Hanaway for the opportunity to exploit to our advantage IMO.

Again John has offered "us" the opportunity to have direct questions posed to any panelist by friendly members of the committee, this is "an awesome opportunity" for us.

You and Skall need, IMO, to get with others and guide this process. John offered to get the input of this forum's talents to a very effective use. If "we" squander this one it will not be on the PPA.


D$D