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

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Why the damn schism? Im a poker player because Im poor. Sports betting is as American, more skill-based, and better paying if youre capitalized in the medium 6 figures(and Pinnacle comes backto America).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the connection between large bankroll and favoring sports betting over poker. I think the best sports bettors say they can only get like 10% ROI long term. It's not hard to beat that if you're a good poker player at any stakes. I wouldn't say sports betting is more skill-based than poker. I also don't think it is as American as poker. Wagering on athletic events has been around for millenia, but poker is home grown in America.

But after listening to a couple of sports bettors on PokerRoad radio I am now convinced that sports betting is a skill practice. I kind of assumed that, but hearing professional sports bettors discuss their art cemeneted it. This is probably similar to how the PPA-sponsored pros are getting through to Congressman that poker is a skill game.

[Skallagrim]

As I have stated before, in no way am I against legal sports betting, and I do think that serious sports bettors are engaged in an activity of skill.

Their problem isnt the skill argument, their problem is the general consensus in this country that sports betting is BAD FOR SPORTS. The leading proponent of this argument is the very powerful sports leagues themselves - thats why there is an opt out provision for them in the Frank bill.

Given the leagues' political clout, there is no way sports betting will be made legal in this country anytime soon (unless the WTO sanctions are huge - and even then I worry that the leagues are powerful enough to force Congress to adopt the other out: all online gambling, including Horse racing and even state lotteries, becomes illegal).

I see no reason for the PPA or us poker players to take on sports betting's powerful enemies. So concentrating on POKER legislation is the smart move for us.

That sports bettors get upset when I say this is now routine...but too bad. We have enough difficulty getting our legislation moving forward (even though thanks mostly to the PPA, and to small extent our skill games argument, we are truly seeing positive results there, like the growing support of the Wexler bill mentioned above). One task we have no need to take on is convincing the general public and the legislators that legal sports betting would ALSO be good for America. If sports bettors can do that themselves, good for them.

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

Skall, I really doubt that the NBA, NFL, MLB and nhl, it is almost a minor sport, PGA etc. are powerful enough to kill all online gambling. Yesterday, someone, I think a Congressman, cited statistics that more people watch poker on TV than the NBA or MLB. I knew that more people watched poker than NHL, but not NBA or MLB. Also, the states depend on lotteries to balance their budgets. No way state lotteries are going offline.

[Skallagrim]

I hope you are right JP, I am just not so sure. If you are right, and the WTO hits the US with large penalties/concessions, then the online fight is over, we win.

If the WTO penalties and concessions are not that burdensome, or if you are wrong about the sports leagues, we will need some other argument to continue to advance our cause.

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

Skall, I basically agree with you. If the WTO does not grant Antiqua its requested IP sanction, then two bad events will occur.
One, the WTO will be rendered meaningless which could cause the international trade system to collapse. The last time that happened was in the late 1920's and was mostly caused by the Smoot-Hartley tariffs passed by our friendly politicians in Washington, D.C. This greatly contributed to the world wide Great Depression which greatly contributed to the rise of Adolf Hitler. Worse the US is much more dependent on international trade than in the 1920's or even the late 1960's when in a social studies class, we reviewed an article about how the US was almost self-sufficient. The next committee hearing badly needs an economist to point out to Rep. Goodblatte that we might not so easily survive ignoring the WTO.
Second, you are correct. We would have to resort to litigation and politicing for change which would greatly include your quite valid skill argument and other privacy arguments. In the political arena, we would have a tough time overcoming the sports leagues unless we could separate poker from gambling.
So, I really hope that the WTO grants the IP sanctions to Antiqua. I believe that would overcome the sports leagues because the music and entertainment industry are huge contributors to the Democrats. If the Republicans controlled Congress, then I would agree with you that not even IP sanctions would move them to act.
In conclusion, what a mess this is and all about a relatively minor issue. You would think that the WTO had told us that we had to permit all abortions, not all online gambling.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Skall, I really doubt that the NBA, NFL, MLB and nhl, it is almost a minor sport, PGA etc. are powerful enough to kill all online gambling. Yesterday, someone, I think a Congressman, cited statistics that more people watch poker on TV than the NBA or MLB. I knew that more people watched poker than NHL, but not NBA or MLB. Also, the states depend on lotteries to balance their budgets. No way state lotteries are going offline.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be as a selective use of information and just as mis-guided as the Foe of Fun guy's.

Combined professional sports draw a much larger audience than all forms of poker. How many live poker events draw a 100,000+ admission paying crowd? Even NASCAR does that 36 weeks out of the year.

Numbers are numbers and stats are tricky things.


D$D

[adanthar]

Skallagrim,

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we were talking about a 10+ year timeframe and the current political climate (Bush administration + Democratic Congress combo) were to be stable through that entire time, the skill game argument would be far better for us politically.

However, what we seem to be after right now is legalization prior to 2009. Critically, because 2008 is an election year and nothing controversial ever gets passed in one of those, the only way a reversal can possibly take place is if the WTO issue overrides that trend. Without that particular 800 pound gorilla in the room, it's a lost cause. (It really is. Right or wrong, nobody's going to stick up for any kind of internet gambling when the gamblers are up against the FOF in an election year. We'd be much better off with this argument in '09-'10, and preferably under a Democratic administration.) Therefore, to get what we want *now*, we have to stick as close to the WTO argument as possible.

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a gamble we have to make if we want to take this particular window of opportunity.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

First and foremost, this isn't going to happen because we've got that pesky horse racing exemption that isn't going away.
Second, it's a far, far better tactic to say "we need to pass this bill to be compliant with the WTO or lose $100 billion dollars over it" than "if we pass this, the WTO may or may not decide it's not enough."

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody said we need to keep this position for all time. In fact, if we're still here in '10, pressing for skill games will be a far better idea than it is right now. But if we want poker legalized within the next 12 months, the WTO case is by far our best opportunity to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like it any more than you do, but we are operating from a very much unforeseen position of strength, and one that is liable to evaporate the minute somebody from the Bush admin enters negotiations with various trade ministers at the table. In the short term, the skill game option sounds attractive but ignores our biggest asset.

[adanthar]

Incidentally, we don't need to fight the NFL. The way I read Antigua's (and Jay Cohen's) stance, Congress' washing its hands of the whole thing and leaving it up to the states is WTO-compliant. Of course, 49 states would immediately ban sports gambling, but that isn't our problem, and at *that* point, we can much more easily advance a skill game argument on the state level, unencumbered by federal bank regulations in the meantime.

[Jay Cohen]

Not quite, the WTO decision trumps the states. I posted this a few days ago.

States rights and state sovereignty don't carry any weight here. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause subordinates states’ rights to the national treaty power. When a nation enters into a treaty, it undertakes an international obligation that binds all of its organs (executive, legislative and judicial) and all its constituent jurisdictions (state and federal). A state is responsible for carrying out the obligations of an international agreement.

The US can't hide behind regional laws. I am told there have been cases brought by the US against other countries where other countries used provincial laws as a defense and the US made it clear that was not allowed.

If it happens in one town, it happens in the country.

But glad to have you aboard.

[TheEngineer]

Everyone,

I hope we'll use all the tools at our disposal. The skill argument is great for some states. In other arenas, we should focus on individual freedoms. Some legislators will support our freedom argument. Others will support poker but not games of chance. And, most supporters of explicit legalization are poker players, and squeaky wheels get grease.

Recall when Goodlatte said "(my) state (Virginia) offers "limited gambling"? Well, it's not like the vast majority of Virginians all supported having exactly that. Some wanted more, and some wanted less, so they ended up with something in the middle. Likewise, some want to legalize all Internet gaming, others wish to ban it all. We may end up explicitly legal as part of this implied compromise.

Finally, some in the industry see poker as being legal sooner than later. Check out the thread on Harrah's and MGM saying legalization for U.S.-based servers is on the horizon, at http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...=0#Post12975652 .