Shouldn't We Be Focusing On The Poker Carve Out?

David Sklansky · #1 10-05-2006, 11:34 AM

Keeping in my that I am breaking my usual rule and offering an opinion on a subject I'm not well versed in.

It seems to me that that arguments for internet poker, perhaps regulated in a way not previously done, are a lot stronger than arguments for allowing unfettered internet casino gambling.

The possibility of fly by night foreign internet casinos cheating children, or not paying, or ruining thousands of compulsive gamblers, would persuade the average American to stop it a lot more than the esoteric political or philosophical arguments on the other side.

Poker on the other hand is a lot less likely to have these problems. Plus it is a game that teaches many traits used in life. Thus the average American is a lot more likely to give their blessing to intenet poker sites.

Before this legislation passed, poker sites were reluctant to stress their differences with internet casinos because they wanted to use all the arguments available to them without appearing disingenuous. But it is now clear that most American's aren't concerned about technical arguments that Libertarian types put forth. They are concerned about foreign, unregulated casinos that don't pay taxes.

If poker players spout these libertarian type arguments in their quest to play poker on the internet they are likely hurting their cause. The arguments that will work apply only to poker. I think we should focus on that. (Not to mention the argument that the present bill doesn't even apply to poker. I don't know enough to comment.)

disjunction · #2 10-05-2006, 11:38 AM

I agree.

Especially with paragraphs 1-4, although I am still up in the air about paragraphs 5 and 6. Mr. Sklansky you are on a roll today.

xorpheous · #3 10-05-2006, 11:39 AM

If you make a carve out for poker as a game of skill, does that mean that a carve out for blackjack should be made as well?

chopchoi · #4 10-05-2006, 02:45 PM

online blackjack is not a game of skill, insofar as it cannot be beaten.

suzzer99 · #5 10-05-2006, 03:07 PM

I think the time to be on the ball and get the poker carve-out was *before* the damn bill got written - like the horse racing lobby and NFL obviously did.

Xhad · #6 10-05-2006, 04:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
online blackjack is not a game of skill, insofar as it cannot be beaten.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah if online blackjack is a skill game so is online pai gow

toybux · #7 10-05-2006, 04:58 PM

I think a lot of people fail to realize how many people play poker in the US. It is many tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions. Given poker's popularity, there are probably more people than we'd expect to favor exempting poker. I would be interested in more detailed info about the number and regularity of US poker players.

AlexM · #8 10-05-2006, 06:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think a lot of people fail to realize how many people play poker in the US. It is many tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tens. We barely even have multiple hundreds of millions.

martindcx1e · #9 10-05-2006, 06:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you make a carve out for poker as a game of skill, does that mean that a carve out for blackjack should be made as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

aren't blackjack players doomed to lose in the longrun still? doesn't the house still have an advantage?

AlexM · #10 10-05-2006, 06:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you make a carve out for poker as a game of skill, does that mean that a carve out for blackjack should be made as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

aren't blackjack players doomed to lose in the longrun still? doesn't the house still have an advantage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you use the normal single deck rules of the game. Online casinos almost certainly shuffle after every hand though, making them unbeatable. Even in a B&M casino though, someone playing correctly to beat the house will eventually get caught and banned from the casino and possibly blacklisted from others.