A/C in Action: The AP Case

[Exsubmariner]

Dear Politics Forum,
I've been doing some reflecting about the kerfluffle going on with Absolute Poker. I would like to make a case that this is actually a study of how AC works in the real world.

Online poker is, for all intents and purposes, an unregulated market with relatively low barriers to entry. It is exactly the kind of open market one might expect to find in AC wonderland.

Now, AC hinges on the operative theory of man's basic good nature and the ability of the market to self regulate against bad actors. Bad actors being the companies that do harm to the environment, their customers, or their competition through less than ethical business practices.

In the case of Absolute Poker, we have exactly that scenario. There is a bad actor who has cheated its clients out of money through deceptive practices and presented an obviously false front of integrity.

The market has reacted. The hue and cry has been raised. The concerned customers are spontaneously organizing to spread the word of the fraud. The market is working exactly as the market should.

Only, Absolute Poker is still in business. Most of its customers uninformed, and unaware. There is no mechanism to verify its assurances that it will clean up its act, no way of knowing if the activity is still taking place, and no way of knowing who is even in charge. This situation shows no sign of changing in the immediate and forseeable future.

A real life example of a fundamental theory behind AC (that is, the self regulating market) is evident in the case of the AP scandal.

I say this incident makes a very strong case for the very real world need of law, government, and regulation.

Discuss.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I say this incident makes a very strong case for the very real world need of law, government, and regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's sort of a free market in intarweb poker, if you ignore the fact that the most sopisticated, reputable gaming companies in the world are effectively excluded from the market due to government regulation.

</thread>

[tomdemaine]

Risk of getting scammed playing online poker = X where x>0. Some people have tolerance for high levels of X you seem to have a slightly lower tolerance some people have no tolerance at all. What right do you have to impose you risk tolerance on others? If I want to play poker doing no research beforehand about widely publicized scams so be it. The time it takes to look stuff up isn't worth the extra risk to me. It is to you and that's great. What if (for a crazy example) some people thought that any amount of risk of being scammed online shouldn't be tolerated and tried to impose their risk levels onto you by banning online gaming?

[Misfire]

To make a fair comparison, you'd have to show that this type of thing would not have happened under regulation. Despite stringent regulation, however, we've seen numerous examples of corporations defrauding customers and/or investors in much the same way. Peter Popoff is back on TV selling religious snake-oil. Head-On (which is 99.9999% wax) is still on the shelf at Walgreen's. Universal life insurance is still legal to sell as an "investment product." Worse than all that, we still have Social Security.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I say this incident makes a very strong case for the very real world need of law, government, and regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's sort of a free market in intarweb poker, if you ignore the fact that the most sopisticated, reputable gaming companies in the world are effectively excluded from the market due to government regulation.

</thread>

[/ QUOTE ]

To this point, I feel compelled to say that back when the internet was "outlawed" for the most sophisticated and reputable gaming companies in the world, none of them were actually participating. In fact, they had pretty much missed the boat on the whole show. It was widely speculated that the first move to "outlaw" such activity in the US was in fact the first step toward the legalization and regulation of such activity so the companies and US Government could get their cut.

Once again, you have managed to bring something up that is completely tangent, but related, and managed to avoid addressing the content of the argument altogether.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
What if (for a crazy example) some people thought that any amount of risk of being scammed online shouldn't be tolerated and tried to impose their risk levels onto you by banning online gaming?



[/ QUOTE ]

Well, first of all, I stopped playing online back around the time the whole Neteller thing happened. That was the end of the road for me.

About your question, that has already happened.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
To make a fair comparison, you'd have to show that this type of thing would not have happened under regulation. Despite stringent regulation, however, we've seen numerous examples of corporations defrauding customers and/or investors in much the same way. Peter Popoff is back on TV selling religious snake-oil. Head-On (which is 99.9999% wax) is still on the shelf at Walgreen's. Universal life insurance is still legal to sell as an "investment product." Worse than all that, we still have Social Security.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty funny.

My retort is that under regulation, law suits are possible against the perpetrators. Who is suing Absolute Poker? Who can sue? Who can be prosecuted? Who is going to be prosecuted? The answer to all those questions is no one.

Regulation may not prevent such things from happening, but recourse is possible.

Possible is better than not possible.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Head-On (which is 99.9999% wax) is still on the shelf at Walgreen's.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, if you watch the head-on commercial, it never actaully makes any claims about what the product does. Some of the newer products from that company DO make claims, but those products actually have active ingredients in them.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I say this incident makes a very strong case for the very real world need of law, government, and regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's sort of a free market in intarweb poker, if you ignore the fact that the most sopisticated, reputable gaming companies in the world are effectively excluded from the market due to government regulation.

</thread>

[/ QUOTE ]

To this point, I feel compelled to say that back when the internet was "outlawed" for the most sophisticated and reputable gaming companies in the world, none of them were actually participating. In fact, they had pretty much missed the boat on the whole show. It was widely speculated that the first move to "outlaw" such activity in the US was in fact the first step toward the legalization and regulation of such activity so the companies and US Government could get their cut.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait - you first say that "back when the internet was outlawed for these companies" which implies that they were permitted to operate online. Then you say this action was a first step towards legalization which implies that they were NOT permitted to do so.

Which is it?

Perhaps you should get your story straight before slinging this:

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, you have managed to bring something up that is completely tangent, but related, and managed to avoid addressing the content of the argument altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm addressing your argument head-on. When you exclude legitimate business, you get scumbags filling the demand. Have you ever wondered why crack dealers shoot each other, but Bud and Miller delivery agents do not?

[plzleenowhammy]

many ppl have the mentality that.. "if ap was really not legit the govt would do something about it!".. ppl rely on govt now and as long as the govt hasn't kicked down mark seif's door most ppl think it's safe..

also, when did it come out that ap was crooked? it's a fairly recent development isn't it... give it some time.

if nothing else, i don't play there..