Do Online Poker sites need a ruling/ governing body?

[BurnleyMik]

After some recent discussion, I have decided to ask the members to cast their vote and give some reasons behind the thinking.

I know that the Kahnawake Gaming Comission is available, but I am led believe that they are very slow and also not very affective in regards to the online sites (please correct me if I am wrong here, this is only what I could gather) .There have been recent posts highlighting problems with Online Sites not really having anyone to answer to and nowhere for the individual players to go if they have a problem. Now some sites have been dealing with these issues to try and improve for the future, but others have not. What I want to know is what YOU the players actually think?

Please give your reasons for you vote to help give a clearer picture.

[BurnleyMik]

I personally believe that if a regulatory body was setup it could help. here are a few of my ideas:

1. The player has someone to 'turn to' if they have a problem with a site or the actions of a site.

2. The body could be used to help reduce fraud by improving communication between sites, thus allowing them to be aware of the new scams in progress etc.

3. Would help to improve the image of online gambling/poker.

4. Would give the consumer peice of mind when signing up to poker sites.

Those are just a few I could think of right now. I am sure there are more, but I am also sure there are negatives sides to this argument as well...... What are your thoughts?

[2461Badugi]

FWIW, eCOGRA, Casinomeister, and Poker Room Review are all trying to fill this function in one way or another. Each of them is much more effective than KGC, which is effectively a licensing body without any real regulatory machinery.

I'm more in favor of learning from their experiences than picking one of them and relying on it. But my point is that there is some organized activity in this direction already out there. It's worthy of study if you're trying to figure out what your ideal regulatory agency is.

[BurnleyMik]

I was not aware of those guys. Thankyou for that. I will take a look at them.

Just a quick edit, can these guys have any influence over decisions made at online sites, in relation to player issues?

[Yakuman]

The Kahnawake Gaming Commission is not necessarily a safe bet. The Canadian government claims that it -- and the server farm that pumps out all those gaming sites -- violate the Criminal Code. It simply has not taken action, but it could do so at any moment.

[Yakuman]

There's the Interactive Gaming Council, which acts as a trade association.

www.igcouncil.org

[ShakeZula06]

Being the main opponent against this idea, just wanted to say some things.

If one wants to know what happens when a market is heavily regulated, you need look no further then healthcare in America. Prices rise, competition is stiffled, the big guys affect regulation to hurt the small guys (and occasionally the other way around), and services are not bettered as quickly as without regulation.

Poker sites do not need regulation. The ways sites are 'regulated' is by the consumer in a free market. Take for instance the Eric thread that prompted this discussion between me and OP. Had it turned out FTP was real shady on it, how does that effect their player base and thus profits? In pure capitalism people make money by providing something of value for someone else. Online poker rooms providing security, fair rules, fair games, etc is not an exception. If I had a $1 for every time someone said they trust poker stars with their life I'd <Insert stupid comment about being rich here>.

However I will say I'm in favor of some type of regulatory body under the stipulation that it doesn't have an ability to penalize a site for not abiding by it's rules. In other words, A site can choose to be regulated by the body. Hell, there may be a market in having a super consumer advocacy group that allows players to have a collectively large voice in effecting policy of sites through voluntary means.

The free market FTW.

[BurnleyMik]

Yeah I do actually like the idea of the companies being able to choose if the join or not. this would then have the knock-on effect of allowing the players to decide if they join a site that is regulated or not (remember that it would probably be more expensive to play at a regulated site), but it would give them the choice. I personally would not mind paying that little bit extra on the rake etc to have that peice of mind. Any further ideas here?

Nice post shake.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Hell, there may be a market in having a super consumer advocacy group that allows players to have a collectively large voice in effecting policy of sites through voluntary means.

[/ QUOTE ]

fwiw, in a sense, the 2+2 forums (and others) serve this function.

[Wetdog]

There does need to be some regulatory body to police the sites just as there is in banking, insurance, stock brokerage, B&M, lotteries and horse racing in order to gain credibility with lawmakers and the public at large. There will always be Erics and Pokerspots as long as there is money to be had. Regulation of sites and players will keep the game's integrity off the radar screen of those who would try to destroy it.