"Betting is pretty much like liquor: you can make it illegal, but you can't make it unpopular."
Arthur Baer
Howdy all and welcome to my inaugural post. I'm humbled to be joining some of my favorite writers here and I hope I can provide some mini-ubers (uberettes?) for your poker reading pleasure.
Of course, I'm insanely jealous of the PokerBlog crew, hanging out in Vegas, hobnobbing with poker elite. But because they are stuck in the vacuum that is Sin City, I thought that addressing all the latest news from around the interweb about the impending poker ban would be apropos. And perhaps spur some action from our readers.
Damnit, join the Poker Players Alliance today!
I'm still rather stunned that a poker ban looms. After all, poker is as American as apple pie and John Wayne movies. Maybe more so.
Will the American government really try to ban access to web sites?
Again, that's something that China does. Not the USA.
One would hope.
It's a slippery slope here, folks. I'm proselytizing here to encourage everyone out there to contact their Senator ASAP.
It's like bizarro world. Up is down. Black is white. Poker is bad.
That being said, let's see how the media is tackling this issue.
Oodles of interesting reads here for those wanting some perspective. Links all plucked lovingly by hand.
Online poker distances itself from sports betting
Insiders say the action is more evidence of a growing divide between the flourishing world of online poker and its black sheep cousin, sports betting - an activity with strong roots in organized crime.
PartyGaming defies US with ad campaign
Go Party!!
Spending by UK Consumers on Online Gambling is Expected to Reach GBP 1.6bn in 2010
Strong growth in UK consumer spending on online gambling from 2000 was initially generated by predominantly 'hard core' gamblers. However future growth will be driven by more leisure oriented consumers from 2006 as demonstrated by the emergence and growth of simpler gambling formats targeting the mass market, in particular gaming and lotto. For the first time gambling products are competing with other forms of mass entertainment for consumer attention and spending.
From Time Magazine, a brief article:
Risky Business
After U.S. authorities issue an indictment against one online gaming firm, could a broader crackdown follow?
Jeff Simpson sees dangerous trend in Nevada's inaction on growing online action
Jeff Simpson is deeply and profoundly retarded.
It's time for Nevada regulators to say enough is enough and prove they still have the backbone to stand up to the big money of online casinos.
All bets are off for online gambling
The sector and its investors need the US market, but operating there is a game of Russian roulette
Business As Usual for Party Poker
“I am delighted to announce that PartyGaming's performance in the three months to 30th June 2006 exceeded expectations with both poker and casino delivering strong performances in the seasonally quieter second quarter. I am particularly pleased by our continued international expansion with 46% of our new real money poker sign-ups and 24% of our overall revenue in the quarter coming from outside the US.”
Net Gambling Feels Aftershocks
Tiny Antigua challenges the U.S., while concerned marketers seek legal answers.
More good news here per Party Gaming:
PartyGaming bullish despite US online gambling turmoil
From ABC News:
Online Gambling Conference Shuts Down After Arrests
The recent arrest of a online gaming executive seems to have spooked online gaming executives. A major gaming conference, scheduled for next week in Las Vegas, has been cancelled.
Speaking on the BetonSports ex-CEO arrest, as of today, all of their sites have gone dark.
http://www.mvpsportsbook.com/
http://www.mvppoker.com
http://www.popularpoker.com/
http://www.bospoker
The NY Times reports on the stunning arrest:
Online Gambling Industry Reels After Arrest
Per the BetonSports.com Indictment, I just read the indictment against David Carruthers and others. Two
interesting things I noted: 1) the government is seeking forfeiture of $4.5 billion and 2) the government defined their computers as gambling paraphernalia because they were used for bookmaking.
If anyone wants to read the indictment, they can find it here.
Moving along, here's the remnants of the WTO decision against the US:
W.T.O. Panel Will Investigate U.S. Limits on Online Gambling
The President of the PPA had his letter to the editor printed in USA Today. Kudos.
Online gambling could roll in big payoff
Here's a snippet of an article in the esteemed magazine, The Economist, about the inanity of this legislation.
Texas hold 'em
American attempts to ban online gambling are self-defeating and hypocritical"If you want to put the industry in the hands of dodgy dealers registered in Tuvalu or Vanuatu, if you want to guarantee websites without protection for children or restraints on compulsive gamblers, if you want to help money laundering and fraud, then prohibition is the policy for you."
"Registered, branded, taxed gambling companies are not perfect protection against the excesses of betting, but they are the best there is."
Anyone else find it ironic that the most intelligent stance in Congress when they debated this bill was from Barney Frank, the openly gay congressman from Massachusetts?
After a parade of Republicans ignorantly spouting off the same quotation from that University of Illinois "expert" professor ("You click your mouse, then you lose your house!") and the parable about the Lehigh student who attempted to rob a bank (allegedly because of his online gambling debt), it was Frank who stood
up on C-Span and spoke for the silent majority.
Everyone continues to say there is no social benefit to online gambling, Frank said (and I paraphrase here). "But how about THIS social benefit: There are responsible, adult Americans who enjoy doing it. And if they choose to do it and nobody is getting hurt by it, who are we in this body to say they shouldn't be
allowed to?"
More excellent news from Party:
PartyGaming not fearful of prosecution
Online-betting operator's quarterly revenue rises 49%
PartyGaming's chief executive said Friday that he doesn't expect the indictment against BetOnSports and the arrest of the latter's CEO to have any significant impact on the world's biggest online poker and casino operator.
Good grief, here's an article by Senator Kyl supporting the online poker ban. Hey - there's a lil comment box thingy at the end of the article! Have fun and go light on the vitriol.
Internet Gambling: A Bad 'Deal'
Reading his column just made me sigh heavily.
Curious how your Representative voted on the Anti-Internet Gambling Bill?
Here's the link showing the House roll call vote for the bill, the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act". If you don't know who representative is, go to:
US House of Representatives.
I found this insightful post in a poker forum that provided some behind the scenes information about the attempt to pass this bill in the Senate:
The August recess runs from Aug 3 or 4 September 4. It is possible that the Senate will adjourn earlier than Aug 4, but it is not at all likely that it will reconvene prior to Sept 5 (unless major events force it to do so). The Senate will probably stay in session until the first week of October, and then will break for the elections, reconvening in late November to wrap up unfinished business.
Ueland's quote does sound defeatist to be honest. The article linked to is also good news for those opposing the bill. The fact that Kyl made an effort to pass the bill by unanimous consent (e.g. without a vote), and someone objected means that there very well could be holds on the bill. If not, then the objection was just a one-time objection. Thing is, if it was only a one-time deal, they'd try the UC again a few days later, which does not seem to be happening.
I'll scan the Congressional Record online to see if there was a UC request on the floor to pass the bill, or if this was just a behind the scenes objection (meaning 90% of the time there is a hold -- which would be tremendous news for bill opponents).
EDIT: After searching, I don't see any UC requests or objections in the Cong. Record. What must have happened was that the leadership sent out a notice to all Senate offices indicating its intent to call up the bill, and at least one office called in and objected ahead of time. Usually when this happens, the leaders stop there and do not go to the floor with the bill.
Another interesting tidbit: the bill was held at the desk under Rule XIV, which is generally done for bills that are meant never to go through Committee. This is usually a fast-track procedure, and it appears Frist did in fact try to move the bill very rapidly through the Senate (and failed).
One final link: some positive perspective from the Wall Street Journal, of all places. Gotta love it.
Web Gamblers Have Little to Fear From Crackdown on BetOnSports
Whew, that took awhile. Lord knows there's even more to point out but I hope this shall suffice for now.
Allow me to leave you with this Outstanding 2+2 post entitled:
Communicating effectively about online poker: do's and don'ts
-------------------------------
I've seen quite a few posts here in the forum dedicated to development and discussion of arguments that might be used against the Internet gambling bill. While most of these arguments have been intended as rhetorical devices used in the course of letters to Senators, some have been advertised as legal arguments to be made in a court challenge to the bill should it be signed into law. My purpose in posting this evening is to briefly evaluate the flaws associated with most arguments put forth already, and to suggest a few arguments that do a much better job of communicating a pro-poker message.
DON'Ts:
1.) Legal arguments are a waste of time for the vast majority of participants in this forum. Unless you are an attorney with a great deal of knowledge about Commerce Clause litigation and the Wire Act, don't bother with suggestions or discussion of legal arguments meant to derail the bill should it become law. The law does not have to make sense, it does not have to "respect your right to spend your money however you please," and it does not have to treat poker and day trading equitably, even if they appear to be substantially similar activities. Accept these things, and the fact that folks with a great deal of training and expertise will be the ones to resolve any legal questions, and move on. Your time is better spent on other matters.
2.) Arguing that the proposed legislation should be blocked because it would "infringe on your rights" or that it constitutes "nanny government" may satisfy your inner libertarian urge, but such points will not secure the respect or attention of the people you are trying to convince. Likewise, arguing that the bill would "legislate morality," or constitutes some kind of "awful Republican power grab for political gain" may make you feel good, but they will not advance your cause when trying to persuade staff members, Senators, and other stakeholders. The odds are that most folks with a say in whether this bill becomes law are naturally predisposed to distrust gambling, comfortable with limiting freedoms in the name of a particular cause (morality, anti-terrorism, safety, etc.), and perfectly willing to codify at least some moral norms into law. In crafting an argument to persuade them, you will have to work very hard to just appear worth listening to. If you get it right, and have a little bit of luck, the right argument might just help them form a pro-poker opinion. That is your aim, right?
3.) Don't assume your audience will understand poker as anything more than a card game where several people play against each other for money. For the most part, they will not understand EV, the economics of the online game, or anything else that might be relevant, and any attempt to educate them on these subjects is likely destined to fail. You will not need your audience to have an advanced understanding of the game to get your point across -- trust me.
4.) Don't argue that the bill will be impossible to enforce, or that it somehow lacks the funding to cover the costs of enforcement. Nobody will listen to these arguments, whether they are true or not. So don't waste your time.
DOs:
1.) Distinguish poker from other forms of gambling. You may care about your right to play online blackjack, but my advice is to give ground where you can in order to appear reasonable, and forgo battles that are already lost. Sports betting and casino-style games are areas where a strong consensus among policy makers has developed, and you will not, no matter how eloquent you are, be able to overturn that consensus. Poker, however, does not appear to be thought of in quite the same manner as the two previously mentioned forms of gambling, and for that you should be very thankful. Indeed, poker deserves to be though of differently -- it does not pit players directly against the casino, it is social in that participants play against one another and benefit from picking up "tells" and such, it is uniquely American in its roots, and it has been enjoyed in homes, bars, casinos, and other venues by law-abiding citizens in every corner of America for decades. The Internet merely gives players to bring that same entertainment experience to the digital age, and bluffing a good friend is no different at the kitchen table than it is online. Many Senators and staff members have probably gathered with friends for "poker night" at some point in their lives, and they will understand these differentiating qualities. For this reason, I believe it is entirely possible that a successful campaign could be waged to carve poker out from the bill's purview. Some of PPA's work thus far has specifically targeted this outcome. On the merits, sports betting and casino games are dead -- it is only a matter of time before they are prohibited, but poker has a fighting chance to escape that fate, and individuals who are interested in continuing to be able to play online should realize this and focus on it in their communications.
2.) Highlight your responsible use of online poker playing opportunities, and show examples of other entertainment options you believe to be similar. Players need to humanize online poker if they want to succeed in the rhetorical wars being waged on Capitol Hill. The "click the mouse and lose your house" phrase casts a very chilling image of online gaming, and the stories of individuals going bankrupt or committing suicide after racking up huge debts are definitely having a (justified, in my view) effect on how legislators view online gaming. Your task is to show the other side of the issue, doing so in terms they will understand and view as normal. The PokerStars commercials offer a very good look at how to do this -- they show regular guys who have families and jobs, and who just like to play a little poker in their spare time. For the vast majority of 2+2ers, the stakes you play online are potentially another thing to mention, since most posters are true small stakes players. If you play NL games where the ante (don't say blinds, they won't get it) is $0.25, say so. If you play 2/4 limit hold'em, explain that the biggest bet possible in your game is $4. This kind of information will take the fangs out of the big, bad poker beast that some legislators may come to see in light of the rhetoric coming from Rep. Goodlatte's side of the debate.
3.) If you agree with elements of the bill, or the concept that online gambling should be regulated in some manner (and many of you won't), say so and explain why. Doing this will make your concern about poker all the more legitimate in its appearance, as you will be coming off the untenable position that the government has no business getting involved in these matters. Your goal is to come across as a reasonable person, and admitting that some regulation might be a healthy thing -- either by way of taxation and government oversight, or outright banning of only the more pernicious forms of gambling (roulette, sports betting) -- definitely helps make you appear reasonable. Your goal is not to change the generally anti-gambling consensus in Washington, it is to work within that consensus to protect poker.
4.) Point out the inherent flaws in the current bill, if you see any. You might, for instance, argue (as many House members did) that the bill contradicts itself by outlawing some forms of gambling while protecting others. Encourage skepticism in the minds of the people you are trying to convince as to why those contradictions exist, as they may just agree with you. If you are so inclined, point out the impact the bill may have on costs to Internet Service Providers and small banks -- heck, have your neighbor, who is a manager at community bank x or local ISP y co-sign your letter. Senators and staff members stomach bad policy all the time when they have to (e.g. they won't vote against a bill providing funding for the troops just because a bad amendment containing tax breaks for Enron is included), but on fringe legislation like this, when there isn't some national push for action (and far as I can tell on this issue there isn't), they tend to be a lot more likely to oppose action on bad policy. This is even more true when time is short, as it is towards the end of the session.
I hope these suggestions help. Some may not agree with them, but from my perspective, they are the best approach to take for those who oppose regulation or prohibition of online poker.
