EZC-Boston Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Good points made here: http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/news_...class=PokerNews
Bill from NYC Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 This is a classic case of the chickens coming home to roost. Perhaps some of the people who were cheering the smoking ban (in bars) will suddenly wake up as YOUR rights are being swept away. Then again, perhaps not.
Fezmid Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 This is a classic case of the chickens coming home to roost. Perhaps some of the people who were cheering the smoking ban (in bars) will suddenly wake up as YOUR rights are being swept away. Then again, perhaps not. 793002[/snapback] Huge difference there though. Smoking in a building has a negative influence on my health. Me playing poker in my house has no impact on you at all. That said, I never really minded places having a smoking section and a non-smoking section, as long as they weren't right next to each other so I didn't have to inhale the smoke. CW
meazza Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 The ban on online poker is complete bull sh--, but i think a lot of it has to do with the amount of fraud that takes place, so it kinda makes sense. If Jim Smith goes to vegas and blows jr's college fund, thats his fault, and he has to face the music. Now if Jim Smith goes online and loses 20K on party poker, he can just call up his credit card company and say..."My card # was stolen online and someone used it to play online poker." Now he's in the clear and only on the hook for $50. 792685[/snapback] That is not the problem. The problem lies in the fact that it is not regulated which is something that is a no-no in this world we live in. Thankfully, they haven't passed the legislation in Canada yet.
meazza Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 But that's not the point - for most people, it's simply entertainment. If I win a few bucks, great. If not, I still had fun. How is it any different than spending a few bucks for some beers? This isn't about "protecting the citizens from addiction," it's about Vegas lobbyists paying government to enact this law, and is also about the fact that the government can't figure out how to tax it. No tax revenue = ban. CW 792767[/snapback] Exactly. How many people do you guys know that lose their life savings on texas hold em. It is one of the only games where the odds aren't so enormously in the favour of the house. It's actually fun because you're betting against other players rather than a house. Now on the other hand, roulette, craps, black jack and poker in casino's is a good place to lose your life savings yet you don't see a ban on that
EZC-Boston Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Exactly. How many people do you guys know that lose their life savings on texas hold em. It is one of the only games where the odds aren't so enormously in the favour of the house. It's actually fun because you're betting against other players rather than a house. Now on the other hand, roulette, craps, black jack and poker in casino's is a good place to lose your life savings yet you don't see a ban on that 793040[/snapback] i don't know anybody that has lost their life savings playing hold em but it sure as hell is possible and people are retarded so I'm sure it happens. They play some high limit stuff online and there is always that temptation.
meazza Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 i don't know anybody that has lost their life savings playing hold em but it sure as hell is possible and people are retarded so I'm sure it happens. They play some high limit stuff online and there is always that temptation. 793042[/snapback] Sure. In any gambling environment there is a risk of high loss. But compare roulette for example to hold-em. At least you could make an intelligent decision about how to gamble at hold em while roulette is completely random.
Bill from NYC Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Huge difference there though. Smoking in a building has a negative influence on my health. Me playing poker in my house has no impact on you at all. That said, I never really minded places having a smoking section and a non-smoking section, as long as they weren't right next to each other so I didn't have to inhale the smoke. CW 793015[/snapback] Yeah well, I was more concerned about the rights of the actual owner of the private property (a bar, not a health spa) than I was about your likes and dislikes. Besides, if you lose all of your money playing poker, a case could be made that the lives of others (within YOUR private property) will be impacted in a negative way. Keep fiddling while Rome burns.
Fan in San Diego Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 They should ban religion ! It is far more hazardous to peoples health and welfare ! Look at how many have died so far over religion ! I'm with John Lennon on this issue !
Fezmid Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 i don't know anybody that has lost their life savings playing hold em but it sure as hell is possible and people are retarded so I'm sure it happens. 793042[/snapback] As opposed to people who lose their life savings (or their life in general) due to alcohol consumption? Bring back prohibition? CW
bills_fan Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 As opposed to people who lose their life savings (or their life in general) due to alcohol consumption? Bring back prohibition? CW Exactly, where does it end? The slippery slope at work. When do we simply say that social darwinism exists and allow it to takle its natural course, as opposed to the quasi-communist police state we seem to be headed for?
Bill from NYC Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Exactly, where does it end? The slippery slope at work. When do we simply say that social darwinism exists and allow it to takle its natural course, as opposed to the quasi-communist police state we seem to be headed for? 793217[/snapback] Bravo!
ieatcrayonz Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Jeepers! When does the ban start? I just flopped a Royal Flush. Hurry up and bet.
The Tomcat Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 i can see a ban on bikinis on US beaches soon...THINK OF THE CHILDREN 792539[/snapback] OH THE HUMANITY!!!
JimBob2232 Posted October 2, 2006 Posted October 2, 2006 Few things you guys are missing. 1) The bill passed was NOT an anti-internet gambling bill. The bill passed was a bill for Port Security. This was a major peice of legislation, and one with unanimous bipartisan support. At the last minute, a rider was attached to this bill for internet gambling. Obviously nothing to do with port security. This is why the bill was passed unanimously in the senate. Also good proof of the need for a line item veto. 2) The legislation itself does not appear to limit online gambling. What it does do is limit how funds get transfered to and from such sites, and makes it difficult to transfer funds without an off-shore bank account. 3) Internet gambling IS ALREADY illegal. However, poker is widely considered a game of skill, and is typically exempt from such restrictions. I suspect a legal battle may ensue over this "game of skill" Make no doubt about it, this will kill the online poker industry (at least in the US). Wont be long until sites stop dealing with american consumers. Pathetic.
Fezmid Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 3) Internet gambling IS ALREADY illegal. Actually, internet gambling is a definate gray area that has never really been challenged. The tricky part is that the gambling is being done overseas -- not in the States. There's a law that says you can't use telephone lines to place bets -- but that's an old law and doesn't really apply to the internet since it doesn't use phone lines (anymore). So nobody has challenged it one way or another. I'm not a lawyer, but this is what i've gathered from my online reading over the years. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled[2] in November 2002 that the Federal Wire Act prohibits electronic transmission of information for sports betting across state lines but affirmed a lower court ruling[3] that the Wire Act "'in plain language' does not prohibit Internet gambling 'on a game of chance.'" CW
taterhill Posted October 3, 2006 Author Posted October 3, 2006 gaming stocks nice haircut for some of the better known gaming stocks....
EZC-Boston Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 As opposed to people who lose their life savings (or their life in general) due to alcohol consumption? Bring back prohibition? CW 793208[/snapback] Hey I'm not for the ban, I'm just saying there are plenty of ways for stupid people to waste their money...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Frist, I hope it hurts when you die. 793535[/snapback] Over online poker?
Recommended Posts