Post by wtfadam on Jan 27, 2008 8:11:13 GMT -4
Some random thoughts by me.
Where do candidates stand with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA)?
I know senator John McCain (R) is a big supporter of the bill. I know that Governor Deval Patrick (D) is trying to ban online poker in Massachusetts by including it on a bill to allow casinos to be built. One of the things the good governor misses is the fact that a good percentage of the people who would like a casino here in Massachusetts are in fact online poker players.
Being that this is an election year for our new president, how do people like myself who enjoy playing poker online in the comfort of their own home find out where all our candidates stand on the online poker issue? This seems to not be a democrat or a republican clear cut issue, but rather a personal one. Is prohibition really better then regulation? Does our government really not need the extra tax money?
With the internet growing into a larger tool for the American people to utilize at home each year does it really seem fit to ban online poker? The I.R.S considers a poker player to be of a “legal profession”. Along with the ever growing awareness for the need to be “greener” for a healthier environment, does it truly make sense for people to be traveling across state lines spending a ridiculous amount of time and money while polluting the environment, when they could be spending a quarter of that time and money while being at home with their families?
There are multiple parts to this bill giving us reasons as to why this is “good for us”. Please consider the following:
1) We need to stop teenagers from stealing their parents’ credit cards to play poker online. If your teenager is stealing your credit card for any reason, you have a much larger issue than the balance on your credit card. Do we need the government telling us how to raise our children?
2) We need to prevent people from running up high bills on their credit cards. This issue had been addressed already by credit card companies (code 7995) as they had already stopped allowing such charges (late 2001).
Are the American consumers any less in debt now then they where before the bill passed?
3) It’s much too easy for people with gambling problems to fall “off the wagon” and get into big trouble. Is it easier than an alcoholic stopping at a convenience store to buy milk sitting in a refrigerator right next to a cooler stocked with beer? Is it really that much easier to transfer money to a gambling site than it is to go grocery shopping and go walking by that long aisle filled to the brim with every kind of alcohol a true alcoholic could ask for without grabbing a case and throwing it into the cart? If there are more new AA members each year then GA members, why aren’t we banning alcohol?
4) We need to ban games of chance. That pretty much sounds like every game ever made in the world. Sorry kids, no more Chutes and Ladders. Of course games involving money exchanges are different, but the point is well taken. Poker is much like golf or chess in that it requires people to think about what they and their opponents are doing. There is no easier game of chance then the state lottery's instant quick pick; all you need to do is have the ability to ask for it. With scratch tickets, there is no secret way to scratch them or any special order in which the government hides the winning tickets in each book, as much as we all wish to think so.
The bill says that horse racing is not considered a game of chance. How is it not a game of chance? How does one pick a horse to win? Number nine’s great, great; great grandfather won a race back in 1932? Who would know these things anyways? I’ll just bet on the pretty brown one.
Fantasy sports are not considered gambling? I’m buying into a league with hopes of winning more money than I paid to get into it. Sounds like gambling to me! Now we have the playoff fantasy league where one could win Superbowl tickets. With Superbowl tickets selling for as high as $15,000 each, is there no cap for this game?
How is paying to enter an online poker tournament any different than paying to enter a bowling, golf or dart tournament? You use chips, clubs, balls or darts to get into the prize money.
Bingo is hidden by one of those “it’s for charity” things. I have yet to meet a little old lady that’s going there to “just donate” her money to a good cause.
Now here are some numbers for your perusal:
Take into account the fact that for every one hour you play online at one table you would have to play for about four hours at a casino to see and play the same amount of hands. Example: for myself to play online for one hour a day I would have to spend about four hours sitting at the table at the local casino. I live just about two hours away. I would have to drive two hours to be able to sit down and play for four hours and then have to drive back two hours just to equal one hour of playing online at one table in my home. Keep in mind that it's very easy for most people to be playing two or three tables at once online.
At home one is able to play around their daily schedule (kids are sleeping, wife or husband is working late or out with friends). Having the flexibility to pick and choose when they play is a major factor in people playing. It's much easier and more cost effective for one to set up and follow a budget to play at home then it is at a local casino (If they even have one locally). Sitting down and playing online at a nickel and dime table (.01/.02 tables available at most sites) with only 2 or 3 dollars is much more comfortable then sitting down at a local casino with 200 or 300 dollars at their $1./$2. tables (lowest price tables available at a brick and mortar building).
If I did not have the online playing option, I would have to spend money for gas and wear and tear on my automobile (meanwhile polluting the environment), buying food while I'm there for lunch or dinner (time away from the table), buying something to drink, playing at a level ($1/2 blinds) that I am not comfortable with playing at financially (no choice to play lower stakes) and be risking a lot more money that I can afford to risk. But most importantly it's seven hours away from my family!
As a middle class family, we cannot afford to be risking a few hundred bucks a week to play at a local casino, however fifty dollars a month on a budget at home for online poker is very reasonable. By banning online poker, the statement being made is that poker is a rich person's game and that the middle and lower class people don't have the right to play. Online poker is much like how and why they started offering public golf courses. It allowed the general public with little or no knowledge of the game to go and be able to learn how to play at an affordable cost. If there were nothing but private golf courses, then most current amateur golfers wouldn’t be playing.
When the news first broke of the bill being passed I heard the news station saying it had passed to prevent people from gambling away what they didn’t have. You couldn’t use credit cards and you are not allowed to bet or gamble with money you don’t have in your account. How does this save people from themselves? One of the greatest misconceptions with online gambling is that it is set up just like how one would call up the bookie on the corner and tell him you wanted to bet $2000 on the pats and if you lose, then Gino and his brothers are going to be by to collect. If you had $2000 in your online account then it’s akin to just spending that $2000 on scratch tickets and not getting one winner.
Life is all about gambling and taking chances. I equate it with going to school and racking up years of student loans that you’ll be paying for the next 10-20 years in hopes of some day having your chance at getting your dream job, voting for that person in hopes that they are going to be the one to best fill your needs in government, being a farmer and betting all of next year’s income that this years crops will be better then last year’s; the professional sports franchise that risks its entire future on the hopes that their first round draft pick will pan out, the Celtics have yet to recover from their set back. Sony gambles the stock holder’s money every fifth year when they come out with a new gaming system and they lose a couple hundred million dollars each quarter until the cost’s finally come down and the system takes off. It is also like the police officer who puts on that uniform and hopes it’s not his or her last time to be able kiss their spouse and children goodbye. There are a lot more important things in life than money. Everyone works so that they can spend their money on something, whether its food, shelter or material things.
Probably the greatest gamble ever taken was a man named Columbus who had to be crazy as a loon but yet was able to convince people to fund him to sail off into the sunset and happened upon this little rock in the ocean later to be called America.
The government says that they are trying to protect the American people from making poor choices in their lives. Some of the greatest American success stories come from people who have risked it all and have fallen flat on their faces before they finally became that great success.
The government does not seem to care if you spend your whole week’s pay check at the local store buying beer, smokes and lottery tickets as long as they get their cut in taxes. The difference here is the government doesn’t get a piece of the online pie. There is the need for regulation of online poker just like we need the online taxes for each of our local state economies. After all, it’s not like the states don't need any more money for the local schools, police and fire departments, correct?
With all the different online poker sites advertising on TV stations around the US, doesn’t it make sense for them to come up with some type of agreement to come together and advertise on who does and doesn’t support the regulation of online poker? These companies spend millions on advertising to make millions with US poker players, isn’t it vital for them to help keep online poker legal in the United States? I think it’s vitally important for the online sites to jump in on the politics trail and help us figure out who is with us and who is against us to help us figure out who we should be voting for this coming election. The only thing we are sure of is that Senator John McCain will ban online poker if he is elected and if that happens we all lose. The every day average Joe doesn’t get to play and the online poker sites don’t get a piece of the American online pie.
Adam
pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=289
Where do candidates stand with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA)?
I know senator John McCain (R) is a big supporter of the bill. I know that Governor Deval Patrick (D) is trying to ban online poker in Massachusetts by including it on a bill to allow casinos to be built. One of the things the good governor misses is the fact that a good percentage of the people who would like a casino here in Massachusetts are in fact online poker players.
Being that this is an election year for our new president, how do people like myself who enjoy playing poker online in the comfort of their own home find out where all our candidates stand on the online poker issue? This seems to not be a democrat or a republican clear cut issue, but rather a personal one. Is prohibition really better then regulation? Does our government really not need the extra tax money?
With the internet growing into a larger tool for the American people to utilize at home each year does it really seem fit to ban online poker? The I.R.S considers a poker player to be of a “legal profession”. Along with the ever growing awareness for the need to be “greener” for a healthier environment, does it truly make sense for people to be traveling across state lines spending a ridiculous amount of time and money while polluting the environment, when they could be spending a quarter of that time and money while being at home with their families?
There are multiple parts to this bill giving us reasons as to why this is “good for us”. Please consider the following:
1) We need to stop teenagers from stealing their parents’ credit cards to play poker online. If your teenager is stealing your credit card for any reason, you have a much larger issue than the balance on your credit card. Do we need the government telling us how to raise our children?
2) We need to prevent people from running up high bills on their credit cards. This issue had been addressed already by credit card companies (code 7995) as they had already stopped allowing such charges (late 2001).
Are the American consumers any less in debt now then they where before the bill passed?
3) It’s much too easy for people with gambling problems to fall “off the wagon” and get into big trouble. Is it easier than an alcoholic stopping at a convenience store to buy milk sitting in a refrigerator right next to a cooler stocked with beer? Is it really that much easier to transfer money to a gambling site than it is to go grocery shopping and go walking by that long aisle filled to the brim with every kind of alcohol a true alcoholic could ask for without grabbing a case and throwing it into the cart? If there are more new AA members each year then GA members, why aren’t we banning alcohol?
4) We need to ban games of chance. That pretty much sounds like every game ever made in the world. Sorry kids, no more Chutes and Ladders. Of course games involving money exchanges are different, but the point is well taken. Poker is much like golf or chess in that it requires people to think about what they and their opponents are doing. There is no easier game of chance then the state lottery's instant quick pick; all you need to do is have the ability to ask for it. With scratch tickets, there is no secret way to scratch them or any special order in which the government hides the winning tickets in each book, as much as we all wish to think so.
The bill says that horse racing is not considered a game of chance. How is it not a game of chance? How does one pick a horse to win? Number nine’s great, great; great grandfather won a race back in 1932? Who would know these things anyways? I’ll just bet on the pretty brown one.
Fantasy sports are not considered gambling? I’m buying into a league with hopes of winning more money than I paid to get into it. Sounds like gambling to me! Now we have the playoff fantasy league where one could win Superbowl tickets. With Superbowl tickets selling for as high as $15,000 each, is there no cap for this game?
How is paying to enter an online poker tournament any different than paying to enter a bowling, golf or dart tournament? You use chips, clubs, balls or darts to get into the prize money.
Bingo is hidden by one of those “it’s for charity” things. I have yet to meet a little old lady that’s going there to “just donate” her money to a good cause.
Now here are some numbers for your perusal:
Take into account the fact that for every one hour you play online at one table you would have to play for about four hours at a casino to see and play the same amount of hands. Example: for myself to play online for one hour a day I would have to spend about four hours sitting at the table at the local casino. I live just about two hours away. I would have to drive two hours to be able to sit down and play for four hours and then have to drive back two hours just to equal one hour of playing online at one table in my home. Keep in mind that it's very easy for most people to be playing two or three tables at once online.
At home one is able to play around their daily schedule (kids are sleeping, wife or husband is working late or out with friends). Having the flexibility to pick and choose when they play is a major factor in people playing. It's much easier and more cost effective for one to set up and follow a budget to play at home then it is at a local casino (If they even have one locally). Sitting down and playing online at a nickel and dime table (.01/.02 tables available at most sites) with only 2 or 3 dollars is much more comfortable then sitting down at a local casino with 200 or 300 dollars at their $1./$2. tables (lowest price tables available at a brick and mortar building).
If I did not have the online playing option, I would have to spend money for gas and wear and tear on my automobile (meanwhile polluting the environment), buying food while I'm there for lunch or dinner (time away from the table), buying something to drink, playing at a level ($1/2 blinds) that I am not comfortable with playing at financially (no choice to play lower stakes) and be risking a lot more money that I can afford to risk. But most importantly it's seven hours away from my family!
As a middle class family, we cannot afford to be risking a few hundred bucks a week to play at a local casino, however fifty dollars a month on a budget at home for online poker is very reasonable. By banning online poker, the statement being made is that poker is a rich person's game and that the middle and lower class people don't have the right to play. Online poker is much like how and why they started offering public golf courses. It allowed the general public with little or no knowledge of the game to go and be able to learn how to play at an affordable cost. If there were nothing but private golf courses, then most current amateur golfers wouldn’t be playing.
When the news first broke of the bill being passed I heard the news station saying it had passed to prevent people from gambling away what they didn’t have. You couldn’t use credit cards and you are not allowed to bet or gamble with money you don’t have in your account. How does this save people from themselves? One of the greatest misconceptions with online gambling is that it is set up just like how one would call up the bookie on the corner and tell him you wanted to bet $2000 on the pats and if you lose, then Gino and his brothers are going to be by to collect. If you had $2000 in your online account then it’s akin to just spending that $2000 on scratch tickets and not getting one winner.
Life is all about gambling and taking chances. I equate it with going to school and racking up years of student loans that you’ll be paying for the next 10-20 years in hopes of some day having your chance at getting your dream job, voting for that person in hopes that they are going to be the one to best fill your needs in government, being a farmer and betting all of next year’s income that this years crops will be better then last year’s; the professional sports franchise that risks its entire future on the hopes that their first round draft pick will pan out, the Celtics have yet to recover from their set back. Sony gambles the stock holder’s money every fifth year when they come out with a new gaming system and they lose a couple hundred million dollars each quarter until the cost’s finally come down and the system takes off. It is also like the police officer who puts on that uniform and hopes it’s not his or her last time to be able kiss their spouse and children goodbye. There are a lot more important things in life than money. Everyone works so that they can spend their money on something, whether its food, shelter or material things.
Probably the greatest gamble ever taken was a man named Columbus who had to be crazy as a loon but yet was able to convince people to fund him to sail off into the sunset and happened upon this little rock in the ocean later to be called America.
The government says that they are trying to protect the American people from making poor choices in their lives. Some of the greatest American success stories come from people who have risked it all and have fallen flat on their faces before they finally became that great success.
The government does not seem to care if you spend your whole week’s pay check at the local store buying beer, smokes and lottery tickets as long as they get their cut in taxes. The difference here is the government doesn’t get a piece of the online pie. There is the need for regulation of online poker just like we need the online taxes for each of our local state economies. After all, it’s not like the states don't need any more money for the local schools, police and fire departments, correct?
With all the different online poker sites advertising on TV stations around the US, doesn’t it make sense for them to come up with some type of agreement to come together and advertise on who does and doesn’t support the regulation of online poker? These companies spend millions on advertising to make millions with US poker players, isn’t it vital for them to help keep online poker legal in the United States? I think it’s vitally important for the online sites to jump in on the politics trail and help us figure out who is with us and who is against us to help us figure out who we should be voting for this coming election. The only thing we are sure of is that Senator John McCain will ban online poker if he is elected and if that happens we all lose. The every day average Joe doesn’t get to play and the online poker sites don’t get a piece of the American online pie.
Adam
pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=289
