Mass. Gambling Bill Would Criminalize Online Poker 296
timothy writes "Awesome: 'A gambling bill introduced by Massachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo criminalizes Internet gambling and online poker. The bill calls for two casinos.' Not that they're against gambling, you see... just against being deprived of a monopoly in such a perfect fleecing opportunity."
Re:Victimless crimes.. (Score:3, Interesting)
What's more, even the victims of gambling (friends and family who are abused to fund the gambling and the addicts themselves) are not helped by this bill. Why? Because gambling addiction is generally a psychological addiction or a bad coping mechanism, all of which will express themselves in other areas if the addict can't gamble.
All that this is the establishment of a monopoly to the benefit of a few existing operators, and a guaranteed income stream for the government establishing the monopoly. The funding promises are mere figleaves to make the law more palatable to everyone.
Internet gambling is illegal in Vegas! (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a fairly common ban... even in Las Vegas you have to submit yourself to the whims of the Nevada Gaming Commission, and you can't get an Internet casino approved by them. Most states have lotto laws that makes the state-run game the only legal gambling in their jurisdiction.
It's already proven that a lot of MA residents are traveling to the two CT casinos. I'd rather stay in MA to play poker if only there was a legal game in town.
Re:Enforcement? (Score:3, Interesting)
Gambling online is completely fucking stupid (Score:1, Interesting)
You, as a participant in online gambling, have ZERO ability to determine if you are being cheated.
I would go so far as to say it is almost a 100% certainty that you are being cheated, systematically, in a way you can never detect.
And I don't mean by the ordinary odds against you. I mean by the fact that the server you are interacting with has full information and control of every aspect of the game, and can thus modify the play of the game and the odds against you at will.
It is not necessary for them to kill you in every hand. Only to ensure that their shills win at a slightly elevated rate.
You are a complete retard if you let them take you for that ride.
I have no problem at all with banning online gambling worldwide.
Technically unconstitutional. (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming that the online poker game is *NOT* based in MA, then under the Commerce Clause (abused though it may be) and the 10th Amendment (ignored though it may be), the power to regulate/ban is reserved to the Feds, and the States may not ban it.
Of course, if the game *IS* based in MA, then no problem.
Re:Technically unconstitutional. (Score:4, Interesting)
They don't ban the commerce, they ban the communication.
The feds have already banned interestate and international gambling online.
It was banned over the telephone and telegraph decades ago; in fact, having read that law and knowing how the Internet works, I didn't see a need for any new laws to ban it for internet traffic, but legislators like to show up on C-SPAN.
Massachusetts legislators are no different, so tacking a redundant ban onto a bill legalizing in-state gambling is either a no-op, or adds some twist that the feds didn't consider. Like banning in-state internet gambling as well.
Re:Gambling online is completely fucking stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't have a very good grasp as to how online poker works. There is no reason whatsoever for an online casino to cheat their customers. In fact, it works against their interest. Money is taken out of each and every pot played. It is NOT in the casino's interest to make their customers go broke faster than normal. If you go broke fast, you may leave forever. If you go broke slowly you will likely reload your account with new funds. Regardless, a hired "shill" will not be able to pull a profit undetected faster than the rake which collects money every single hand on every single table.
You sound like the many many people who try online poker, lose badly, and chose to blame the system rather than a lack of skill.
Re:Enforcement? (Score:3, Interesting)
That wouldn't be a new problem, nor is it a difficult one. State laws in the United States regulate gambling by stuff like the number of tables in play and the number of machines in play, as well as whether the company makes a business out of operating a gambling establishment. Even non-casinos are (and should be) subject to regulation like the rule saying that no purchase can be necessary to enter a contest or else it's legally a lottery.
Also, why would you say that a Warhammer tournament with entrance fees and a big prize should be less regulated than a poker tournament?
Re:Victimless crimes.. (Score:3, Interesting)
That makes no sense. They can regulate and tax online, intrastate gambling as easily they do a brick-and-mortar casino. But ensuring the games aren't skimmed, and preventing gambling addiction, is far more expensive and difficult online.
This law doesn't change interstate or international law one bit. It is redundant with them. It is, however, banning intrastate internet gaming, while at the same time legalizing gaming in the state.
If in the future someone finds a way to prevent compulsive gambling, or to ensure 100% compliance of internet systems to tracking rules, then maybe the law can be changed. I don't blame the state for not wanting to go down that road right now, though.
Re:Gambling online is completely fucking stupid (Score:2, Interesting)
Generally, I'd say you are right. You don't have the certainty you're not being cheated.
However, my personal experience is that I substantially netted positive over a year-long online poker career. I don't have any explanation for it, really, but I can't imagine they'd let more than a few players get away with any real amount of money, and I certainly don't think I'm the one that won the lottery of being "allowed" to win to attract other players.
If they do adjust the win rates at an infinitesimal rate to allow their house players to win, then they were doing it both transparently and subtly enough that it was still a profitable venture for me to be online playing a solid game. You could potentially liken it to doing business in a lawless part of the world - some times, you're going to get hijacked, but on the whole it's still making money for you.
Now, for all the guys that *I* took money from, yeah, that was certainly a mistake on their part, but it's not like every player can be a winner, can they?
Re:Enforcement? (Score:3, Interesting)
Difficulty in policing something isn't a reason to allow a crime to be legal.
The jury has been out on that for a few hundred years now. Consider 1.) An unenforceable (de jure) law ultimately rewards the dishonest while punishing only the honest who confess their crime (Hobbes). And 2.) From a political standpoint, unenforceable legislation creates the appearance of real moral authority without risk of alienating those constituents who would be punished if were enforceable. Public disregard for enforceability therefore promotes dishonesty of both the citizen and the official -- exactly the sort of business an ethical society should avoid.
Re:Victimless crimes.. (Score:3, Interesting)
so i do not know if online gambling is victimless. but let us assume there is harm. In the state of washington, the state was doing advertising campaigns around the slogan "playing is good"
more generally, if you think the phrase "casino economy" has significant meaning, I expect you do not want the state supporting actual casinos.
Washington lottery structure is for a 50% payout, assuming the tickets were claimed. It is I think tricky to say playing the lottery makes sense for the individual player. and if you use a competent definition of wealth, it does not generate wealth
Re:Gambling leaves a trail of victims (Score:1, Interesting)
I recognize that the premises of your argument are factually accurate, but why does all that have to lead to a ban? People can engage in lots of compulsive/addictive behaviors that result in harm to themselves and, indirectly, their families and society. Overeating, alcoholism, playing MMORPGs all day. And many such behaviors are encouraged by companies that profit from them. And yet those things aren't illegal. Maybe it would improve a few people's lives to have the government play mommy and teach them what is and isn't good for them, but I prefer to live in a society where adults have the dignity of being free to make their own mistakes.
Re:Victimless crimes.. (Score:4, Interesting)
How much of other people's money should you get to blow before they get to have a say in how you live your life? How much of their rights do other people have to give up so you can avoid having to take any responsibility for your choices?
Social Security isn't welfare. The amount you receive is based upon how much you contribute. If you didn't contribute, then you don't receive anything.
Re:Gambling online is completely fucking stupid (Score:1, Interesting)
I'd take a guess that the biggest online poker rooms ( i'm assuming pokerstars and fulltilt here ) have a heap more cash than all the other small casinos combined just cause of their way significantly larger playerbase. And here's where it gets less "karfka": cause it's a business, and has competition, they wants to keep their reputation as being fair and honest so their players don't ditch them.
That said I *did* just ditched stars for some random euro site cause the tables are *way* more fishier.
Re:Gambling online is completely fucking stupid (Score:1, Interesting)
You're right in that I've never played online chess, but I did learn to play go entirely online, and I did fine when I sat down at an actual go board for the first time. You seem to think that because I play for a living online I've never played poker in person, but I've played plenty in casinos and home games, and I can tell you that poker strategy works equally well in both settings.
But since you probably won't believe me, I'll tell you what. Go visit the poker forums at twoplustwo.com. These are the largest poker forums on the internet. Online players, casino players, every type of poker, high stakes, low stakes, and everything in between. Go there and make a post about how online poker isn't real poker. Go make it in the subforum dedicated to brick and mortar poker if you're worried about bias from the online-only players.
Then come back here and tell me how long it took you to get laughed off the forum.
Re:...in USA (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Enforcement? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is one of the few times I think that the free market will do just fine. People will put their gambling dollars where they get the best experiance, and that should be up to them to choose. If it's an outright fraud, they'll get busted and sued. If it's only a slight fraud, then that's fine since it's supposed to be like that, and everyone knows it. Are we going to set state endorsed odds? Who's to say what "fair" odds are?
Re:Gambling online is completely fucking stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't look at it in the light of "win money", but for its "entertainment value". These people are paying for entertainment. Though I agree; if you play virtual games to win physical assets, you are an idiot.
The vast majority of gamblers are losers. There are a few out there that do make money simply by being smart. Back in the day before the problems with the US bans, bonuses offered by the numerous online casinos totaled in the thousands of dollars. By playing smartly within the rules of the casinos, you could walk away with most of that money in profit. This is after the almost insignificant losses from the play requirements of the casinos, assuming you played blackjack with correct strategy.
It was a fun month of free time for my wife and I, since we like to play blackjack. And it payed for a nice trip to Las Vegas. We didn't even ever get ripped off or denied our winnings, which surprised me. The only time we encountered problems was when I didn't fully read the rules of the bonuses. But we still made about $4000, even with our mistakes. And I learned to play the fine blackjack variant of Pontoon.