'Black Friday' and associated fallout megathread

[Charade You Are]

Seen a few TV news stories on this. Sound bites from John Pappas of the PPA on Fox News are countered with "experts say online gambling more addicting" yet not saying who these experts are, or some gambling addict coming out against online gambling saying online gambling will create 9 million "new" addicts.

I doubt whether they are all "new" addicts, although I can see existing addicts gambling more if it is more easily available online.

All the more reason to regulate and license it imo. Instead of knee-jerk reactions, I would rather see reasonable steps taken to protect addicts from themselves rather than using that as a reason to not legalize and prevent responsible adults from making their own choices.

A few ideas could be to license professional players, use credit ratings to determine deposit limits (someone with a real gambling problem probably has a horrible credit rating), not allow use of credit cards to deposit, and institute stop loss limits.

Also lumping poker in with other forms of casino gambling is not in poker's best interest. While I would never play any casino games, online or land-based--I want my poker back!!!

 

[Charade You Are]

Of all the solutions I would prefer, it would be that Stars returns as was to the states, and the silly regulations that cause Stars, and others to use 3rd party payment processors to just fade away.

^^^What I really wanted for Xmas.

Stars, at this point, along with the remnants of FT and Cereus, and going further back, Party and all the other sites who vacated the states in '06 (due to the UEGIA act), could be looking at a class action suit to recoup all the fines and fee's and penalties incurred since '06 from the DoJ and the US gov in general. Not to mention those putz local Police Departments reaping $$$ from the funds provided by the DoJ (you have seen the video's).

I often wondered why they haven't done that. Antigua (where Absolute Poker is) filed suit in 2005 for WTO violations and won $21 million which allowed them to suspend intellectual property rights by US firms. (Another ridiculous ruling-punish US companies for the actions of the US Govt and the Govt gets off scott-free.)

 

[alaskabill]

Seen a few TV news stories on this. Sound bites from John Pappas of the PPA on Fox News are countered with "experts say online gambling more addicting" yet not saying who these experts are, or some gambling addict coming out against online gambling saying online gambling will create 9 million "new" addicts.

I doubt whether they are all "new" addicts, although I can see existing addicts gambling more if it is more easily available online.

All the more reason to regulate and license it imo. Instead of knee-jerk reactions, I would rather see reasonable steps taken to protect addicts from themselves rather than using that as a reason to not legalize and prevent responsible adults from making their own choices.

A few ideas could be to license professional players, use credit ratings to determine deposit limits (someone with a real gambling problem probably has a horrible credit rating), not allow use of credit cards to deposit, and institute stop loss limits.

Also lumping poker in with other forms of casino gambling is not in poker's best interest. While I would never play any casino games, online or land-based--I want my poker back!!!

I realize that to get it legalized they will have to pay lip service to helping problem gamblers but frankly I don't care about them. Alcoholics are going to ruin their lives by drinking. Do liquor stores have to single them out for protection? As long as a person is old enough to legally make their own choices its not my problem if they want to gamble the mortgage payment. At least in poker their is skill involved and they can learn to play better and potentially play in +EV situations.

Freedom includes the freedom to make bad choices. Its a shame that some people can't control themselves but it shouldn't take away from my freedom.

/rant.

 

[Tammy]

I realize that to get it legalized they will have to pay lip service to helping problem gamblers but frankly I don't care about them. Alcoholics are going to ruin their lives by drinking. Do liquor stores have to single them out for protection? As long as a person is old enough to legally make their own choices its not my problem if they want to gamble the mortgage payment. At least in poker their is skill involved and they can learn to play better and potentially play in +EV situations.

Freedom includes the freedom to make bad choices. Its a shame that some people can't control themselves but it shouldn't take away from my freedom.

/rant.

100% agree.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

^^^^^

A foundational belief of classical liberalism. It is a shame both conservatives and modern liberals no longer stand for what allowed our nation to be great. Black Friday was a symptom of this problem.

 

[okeedokalee]

Addicts are addicts.

Poker is just one option.

I'm not addicted but in addition to online poker I go to the casino, racetrack and have an online horse racing account at two sites which I also use for sports betting.

All those options are available to an addicted gambler.

The most addicted player I new played at our local private game well before hold'em became king.

He lost his business, home family became an alcoholic and eventually shot himself with a nail gun.

Many people along the way tried to help, but sometimes there is no solution.

Sadly, legislation will not slow down an addictive personality.

 

[the Styb]

Wait, seriously?

Advocating legislation that would bar individuals with bad credit? It's horrifying to see people who have had their rights stepped on advocating the exact same thing for others! Of course, that's OK since those people don't consider themselves addicted or bad credit risks, right? Do as I say, not as I do? I don't have a problem, but that guy does… ban him!

No credit card deposits? Sure, and the honest folks at post offices around the globe won't be looking for checks and cash inside letters bearing the address "full tilt poker Deposit Department"…

Stop-loss limits? Umm, I think you mean spending limits. Stop-loss is the armed forces' way of jerking honest grunts into extended service. As for spending limits, will they be adjusted hourly? If my limit is $100/day and I win half a million in a $100 tourney, I still won't be able to enter any higher level tourneys until my limit is adjusted. If you're talking about a limit for losses only, that's not really workable either. No one has the right to limit what an individual does with his own money.

And the idea about mandatory deposits in casinos only? Good grief! Yeah, it's a brilliant idea for the casinos, but pretty messed up for the players, especially those without nearby casinos.

If the Fed is going to regulate the industry, they can simply have a sign-up program at the IRS website. You pay taxes and are of legal age, sign up and get your Federal Online Poker Player ID (or, "FOPP",) which you use to register at sites. IRS gets all your win/loss info for tax time. Simple, invasive (but perfectly legal… you weren't going to under-report your winnings, were you…?) and probably what will happen.

They can tone it down for low-stakes players, say winnings under a few thousand need not be reported or taxed, much the way earnings under a certain amount are not taxed. But watch out of you're a high roller… I expect there will be a ton of service charges, convenience fees, Federally mandated costs and other stack-lowering things hidden in the legislation! but then, I'm a pessimist!

 

[the Styb]

BTW: Am I the only one who thinks it's incredibly appropriate and hilarious that Party is owned by guy named Anurag Dikshit?

 

[OzExorcist]

If the Fed is going to regulate the industry, they can simply have a sign-up program at the IRS website. You pay taxes and are of legal age, sign up and get your Federal Online Poker Player ID (or, "FOPP",) which you use to register at sites. IRS gets all your win/loss info for tax time. Simple, invasive (but perfectly legal… you weren't going to under-report your winnings, were you…?) and probably what will happen.

They can tone it down for low-stakes players, say winnings under a few thousand need not be reported or taxed, much the way earnings under a certain amount are not taxed. But watch out of you're a high roller… I expect there will be a ton of service charges, convenience fees, Federally mandated costs and other stack-lowering things hidden in the legislation! but then, I'm a pessimist!

...but that doesn't solve one of the biggest problems, with is addressing the problem gambling issue.

The point I believe people were making above was that, no matter how much you personally may dislike it, any legalisation program is always going to involve throwing the anti-gambling lobby a bone or three because that's just how grown ups solve things. You can't just ignore them and hope they'll go away, or rely on your self-righteous belief that you're right and they're wrong, because they're louder than you, they're better funded than you and their arguments wash better with the general public than yours do. The reality is you're going to have to compromise with them in some way if you want legal online poker.

BTW: Am I the only one who thinks it's incredibly appropriate and hilarious that Party is owned by guy named Anurag Dikshit?

The killjoy in me feels the need to point out that Dikshit is a relatively common Hindu family name and it's not pronounced the way you think it is.

 

[dj11]

Once upon a time in livepokerland, the State of California was a poker haven (it is now also). Those advocates against gambling addiction somehow got the whole state to agree that the only legal game in California would be lowball. Razz! Pure guess is that if you feel unlucky, lowball would be your game. And since problem gambling never happens with winning players, lowball was a sick attempt at creating an atmosphere that would discourage the losers. After all, how excited can one get when the aim of the game is to get the worst possible hand?

I grew up knowing where the card house was. On the peak between the San Fernadon Valley and Simi Valley, there was the obvious grand view restaurant and it had the card room. Not to far from Spahn's Ranch (you remember Charlie Manson, right?). I lived in the valley at the time, and later learned there were several card clubs in Gardena.

For years and years it was the only live legal game available in California. I believe the Indian Tribes get credit for changing that, but I can't be sure. The expansion of gambling at cardrooms in California began at about the same time the state gave preference to the Indian Gaming act but most of the existing clubs were grandfathered in.

Point here is that the best solution is probably to write in some funding for the addiction problem largely as a pacifier. Else they will get overly involved in how and what games get played.

 

[dj11]

I still believe the best other solution, regarding deposits and withdrawals, would be live registration, deposits and withdrawals handled thru existing land based casino's and other licensed establishments. Great for age verification, pretty good for ease of depositing, and very good at preventing problem addiction gamblers from making multiple trips to the casino to blow what little cash they have. The computers to do this, and the network, already exist via the state lotteries in almost every state. This would/could save us money on the player end by reducing costs to start up.

 

[dmorris68]

I still believe the best other solution, regarding deposits and withdrawals, would be live registration, deposits and withdrawals handled thru existing land based casino's and other licensed establishments. Great for age verification, pretty good for ease of depositing, and very good at preventing problem addiction gamblers from making multiple trips to the casino to blow what little cash they have. The computers to do this, and the network, already exist via the state lotteries in almost every state. This would/could save us money on the player end by reducing costs to start up.

Easy for you to say being in CA. I think less than half the states have live casinos. I have to drive about 8 hours to find the nearest casino.

There are absolutely no technical obstacles to either age verification or depositing/withdrawing online. None whatsoever. Those aren't reasons to argue for "live registration." As to the addicts, there will always be addicts no matter what approach you take. I think the mechanisms in place today at both online poker rooms and live casinos are plenty sufficient. We don't police alcoholics or shopaholics or hoarders, there's no reason to police gambling addicts any differently.

 

[WVHillbilly]

In person deposit/withdrawal would be horrible. Not even remotely a workable solution.

 

[the Styb]

...but that doesn't solve one of the biggest problems, with is addressing the problem gambling issue.

The point I believe people were making above was that, no matter how much you personally may dislike it, any legalisation program is always going to involve throwing the anti-gambling lobby a bone or three because that's just how grown ups solve things. You can't just ignore them and hope they'll go away, or rely on your self-righteous belief that you're right and they're wrong, because they're louder than you, they're better funded than you and their arguments wash better with the general public than yours do. The reality is you're going to have to compromise with them in some way if you want legal online poker.

The killjoy in me feels the need to point out that Dikshit is a relatively common Hindu family name and it's not pronounced the way you think it is.

No, I wasn't addressing the PGI. While I agree there are people who have no business near any form of gambling, I also think many of those same people have deeper issues which are the impetus of the gambling, much the same as chronic alcoholics.

What absolutely horrifies me about your statement is that you nailed something: "their arguments wash better with the general public than yours do". It never ceases to baffle me that so many people in our lovely little corner of Freedom feel that they know what's better for others and are willing to listen, fund and act in concert to deny freedom based on their views. I'm all for freedom of opinion, but it ends just short of action in some cases.

Oh yeah… killjoy! I wasn't aware of that. Just my inner 12-year old coming to the surface!

…that the only legal game in California would be lowball. Razz!

Now that's hilarious!

There are absolutely no technical obstacles to either age verification or depositing/withdrawing online. None whatsoever. Those aren't reasons to argue for "live registration." As to the addicts, there will always be addicts no matter what approach you take. I think the mechanisms in place today at both online poker rooms and live casinos are plenty sufficient. We don't police alcoholics or shopaholics or hoarders, there's no reason to police gambling addicts any differently.

Amen.

 

[Tammy]

What absolutely horrifies me about your statement is that you nailed something: "their arguments wash better with the general public than yours do". It never ceases to baffle me that so many people in our lovely little corner of Freedom feel that they know what's better for others and are willing to listen, fund and act in concert to deny freedom based on their views. I'm all for freedom of opinion, but it ends just short of action in some cases.

Well, I for one share the same views as you on this subject (and indeed any that involves our personal freedoms). It sickens me that we have become a society of "let the government fix it!". I expect however, that more people feel like you and I than not, but have not stood up in the past enough to say, "Enough is enough!"

 

[Debi]

In person deposit/withdrawal would be horrible. Not even remotely a workable solution.

Exactly - can't imagine anyone thinking that would work.

 

[JusSumguy]

It never ceases to baffle me that so many people in our lovely little corner of Freedom feel that they know what's better for others

Years ago in Europe there was this group of people that wanted to control everything about everyones lives. They became to be known as Puritans.

They struggled for power and failed. So they decided to get into 3 creaky assed boats and go off to create America.

The collective cry all across Europe when they left?......... GOOD RIDDANCE.

America is mired in Puritanical ways and seems to embrace allowing our personal liberties to be controlled by others folks beliefs of what is best for us.

Please help us.


-

 

[XXXDIRTYDOGXXX]

In a nut shell this countries economics blows!
give to them who won't help them selves, welfare
give tons to those who have everything done for them, rich
and give nothing to those stuck in the middle, you either make too much or not enough.

 

[JusSumguy]

In a nut shell this countries economics blows!
give to them who won't help them selves, welfare
give tons to those who have everything done for them, rich
and give nothing to those stuck in the middle, you either make too much or not enough.

cept' they're sacking the poor now. Nothing left but the rich. All others are irrelevant.


-

 

[witchywitchy]

So very tired of the Nanny State.... whatever happened to the idea of personal responsibility?

There, there Johnny... you don't have to worry about winning or losing because the government will make sure you can never lose. Of course, the government will also make sure you can never win either.

But that is fair isn't it? The same for all??

As an adult one should be responsible for their own actions... including reaching out to one of the many addiction related organizations for help.

 

[deucem]

I realize that to get it legalized they will have to pay lip service to helping problem gamblers but frankly I don't care about them. Alcoholics are going to ruin their lives by drinking. Do liquor stores have to single them out for protection? As long as a person is old enough to legally make their own choices its not my problem if they want to gamble the mortgage payment. At least in poker their is skill involved and they can learn to play better and potentially play in +EV situations.

Freedom includes the freedom to make bad choices. Its a shame that some people can't control themselves but it shouldn't take away from my freedom.

/rant.

The problems facing US players reminds me of this........
https://www.cardschat.com/forum/general-poker-13/australia-no-such-thing-losing-bet-196579/

 

[PurgatoryD]

https://www.cardschat.com/forum/general-poker-13/australia-no-such-thing-losing-bet-196579/

Hey, this sounds like the US housing market... keep any gains, walk away from any losses!

 

[abcott]

Hi, I am from England. Does anyone know how things stand for getting my money back? Not a huge amount in there but I'd like to play again or get it back.

 

[dj11]

Hi, I am from England. Does anyone know how things stand for getting my money back? Not a huge amount in there but I'd like to play again or get it back.

If you are from England, you should have no problems. Procedure should be the same as it was a year ago. Unless you are talking about FullTilt, in which case, the whole world awaits fresh info.

 

[thejudge]

Wait, seriously?


If the Fed is going to regulate the industry, they can simply have a sign-up program at the IRS website. You pay taxes and are of legal age, sign up and get your Federal Online Poker Player ID (or, "FOPP",) which you use to register at sites. IRS gets all your win/loss info for tax time. Simple, invasive (but perfectly legal… you weren't going to under-report your winnings, were you…?) and probably what will happen.

They can tone it down for low-stakes players, say winnings under a few thousand need not be reported or taxed, much the way earnings under a certain amount are not taxed. But watch out of you're a high roller… I expect there will be a ton of service charges, convenience fees, Federally mandated costs and other stack-lowering things hidden in the legislation! but then, I'm a pessimist!

Hi Styb:
How would this effect non-uS players?
I sure am not gonna pay taxes to the IRS when I don't even live in the US.