The Death Knell Has Sounded
Boopotts
Posts: 6,784 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
Well, it's official-- online poker in the US is, for all intents and purposes, dead. Neteller has ceased the processing of transactions of US citizens that either bring money to or take money out of online gambling sites, which means the action online is going to dry up faster than a bottle of 5 O'Clock in a hunting camp. With the elimination of the major online money router comes the de facto end to the viability of all rake back deals, bonus incentives and so forth. In fact, with Pinnacle, Canbet and Bet Grande pulling their sports books out of the US market I think we've more or less seen the end to online gambling in general. At the very least the entire industry has been kicked back 8 years, back to the days when a guy had to send money via Western Union or some other such substandard method. Anyone remember the good ol' days when you could actually move cash around with Paypal? Call me naive, but I honestly thought there was no way for the gov't to legislate online gambling to the margins. But that assessment has been proven very wrong indeed.
Anyway, we move on. Thank God I'm at least back in school. In closing, I'd like to offer a big 'thanks' to Bill Frist and everyone else on the hill who are deeply committed to the idea that while we can all vote, or go to war, we, as consenting adults, have no business deciding what the best uses are for our money.
Anyway, we move on. Thank God I'm at least back in school. In closing, I'd like to offer a big 'thanks' to Bill Frist and everyone else on the hill who are deeply committed to the idea that while we can all vote, or go to war, we, as consenting adults, have no business deciding what the best uses are for our money.
0
Comments
Banning online poker on the premise that it's for the good of society, protecting the youth of our country from gambling on one hand..........
On the other, selling billions in state run lotteries and casinos throughout the country.
It seems odd to me that the government can send thousands of young men to their deaths in a war, claiming to be fighting in the name of freedom, and then telling me I can't spend a few bucks playing poker online. And they call this the land of the free??
It's all about money, of course, they aren't getting any of it and it pi$$es them off. It'll be back up at some point, except it'll be government regulated so they get their cut.
Terrible.
shawn
Online Gambling: Feds detain NETeller Founders in US
Written by Thomas Jensen
Tuesday, 16 January 2007
NETeller Founders John Lefebvre and Steve Lawrence were detained in the United States on Monday, January 15th, 2006. The news of their detainment, which was originally reported by Gambling911.com late Monday evening, sent shockwaves through the online gambling industry immediately.
NETeller, based out of the Isle of Man, is publicly traded on the London exchange (AIM) and states on their website they are “the world’s largest independent money transfer business”. The most recent annual report states that the company took in revenues of $172.1 Million.
Sources from Costa Rica have reported to Point-Spreads.com that John Lefebvre’s wife was from Southern California and that may have been the residence were he was apprehended. Steve Lawrence was the Chairmen of NETeller up until October 13th, 2005 and reports have him being apprehended in New York. Some reports have both Lawrence and Lefebvre still working with the company up until November 2005.
When we originally contacted NETeller by phone at 12:05 AM EST Tuesday we were told:
“We are not permitted to release any information over the phone, however please feel free to contact our corporate compliance department with any questions. They can be reached at
mailto:compliance@neteller.com. This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it ”
After waiting on hold due to “extremely high call volumes” for 1 hour, we finally got a CS representative on the phone again at 2:05 AM EST Tuesday and were told:
“They were detained but no charges have been filed at this time.”
The besieged online gambling industry has been hit hard over the last six months. In July, the DoJ arrested BetonSports PLC CEO David Carruthers. Carruthers was on a layover between Costa Rica and the United Kingdom in the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport and is currently out on house arrest awaiting trial in Missouri on money laundering and tax evasion. BetonSports Founders Gary Kaplan and Tom “Norm” Miller are still at large.
Approximately one month after the arrest of Carruthers, the US Congress passed the UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006), which made it illegal for financial companies to knowingly process internet gambling transactions. UIGEA was signed into law by President George W. Bush in November 2006.
Just last Thursday, online gambling giant Pinnacle Sports decided to pull out of the US Market to focus on European expansion. The move was blamed on the current US Legal environment as it relates to online gambling transactions.
<< <i>I don't need to tell you have I feel about this. Absolutely terrible.
Banning online poker on the premise that it's for the good of society, protecting the youth of our country from gambling on one hand..........
On the other, selling billions in state run lotteries and casinos throughout the country.
It seems odd to me that the government can send thousands of young men to their deaths in a war, claiming to be fighting in the name of freedom, and then telling me I can't spend a few bucks playing poker online. And they call this the land of the free??
It's all about money, of course, they aren't getting any of it and it pi$$es them off. It'll be back up at some point, except it'll be government regulated so they get their cut.
Terrible.
shawn >>
I agree there is hypocrisy there, no doubt about it, about the US allowing poker in casinos, but not online. This story can be spun any which way depending on whether it is anti-gambling or pro-gambling, and Bill Frist can be "blamed" if anyone wants to, but the real bottom line is that the online poker websites have themselves to blame.
The facts are that way too many, and anyone can whitewash this if they want, but there were WAY TOO MANY underage children gambling on these websites. If any casino allowed this in the United States, they would be promptly shut down and very heavily fined.
The online poker sites can also put a spin on this, but what they were trying to do to prevent underage children from gambling was a facade. They never really thought legislation would be passed against online poker funding, so they continued to run rampant in this regard.
I forget the exact details now, but a test study was done whereby an underage gambler tried opening up an account with gambling websites, and successfully gambled at the majority of them. Yes, America does allow a lot of freedoms, gambling included, but don't f* with our children. Online poker websites f*ed with children and now they're getting what's coming to them!
Again, the pro-gambling side can pass the blame any which way they want, but I think it is clear that the sheer greed of these online poker websites through exploiting children, caused their own demise in the United States.
Even if you are pro-gambling...think about how you would feel if some business was serving alcohol or selling cigarettes to your twelve year old kid? You wouldn't like that would you? You might not like it either if a casino allowed your twelve year old kid to sneak into a b&m casino and gamble away his/her savings. Get the picture now? This I believe was the primary incentive and motivation for this law to get passed.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't need to tell you have I feel about this. Absolutely terrible.
Banning online poker on the premise that it's for the good of society, protecting the youth of our country from gambling on one hand..........
On the other, selling billions in state run lotteries and casinos throughout the country.
It seems odd to me that the government can send thousands of young men to their deaths in a war, claiming to be fighting in the name of freedom, and then telling me I can't spend a few bucks playing poker online. And they call this the land of the free??
It's all about money, of course, they aren't getting any of it and it pi$$es them off. It'll be back up at some point, except it'll be government regulated so they get their cut.
Terrible.
shawn >>
I agree there is hypocrisy there, no doubt about it, about the US allowing poker in casinos, but not online. This story can be spun any which way depending on whether it is anti-gambling or pro-gambling, and Bill Frist can be "blamed" if anyone wants to, but the real bottom line is that the online poker websites have themselves to blame.
The facts are that way too many, and anyone can whitewash this if they want, but there were WAY TOO MANY underage children gambling on these websites. If any casino allowed this in the United States, they would be promptly shut down and very heavily fined.
The online poker sites can also put a spin on this, but what they were trying to do to prevent underage children from gambling was a facade. They never really thought legislation would be passed against online poker funding, so they continued to run rampant in this regard.
I forget the exact details now, but a test study was done whereby an underage gambler tried opening up an account with gambling websites, and successfully gambled at the majority of them. Yes, America does allow a lot of freedoms, gambling included, but don't f* with our children. Online poker websites f*ed with children and now they're getting what's coming to them!
Again, the pro-gambling side can pass the blame any which way they want, but I think it is clear that the sheer greed of these online poker websites through exploiting children, caused their own demise in the United States.
Even if you are pro-gambling...think about how you would feel if some business was serving alcohol or selling cigarettes to your twelve year old kid? You wouldn't like that would you? You might not like it either if a casino allowed your twelve year old kid to sneak into a b&m casino and gamble away his/her savings. Get the picture now? This I believe was the primary incentive and motivation for this law to get passed.
Steve >>
The primarly motivation for getting that legislation passed was the (at the time) upcoming November elections. And if the US Goverment actually gave a damn about our children they would pave the way for Harrah's, MGM and the Horseshoe to get involved in online gambling, with whatever provisions are needed to ensure that a minimal number of kids are gambling at their sites. If you had online gambling sites that were owned AND REGULATED by US citizens places like Party would have lost 30% of their market share in 2 weeks time.
Also, I would be interested to see numbers that aren't provided by an anti gambling organization (or by a pro online gambling organization, for that matter) that suggest how many kids were gambling online.
Are you aware of any documented cases of a player making money playing poker long-term? How about research into the lifetime winnings (or losses) of some of the bigger name pro players? I'd be thrilled to hear your insights!
Joe
<< <i>Steve,
Are you aware of any documented cases of a player making money playing poker long-term? How about research into the lifetime winnings (or losses) of some of the bigger name pro players? I'd be thrilled to hear your insights!
Joe >>
I was going to comment on your post prior to the edit and in hindsight, I'm glad that I didn't quote you.
Keep it civil, please.
Thanks
<< <i>This I believe was the primary incentive and motivation for this law to get passed. >>
Yeah, right... that's the ticket.
"Bridge for sale! Bridge! Bridge for sale!".
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't need to tell you have I feel about this. Absolutely terrible.
Banning online poker on the premise that it's for the good of society, protecting the youth of our country from gambling on one hand..........
On the other, selling billions in state run lotteries and casinos throughout the country.
It seems odd to me that the government can send thousands of young men to their deaths in a war, claiming to be fighting in the name of freedom, and then telling me I can't spend a few bucks playing poker online. And they call this the land of the free??
It's all about money, of course, they aren't getting any of it and it pi$$es them off. It'll be back up at some point, except it'll be government regulated so they get their cut.
Terrible.
shawn >>
I agree there is hypocrisy there, no doubt about it, about the US allowing poker in casinos, but not online. This story can be spun any which way depending on whether it is anti-gambling or pro-gambling, and Bill Frist can be "blamed" if anyone wants to, but the real bottom line is that the online poker websites have themselves to blame.
The facts are that way too many, and anyone can whitewash this if they want, but there were WAY TOO MANY underage children gambling on these websites. If any casino allowed this in the United States, they would be promptly shut down and very heavily fined.
The online poker sites can also put a spin on this, but what they were trying to do to prevent underage children from gambling was a facade. They never really thought legislation would be passed against online poker funding, so they continued to run rampant in this regard.
I forget the exact details now, but a test study was done whereby an underage gambler tried opening up an account with gambling websites, and successfully gambled at the majority of them. Yes, America does allow a lot of freedoms, gambling included, but don't f* with our children. Online poker websites f*ed with children and now they're getting what's coming to them!
Again, the pro-gambling side can pass the blame any which way they want, but I think it is clear that the sheer greed of these online poker websites through exploiting children, caused their own demise in the United States.
Even if you are pro-gambling...think about how you would feel if some business was serving alcohol or selling cigarettes to your twelve year old kid? You wouldn't like that would you? You might not like it either if a casino allowed your twelve year old kid to sneak into a b&m casino and gamble away his/her savings. Get the picture now? This I believe was the primary incentive and motivation for this law to get passed.
Steve >>
The primarly motivation for getting that legislation passed was the (at the time) upcoming November elections. And if the US Goverment actually gave a damn about our children they would pave the way for Harrah's, MGM and the Horseshoe to get involved in online gambling, with whatever provisions are needed to ensure that a minimal number of kids are gambling at their sites. If you had online gambling sites that were owned AND REGULATED by US citizens places like Party would have lost 30% of their market share in 2 weeks time.
Also, I would be interested to see numbers that aren't provided by an anti gambling organization that suggest how many kids were gambling online. >>
Oh I agree that the election played a part in it, but come on now...there are numerous bills that try to get passed right before an election, that don't. Protecting the children was the main force behind this legislation being passed.
And come on now Boo - you KNOW that there were alot, A LOT of high school and college kids, and even some grade school kids gambling online. Please don't give us the "babe in the woods" routine. You, I and everyone else don't need any "numbers" to know this.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't need to tell you have I feel about this. Absolutely terrible.
Banning online poker on the premise that it's for the good of society, protecting the youth of our country from gambling on one hand..........
On the other, selling billions in state run lotteries and casinos throughout the country.
It seems odd to me that the government can send thousands of young men to their deaths in a war, claiming to be fighting in the name of freedom, and then telling me I can't spend a few bucks playing poker online. And they call this the land of the free??
It's all about money, of course, they aren't getting any of it and it pi$$es them off. It'll be back up at some point, except it'll be government regulated so they get their cut.
Terrible.
shawn >>
I agree there is hypocrisy there, no doubt about it, about the US allowing poker in casinos, but not online. This story can be spun any which way depending on whether it is anti-gambling or pro-gambling, and Bill Frist can be "blamed" if anyone wants to, but the real bottom line is that the online poker websites have themselves to blame.
The facts are that way too many, and anyone can whitewash this if they want, but there were WAY TOO MANY underage children gambling on these websites. If any casino allowed this in the United States, they would be promptly shut down and very heavily fined.
The online poker sites can also put a spin on this, but what they were trying to do to prevent underage children from gambling was a facade. They never really thought legislation would be passed against online poker funding, so they continued to run rampant in this regard.
I forget the exact details now, but a test study was done whereby an underage gambler tried opening up an account with gambling websites, and successfully gambled at the majority of them. Yes, America does allow a lot of freedoms, gambling included, but don't f* with our children. Online poker websites f*ed with children and now they're getting what's coming to them!
Again, the pro-gambling side can pass the blame any which way they want, but I think it is clear that the sheer greed of these online poker websites through exploiting children, caused their own demise in the United States.
Even if you are pro-gambling...think about how you would feel if some business was serving alcohol or selling cigarettes to your twelve year old kid? You wouldn't like that would you? You might not like it either if a casino allowed your twelve year old kid to sneak into a b&m casino and gamble away his/her savings. Get the picture now? This I believe was the primary incentive and motivation for this law to get passed.
Steve >>
The primarly motivation for getting that legislation passed was the (at the time) upcoming November elections. And if the US Goverment actually gave a damn about our children they would pave the way for Harrah's, MGM and the Horseshoe to get involved in online gambling, with whatever provisions are needed to ensure that a minimal number of kids are gambling at their sites. If you had online gambling sites that were owned AND REGULATED by US citizens places like Party would have lost 30% of their market share in 2 weeks time.
Also, I would be interested to see numbers that aren't provided by an anti gambling organization that suggest how many kids were gambling online. >>
Oh I agree that the election played a part in it, but come on now...there are numerous bills that try to get passed right before an election, that don't. Protecting the children was the main force behind this legislation being passed.
And come on now Boo - you KNOW that there were alot, A LOT of high school and college kids, and even some grade school kids gambling online. Please don't give us the "babe in the woods" routine. You, I and everyone else don't need any "numbers" to know this.
Steve >>
Yes, Steve, I do need numbers. If we're going to pass legislation that infringes on our right to do what we want with our own money then there better be strong, empirical evidence to suggest that said legislation is necessary. Just saying 'Well, I'll bet a lot of kids are doing this, so we better do something about it' is not enough for me. And if that's enough for you then perhaps you don't value your freedoms to the extent that many of the rest of us do.
If you-- or someone else who doesn't have an agenda-- shows me numbers that suggest a quarter million kids or something like that were cultivating gambling addictions by playing online then sure--- I can get behind the idea that this legislation will provide a net social benefit. But I'm not going to get behind it because some f**knut like Bill Frist has somehow divined that 'lots of kids are probably doing this.' Who would? I would think even YOU would be against this kind of restricting legislation if there isn't hard and compelling evidence supporting the arguments put forth by the bills proponents.
Should we pass gun laws just because a senator says 'I bet a lot of kids are killed in accidents involving handguns?' No, obviously not. We need numbers so we can put a value on the benefits that the legislation will give us. That isn't some wacky libertarian idea-- it's just good governance.
Edit to add: I am NOT counting 18 year old college men and women as 'kids' that need to be protecting by the evil online gambling empires. If you want to that's fine, but I am not. So if you find any numbers on the % of 'kids' that were gambling online please exclude anyone 18 years old and up from your findings.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't need to tell you have I feel about this. Absolutely terrible.
Banning online poker on the premise that it's for the good of society, protecting the youth of our country from gambling on one hand..........
On the other, selling billions in state run lotteries and casinos throughout the country.
It seems odd to me that the government can send thousands of young men to their deaths in a war, claiming to be fighting in the name of freedom, and then telling me I can't spend a few bucks playing poker online. And they call this the land of the free??
It's all about money, of course, they aren't getting any of it and it pi$$es them off. It'll be back up at some point, except it'll be government regulated so they get their cut.
Terrible.
shawn >>
I agree there is hypocrisy there, no doubt about it, about the US allowing poker in casinos, but not online. This story can be spun any which way depending on whether it is anti-gambling or pro-gambling, and Bill Frist can be "blamed" if anyone wants to, but the real bottom line is that the online poker websites have themselves to blame.
The facts are that way too many, and anyone can whitewash this if they want, but there were WAY TOO MANY underage children gambling on these websites. If any casino allowed this in the United States, they would be promptly shut down and very heavily fined.
The online poker sites can also put a spin on this, but what they were trying to do to prevent underage children from gambling was a facade. They never really thought legislation would be passed against online poker funding, so they continued to run rampant in this regard.
I forget the exact details now, but a test study was done whereby an underage gambler tried opening up an account with gambling websites, and successfully gambled at the majority of them. Yes, America does allow a lot of freedoms, gambling included, but don't f* with our children. Online poker websites f*ed with children and now they're getting what's coming to them!
Again, the pro-gambling side can pass the blame any which way they want, but I think it is clear that the sheer greed of these online poker websites through exploiting children, caused their own demise in the United States.
Even if you are pro-gambling...think about how you would feel if some business was serving alcohol or selling cigarettes to your twelve year old kid? You wouldn't like that would you? You might not like it either if a casino allowed your twelve year old kid to sneak into a b&m casino and gamble away his/her savings. Get the picture now? This I believe was the primary incentive and motivation for this law to get passed.
Steve >>
The primarly motivation for getting that legislation passed was the (at the time) upcoming November elections. And if the US Goverment actually gave a damn about our children they would pave the way for Harrah's, MGM and the Horseshoe to get involved in online gambling, with whatever provisions are needed to ensure that a minimal number of kids are gambling at their sites. If you had online gambling sites that were owned AND REGULATED by US citizens places like Party would have lost 30% of their market share in 2 weeks time.
Also, I would be interested to see numbers that aren't provided by an anti gambling organization that suggest how many kids were gambling online. >>
Oh I agree that the election played a part in it, but come on now...there are numerous bills that try to get passed right before an election, that don't. Protecting the children was the main force behind this legislation being passed.
And come on now Boo - you KNOW that there were alot, A LOT of high school and college kids, and even some grade school kids gambling online. Please don't give us the "babe in the woods" routine. You, I and everyone else don't need any "numbers" to know this.
Steve >>
Yes, Steve, I do need numbers. If we're going to pass legislation that infringes on our right to do what we want with our own money then there better be strong, empirical evidence to suggest that said legislation is necessary. Just saying 'Well, I'll bet a lot of kids are doing this, so we better do something about it' is not enough for me. And if that's enough for you then perhaps you don't value your freedoms to the extent that many of the rest of us do.
If you-- or someone else who doesn't have an agenda-- shows me numbers that suggest a quarter million kids or something like that were cultivating gambling addictions by playing online then sure--- I can get behind the idea that this legislation will provide a net social benefit. But I'm not going to get behind it because some f**knut like Bill Frist has somehow divined that 'lots of kids are probably doing this.' Who would? I would think even YOU would be against this kind of restricting legislation if there isn't hard and compelling evidence supporting the arguments put forth by the bills proponents.
Should we pass gun laws just because a senator says 'I bet a lot of kids are killed in accidents involving handguns?' No, obviously not. We need numbers so we can put a value on the benefits that the legislation will give us. That isn't some wacky libertarian idea-- it's just good governance.
Edit to add: I am NOT counting 18 year old college men and women as 'kids' that need to be protecting by the evil online gambling empires. If you want to that's fine, but I am not. So if you find any numbers on the % of 'kids' that were gambling online please exclude anyone 18 years old and up from your findings. >>
Boo - you always bring interesting ideas to the table. That is an interesting analogy about the guns and I can relate to that because I am very "pro-gun" or "pro-Second Amendment" however it should be stated.
I'll see if I can find anything on this about kids under 18 gambling on the internet. I'm not sure of all the various legal gambling ages in the different states but I think in some states it is 21, and lower in other states down to 18. Is it 21 years old in Nevada? So in that aspect I think the definition of underage gambling would depend on where the child lives.
Steve
<< <i>Edit to add: I am NOT counting 18 year old college men and women as 'kids' that need to be protecting by the evil online gambling empires. If you want to that's fine, but I am not. So if you find any numbers on the % of 'kids' that were gambling online please exclude anyone 18 years old and up from your findings. >>
I hate using this phrase but that's a slippery slope. How many kids (under 18) are going to fess up to it? That's just like asking how many don't. It's impossible to get an accurate number and unfortunately, you have to make qualified assumptions.
Personally, I know of many under 18 "kids" that were doing it and with parental consent. If I was forced to give you a number, I would say easily 25. Each one says most, if not all, of their friends were also using internet sites. While I'm sure some of their friends over-lapped, it's still a big number. 50? 100? 500? I honestly don't know...
Do I consider it a legit "problem"? Yes but that's just my opinion based upon 1st hand knowledge.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't need to tell you have I feel about this. Absolutely terrible.
Banning online poker on the premise that it's for the good of society, protecting the youth of our country from gambling on one hand..........
On the other, selling billions in state run lotteries and casinos throughout the country.
It seems odd to me that the government can send thousands of young men to their deaths in a war, claiming to be fighting in the name of freedom, and then telling me I can't spend a few bucks playing poker online. And they call this the land of the free??
It's all about money, of course, they aren't getting any of it and it pi$$es them off. It'll be back up at some point, except it'll be government regulated so they get their cut.
Terrible.
shawn >>
I agree there is hypocrisy there, no doubt about it, about the US allowing poker in casinos, but not online. This story can be spun any which way depending on whether it is anti-gambling or pro-gambling, and Bill Frist can be "blamed" if anyone wants to, but the real bottom line is that the online poker websites have themselves to blame.
The facts are that way too many, and anyone can whitewash this if they want, but there were WAY TOO MANY underage children gambling on these websites. If any casino allowed this in the United States, they would be promptly shut down and very heavily fined.
The online poker sites can also put a spin on this, but what they were trying to do to prevent underage children from gambling was a facade. They never really thought legislation would be passed against online poker funding, so they continued to run rampant in this regard.
I forget the exact details now, but a test study was done whereby an underage gambler tried opening up an account with gambling websites, and successfully gambled at the majority of them. Yes, America does allow a lot of freedoms, gambling included, but don't f* with our children. Online poker websites f*ed with children and now they're getting what's coming to them!
Again, the pro-gambling side can pass the blame any which way they want, but I think it is clear that the sheer greed of these online poker websites through exploiting children, caused their own demise in the United States.
Even if you are pro-gambling...think about how you would feel if some business was serving alcohol or selling cigarettes to your twelve year old kid? You wouldn't like that would you? You might not like it either if a casino allowed your twelve year old kid to sneak into a b&m casino and gamble away his/her savings. Get the picture now? This I believe was the primary incentive and motivation for this law to get passed.
Steve >>
The primarly motivation for getting that legislation passed was the (at the time) upcoming November elections. And if the US Goverment actually gave a damn about our children they would pave the way for Harrah's, MGM and the Horseshoe to get involved in online gambling, with whatever provisions are needed to ensure that a minimal number of kids are gambling at their sites. If you had online gambling sites that were owned AND REGULATED by US citizens places like Party would have lost 30% of their market share in 2 weeks time.
Also, I would be interested to see numbers that aren't provided by an anti gambling organization that suggest how many kids were gambling online. >>
Oh I agree that the election played a part in it, but come on now...there are numerous bills that try to get passed right before an election, that don't. Protecting the children was the main force behind this legislation being passed.
And come on now Boo - you KNOW that there were alot, A LOT of high school and college kids, and even some grade school kids gambling online. Please don't give us the "babe in the woods" routine. You, I and everyone else don't need any "numbers" to know this.
Steve >>
Yes, Steve, I do need numbers. If we're going to pass legislation that infringes on our right to do what we want with our own money then there better be strong, empirical evidence to suggest that said legislation is necessary. Just saying 'Well, I'll bet a lot of kids are doing this, so we better do something about it' is not enough for me. And if that's enough for you then perhaps you don't value your freedoms to the extent that many of the rest of us do.
If you-- or someone else who doesn't have an agenda-- shows me numbers that suggest a quarter million kids or something like that were cultivating gambling addictions by playing online then sure--- I can get behind the idea that this legislation will provide a net social benefit. But I'm not going to get behind it because some f**knut like Bill Frist has somehow divined that 'lots of kids are probably doing this.' Who would? I would think even YOU would be against this kind of restricting legislation if there isn't hard and compelling evidence supporting the arguments put forth by the bills proponents.
Should we pass gun laws just because a senator says 'I bet a lot of kids are killed in accidents involving handguns?' No, obviously not. We need numbers so we can put a value on the benefits that the legislation will give us. That isn't some wacky libertarian idea-- it's just good governance.
Edit to add: I am NOT counting 18 year old college men and women as 'kids' that need to be protecting by the evil online gambling empires. If you want to that's fine, but I am not. So if you find any numbers on the % of 'kids' that were gambling online please exclude anyone 18 years old and up from your findings. >>
Boo - you always bring interesting ideas to the table. That is an interesting analogy about the guns and I can relate to that because I am very "pro-gun" or "pro-Second Amendment" however it should be stated.
I'll see if I can find anything on this about kids under 18 gambling on the internet. I'm not sure of all the various legal gambling ages in the different states but I think in some states it is 21, and lower in other states down to 18. Is it 21 years old in Nevada? So in that aspect I think the definition of underage gambling would depend on where the child lives.
Steve >>
I, too, am 'pro-gun'. And 'pro choice', and 'pro legalizing drugs', and pro 'just about anything that keeps the US government out of my daily affairs'. That said, I am receptive to the idea that there could be some very compelling arguments for prohibiting online gambling. But just having a freaking senator decide that 'something oughta be done' is not enough for me if he doesn't have any research to back up his arguments. If he does, then great. I would love to see it, and like I said I'm not above changing my mind on this (or any other) issue if the facts demand I do so.
Pasted from a website:
What is the legal age for gambling?
The legal age for gambling or gaming in the State of Nevada is 21 years of age. Casinos are expected to adhere to very strict rules to maintain their gaming licenses. Noone under the age of 21 is allowed in the casino area nor allowed to linger in the casino area while a parent is gambling. Most casinos do not allow photography of any type in the gaming machine or table areas. A few do expressly permit it. Another strictly enforced rule is no use of cellular telephones in the sports book betting areas.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't need to tell you have I feel about this. Absolutely terrible.
Banning online poker on the premise that it's for the good of society, protecting the youth of our country from gambling on one hand..........
On the other, selling billions in state run lotteries and casinos throughout the country.
It seems odd to me that the government can send thousands of young men to their deaths in a war, claiming to be fighting in the name of freedom, and then telling me I can't spend a few bucks playing poker online. And they call this the land of the free??
It's all about money, of course, they aren't getting any of it and it pi$$es them off. It'll be back up at some point, except it'll be government regulated so they get their cut.
Terrible.
shawn >>
I agree there is hypocrisy there, no doubt about it, about the US allowing poker in casinos, but not online. This story can be spun any which way depending on whether it is anti-gambling or pro-gambling, and Bill Frist can be "blamed" if anyone wants to, but the real bottom line is that the online poker websites have themselves to blame.
The facts are that way too many, and anyone can whitewash this if they want, but there were WAY TOO MANY underage children gambling on these websites. If any casino allowed this in the United States, they would be promptly shut down and very heavily fined.
The online poker sites can also put a spin on this, but what they were trying to do to prevent underage children from gambling was a facade. They never really thought legislation would be passed against online poker funding, so they continued to run rampant in this regard.
I forget the exact details now, but a test study was done whereby an underage gambler tried opening up an account with gambling websites, and successfully gambled at the majority of them. Yes, America does allow a lot of freedoms, gambling included, but don't f* with our children. Online poker websites f*ed with children and now they're getting what's coming to them!
Again, the pro-gambling side can pass the blame any which way they want, but I think it is clear that the sheer greed of these online poker websites through exploiting children, caused their own demise in the United States.
Even if you are pro-gambling...think about how you would feel if some business was serving alcohol or selling cigarettes to your twelve year old kid? You wouldn't like that would you? You might not like it either if a casino allowed your twelve year old kid to sneak into a b&m casino and gamble away his/her savings. Get the picture now? This I believe was the primary incentive and motivation for this law to get passed.
Steve >>
The primarly motivation for getting that legislation passed was the (at the time) upcoming November elections. And if the US Goverment actually gave a damn about our children they would pave the way for Harrah's, MGM and the Horseshoe to get involved in online gambling, with whatever provisions are needed to ensure that a minimal number of kids are gambling at their sites. If you had online gambling sites that were owned AND REGULATED by US citizens places like Party would have lost 30% of their market share in 2 weeks time.
Also, I would be interested to see numbers that aren't provided by an anti gambling organization that suggest how many kids were gambling online. >>
Oh I agree that the election played a part in it, but come on now...there are numerous bills that try to get passed right before an election, that don't. Protecting the children was the main force behind this legislation being passed.
And come on now Boo - you KNOW that there were alot, A LOT of high school and college kids, and even some grade school kids gambling online. Please don't give us the "babe in the woods" routine. You, I and everyone else don't need any "numbers" to know this.
Steve >>
Yes, Steve, I do need numbers. If we're going to pass legislation that infringes on our right to do what we want with our own money then there better be strong, empirical evidence to suggest that said legislation is necessary. Just saying 'Well, I'll bet a lot of kids are doing this, so we better do something about it' is not enough for me. And if that's enough for you then perhaps you don't value your freedoms to the extent that many of the rest of us do.
If you-- or someone else who doesn't have an agenda-- shows me numbers that suggest a quarter million kids or something like that were cultivating gambling addictions by playing online then sure--- I can get behind the idea that this legislation will provide a net social benefit. But I'm not going to get behind it because some f**knut like Bill Frist has somehow divined that 'lots of kids are probably doing this.' Who would? I would think even YOU would be against this kind of restricting legislation if there isn't hard and compelling evidence supporting the arguments put forth by the bills proponents.
Should we pass gun laws just because a senator says 'I bet a lot of kids are killed in accidents involving handguns?' No, obviously not. We need numbers so we can put a value on the benefits that the legislation will give us. That isn't some wacky libertarian idea-- it's just good governance.
Edit to add: I am NOT counting 18 year old college men and women as 'kids' that need to be protecting by the evil online gambling empires. If you want to that's fine, but I am not. So if you find any numbers on the % of 'kids' that were gambling online please exclude anyone 18 years old and up from your findings. >>
Boo - you always bring interesting ideas to the table. That is an interesting analogy about the guns and I can relate to that because I am very "pro-gun" or "pro-Second Amendment" however it should be stated.
I'll see if I can find anything on this about kids under 18 gambling on the internet. I'm not sure of all the various legal gambling ages in the different states but I think in some states it is 21, and lower in other states down to 18. Is it 21 years old in Nevada? So in that aspect I think the definition of underage gambling would depend on where the child lives.
Steve >>
I, too, am 'pro-gun'. And 'pro choice', and 'pro legalizing drugs', and pro 'just about anything that keeps the US government out of my daily affairs'. That said, I am receptive to the idea that there could be some very compelling arguments for prohibiting online gambling. But just having a freaking senator decide that 'something oughta be done' is not enough for me if he doesn't have any research to back up his arguments. If he does, then great. I would love to see it, and like I said I'm not above changing my mind on this (or any other) issue if the facts demand I do so. >>
Point taken Boo. Frankly, in my opinion I do believe that online poker probably will one day be legalized in the US, although I have no idea when that could be...might not be in our lifetime perhaps...might be much sooner...depends on a lot of different circumstances.
Steve
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>Edit to add: I am NOT counting 18 year old college men and women as 'kids' that need to be protecting by the evil online gambling empires. If you want to that's fine, but I am not. So if you find any numbers on the % of 'kids' that were gambling online please exclude anyone 18 years old and up from your findings. >>
I hate using this phrase but that's a slippery slope. How many kids (under 18) are going to fess up to it? That's just like asking how many don't. It's impossible to get an accurate number and unfortunately, you have to make qualified assumptions.
Personally, I know of many under 18 "kids" that were doing it and with parental consent. If I was forced to give you a number, I would say easily 25. Each one says most, if not all, of their friends were also using internet sites. While I'm sure some of their friends over-lapped, it's still a big number. 50? 100? 500? I honestly don't know...
Do I consider it a legit "problem"? Yes but that's just my opinion based upon 1st hand knowledge. >>
Stown's post alone tells me that underage gambling is quite a problem. I'll still respect Boo's wishes though and try to dig up some numbers somewhere.
Steve
<< <i>Steve,
Are you aware of any documented cases of a player making money playing poker long-term? How about research into the lifetime winnings (or losses) of some of the bigger name pro players? I'd be thrilled to hear your insights!
Joe >>
There's Joe. What took you so long?
So much for my next All-American purchase.
I would like to see numbers on all these children gambling as well.
Mark
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
By Robert Barr
ASSOCIATED PRESS
8:33 a.m. January 18, 2007
LONDON – Neteller PLC, a Britain-based online money transfer business, said Thursday it is ceasing to handle gambling transactions from U.S. customers because of restrictive legislation and uncertainties about regulations.
The company's move came just days after former directors were arrested and charged in the United States with funneling billions of dollars in gambling proceeds to overseas betting operations.
As of today ... at 12:01 a.m. GMT, U.S. resident customers were no longer able to transfer funds using Neteller's services to or from any online gambling site,” the company said in a statement to the London Stock Exchange.
Millions of American players bet an estimated $6 billion per year online, according to industry figures. Neteller said it would focus operations on markets in Europe, Asia and other countries in the Americas.
Trading in Neteller shares on the LSE was suspended Tuesday following the announcement of the arrests of the two former directors.
Neteller is an Internet payment services company that has grown in popularity as an increasing number of credit card companies have begun refusing to accept payments to online gambling sites.
It essentially acts as a middleman between gamblers and offshore betting operations. For example, a gambler who wants to place bets at offshore sports books can fund an account with Neteller, which in turn will transfer the money to the betting sites. Prosecutors say Neteller facilitated the transfer of billions of dollars of illegal gambling proceeds.
On Tuesday, U.S. authorities announced the arrests of former directors John David Lefebvre, 55, and Stephen Eric Lawrence, 46, both Canadian citizens who were indicted by a grand jury in New York.
U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia said the men knew when they took their company public that its activities were illegal.
FBI Assistant Director Mark J. Mershon, assistant director of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, said the multibillion-dollar online gambling industry is “a colossal criminal enterprise masquerading as legitimate business.”
Lefebvre was arrested Monday in Malibu, California. Lawrence, who resides in Paradise Island, Bahamas, was arrested Monday in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
They joined in 1999 to found Neteller, which is based in the Isle of Man. Lawrence left the company's board of directors in October and Lefebvre left in December 2005, prosecutors said.
The company's announcement noted the arrests of its former directors, but said the decision to cease gambling transfers in the United States “reflects the culmination of a series of deliberations and steps the group has taken since the passing of the UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act) in October 2006.”
Several British-based online gambling operations, including PartyGaming PLC, Sportingbet PLC, BetOnSports PLC and Leisure & Gaming PLC, withdrew from the lucrative U.S. market as a result of the act and enforcement action by U.S. authorities.
Sportingbet PLC Chairman Peter Dicks, 64, was detained in New York on Sept. 6 when customs officials discovered he had an outstanding warrant issued in May by Louisiana authorities that charged him with gambling by computer. He resigned as the company's non-executive chairman after being detained. He was later released after New York Governor George Pataki declined to sign a warrant extraditing him to Louisiana.
Former BetOnSports Chief Executive David Carruthers remains under house arrest in the United States awaiting trial on federal charges based on the 1961 Wire Act.
Eight U.S. states have laws prohibiting Internet gambling: Washington, Nevada, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, South Dakota, Michigan and Oregon. The arrest of Dicks marked the first time one of those states had taken action against one of thousands of big-time online gambling operations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Net: www.netellergroup.com
This is in PDF format:
http://www.ncalg.org/Library/Youth/Annenberg%20youth%20study%202003.pdf
<< <i>Please do not be so niave to think this ban is about protecting children. Just like everything in this country it is all about the money. I'm sure the big gaming casinos like Harrah's and MGM, who pay a lot of taxes, do not like competition from on-line gaming. Plus I'm sure the IRS has their hand in this since it is harder for them to steal their share from off-shore firms.
As a wise Finance prof told me, don't listen to their mouth, look at their wallets. >>
Nope! When it comes to protecting children, that is more important than money. This legislation was children first, then it was about the money.
Actually it was probably the horse racing industry that had the biggest influence on this legislation getting passed as far as the money is concerned.
Steve
<< <i>I have a bad feeling Neteller is going to go ahead and keep U.S. players money, which is an even bigger kick in the balls than not being able to play anymore.
So much for my next All-American purchase. >>
No they won't. Everyone I've talked to who has cashed out their Neteller balances has had no problems so far. I'm going to try it later today and I'll let you know how it goes. If they give you any hassle about doing an EFT just request a paper check.
Also, I've heard rumors-- I haven't tried this myself-- that Neteller will allow you to transfer your balance to Paypal for a 1.9% fee. So that's something else you may want to call them about and check out.
<< <i> Nope! When it comes to protecting children, that is more important than money. This legislation was children first, then it was about the money.
Actually it was probably the horse racing industry that had the biggest influence on this legislation getting passed as far as the money is concerned.
Steve >>
Then Frist should make fast food illegal since being a fat kid is more dangerous than being a gambler. Gambing doesn't give you heart disease and diabetes.
Remember this is the party that put a child predator in charge of the protecting children committee.
I wish the gov't would stay out of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i> Nope! When it comes to protecting children, that is more important than money. This legislation was children first, then it was about the money.
Actually it was probably the horse racing industry that had the biggest influence on this legislation getting passed as far as the money is concerned.
Steve >>
Then Frist should make fast food illegal since being a fat kid is more dangerous than being a gambler. Gambing doesn't give you heart disease and diabetes.
Remember this is the party that put a child predator in charge of the protecting children committee.
I wish the gov't would stay out of my life. >>
<<< Gambing doesn't give you heart disease and diabetes. >>>
Maybe you haven't gambled much.
We used to say bring us anything edible, some beer and a p*ss bucket, and we'd never leave the gambling table. LOL
...that is 'till the money ran out.
-
<< <i>
<< <i>I have a bad feeling Neteller is going to go ahead and keep U.S. players money, which is an even bigger kick in the balls than not being able to play anymore.
So much for my next All-American purchase. >>
No they won't. Everyone I've talked to who has cashed out their Neteller balances has had no problems so far. I'm going to try it later today and I'll let you know how it goes. If they give you any hassle about doing an EFT just request a paper check.
Also, I've heard rumors-- I haven't tried this myself-- that Neteller will allow you to transfer your balance to Paypal for a 1.9% fee. So that's something else you may want to call them about and check out. >>
I'm personally having a problem.
shawn
If they were serious about protecting kids, they would stop all of these poker shows. I know they got me more interested in poker than I normally would have.
Plus where are the parents in all of this?
<< <i>Believe me I gamble and have had my share of losses. I don't think gambling is a virtue, it is a vice. But in my experience the gaming companies run their businesses more responsibly that a lot of legit businesses.
If they were serious about protecting kids, they would stop all of these poker shows. I know they got me more interested in poker than I normally would have.
Plus where are the parents in all of this? >>
I agree with ndleo on this. Poker shows are the rage right now. They glamourize it and put aspirations in many an impressionable kids mind. The parents that aren't parenting their children and allowing it to happen are the same damn parents that allow their kids to pick out the scratch off ticket at the gas station, or let their kids pick their lottery numbers. You want the kids away from gambling, don't influence them in any form of it...
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
BTW, gambling addiction has the highest suicide rate, and attempted suicide rate, of any other addiction including drug addiction.
Steve
Come on now...trust a pro poker player? These people are the lyingest bunch of cheaters going. LOL
Ever hear of Dutch Boyd and his story. Boo probably knows it - I'm not repeating it here - Google it if you want to find out.
And just what pro you gonna trust? Hellmuth, Ivey, Chan...Matusow? LOL. You gotta be kidding. Brunson? LOL Brunson would cheat you out of a nickel in a Texas second if you gave him the opportunity.
The only pro player I might, "might" trust is Negreanu - maybe, but not for more than a dollar. LOL
<< <i><<< I think it will work since most players will trust the known bigger names. >>>
Come on now...trust a pro poker player? These people are the lyingest bunch of cheaters going. LOL
Ever hear of Dutch Boyd and his story. Boo probably knows it - I'm not repeating it here - Google it if you want to find out.
And just what pro you gonna trust? Hellmuth, Ivey, Chan...Matusow? LOL. You gotta be kidding. Brunson? LOL Brunson would cheat you out of a nickel in a Texas second if you gave him the opportunity.
The only pro player I might, "might" trust is Negreanu - maybe, but not for more than a dollar. LOL >>
Yes I've heard of the dutch story..... And no, the pros you see on tv are not only big name pros, im talking online pros...
Edit: also online poker must of died, playing in a weekley stars tournment and only 1k players on a thursday night
In the survey shown above (Thanks stevek) to test for gambling the respondent was asked if they had ever "gambled for money, such as playing the lottery or betting on sports or a game of skill." Also, they have grouped young people with ages from 14 to 22. So if you were a 21 year old and answered you had scratched one lottery ticket (Who hasn't?) then you would fall into the category of "national risk."
Also if they had gambled in the last 30 days, "they were deemed to be monthly gamblers."
Using such broad base questions and limited categories I think it would declare 98% of everyone had a gambling problem.
Let's take it to different example, using the survey standards, if you were 21 and had drank a single beer, then you would fall into the "national risk" category and if you had a beer in the last 30 days, then you would be an alcoholic.
Mark
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
This has been covered extensively.
It was a bone to throw to the Christians by some conservative Republicans
in a last ditch effort to keep their jobs in the midst of the sweep-out of Washington DC garbage last November.
Luckily most of the ones behind this bill lost their jobs.
You know ...
us older guys remember when there weren't all these laws to protect 'the children' and we all grew up just fine!
Get out of my freaking face government!
"How about a little fire Scarecrow ?"
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I have a bad feeling Neteller is going to go ahead and keep U.S. players money, which is an even bigger kick in the balls than not being able to play anymore.
So much for my next All-American purchase. >>
No they won't. Everyone I've talked to who has cashed out their Neteller balances has had no problems so far. I'm going to try it later today and I'll let you know how it goes. If they give you any hassle about doing an EFT just request a paper check.
Also, I've heard rumors-- I haven't tried this myself-- that Neteller will allow you to transfer your balance to Paypal for a 1.9% fee. So that's something else you may want to call them about and check out. >>
I'm personally having a problem.
shawn >>
I just requested a paper check for my entire neteller balance and it looks like it's going to go through. I'll let you know when I have it in hand.
Edit to add: Nobody I've talked to who requested an EFT AFTER the 15th of Jan. has received funds in their bank account yet, and nobody is sure why. Neteller is a publicly traded company, so I have a hard time believing that they're just going to up and run with my (our) dough, and apparently Canadian citizens are getting FedEx checks/ EFT's processed with zero hassles, so it could just be a question of their processer getting nervous after all the arrests. If I learn more I'll post it. Anyway, the 'party line' appears to be that it will take 6-8 weeks for checks to arrive, so it looks like the best case scenerio is that I'll get my money by my freaking birthday in mid March. Nice.
<< <i>In the survey shown above (Thanks stevek) to test for gambling the respondent was asked if they had ever "gambled for money, such as playing the lottery or betting on sports or a game of skill." Also, they have grouped young people with ages from 14 to 22. So if you were a 21 year old and answered you had scratched one lottery ticket (Who hasn't?) then you would fall into the category of "national risk."
Also if they had gambled in the last 30 days, "they were deemed to be monthly gamblers."
Using such broad base questions and limited categories I think it would declare 98% of everyone had a gambling problem.
Let's take it to different example, using the survey standards, if you were 21 and had drank a single beer, then you would fall into the "national risk" category and if you had a beer in the last 30 days, then you would be an alcoholic.
Mark >>
Come on now Mark...that's a simplistic spin on the study. I'm not going back and forth with anybody on the study, it ain't my study, but it's clear from this study and countless news articles that underage gambling is a significant problem in the US.
Here's a stat which I have seen a lot lately - it has been estimated that 5% to 10% of college students are addicted to gambling. That's not % of gamblers, that's percentage of students. I guess you and Boo won't find that alarming either...well I do.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I have a bad feeling Neteller is going to go ahead and keep U.S. players money, which is an even bigger kick in the balls than not being able to play anymore.
So much for my next All-American purchase. >>
No they won't. Everyone I've talked to who has cashed out their Neteller balances has had no problems so far. I'm going to try it later today and I'll let you know how it goes. If they give you any hassle about doing an EFT just request a paper check.
Also, I've heard rumors-- I haven't tried this myself-- that Neteller will allow you to transfer your balance to Paypal for a 1.9% fee. So that's something else you may want to call them about and check out. >>
I'm personally having a problem.
shawn >>
I just requested a paper check for my entire neteller balance and it looks like it's going to go through. I'll let you know when I have it in hand.
Edit to add: Nobody I've talked to who requested an EFT AFTER the 15th of Jan. has received funds in their bank account yet, and nobody is sure why. Neteller is a publicly traded company, so I have a hard time believing that they're just going to up and run with my (our) dough, and apparently Canadian citizens are getting FedEx checks/ EFT's processed with zero hassles, so it could just be a question of their processer getting nervous after all the arrests. If I learn more I'll post it. Anyway, the 'party line' appears to be that it will take 6-8 weeks for checks to arrive, so it looks like the best case scenerio is that I'll get my money by my freaking birthday in mid March. Nice. >>
I of course hope nobody gets burned by Neteller. I'll tell you exactly how you'll know if you'll get your money or not. When Neteller stock reopens for trading, if it hasn't gone down that much then you're definitely okay, if it's gone down a lot then be concerned, if it's hovering at a buck or two a share or lower then you can basically almost kiss your money goodbye.
Steve
<< <i>This has been covered extensively.
It was a bone to throw to the Christians by some conservative Republicans
in a last ditch effort to keep their jobs in the midst of the sweep-out of Washington DC garbage last November.
Luckily most of the ones behind this bill lost their jobs.
You know ...
us older guys remember when there weren't all these laws to protect 'the children' and we all grew up just fine!
Get out of my freaking face government!
Here's another stat for ya. Many unbiased studies have shown that for every dollar the government takes in from gambling, that between 1.5 to 3 dollars are spent. Of course in a local area that legalizes gambling, taxes will probably go down which is a major reason why it gets approved by the voters, but overall taxes will go up in society especially on the federal level.
Think all those new casinos in Pennsylvania won't have anything to do with you living in another state? Think again - you'll be helping to pay the social costs for the addicted gamblers that these casinos will create. When the addicted gamblers can't feed their children, can't provide medical care or pay for their college education because they gambled away the money, then you will pay for it. There are also a number of other costs associated with an increase in gambling addiction, that you as a taxpayer will have to pay. So how do you like them apples?
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>This has been covered extensively.
It was a bone to throw to the Christians by some conservative Republicans
in a last ditch effort to keep their jobs in the midst of the sweep-out of Washington DC garbage last November.
Luckily most of the ones behind this bill lost their jobs.
You know ...
us older guys remember when there weren't all these laws to protect 'the children' and we all grew up just fine!
Get out of my freaking face government!
Here's another stat for ya. Many unbiased studies have shown that for every dollar the government takes in from gambling, that between 1.5 to 3 dollars are spent. Of course in a local area that legalizes gambling, taxes will probably go down which is a major reason why it gets approved by the voters, but overall taxes will go up in society especially on the federal level.
Think all those new casinos in Pennsylvania won't have anything to do with you living in another state? Think again - you'll be helping to pay the social costs for the addicted gamblers that these casinos will create. When the addicted gamblers can't feed their children, can't provide medical care or pay for their college education because they gambled away the money, then you will pay for it. There are also a number of other costs associated with an increase in gambling addiction, that you as a taxpayer will have to pay. So how do you like them apples?
Steve >>
People should have some self control, but your right, i've seen people go broke many atimes at the commerce, some guys I know come up asking for a loan of 5k-10k at a time and I always decline, yet I love this game and will continue to play it live till I can no longer afford to.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>This has been covered extensively.
It was a bone to throw to the Christians by some conservative Republicans
in a last ditch effort to keep their jobs in the midst of the sweep-out of Washington DC garbage last November.
Luckily most of the ones behind this bill lost their jobs.
You know ...
us older guys remember when there weren't all these laws to protect 'the children' and we all grew up just fine!
Get out of my freaking face government!
Here's another stat for ya. Many unbiased studies have shown that for every dollar the government takes in from gambling, that between 1.5 to 3 dollars are spent. Of course in a local area that legalizes gambling, taxes will probably go down which is a major reason why it gets approved by the voters, but overall taxes will go up in society especially on the federal level.
Think all those new casinos in Pennsylvania won't have anything to do with you living in another state? Think again - you'll be helping to pay the social costs for the addicted gamblers that these casinos will create. When the addicted gamblers can't feed their children, can't provide medical care or pay for their college education because they gambled away the money, then you will pay for it. There are also a number of other costs associated with an increase in gambling addiction, that you as a taxpayer will have to pay. So how do you like them apples?
Steve >>
People should have some self control, but your right, i've seen people go broke many atimes at the commerce, some guys I know come up asking for a loan of 5k-10k at a time and I always decline, yet I love this game and will continue to play it live till I can no longer afford to. >>
Smart move! You should never and I do mean never lend a gambler money.
Steve
<< <i>Smart move! You should never and I do mean never lend a gambler money.
Steve >>
Sure, just keep rubbing salt in my old wound
It's money long forgotten
<< <i>
<< <i>Smart move! You should never and I do mean never lend a gambler money.
Steve >>
Sure, just keep rubbing salt in my old wound
It's money long forgotten
Stown - I have no idea what you're referring to? And I don't need an explanation...my comment was intended for gamblers in general.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Smart move! You should never and I do mean never lend a gambler money.
Steve >>
Sure, just keep rubbing salt in my old wound
It's money long forgotten
Stown - I have no idea what you're referring to? And I don't need an explanation...my comment was intended for gamblers in general.
Steve >>
I gave loans to some gamblers. Needless to say, those loans are still outstanding
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Smart move! You should never and I do mean never lend a gambler money.
Steve >>
Sure, just keep rubbing salt in my old wound
It's money long forgotten
Stown - I have no idea what you're referring to? And I don't need an explanation...my comment was intended for gamblers in general.
Steve >>
I gave loans to some gamblers. Needless to say, those loans are still outstanding
I thought you may have been referring to something with a forum member here, and if you were, I hadn't seen it.
Yes, unfortunately, I've done the same thing in the past, lending money to gamblers and not getting repaid.
<< <i>
<< <i>In the survey shown above (Thanks stevek) to test for gambling the respondent was asked if they had ever "gambled for money, such as playing the lottery or betting on sports or a game of skill." Also, they have grouped young people with ages from 14 to 22. So if you were a 21 year old and answered you had scratched one lottery ticket (Who hasn't?) then you would fall into the category of "national risk."
Also if they had gambled in the last 30 days, "they were deemed to be monthly gamblers."
Using such broad base questions and limited categories I think it would declare 98% of everyone had a gambling problem.
Let's take it to different example, using the survey standards, if you were 21 and had drank a single beer, then you would fall into the "national risk" category and if you had a beer in the last 30 days, then you would be an alcoholic.
Mark >>
Come on now Mark...that's a simplistic spin on the study. I'm not going back and forth with anybody on the study, it ain't my study, but it's clear from this study and countless news articles that underage gambling is a significant problem in the US.
Here's a stat which I have seen a lot lately - it has been estimated that 5% to 10% of college students are addicted to gambling. That's not % of gamblers, that's percentage of students. I guess you and Boo won't find that alarming either...well I do.
Steve >>
Why in the hell are you dragging me into your post?! I haven't said anything one way or another on the study you posted.
Compulsive gamling is a personality disorder. It is in people's genes.
It will always exist just as alcoholism, drug abuse, overeating, and being a workaholic always will.
Trying to legislate these things out of existence is an effort in futility.
Political posturing at its worst and nothing more.
How about Prohibition? That seemed to work really well ...
"How about a little fire Scarecrow ?"
Yes, I suppose quoting the questions asked in the study is being simplistic. However, I do not think many people agree that if you have ever gambled that you are part of a crisis and that if you gambled in the last month you are an addict, as the study implies.
When I noted, referring to the survey "If you were a 21 year old and answered you had scratched one lottery ticket (Who hasn't?) then you would fall into the category of "national risk," that was not an opinion or a spin. It is what the survey says.
A lot of studies are done to help support someone in their cause, then they are being are done by people with an agenda of showing their view. Which is very easy to do with yes-no surveys.
That does not say gambling can't be a problem or that it isn‘t to some people. One can take anything and make it a problem. Whether it is gambling, drugs or buying PSA cards. That however, in my opinion, does not mean we should ban, censor and/or abolish everything.
Mark
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>In the survey shown above (Thanks stevek) to test for gambling the respondent was asked if they had ever "gambled for money, such as playing the lottery or betting on sports or a game of skill." Also, they have grouped young people with ages from 14 to 22. So if you were a 21 year old and answered you had scratched one lottery ticket (Who hasn't?) then you would fall into the category of "national risk."
Also if they had gambled in the last 30 days, "they were deemed to be monthly gamblers."
Using such broad base questions and limited categories I think it would declare 98% of everyone had a gambling problem.
Let's take it to different example, using the survey standards, if you were 21 and had drank a single beer, then you would fall into the "national risk" category and if you had a beer in the last 30 days, then you would be an alcoholic.
Mark >>
Come on now Mark...that's a simplistic spin on the study. I'm not going back and forth with anybody on the study, it ain't my study, but it's clear from this study and countless news articles that underage gambling is a significant problem in the US.
Here's a stat which I have seen a lot lately - it has been estimated that 5% to 10% of college students are addicted to gambling. That's not % of gamblers, that's percentage of students. I guess you and Boo won't find that alarming either...well I do.
Steve >>
Why in the hell are you dragging me into your post?! I haven't said anything one way or another on the study you posted. >>
Geez Boo...You did ask for a study and I provided it. Okay I'll wait for a response from you before any, if any, further comment. Frankly Boo, sometimes for whatever reason, you seem to stick your head in the sand like an ostrich to the significant problem of underage gambling addiction, especially regarding online poker....that's why I "dragged" you into the post. I don't want to judge you on this, but perhaps your profits from your poker forum along with your apparent "love" for the game, has blinded you to the financial harm and destruction going on out there to many people, especially young people.
Steve
As I've stated before, my "fight" is with those who prey on gamblers, not with any gamblers themselves. I've spoken my piece in this thread, so to this thread I'm saying adios!
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>In the survey shown above (Thanks stevek) to test for gambling the respondent was asked if they had ever "gambled for money, such as playing the lottery or betting on sports or a game of skill." Also, they have grouped young people with ages from 14 to 22. So if you were a 21 year old and answered you had scratched one lottery ticket (Who hasn't?) then you would fall into the category of "national risk."
Also if they had gambled in the last 30 days, "they were deemed to be monthly gamblers."
Using such broad base questions and limited categories I think it would declare 98% of everyone had a gambling problem.
Let's take it to different example, using the survey standards, if you were 21 and had drank a single beer, then you would fall into the "national risk" category and if you had a beer in the last 30 days, then you would be an alcoholic.
Mark >>
Come on now Mark...that's a simplistic spin on the study. I'm not going back and forth with anybody on the study, it ain't my study, but it's clear from this study and countless news articles that underage gambling is a significant problem in the US.
Here's a stat which I have seen a lot lately - it has been estimated that 5% to 10% of college students are addicted to gambling. That's not % of gamblers, that's percentage of students. I guess you and Boo won't find that alarming either...well I do.
Steve >>
Why in the hell are you dragging me into your post?! I haven't said anything one way or another on the study you posted. >>
Geez Boo...You did ask for a study and I provided it. Okay I'll wait for a response from you before any, if any, further comment. Frankly Boo, sometimes for whatever reason, you seem to stick your head in the sand like an ostrich to the significant problem of underage gambling addiction, especially regarding online poker....that's why I "dragged" you into the post. I don't want to judge you on this, but perhaps your profits from your poker forum along with your apparent "love" for the game, has blinded you to the financial harm and destruction going on out there to many people, especially young people.
Steve >>
Steve--
As I said before, I make virtually nothing from my website. A few hundred a month, tops. We get about 12000 visitors a month, of which MAYBE three or four have used a banner to sign up at a site, and 95% of those have made us less than $30. And whatever the site does make I split that with my sister. Putting up the website was a way for me and my sister to do a project together that we both enjoyed, and while I would have been perfectly happy if the site had made me rich-- or even provided me with a substantial income-- that did not happen. Also, the reason I'm ticked is that you are acting as if I've read this study and concluded that 5%-10% is not a significant number. That IS a significant number. Is it significant enough to justify the recent legislation? I don't know. I haven't decided. But don't put words in my mouth and assume that I've dismissed these numbers as trivial when I haven't said anything about them one way or another.
On a related note, I don't love the game-- not anymore. I'm sick of it, and a small part of me is actually enjoying pulling all my money out and moving on to something new. There's no way for you to know this about me, of course, so I can excuse you for assuming that I still have a passion for poker, but after 1.4 million hands and eight years of playing it begins to feel like I'm reading from a script every time I sit down; and that's no fun at all.
Let me conclude by saying this: If it is in fact true that online gambling has reached epidemic proportions amongst teenagers then I think the social benefits that come from closing down US access to these sites outweighs the social cost. I still don't like being told what I, as a 34 year old American citizen, can and cannot do to support my family, but I can appreciate the social gain that would come from more or less ending US participation in these games. With that said, I haven't decided that it IS an epidemic amongst young people, but I'm not ruling out the possibility. Also, FWIW, I'm 100% with Wolfbear when he says that this whole thing was a vote grab and had nothing to do with a deep rooted concern amongst our sleazy senators for American youth. If this legislation puts a stop to underage gambling, and if underage gambling really is an enormous problem, then the benefits that we'll derive from this law will be a happy accident and nothing more.
You'll also be tickled to learn that my sister and I are now seriously contemplating pulling all banner advertisements off our site, and just paying the $200 a year to keep it active for the sole purpose of educating people about the opportunities of +EV gambling.