Playing Poker Online May Change Significantly


Call me biased, especially since I’m Canadian, but it often seems like when the House (US) passes a bill, the people pushing for it always have their own agenda. It’s forever the way of politicians. Okay, so Canadian politicians do it, too. So what’s the agenda; why is the US government trying to regulate online poker sites? Especially those not based on US soil?

Brad Waller has a brief synopsis at ReveNews. You can read the actual House Financial Services press release, as well. The gist of it is that the House feels that, opposed to brick-and-mortar casinos, online betting means less jobs. They’re also concerned with youth gambling and gambling addiction, which is easier to control at a live casino. And of course, there are no taxes collected from an online casino. (Neither are there any from a Native casino, right? Are they also of “no benefit to Americans”?)

But the craziest thing is suggestions that online casinos may be laundering money. Like that doesn’t happen at any of the real casinos. No, that’s not the craziest. This is: that online casinos may be funding ter*o*ist groups. What? Does someone have to remind the House that the US government openly declares that each year, they give US$11 billion to a group of Arab countries to do with what they will? What’s more, this money comes from some sort of “defense” fund, and Israel doesn’t get any of it. Who’s supporting ter*o*ism? They’re not spending it on Tim Horton’s or Crispy Creme.

Hoo boy. Excuse me a second, I thought I just saw a black helicopter fly by. Oh my…

If the gambling laws in the US (and Canada?) weren’t so ridiculous, maybe these offshore-based online casinos wouldn’t be proliferating. If you want a solution, why not allow select existing brick-and-mortar casinos to participate in a pilot project where they can set up online casinos that have a tie-in to the live casino - especially in terms of being able to transfer funds.

This way, you’re gaining several pluses:

  1. Regulating at least some of the online betting.
  2. Being able to collect taxes.
  3. Being able to provide addiction support to those online bettors whose spending seems to be out of whack compared to previous spending. (There are simple statistical methods by which you can create trendlines on spending. And since personal info will be recorded by the casino, they can initiate the help. And with software like Skype or GoogleTalk, they can speak directly to problem bettors. With live video thrown in, they can offer live support that may be more effective.)
  4. Creating jobs for programmers, statisticians, accountants, advertising firms, designers, writers, therapists, counsellors and more.

Hmmm. I don’t hear those propellers anymore.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Related Posts


« Previous Post | Next Post »

1 Comment to “Playing Poker Online May Change Significantly”

The Poker Blog » Poker Profits Vs Legal Activity

June 22nd, 2006 at 10:49 am

[…] Regardless of the solution used, being able to retain anonymity means that citizens are less likely to object to regulated online gambling. This means more revenue for US casinos, and likely more jobs. […]

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Advertise Here