Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Hold'Em Playin' Guy)   Having put the final touches on a resolution to the Iraq situation, the Katrina thing and that darned annoying illegal immigrant problem, Congress now wants to stop you from playing online poker   ( divider line
    More: News  
•       •       •

5759 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jul 2006 at 9:04 PM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

171 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

2006-07-10 09:36:02 PM  
those clowns in congress are at it again
2006-07-10 09:36:27 PM  
I am not a lawyer (yet), but I suspect this law would be toothless. Gambling websites in Gibraltar (i.e., outside of US jurisdiction) would create shells that would conceal from the bank that the money was going to a gambling website.

If they craft it right the bill would easily be able to prohibit banks from accepting transfers to and from gambling sites or e-wallet sites like Neteller that are affiliated with gambling. Without being able to fund an account the industry dies. Obv..

Don't let the US government tell you how to run your life and what you cannot do with your own money. Fight this bill. Land of the free.
2006-07-10 09:40:51 PM  
The only monster here is the gambling monster that has enslaved Congress! I call him Gamblor, and it's time to snatch Congress from his neon claws!
2006-07-10 09:41:58 PM  
Once again busybodies feel the need to restrict the freedoms of others for the "good" of the "less fortunate". Condescension from Congress, of all people, pisses me off.

//doesn't gamble
2006-07-10 09:42:30 PM  
I don't see a problem with the bill at all. I live in Vegas and there is no guarantee that a kid isn't playing.
2006-07-10 09:42:54 PM  
I'm glad that so many people that I've never met know exactly whats best for me.

/where's my bong
//oooooh yeah
///slashies, dude
2006-07-10 09:43:12 PM  
too much boner sucking
2006-07-10 09:47:56 PM  

I don't see a problem with the bill at all. I live in Vegas and there is no guarantee that a kid isn't playing.

How would a kid have a house to lose? Is the only possible solution then to shut down all online gambling? Why not the ponies then? If the 'you must be 18' clickthrough isn't enough for gambling sites, should we shut down all porn sites too and force the web to be G-rated? Where the hell are the kid's parents? Where is the kid getting the money to gamble?
2006-07-10 09:50:20 PM  
At least the article calls gamblers "gamblers." I'm tired of seeing them called "players" or "gamers" and what they do called "gaming" as if you're doing it because it's fun. And "betting" is "wagering" because somehow that's more refined.

Any organization that uses lingo for a detrimental action is doing so to soften its meaning. I wish they'd just come out and say it- "we're out to fark you and fark you hard."

I don't care what you do with your money as long as you don't break into my farking car and rip out the stereo so you can get more to feed your [gambling|drug|macrame] habit.

-hates damn addicts
--dang! been on Fark for seven straight hours!
---just. one. more. comment...
2006-07-10 09:51:51 PM  
Horse racing states would not be prohibited from any activity allowed under the Internet Horseracing Act. That law written in the 1970s set up rules for interstate betting on racing.

Did they even have the internet in the 70s?

2006-07-10 09:51:59 PM  

Actually, people who gamble their houses away DON'T deserve one in the first place. Only dysfunctional people are gamblers or addicts anyways, so if it's not one thing they're addicted to, it's another. I say give me gambling or give me death!

I will agree that it should ONLY be legal if the bank of the casino is IN THE UNITED STATES. Hell, why should shmucks like Joe Francis of Girls Gone Wild pay no taxes when the rest of us do?
2006-07-10 09:51:59 PM  
The gamblimng lobby want the online sites shut down. I can tell you that my trips to Shreveport ended when I found poker rooms in Dallas and started on-line gaming. I got tired of having to weasel in with the locals who were running the tourists for their dimes.
2006-07-10 10:03:08 PM  
Washington made it a felony to play poker online. Now it's just that much more exciting.
2006-07-10 10:04:06 PM  
Truth be known, they see something they want to call a "moral decline" (which is a culture change) in America, and they have no farking clue how to stop it. Right now they're just delving into the old moralities and hoping that trying to legislate them will bring about some change. Fat chance.
2006-07-10 10:07:25 PM  
Don't let the US government tell you how to run your life and what you cannot do with your own money.

Too late. We could've used your wisdom back in the 1930s. There's nothing to do about it now. We're no longer "the land of the free," we're the land of the "slightly less regulated than socialists."
2006-07-10 10:08:18 PM  
Submitter, you misspelled a word. It's not "C-o-n-g-r-e-s-s", it's "C-a-s-i-n-o L-o-b-b-y-i-s-t-s". Common mistake.
2006-07-10 10:09:50 PM  
AHH! God that pisses me off! Why these family frickin values, busy-body, conservative f*cksticks feel the need to tell everyone else how to live is beyond me!

Live and let live you bastards - if you don't like gambling don't do it! It has nothing to do with anyone else if I want to play a few hands of cards on my computer from time to time. I don't but if I ever want to I would like the choice to remain mine!
2006-07-10 10:13:52 PM  
autothing sez, "Only dysfunctional people are gamblers."

I must strenuously disagree with your statement. Gambling, as long as the Catholic Church's four conditions are met, is fine. Why do you think any form of gambling is for "dysfucntional people?"

Here are the four conditions:

"What is staked must belong to the gambler and must be at his free disposal. It is wrong, therefore, for the lawyer to stake the money of his client, or for anyone to gamble with what is necessary for the maintenance of his wife and children.
"The gambler must act freely, without unjust compulsion.
There must be no fraud in the transaction, although the usual ruses of the game may be allowed. It is unlawful, accordingly, to mark the cards, but it is permissible to conceal carefully from an opponent the number of trump cards one holds.
"Finally, there must be some sort of equality between the parties to make the contract equitable; it would be unfair for a combination of two expert whist players to take the money of a couple of mere novices at the game."

Note that my endorsement of Catholic policy in gambling is not an endorsement of their handling of the child sex scandal. I am positing their position as an example of a sane point of view towards gambling.

With that said, one would hope that any gambling sites would strenuously seek to ensure that under-18s (or 16 where that is the age of majority) are not able to access their websites, and this involves more than the often-ignored "Do not go here if you're under 18."

With onshore gambling sites legalised, we can also be assured that all websites are run legitimately (as in, they actually pay off winners.) The existing gambling companies, should they desire, can easily operate these websites; there is no reason why cannot become as trusted as Caesar's Palace, for example.
2006-07-10 10:14:32 PM  
I blame Bush, even though... well, you know.
2006-07-10 10:21:50 PM  

Wow. Those are some pretty damn awesome (and true) guidelines.

When the church gets things right, they get them right (see lots of the social service work, most of which doesn't include preaching except in the "live by example" style). When they get it wrong, well...

My brother's made some money with a couple of "$50 upon joining" incentives and playing exactly by the book-odds on blackjack. All in good fun, and like the flag burning nonsense, another thing we dont' really need to pay people to be dealing with.

2006-07-10 10:23:42 PM  
//raises hand//

Question! Once upon a time, wasn't it the Republicans that were in favor of a small, less involved centralized government?????
2006-07-10 10:29:39 PM  
Da Procrastinator

Question! Once upon a time, wasn't it the Republicans that were in favor of a small, less involved centralized government?????

That was when they were in the MINORITY. Now that they ARE the government of course they want it to be more powerful.

/The government knows whats best for you.
//Did I say you? I meant us. Yes... us.
2006-07-10 10:29:55 PM  
Dammit, Congress, get off my koolaid!

/no, not that kind of koolaid
2006-07-10 10:31:44 PM  
Da Procrastinator

Once upon a time, they did. At least they said they did. They still claim the believe a small government is better. Buncha lying sacks of crap.
2006-07-10 10:31:57 PM  
I don't see why anyone should care if I play a bit of Omaha H/L for what quite literally amounts to pocket change.
2006-07-10 10:32:35 PM  
"They still claim THEY believe..."

2006-07-10 10:33:31 PM  
You forgot North Korea
2006-07-10 10:34:31 PM  
PocketfullaSass: I don't see why anyone should care if I play a bit of Omaha H/L for what quite literally amounts to pocket change.

Exactly! I would play omaha h/l at a local casino except nobody offers the game, and the stakes are too high. I can risk a $10 buy in at an .05/.10 pot limit online game. A 300 buy in at a 3/6 limit hold 'em game is just too much for my blood.
2006-07-10 10:38:09 PM  
"There are no needle marks. There's no alcohol on the breath. You just click the mouse and lose your house,"

Hmm, kind of like.... online day trading? I'm sure more people have lost more houses because of Merrill than Poker Why aren't they banning those?

Charmaniac: Personally, I think anyone who thinks they are going to win money in he long run by playing poker is only kidding themselves. The house always wins, otherwise there wouldn't be a house.

Don't be stupid. Alot of people win money in the long run playing poker. In fact the long run is the only reliable indicator of if you are a winning poker player. If you are better than the rest of the people at the table they may get lucky in the short run and beat you, or you may beat a table full of better players in one game, but play enough hands and the swings level out. No, a couple final tables on the World Poker Farce doesn't mean squat.

Granted, low limit winning players are few, maybe as low as 10%. This is because 1)the rake takes a big percentage out of the pot (somewhat counterable by alwasy playing with online bonuses and rakeback or card room comps), and 2)people are morans. Mid limit theres a good mix of winning, losing, and break-even players. High limit theres a pool of pros feeding off a few massive donators that pop up now and then.
2006-07-10 10:45:20 PM  
I really hate this "all or nothing" attitude that a lot of people have. You can gamble, but don't bet everything you own on it. And, you can't make a farking career at it, as many of my friends think they can. For some of my friends, it's just an easy way out of getting a real job and working thier asses off. Some win big for a week, only to have thier winning lost a week later and having to put more money in.

Fine by me. Some have beautiful and faithfull wives that want to leave them because thier husbands are good-for-nothings. As soon as thier wives leave them, I taking thier wives.

It's all part of the game.

/just sayin'
2006-07-10 10:50:07 PM  
Submitted this like two months ago. Glad to see it was finally deemed FARK-worthy. Hubby is back up over $1K today.

/Started with $75.
2006-07-10 10:53:47 PM  
This is stupid. Instead of driving this underground they should let the casinos out of LV and AC to run online poker sites. The websites would be much more reputable and the extra tax revenue would go to Americans as opposed to an offshore company.
2006-07-10 10:58:01 PM  
I hate the government more all the time.
2006-07-10 10:59:51 PM  
They should just stop this foreplay and criminalize any kind of risk taken for fun.
2006-07-10 11:04:23 PM
2006-07-10 11:18:18 PM  
geez old news.
2006-07-10 11:19:42 PM  
I don't gamble. I just lose...
2006-07-10 11:33:34 PM  
Chuck Norris doesn't gamble. 'Gambling' implies he might lose. Chuck Norris goes winning.
2006-07-10 11:40:43 PM  

Charmaniac Do you mean on-line video poker? Cause I am up $500 - $600 on partypoker

By all means, keep gambling. Talk to me in a year and see if you are still "up."

Farker Soze:

Don't be stupid. Alot of people win money in the long run playing poker. In fact the long run is the only reliable indicator of if you are a winning poker player.

Keep spending (gambling) that money.

Please. I am sure you are the exception to the rule and will win so much money from online poker that you can buy your own island. Keep the fantasy alive. Believe in yourself.

Or run bots and cheat. You do realize that the virtual person to your right is actually a software program, yes?

When you do lose in the long run - and you will - please think about taking your money and investing it in gold/bonds/stocks/hedge funds/whatever..I promise over the long run you will actually come out ahead.
2006-07-10 11:49:06 PM  
How do people is this day and age not realize that poker is a game of SKILL. Sure, there are swings, but consistant play and smart game choices take a lot less time than you think to pay off. Last year I was break even or so + I won a trip to the world series (worth $12,000). This year I'm about 3K in the black...and I'm not even CLOSE to the best player on these sites.

The bill in congress is an absurdity. If they could only find a way to tax internet poker, it would be safe and sound. But they can' why not make it illegal then, right?
2006-07-10 11:55:22 PM  
I would never gamble online for real money. Somehow, I am convinced the whole thing is a scam.

Oh, you have four nines! Great hand! We have four jacks.
2006-07-11 12:04:42 AM  
Studebaker hoch

It would actually be in the site's best interest to run as honest a game as possible. If people smell something fishy they will switch to one of the other infinite sites available online.


You sir are a jackass. You are obviously an awful poker player, had a bad experience, or are completely talking out of your ass. There are definitely winning players out there, and thanks to the absolutely awful quality of player online these days, its a lot easier to be profitable than you think. But again, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
2006-07-11 12:07:18 AM  
I had no idea so many adults were being forced to play poker against their will. Good thing the government is there to protect those poor victims.
2006-07-11 12:10:50 AM  
Bill H.R.4411 (pdf)

At first I was against this bill, but after reading the text, I see that it might actually make sense. This bill only comes into effect when the betting transaction takes place between a US state and another state or a country, i.e. across state lines, AND the transaction is illegal according to the state's laws. This bill does not prohibit internet gambling, it merely gives the states the power to enforce their own laws! So all of you who want to keep gambling legal - make your own state legislature make it legal, don't just decry the enforcement of laws. A law either has to be enforced or it has to be repealed.
2006-07-11 12:23:48 AM  
So will it be illegal to short stocks now?
2006-07-11 12:26:24 AM  
Couldn't Halliburton just build a big wall across the Internet?
2006-07-11 12:28:38 AM  
Your tax dollars at work in congress. Asshats is a kind word for them, but like Duke, the indeed SUCK. nuff said
2006-07-11 12:32:19 AM  
falser: I'll bet you $100 this bill won't get passed.

We thought the same thing here in WA state. It passed through very quietly with no voter interaction whatsoever.
2006-07-11 12:37:03 AM  
First off, poker (online or real world) is a skill game. You can mathematically prove one play is better than another. This isn't even up for debate since one can easily produce the math to prove it to be true. Since you don't play against the house but against other players, your edge comes from making better decisions than your opponents. This is evidenced by the long list of professional poker players who have made money year in and year out for decades.

Charmaniac: I've played for many years and have never had a down year. I've had down sessions, down weeks, down months, but given enough hands, enough time, the variance equals out and I come away with a profit normally within the expected standard deviation. And I'm not alone. I'm not even professional material. I play for entertainment but I also spend a great deal of time studying the game trying to become better at the skills that make a top notch player.

Now, you keep talking about how people are going to eventually go broke. I see that happen a lot too. Many players make classic gambling mistakes like overestimating their skill and/or playing in games far above their bankroll. Those players often do go broke. Many times, a new player will begin playing and go on a wild positive variance swing and think that their wins come from their superior play when in fact they are simply normal statistical varaince. Then they try to parlay their winnings by playing for higher and higher stakes until the wicked biatch variance rears her ugly head and starts bringing their returns back to statistical norms. Many of these people conisdered themselves "pros" and quit jobs or dropped out of college to make a untold fortunes but like most things in life, nothing comes that easy. A lot of day traders and armchair investors have made the same mistake in the investment markets though it would be foolish to claim that since some investors lose money that eventually every investor will go broke. Much like poker, stock market investing results are something you measure over the course of years or even decades. Just because you tripled your portfolio in 3 months doesn't mean you should quit your job and try to become the next Peter Lynch.

That's why winning poker players measure their results over 100,000 or 1,000,000 hands, not just a few thousand.

I know this is Fark but unlike politics or other topics, there are right and wrong answers here. Your opinions on issues of fact are completely useless and only serve to demonstrate your ignorance of the subject matter.

Everyone Else: If you think the government is overstepping their bounds, get involved. Join the Poker Player's Alliance ( . They are a lobbying group representing online poker players. Pros such as Howard Lederer, Chris "Jesus" Ferguson, and Greg Raymer have gone to DC and lobbyied lawmakers directly.

I just spent some time with Howard Lederer this weekend and he's very optimistic that if key lawmakers can be educated about the difference between poker and games of chance that most of these anti-gaming bills can be defeated. But lobbying takes time, effort, and money. Go become a member for $20 and write your elected officials (there are free links to write lawmakers on the PPA site).

One way or another someone is going to be whispering into your lawmaker's ear. Would you rather it be you or a group like the PPA or some group of people made up of folks like Charmaniac who haven't even the slightest clue what they're talking about?
2006-07-11 12:45:33 AM  
They compete with the state run lottery systems.
Displayed 50 of 171 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.