FARK.com: (6844233) Cash is King: The Obama administration appears to have softened a U.S. ban on Internet gambling

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.

		Cash is King: The Obama administration appears to have softened a U.S. ban on Internet gambling (news.yahoo.com)		55
		More: Interesting, U.S., Poker Players Alliance, Tootsie, NORAD, Obama administration, U.S. ban

• • •

5189 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Dec 2011 at 1:30 PM | Favorite | share:

more» |

Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends!

shirt it!

Share this link:

URL:

http://fk.cm/go/6844233

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

55 Comments (+0 »)

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

Doctor Funkenstein

2011-12-25 12:24:39 PM

Way to go, Pokerack Slotssein Chipbongo. WTF is that guy's problem?

Kimothy

2011-12-25 12:32:01 PM

Actually, the softening still leaves online poker at risk - especially if it crosses state or international borders. What this helps is the casinos in each state that would like to accept bets online or host their own online betting/poker/slots. The casinos in Nevada have been pushing hard for this, along with the gaming companies who make the systems that will allow the casinos to have an online gaming presence. Some of the casinos here in Vegas are already rolling out their systems.

I'm sure the casinos paid a lot of money for the "softening" of the ban. When it comes time to really address the legalities of this type of gaming, I'm sure it will have bipartisan support - the casinos have deep pockets.

IgG4

2011-12-25 12:35:46 PM

Good.

Mugato

2011-12-25 12:43:06 PM

IgG4: Good.

Except for Donald Trump's

Ed Finnerty

2011-12-25 12:51:09 PM

I'll bet anyone here $50 they drop this altogether.

St_Francis_P

2011-12-25 12:56:15 PM

Won't somebody think of the children!

BunkyBrewman

2011-12-25 01:01:12 PM

Ed Finnerty: I'll bet anyone here $50 they drop this altogether.

What kind of odds you laying down?

jim32rr

2011-12-25 01:01:24 PM

St_Francis_P: Won't somebody think of the children!

I have, I use them as numbers runners

Ed Finnerty

2011-12-25 01:29:15 PM

BunkyBrewman: Ed Finnerty: I'll bet anyone here $50 they drop this altogether.

What kind of odds you laying down?

4:1

You in?

JPSimonetti

2011-12-25 01:33:36 PM

I was really amazed that internet gambling caught on at all. The money you lose at a casino is part of the entertainment budget. You're out, having fun (sometimes). What's fun about flushing money down the drain behind a computer screen? Seemed targeted to addicts and addicts alone.

ScottMpls

2011-12-25 01:33:46 PM

St_Francis_P: Won't somebody think of the children!

Of course. They make pretty good collateral at the pawn shop ...

offmymeds

2011-12-25 01:34:40 PM

Ed Finnerty: BunkyBrewman: Ed Finnerty: I'll bet anyone here $50 they drop this altogether.

What kind of odds you laying down?

4:1

You in?

I'll take some of that. *hands over C-note*

Barakku

2011-12-25 01:37:18 PM

Good, but remove it all together next time.

bravian

2011-12-25 01:38:09 PM

grumpytroll

2011-12-25 01:38:10 PM

as someone who plays both live and online I don't see the harm - poker is a skill game - if you're good you'll make some pocket money. the idiots who try first time to turn $200 into $20 000 will likely lose every time - but it ain't roulette - if you're good you'll win over the long-run. the internet is good for poker - i like it and it likes me......

Noam Chimpsky

2011-12-25 01:40:10 PM

Does that mean I'm good to go to reopen my pokerstars account?

TravisBickle62

2011-12-25 01:41:08 PM

HaywoodJablonski

2011-12-25 01:45:19 PM

Unless tradesports can reopen, this doesn't help me one bit

Dwight_Yeast

2011-12-25 01:47:39 PM

Mugato: IgG4: Good.

Except for Donald Trump's

Trump hasn't been involved in managing the casinos that bear his name since he drove them into bankruptcy a couple years ago.

BalugaJoe

2011-12-25 02:05:04 PM

Romney bet $10,000.

StoneColdAtheist

2011-12-25 02:17:09 PM

Not a gambler and never have understood its attraction, but one line in TFA caught my eye...why the Federal prohibition on 'sports betting' and not betting in general?

Educate a non-bettor...

you are a puppet

2011-12-25 02:23:54 PM

So whats the deal with this new site that bodog redirects to?

Nefarious

2011-12-25 02:31:30 PM

StoneColdAtheist: Not a gambler and never have understood its attraction, but one line in TFA caught my eye...why the Federal prohibition on 'sports betting' and not betting in general?

Educate a non-bettor...

My only thought is that the Feds feel that sports gambling lends itself to things like point shaving. It's also why Vegas will probably never call a major sports franchise home.

ZAZ

2011-12-25 02:40:39 PM

StoneColdAtheist

I think the law was reactive to a perceived problem and was narrowly written to solve the problem.

SevenizGud

2011-12-25 02:59:10 PM

Internet gambling is WRONG! It just isn't right for me to be able to play $0.02/$0.05 PLO8 online. I should instead have to burn enough gas to get 30 miles to the nearest casino where I will play $4/$8 LO8. That makes SO MUCH more sense. I'll have a couple of beers before I drive back, too.

Oznog

2011-12-25 03:00:09 PM

grumpytroll: as someone who plays both live and online I don't see the harm - poker is a skill game - if you're good you'll make some pocket money. the idiots who try first time to turn $200 into $20 000 will likely lose every time - but it ain't roulette - if you're good you'll win over the long-run. the internet is good for poker - i like it and it likes me......

Poker can be played more efficiently by 'bots. As a live game, the ideal strategy is based on the hand you have, the history of the deck, reading subtle body language of the other players (and displaying no or misleading body language yourself), and attempting to second-guess others' strategies.

In online poker however, the "body language" aspect is gone, so the game's fairly simple and open to probability calculations. The only thing mattering is an understanding of another player's strategy, but bots can calculate that, a sophisticated bot can also display misleading cues as to its strategy early on, leading to a mistaken belief that a high bid is a bluff when it's not (or vice versa). But to do so, a bot must second-guess the others' evaluation algorithms watching its own behavior.

Awhile back I saw a reference to a heuristic strategy hilariously called Iocaine Powder (new window), because the strategy is all about an endless recursion of reasoning with "I'd do this, but I know you are a bot watching me and will use that against me later, so I'll do the opposite, but you are a smart bot, so I will do the opposite of the opposite, but you KNOW that will be a trick, so I will do the opposite of the opposite of the opposite..."

elk-tamer

2011-12-25 03:08:45 PM

Is that why there are no US players on pokerstars now? I usually win when I'm sober and lose when I'm drunk, and only play for $5 game or less. You have to be terrible to lose on those tables, and incredibly good to win at the high stakes tables.

BSABSVR

2011-12-25 03:09:05 PM

SevenizGud

2011-12-25 03:17:54 PM

Oznog: grumpytroll: as someone who plays both live and online I don't see the harm - poker is a skill game - if you're good you'll make some pocket money. the idiots who try first time to turn $200 into $20 000 will likely lose every time - but it ain't roulette - if you're good you'll win over the long-run. the internet is good for poker - i like it and it likes me......

Poker can be played more efficiently by 'bots. As a live game, the ideal strategy is based on the hand you have, the history of the deck, reading subtle body language of the other players (and displaying no or misleading body language yourself), and attempting to second-guess others' strategies.

In online poker however, the "body language" aspect is gone, so the game's fairly simple and open to probability calculations. The only thing mattering is an understanding of another player's strategy, but bots can calculate that, a sophisticated bot can also display misleading cues as to its strategy early on, leading to a mistaken belief that a high bid is a bluff when it's not (or vice versa). But to do so, a bot must second-guess the others' evaluation algorithms watching its own behavior.

Awhile back I saw a reference to a heuristic strategy hilariously called Iocaine Powder (new window), because the strategy is all about an endless recursion of reasoning with "I'd do this, but I know you are a bot watching me and will use that against me later, so I'll do the opposite, but you are a smart bot, so I will do the opposite of the opposite, but you KNOW that will be a trick, so I will do the opposite of the opposite of the opposite..."

Even by FARK standards, this is one of the most uninformed posts I've ever seen. Even a cursory view of the stats at pokertableratings will show that the BOTS m.o. is not even a real strategy. All the bots with over 1 million hands are losers, and the only reason they work at all is because they get more from the rakeback than their table losses.

And if you had ever actually watched the bots play online, then you would have surely noticed that there is no such thing as strategy like this, and nothing sophisticated at all. They simply sit there, and then uncork the all in preflop when they have pocket 9s or better.

And if you don't believe me, just go over the hand history at PTR and play hand review for those where you see the bots cards. You will see only two things...all in pre, and if in the BB all in when flopping 2 pair or better.

StoneColdAtheist

2011-12-25 03:19:16 PM

Nefarious: StoneColdAtheist: Not a gambler and never have understood its attraction, but one line in TFA caught my eye...why the Federal prohibition on 'sports betting' and not betting in general?

Educate a non-bettor...

My only thought is that the Feds feel that sports gambling lends itself to things like point shaving. It's also why Vegas will probably never call a major sports franchise home.

Makes sense...thanks. Come to think of it, tho, point shaving might make professional sports more interesting.

king of vegas

2011-12-25 03:19:51 PM

StoneColdAtheist: Not a gambler and never have understood its attraction, but one line in TFA caught my eye...why the Federal prohibition on 'sports betting' and not betting in general?

Educate a non-bettor...

The Wire Act is a Federal law that specifically bans betting on sports across state lines using a "wire communication facility." The law was passed in 1961 well before the Internet was even conceived and so some people think that it isn't applicable to the Internet. Of course, the government thinks that it is.

The Wire Act was passed primarily as a deterrent to the mafia who controlled most of the bookmaking operations in the country.

One key distinction here, however, is the "across state lines" part. Even sports betting online within state lines should be OK if that state so permits it. I make legal online sports bets with the Red Rock casino (Station casinos), the Silverton casino (Leroy's Sports), and am going to set up an online account with the M Resort (Cantor Gaming).

In Nevada it's possible to make legal online sports wagers with the local casinos from one's home computer or cell phone. The programs determine through GPS or other means the location of the person making the bet. As long as you're within the state borders it will allow you to bet. You fund the account in person at the casino prior to betting and when you cash out you must go to the casino to withdraw.

What I'm saying is that I think the DoJ's newly published opinion is itself also in error. The government should have no jurisdiction on gambling within a state's borders period, sports gambling or not.

Sports gambling is a big ticket item because very powerful groups are opposed to that particular form of gambling, namely the NFL. It's ridiculous because gambling on football is probably one of the main reasons the NFL is the most popular sport in the USA and it's also why people stay tuned-in to the game when the Pats are up 27-3.

Let me just say one political thing about this... we are supposed to be a free country. In a free country, if I want to bet $100 of my own money on a football game or buy-in to a poker game with my $100 that I possess, then I should be able to do that. Telling us we can't isn't small government and it isn't true freedom.

The Wire Act on WIkipedia (new window)

Arklop

2011-12-25 03:26:09 PM

Nefarious: It's also why Vegas will probably never call a major sports franchise home.

What would a Vegas team be called? The Slots, the Chips, the Blackjacks...the Elvises?

Btw, I think you mean that the other way around. New York doesn't call the Yankees home (do they?)

CruJones

2011-12-25 03:28:40 PM

Unfortunately this doesn't cover sports. Football (especially early in the season) is the only thing I consistently win at.

SnakeMan

2011-12-25 03:31:21 PM

Our President and others like to compare Wall Street to casinos. Tell me, when was the last time the federal government bailed out a casino?

Arklop

2011-12-25 03:32:56 PM

StoneColdAtheist: Not a gambler and never have understood its attraction, but one line in TFA caught my eye...why the Federal prohibition on 'sports betting' and not betting in general?.

artcinemalife.files.wordpress.com

Is it a crime to bet on sporting events?!!

Sgt. Pepper

2011-12-25 03:34:53 PM

Oznog: Poker can be played more efficiently by 'bots. As a live game, the ideal strategy is based on the hand you have, the history of the deck, reading subtle body language of the other players (and displaying no or misleading body language yourself), and attempting to second-guess others' strategies.

In online poker however, the "body language" aspect is gone, so the game's fairly simple and open to probability calculations. The only thing mattering is an understanding of another player's strategy, but bots can calculate that, a sophisticated bot can also display misleading cues as to its strategy early on, leading to a mistaken belief that a high bid is a bluff when it's not (or vice versa). But to do so, a bot must second-guess the others' evaluation algorithms watching its own behavior.

Nope, the bots are losers at all but the lowest stakes. Poker strat is a bit more complicated than you think.

Also, the importance of body language is grossly overrated. 99% of live poker is the same kind of strategic thinking that is used in online play.

StoneColdAtheist

2011-12-25 03:45:43 PM

king of vegas: StoneColdAtheist: Not a gambler and never have understood its attraction, but one line in TFA caught my eye...why the Federal prohibition on 'sports betting' and not betting in general?

Educate a non-bettor...

The Wire Act is a Federal law that specifically bans betting on sports across state lines using a "wire communication facility." The law was passed in 1961 well before the Internet was even conceived and so some people think that it isn't applicable to the Internet. Of course, the government thinks that it is.

Holy cow, that was quite the comprehensive explanation...thanks!

Arklop: Is it a crime to bet on sporting events?!!

My bad! Reading comprehension...how does it work? ;)

stiletto_the_wise

2011-12-25 03:46:01 PM

BSABSVR: If you're good at poker, you probably win more than you lose.

It used to be even easier, before Poker got mega popular. Back 5 years ago or so, you could literally not know how to play poker and still make money online. Now you've got all the bots, the "hand analyzer" dashboards, player history aggregators, and generally better players online, so not so much anymore.

I prefer live face-to-face poker now. Tough to play 5 tables at once in real life though.

Sgt. Pepper

2011-12-25 03:54:46 PM

stiletto_the_wise: It used to be even easier, before Poker got mega popular. Back 5 years ago or so, you could literally not know how to play poker and still make money online. Now you've got all the bots, the "hand analyzer" dashboards, player history aggregators, and generally better players online, so not so much anymore.

The big difference is the passage of UIGEA, which chased away many casual players. If ipoker gets regulated, the games will get soft again.

Bucky Katt

2011-12-25 04:08:22 PM

I don't trust online casinos. I prefer to lose my money in person.

Ken VeryBigLiar

2011-12-25 04:23:24 PM

king of vegas: The Wire Act is a Federal law that specifically bans betting on sports across state lines using a "wire communication facility." The law was passed in 1961 well before the Internet was even conceived and so some people think that it isn't applicable to the Internet. Of course, the government thinks that it is.

The Wire Act was passed primarily as a deterrent to the mafia who controlled most of the bookmaking operations in the country.

One key distinction here, however, is the "across state lines" part. Even sports betting online within state lines should be OK if that state so permits it. I make legal online sports bets with the Red Rock casino (Station casinos), the Silverton casino (Leroy's Sports), and am going to set up an online account with the M Resort (Cantor Gaming).

In Nevada it's possible to make legal online sports wagers with the local casinos from one's home computer or cell phone. The programs determine through GPS or other means the location of the person making the bet. As long as you're within the state borders it will allow you to bet. You fund the account in person at the casino prior to betting and when you cash out you must go to the casino to withdraw.

What I'm saying is that I think the DoJ's newly published opinion is itself also in error. The government should have no jurisdiction on gambling within a state's borders period, sports gambling or not.

I'm assuming this is what keeps the casinos from" contracting" with Indian casinos to use their odds to let out of state bettors place bets locally. It could be a nice moneymaker for the Vegas casinos IMO, you farm out your odds and name and take a piece in return. In Wisconsin alone they'd be rolling; think of all the schmucks that would put $50-100 on the Packers every weekend (not to mention three-teamers and teases).

Ahh well, gonna have to investigate the Canadian casinos opened by one of the the tribes up there I heard on ESPN's betting podcast this week. From what they said the funds get there slower because they're drawn on a Canadian bank but unless the Justice Department gets too full of themselves the Chief's ex-wife won't be wearing my money.

GRCooper

2011-12-25 04:48:22 PM

Good, but remove it all together next time

Not until they've made sure that all of the companies that can earn a profit from it are not in the U.S. though...

OscarTamerz

2011-12-25 05:01:15 PM

I guess Nobama figured out he's going to need 2 billion dollars to buy the presidency this time.

img.dailymail.co.uk

That Guy...From That Show!

2011-12-25 05:27:04 PM

JPSimonetti: I was really amazed that internet gambling caught on at all. The money you lose at a casino is part of the entertainment budget. You're out, having fun (sometimes). What's fun about flushing money down the drain behind a computer screen? Seemed targeted to addicts and addicts alone.

Actually, it's more profitable to be able to play poker online than to travel and have to spend money related to the trip.

I make a lot more profit playing poker from home vs having to spend the first couple of hours at a casino making up for the amount the trip costs me.

There are enough US poker friendly sites so it's not a big deal. But, if Pokerstars and Fulltilt get access again I'll be making a lot more money. There are a lot more fish on those sites and it's difficult playing on small sites where good players run into each other all of the time and remember each other much more easily.

Tabletop

2011-12-25 06:14:58 PM

Wow, I never spot all the ignorance in Fark until I read some comments about something which I myself have knowledge. Why do people who don't know anything about something still feel the need to comment on it?

lewismarktwo

2011-12-25 07:04:59 PM

Tabletop: Wow, I never spot all the ignorance in Fark until I read some comments about something which I myself have knowledge. Why do people who don't know anything about something still feel the need to comment on it?

Are you getting a kick?

10000 Marbles

2011-12-25 07:33:35 PM

Some info for you gambling neophytes who have no idea what you're talking about:

1) Poker has no house edge. They don't care how much or little you bet or win as you are playing against other players and not the casino. The casino charges a "rake" per hand (usually 10% of the pot up to $4 or $5 avg. in US land-based casinos, generally less online), or a "table charge" (players pay a small fee per half-hour) to facilitate the game. No casino money is at risk. While there is luck involved in poker, it is decidedly a skill game over the long run.

Online poker sites can charge much less rake because more hands per hour are able to be played, theoretically there is no limit to the number of tables a site can have open at one time, and they don't have to pay dealers.

2) Sports Betting: the casino or sports book charges a fee (often called "juice" or "vig") to take bets. The point spreads are adjusted often to help ensure the same amount of money is bet on both sides so no matter which team wins the casino breaks even (pays winners with bets from the losers) and takes the vig as profit. There is skill in sports betting as well, and the luck factor is generally the "any team can win any game at any time regardless of the odds" situations, aka "upsets".

3) Casino games: blackjack, craps, roulette, slots, other card table games (3-card poker, Let It Ride, etc). You are betting against the casino, but in every one of these games, the odds are for the casino. This means that no matter what happens, in the long run the casino makes more money than it pays out.

Why anyone would choose to play casino games online is beyond me since the odds can be altered in the casino's favor on a bet-by-bet basis. Poker and sports betting however remain casino-neutral: they make money for facilitating the action but are not invested in outcomes.

Please consider these differences when making your snarky comments about "gambling."

1stgenwhtrash

2011-12-25 07:43:41 PM

you are a puppet: So whats the deal with this new site that bodog redirects to?

you are a puppet: bodog

It's called Bovada, and it sucks. The software was rolled out nearly two months ago and still has a million serious glitches that haven't been addressed.

Tables are anonymous. You have no user screen name and are assigned a number when you join a table or tournament. There are no notes and no find a player options, obviously. I would play anywhere else if I could, but I've had trouble getting money on the other sites thanks to the UIGEA restrictions, which I'm hoping will be relaxed in the next few months. Stay away from it IMO. Here's a 2+2 thread on it.

Link (new window)

TripSixes

2011-12-25 07:53:16 PM

I was sent a cashout from (large online poker room that rhymes with bull kilt toker) which bounced a few weeks later (after black friday.) Even though they seemed aware of it, I'm not counting on getting my cash back. Anything would be nice at this point.

DON.MAC

2011-12-25 08:08:20 PM

I thought the governments plan was to allow them to get big, close them down, take their money along with all the money people sent in, wait a while and repeat.

Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.