60 Minutes tonight

I watched. I was under-whelmed.

[WordWhiz]

I'm embarrassed to have John Kyl as my senator, but I think the pro-poker folks came off pretty well, while he looked like your typical hypocritical "conservative"--less government regulation of business, unless it's some business I find personally immoral, in which case let's ban it outright. Total douche.

While I dislike the idea of government regulation and taxation, I have no doubt that making on-line poker more easily accessible, easier to advertise, and with less of a threat of losing your whole bankroll to some shady off-shore operator will draw in fish by the tankfuls. It will also spark competition between sites. It won't happen as long as we have "conservatives" in power though.

poker will be more accessible just by legalization, that's no excuse for regulation as well though.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
god this [censored] senator is full of [censored], and actually the poker guy is almost as bad, suggesting we need it to be regulated and taxed. i'll stick with the black market.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to reconsider. If Sen. Kyle gets his legislation passed, it will become extremely difficult to transfer funds back and forth between the sites. The serious players (like you and me) will find a way to do it, but the recreational players will not make the effort.

[ QUOTE ]
...extremely difficult to transfer funds back and forth between the sites. The serious players (like you and me) will find a way to do it...

[/ QUOTE ]
I had exactly the same thought when he said it. But these sites depend on the casual and new players right now. When those are gone your selection of sites is going with them.

If the industry can't get "legal," they'll always be on slippery ground. Our esteemed representatives are going to have to come to terms with the reality of online gambling. It's just too big. The potential for taxes is giga-normous.

[checkmate36]

If it was regulated we would probably have US companies creating competition for sites like party and stars.

They would probably offer lower rake and higher bonus [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ChipWrecked]

"Won't somebody think of the children?"

[ QUOTE ]
If it was regulated we would probably have US companies creating competition for sites like party and stars.

They would probably offer lower rake and higher bonus [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Open competition - dontcha just luv it! Bring it on, bay-bee!

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi WW:

I'm not so sure. Remember, liberals want to legislate for the social good, and they often view gambling as something that damages this aspect of our society. An interesting extension of this, is that occasionally, the extreme right and extreme left will unite in their effort to ban or at least restrict the growth of gambling although their motivation is completely different.

As I see it, and even though it sometimes doesn't appear this way, gambling seem to grow and spread in small increments. The problem with legalizing some form of Internet gambling, even if it's only poker, is that it brings too much too quickly. Thus very few politicians are willing to take the chance.

Best wishes,
Mason

[rockrock]

Too bad 60 minutes repeatedly lied to their 20 million viewers about the legal status of internet gambling.