The eventual and inevitable death of online poker

[GrannyMae]

May 2005 could be one of the most important times for internet gambling since the first e-casinos opened some ten years ago. Why? The UK Gambling Bill is set to be passed by then which will allow e-casinos to be licensed in the UK. While the US can push aside tiny little countries who regulate e-casinos like Antigua, they can not do the same with jolly ole England.

why will this change things cubs? why can't the US ignore and push aside the issue? it does not seem to bother the US lately to part from traditional allies on many fronts.

i'm curious what you think will happen in 2005 on this side of the pond? i don't understand why you don't think we will just treat UK casinos like island casinos.

[SwordFish]

An interesting quote from President Bush:

(The comments were made while he was discussing a recent WTO ruling as well as a complaint filed by the US regarding subsidies paid to the Airbus Company)

<font color="blue">Bush said. "We've worked hard to comply with the WTO. I think it's important that all nations comply with WTO rulings." </font> Link to Story


It will be interesting to see if the UK joins Antigua in seeking sanctions against the US once the UK Gambling Bill is passed. The U.S. does have a history of reluctantly complying with WTO rulings, particularly when facing meaningful sanctions.

Another interesting vote that will occur in 2005 is when Congress decides on whether or not the US should continue it's membership in the WTO.


SF

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
May 2005 could be one of the most important times for internet gambling since the first e-casinos opened some ten years ago. Why? The UK Gambling Bill is set to be passed by then which will allow e-casinos to be licensed in the UK. While the US can push aside tiny little countries who regulate e-casinos like Antigua, they can not do the same with jolly ole England.

why will this change things cubs? why can't the US ignore and push aside the issue? it does not seem to bother the US lately to part from traditional allies on many fronts.


[/ QUOTE ]

IF US really wants a ban then I think they igonre the UK but how much do they really want it?

The danger is that the pro-ban side is very active and most sensible people in power have better things to worry about. Large UK business and the British government can at least make sure that the pro online poker lobby get the ear of the right people and maybe motivate them a bit.

Its also much harder to make the case that online poker is endangering the US in some way.

chez

[Cubswin]

why will this change things cubs? why can't the US ignore and push aside the issue? it does not seem to bother the US lately to part from traditional allies on many fronts.

You pose some very good questions. It is true that the US tends push aside many nations of numerous issues. Kyoto, Iraq, and the International Court are the obvious points of diversion between the US and allies that come to mind. So given the US's propensity to ignore its allies on many issues why might the US fall in line with regards to e-gaming? The answer revolves around the fact that the present e-gaming fiasco could become a major trade issue, which consequently means lots of money could be at stake.

With a population of 30,000, Antigua exports 17 million a year with 27% of its trade happening with the US. US-EU annual bilateral trade is in the neighborhood of 550 billion. If the EU wanted to press this trade issue there could be a lot at stake. The question that remains to be answer is will the UK or EU take a strong stand on e-gaming trade? Given that both the UK and the EU have sided with Antigua throughout the WTO case there might be some initiative taken by one or both of the aforementioned governments.

If the UK or EU does press the e-gaming issue the recent past shows the US may balk on international trade issues if the stakes are high enough and if major trading partner are involved. The most high profile and obvious case has been the tariffs the Mr. Bush placed on steel (we all know it was a clever ploy to try to win PA this past elections and it failed.... but that's a whole other story). The EU threatened retaliatory tariffs and the Bush administration quickly back down.

There is a fundamental difference between e-gaming and steel in that e-gaming is a moral issue while steel is not. This is a serious point to consider and one that may lead to the US throwing a hissy fit. Maybe I’m overly optimistic and maybe I underestimate the moral base of the current administration but I think things could begin to push in the right direction starting in May. This is not to say that change will happen overnight, it will take many years before any noticeable difference might occur but the ball should start rolling. Regardless, I don’t think I can stress enough the significance of a major country licensing and regulating e-gaming. In the very least it will lead to thorough scrutiny and serious discussion of many e-gaming issues.

cubs

[Blarg]

I think Britains actions will have much more importance as what gets the snowball rolling. That is, if it encourages other Europeans to follow suit so there eventually becomes more of a united front. Only when the snowball is mountainous will the U.S. likely worry about it.

Trade problems can go on for years, and all governments subsidize industries and products. I think an imbalance or unfairness can go on for a very long time if it's just with one or two countries; it certainly has in the past. And the last country to think about international repercussions for not pursuing solely what it believes to be its own best interests is the U.S., especially under the current administration.

Perhaps if the whole EU eventually follows Britain's lead, though, at least we'll have an issue on the radar for the U.S. With Antigua, it's meaningless, and with Britain alone, I find it hard to believe it will mean much more. Britain is basically our lap dog in the first place. Whatever they insist on, if they do bother to insist, seems unlikely to trouble us much.

And after all, as the center of moral goodness in the world, as Bush and his ilk believe American to be, who cares what all the evil-doers think?

[GrannyMae]

Maybe I’m overly optimistic and maybe I underestimate the moral base of the current administration but I think things could begin to push in the right direction starting in May

boy-O-boy, i sure hope you are right. i don't share this optimism, but would love to be proven wrong.

[GWB]

Whoa, teens in the US are playing Poker!

I just found out. It has now been published in the official house-organ of my administration: The Washington Times.

Poker grabs hold of teens

Now I am going to have to take up this issue.

[ACW]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL, from a personal point of view, how much +EV would it be logging on to an online poker room and finding nothing but tables filled with Scandinavians and Brits…

[/ QUOTE ]

Such a site exists - Ladbrokes poker - but they don't accept US customers. And it is +EV for me, but not as much as the site I play on with US customers......