[bigboydan]

Shelly Berkley is 100% correct. Government has no right to try and impose any internet laws of this type.

Government deals online gamblers a tough hand

by Danielle Lerner
Dec 04, 2007

WASHINGTON-- Texas Hold'em, 7 card stud and blackjack are just a few of the games available anytime, and anywhere, with the simple click of a mouse.

Gambling online is a popular pastime for many young people and the industry has students shelling out hundreds, even thousands of dollars for a big payoff. Danny Steinberg, 19, is a sophomore at American University and he says playing online poker is just another way to have fun.

"It's like any other game, it's like basketball or chess," he said. "It's enjoyable to get good at something."

Most Internet gambling sites operate outside the U.S. so players don't need to be 21, just 18. Steinberg plays about two hours each day and the practice has paid off.

"Every expense I need under school that's not under scholarship I'll buy with the money I make from poker," he said. "I got my mom a thousand dollar gift certificate for Neiman Marcus for her birthday. I'm not just throwing the money away. I'm putting it to something good."

Now, Steinberg's hobby is getting much harder. Last year Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act which restricts certain online gambling sites from accepting credit cards and money transfers. Many sites shut down and others increased the level of competition. "You have to be a lot bettter to make a lot more money now," Steinberg said.

Congress is debating whether to restrict internet gambling even more and some members say it's necessary to protect young people from themsevles.

"Online players can gamble 24 hours a day from home," Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said during a congressional hearing. "Children may play without age verification and betting with a credit card can lead to addiction, bankruptcy and crime."

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., however, says that Congress' concerns are unfounded.

"As far as addiction is concerned there are far more people addicted to shopping online then gambling online," she said. "Unless Congress is going to ban internet shopping we better think long and hard about prohibiting people from internet gaming."

Steinberg knows the stereotypes associated with online gambling but says a different point of view may be the answer.

"No one's going to have a negative stereotype of someone who wants to get really good at chess," he said. "I feel like you should just look at it as some kind of hobby that's interesting and not as someone trying to throw away their life."

For now some internet gambling is still legal, but proposals for harsher regulations are in the works.

[ShamsWoof10]

If this JUST effects people under 18 then fine but they are going to use these young people as an excuse to gain control...

[CrazyLou]

You know you have very little ground to stand on when you have to start using "the children! anything for the children!" line.

As George Carlin once said,
“What matters is that if you believe in the sanctity of life then you believe it for life of all ages. That's what I hate about this child-worship syndrome going on. "Save the children! They're killing children! How many children were at Waco? They're killing children!" What does that mean? They reach a certain age and they're off your ****ing love-list? **** your children, if that's the way you think then **** you too. You either love all people of all ages or you shut the **** up.”

[milwaukee mike]

unless a kid under 18 wants a serious beatdown, there is not much chance of them using daddy's credit card to play poker online.

[CrazyLou]

Why is the emphasis taken off the parents anyway? Most places require you to fax in a bunch of crap if you even use a credit card, so unless a parent directly authorizes his child to gamble online, its not as if you can say "Daddy, I'm going to buy some clothes" and deposit $ into a book.

[ShamsWoof10]

Originally Posted by crazyl

Why is the emphasis taken off the parents anyway?

Most places require you to fax in a bunch of crap if you even use a credit card,.

Well that's like saying.. why don't they just tell us they are going to IRAQ for oil (as an example).. This would not help their agenda that's why...

You know this and I know this but the general public does not and that's what important...

[Louisvillekid1]

ha today i just did a 10 page reseach paper and i choose this topic. Bottom line there is always going to be action on the internet, don't even sweat it.

[CrazyLou]

Originally Posted by Louisvillekid1

ha today i just did a 10 page reseach paper and i choose this topic.

Bad move. Your professor will now view you as a degenerate gambler and shave some points off your paper.

[jon13009]

Meanwhile the States use Lotteries, Horse Racing, and Slots to fund their budgets. Bunch of hypocrites.

If the Feds actually regulated and licensed on-line gambling properly through Vegas, Vegas would impose some safeguards to prevent minors from gambling while keeping millions of dollars from floating to offshore accounts and attact millions of dollars into the USA for a change.

Perhaps Vegas would require stringent account verification (drivers license, passport, phone or credit card verification to determine if the account holder is of legal age.....) Perhaps they would impose a probation period for new accounts. Vegas could also monitor these accounts for potential pathological gambling problems and help these individuals (a pipe dream perhaps.)

The point is that Congress is doing everything they can to shovel the problem under the rug and use any excuse they can to stop on-line gambling because someone (sports league lobbyists, moral hypocrites...) wants it that way. The US government has never even explored the potential positives of a government regulated, licensed and taxed US Vegas based on-line gambling center (correct me if I am wrong). The UK has had it for a number of years, and the US govt should look at the benefits and pitfalls of what is going on over there.

While safeguards are never safe, Vegas (I hope) would do everything they could to keep their on-line gambling accounts honest, minor free, and (hopefully) provide a more reliable and competitive book versus what is already out there because the profit potential could be enormous.

Gambling is a potential multi billion dollar a year industry. The US govt could rake in billions in taxable income from around the world if they did this thing right.

How many here would abandon their offshore account and bookie services in place of a reliable easy to use Vegas on-line book account with easy and fast deposit and payout methods?

Only a pipe dream for sure.........

[Wheell]

If Vegas took a cut of our winnings in taxes the migration would be astoundingly small.

[Louisvillekid1]

Originally Posted by crazyl

Bad move. Your professor will now view you as a degenerate gambler and shave some points off your paper.

Ha he knows i talk sports all day in class

[jon13009]

Originally Posted by Wheell

If Vegas took a cut of our winnings in taxes the migration would be astoundingly small.

Vegas would run their operations as they do now, through the Vig, and the US Govt would skim the taxes off that. Otherwise the US govt would require the Vegas on-line books to pay licensing and regulatory fees.....We would just be subjected to the juice we pay now, and Vegas would likely do what they have to do to push the flow of money their way (and could even lower the juice because they may have the resources and finances to do so to compete against the other on-line books out there.)

All Vegas would do is launch on-line operations (with software they already have and tested) and likely do a better job that 95% of the bozo's that operate offshore right now with better lines and real customer service departments. Attracting the international community to put their money into properly run US on-line Vegas books could be a boon to this country, but the short sightedness of the US Govt will continue to stop this.

We are talking potential billions - Joe Schmoe opening a $150 on-line account with Ceasars to place a few dollars on the Cowboys in the Super Bowl....Progressive NFL handicapping contests under Hilton that is open nationwide with a $50 entry....nationwide NFL suicide pools run by Ballys....$10 entries into MLB fantasy leagues under Harrah's.... This is why the sports leagues would have an aneurysm if someone in congress even suggests a proposal for legalized on-line gambling in the USA.

Poker is something people watch and play all the time and that alone would generate millions of taxable dollars into the USA. Since the Absolute Poker scam, the on-line poker industry would only benefit from regulated and licensed on-line poker in the US.

I am sure a lot of the off-shore gaming community would shake at the potential of competing against well reputable US Vegas on-line book agencies that would do things properly (or appear to do so) rather than risk losing their license. I can only think of the possible bonus potential alone (people get free trips and rooms for putting a few hundred in those slot machines alone!)

I would prefer that my money be in a safer place than the off-shore book I have right now - An offshore book that has no real regulatory agency or licensing requirements on how they ruin things, and could run with my account dollars if they just decided to take it with no real potential legal actions against them.

I would prefer a percentage of my Vig money to be used to help the US through the taxes generated through a reputable and competitive on-line Vegas book and poker site as well, instead of all of it just going towards Calvin Ayers' next lowbrow scheme.

The US Govt is fooling itself if it thinks it can regulate internet content and international polices regarding internet usage. Meanwhile, the US is falling behind the rest of the world regarding on-line gambling opportunities and losing millions upon millions of taxable dollars to the rest of the world. The USA produces NFL, MLB, NCAA and NBA games for the rest of the world to enjoy and gamble upon, and the USA should grab those dollars flowing out to offshore agencies and try to reel in those dollars for our own benefit as well.

[jolub]

Originally Posted by crazyl

You know you have very little ground to stand on when you have to start using "the children! anything for the children!" line.

As George Carlin once said,
“What matters is that if you believe in the sanctity of life then you believe it for life of all ages. That's what I hate about this child-worship syndrome going on. "Save the children! They're killing children! How many children were at Waco? They're killing children!" What does that mean? They reach a certain age and they're off your ****ing love-list? **** your children, if that's the way you think then **** you too. You either love all people of all ages or you shut the **** up.”

The kids, 18 year olds, are old enough to be in the army and get killed there. I don't hear anyone complaining about that. So why should they complain about online gambling?

[Seattle Slew]

Her comparison to online shopping is a great point.

Originally Posted by bigboydan

Shelly Berkley is 100% correct. Government has no right to try and impose any internet laws of this type.

[Seattle Slew]

[quote=jon13009;436362]Meanwhile the States use Lotteries, Horse Racing, and Slots to fund their budgets. Bunch of hypocrites.

[prop]

I'm not certain but i think you only need to be 18 to buy cigarettes and buy lotto tickets. how come 21 to play poker or bet sports?

[CrazyLou]

Originally Posted by prop

I'm not certain but i think you only need to be 18 to buy cigarettes and buy lotto tickets. how come 21 to play poker or bet sports?

Most poker sites and books accept individuals over 18. The issue they're trying to spin are minors accessing credit cards and piling up huge amounts of debt.

Just another way our government wants to invade our living room. Not sure I love this country anymore.. I'm just used to it. I have family & friends here. I'm accustomed to the food (NY pizza), Yankee Stadium, freezing my nuts off in the winter. If I took myself more seriously than that, I'd probably be somewhere else.

[Kingfisher28]

Meanwhile the States use Lotteries, Horse Racing, and Slots to fund their budgets. Bunch of hypocrites.


EXACTLY. I hate politicians getting involved in matters like gambling - another war, like drugs, they simply cannot win so why cost themselves money by not regulating it?

[prop]

I mean they mentioned it. I am not sure why they care so much.
To go into a casino you need to be 21 in the USA, right?
But you can buy lotto @ 18.
In Massachusetts I am shocked, i just seen a $20 scratch ticket. I never paid attention to it before but I though the max was $5 last I knew and even that seemed kinda silly. So I ask the guy at the gas station he said they are going through 2 books of them per day.
After I left I started to wonder how many tickets in a book? 200 maybe? So that would be $8000 on there highest selling ticket. Some big stations might sell $10K-$50K per day on lotto I suppose between all things combined. pretty crazy.
the stats have lots of people hooked on degenerate gambling with huge odds and they some how think there fight against online betting is protecting children or is morally correct.. I don't understand.
If they cared about kids get rid of it all together so there parent can stop spending there college funds and vaction $ on the lotto.
Or if you don't want to get rid of it then thats fine too, but hypocritical approach is just.....
</rant>

[WileOut]

Went to an AA meeting one time and 4 of the 10 people there were there because of state scratch off tickets.