You can view the page at http://www.pocketfives.com/content.p...nternet-Gaming

The fact that one of the main concern was the use of "bots" just goes to show how clueless most of these politicians are. It's evident that their view of online poker is way too similar to that of casino games of chance. I'm also concerned about how many controls they want to have, if it does indeed become legalized/regulated. It sounds like they want to have too much of a grasp on each particular player. This will most likely deter the casual player. The reason so many people enjoy the game is because it is fun due to it's high level of interaction and relative flexibility to play as you please. If this is taken away or bogged down by over-regulation, then it's going to be difficult for online poker in the U.S. to reach it's maximum potential. Overall, I believe they are focused on the wrong issues regarding this legislation, and until the majority are better informed about the industry, I don't see this going anywhere positive soon.

"Every panel member agreed that poker rooms currently accepting U.S. wagers should not be allowed to seek an internet gaming license"

not true.

harper questioned whether online casinos receiving funds illegally now ought be welcomed & licensed into the regulated market. he asked specifically about entities knowingly breaking the law.

the panel agreed that "those intentionally breaking the law" ought not be allowed. ALTHOUGH, d'amato specifically made a point after the panel had been addressed down the line on this & clarified, "they're not really all breaking the law--- that's a very real question...& indeed I think the court, the 5th circuit, indicated that the wire act which really creates the violation has not been violated as it relates to playing poker, but rather that wire act was intended for sports gambling; i think there's a legal distinction, now some are still battling it out, it hasn't gone up to the supreme court, but its the highest ruling to date."

^the panel's answers pertained to internet gambling sites breaking the current law & not online poker rooms currently accepting US wagers. This distinction d'amato refers to is EVERYTHING--the cornerstone of our position, this interpretation, irrespective of political developments-- & obviously such an unbelievably important part of the discussion that it's critical we interpret this correctly.

 

Originally Posted by Mr_BigQueso

"Every panel member agreed that poker rooms currently accepting U.S. wagers should not be allowed to seek an internet gaming license"

not true.

harper questioned whether online casinos receiving funds illegally now ought be welcomed & licensed into the regulated market. he asked specifically about entities knowingly breaking the law.

the panel agreed that "those intentionally breaking the law" ought not be allowed. ALTHOUGH, d'amato specifically made a point after the panel had been addressed down the line on this & clarified, "they're not really all breaking the law--- that's a very real question...& indeed I think the court, the 5th circuit, indicated that the wire act which really creates the violation has not been violated as it relates to playing poker, but rather that wire act was intended for sports gambling; i think there's a legal distinction, now some are still battling it out, it hasn't gone up to the supreme court, but its the highest ruling to date."

^the panel's answers pertained to internet gambling sites breaking the current law & not online poker rooms currently accepting US wagers. This distinction d'amato refers to is EVERYTHING--the cornerstone of our position, this interpretation, irrespective of political developments-- & obviously such an unbelievably important part of the discussion that it's critical we interpret this correctly.

Thanks for your clarification. We'll see if any sort of amendment gets added to HR 2366 if the bill moves to markup that addresses whether sites that serviced the market post-2006 will be allowed.

Really, Aside from Joe Barton if you look at all there faces, they (the panel) look like "Bots", lolol ridiculous....................If thats all there really worried about, im not!!! We will be back!

 

Originally Posted by Lengthwise905

...I just laugh when I hear the Senator from Virgina talk. I forget his name but he views casinos as fine source of revenue and online poker as a way to ruin peoples lives. $$$$$$>right

I dont think it was Virginia. No one from VA spoke during the hearing. I am from Virginia and the state itself has no casinos and they will not even allow them on indian reservations in the state. I wish they would. However, they do feel that bingo and lottery are acceptbale forms of gambling. There are movements to get poker added in the state legislature as a game of skill, but so far it has been stalled twice.

 

Originally Posted by Ron Scott Orazzib

Really, Aside from Joe Barton if you look at all there faces, they (the panel) look like "Bots", lolol ridiculous....................If thats all there really worried about, im not!!! We will be back!

I thought the bot discussion became a bit too technical for what this hearing was supposed to be about. I talked to John Pappas, Executive Director of the PPA, today and he said the PPA would be following up with the subcommittee members about combating bots. That will hopefully put some of their fears at rest.

Because they are rich and spitting out nonsense because it doesnt effect their lives....

im not sure if it would be homosexual, but since most casinos are 21 and up in the USA it seems like it would make a lot of sense.

The talks were on Consumer Protection:So my concerns would be on preventing the consumer from getting cheatedNow if I was on the subcommittee and knew nothing about poker (probably have never had an account on a online poker site) but what I've heard from friends. And they've said that there's bots? and cheaters ramped. I would google: cheating in poker And one of the hits would be wikipedia! And it says[edit]CollusionCollusion is two or more players acting with a secret, common strategy. Some common forms of collusion are: soft play, that is, failing to bet or raise in a situation that would normally merit it, to avoid costing one's partner or friend money; whipsawing, where partners raise and re-raise each other to trap players in between; dumping, where a cheater will deliberately lose to a partner; and signalling, or trading information between partners via signals of some sort, like arranging their chips in a certain manner.In a poker tournament, when one player is all in and two other players are active in the pot, it is common for the two players with chips left to "check it down", or check on each round of betting through the end of the hand. Unless they explicitly communicate an agreement about checking it down, this is not collusion.[1][edit]Online specificOnline play has allows for new methods of cheating while other methods based on physical objects such as cards or chips are impossible.One new form of cheating is the use of bots. These are programs that play instead of a real human. Though their accuracy and their ability to win are in disputed but their use normally violates the rules of online cardrooms, so using them is by definition cheating.[2][3]Collusion in online poker is relatively easy and much more difficult to immediately spot if executed well. Cheaters can engage in telephone calls or instant messaging, discussing their cards, since nobody can see them. Sometimes one person may be using two or more computers to play multiple hands at the same table under different aliases (since many broadband plans offer customers multiple IP addresses, this can conveniently and cheaply be done without the likelihood of immediate detection). Such tactics can give cheaters an advantage that is difficult to work against. However, online poker cardrooms keep records of every hand played, and collusion can often be detected by finding any of several detectable patterns (such as folding good hands to a small bet, as it is known that another player has a better hand). Users who frequently sit at the same tables will be flagged by poker rooms and their play will be closely monitored. Often, such users will be warned they have been flagged, in an effort to deter collusion.Another online method of cheating is "multiaccounting", where a player will register several accounts to his name (or, perhaps more commonly, to non-poker-playing friends and family members). This could be done in order to facilitate chip dumping and other methods of equity maximization in tournaments, or simply to enable a well-known player to play incognito.Another concern is datamining. This is the systematic collection of hand histories, enough of which can be used to profile opponents using specially designed software. Two or more players may agree to share their individual hand histories amongst themselves; alternatively some websites offer large quantities of previously-played hands (even millions) for a fee. Using software to analyze one's own histories is generally accepted, however acquiring histories of hands in which a player did not participate violates the rules of most cardrooms.Poker software like all software cannot be assumed to be reliable. It is always possible that a person is exploiting the software to win money from victims. The software may even contain a backdoor which allows a person, perhaps an employee, to view cards. Absolute Poker was engaged in such as scandal along with site consultant and notable poker Russ Hamilton. Ultimate Bet currently faces a lawsuit with allegations of employees exploiting the software.[edit]Major incidentsIn Autumn 2007, a major employee cheating scandal occurred at Absolute Poker.[4]The user agreement of the two online poker sites owned by Tokwiro Enterprises, Absolute Poker and UltimateBet, state they reserve the right to cancel an account if a player plays "in a professional sense" (and not for personal entertainment only).[5][6] However this is not a standard prohibition. For example, it is not in the end-user agreements of the three largest online cardrooms: pokerstars, partypoker, and Full Tilt Poker.So their now ignorant bias opinion is How do we protect our consumers from these bbbaaaaaddddd people ( And still make alot of money ). Now the picture you should be picturing is a cartoon where uncle Sam is in a boat harpooning sharks try to appear that he is protecting thoughs sweet little fish crapping out tax dollars.

No where have I heard about the millions of people outside of the US and their freedom to play poker online. Is the rest of the world being scammed and taken advantage of while we in the US are happily being protected by our Government? I dont think so. The world is passing us by while other countries are passing us up in education, child mortality, medical protection, etc. When are legislators going to start thinking about its citizens as opposed to how to protect corporate rights and find a way to maximize their own coffers by taxation.

Americans want poker. We want the rights like millions of Europeans, Asians, Latin Americans, have on a daily basis. Stop making it out like something akin to drugs, porn, etc. Its a clean game based on skill and science enjoyed by many many of its citizens. The spending of money on trying to win a seat in politics is much more of an gamble than any good poker player is willing to bet on and is built on much more lies,scams, and collusions.

i hate them calling it online gaming........just stick too online poker..........because i really don't think black jack,roulette,craps, slots ,sportsbooks........needs too be in the topic of conversation let the indain casinos have tht junk,and these stupid fks crying about ruining the lotto wtf u dumb ignorant morons,who are these fqkn peeps,and how about tht buffoon for the horse racing industry that crap is for old men its a" has been"industry kik rox with your parimutual wagering

The point is they have no clue on what they're deciding on. They've heard a little bad press on poker and the bot word has been thrown around. Which when they look into more info on bots they're deluded with bad press. So they think that all poker is about that. put yourself in their shoes and read what I pasted from Wikipedia. That is their mind set I'm guessing. So I believe the reason the meeting was on CONSUMER PROTECTION and not on lifting the ban some way is their ignorance on poker and poker players. Do you understand? I can't write this any slower

Yes it sounds like they should seperate online poker from online casino/sportsbook. Maybe it would help speed along the legalizing poker aspect of it. All though it can be argued blackjack is also a game of skill. I dont think it can be argued it is as much game of skill as poker. I think that it should be something they consider since poker is a much more game of skill then spinning a roulette wheel online.. I think one problem is it is hard for these representatives to understand how hard it is to become professional poker player. They dont know what it takes or the process of becoming good at tournament and cash poker games. Anyone can win one game but to became professional and have consistency proves that it takes a whole lot of skill... It would be hard to show them all the things that one must master in order to be successful and make a living consistantly. I've always liked the argument, whats the difference between gambling and being a stock broker? Instead of cards and dice they gamble with numbers and information. Both are gambling that one can become professional at by using skill of the trade. I also think its a joke that casinos are everywhere in this country and no one thinks that is wrong. I mean do casinos not hurt the economy and make a small number of Americans more rich while making a larger number of citizens poorer? How are land casinos a good form of gambling? It's never about what's right and it always seems to just come down to money with this country.