Comments on: How Online Gamblers Unmasked Cheaters

60 Minutes/Washington Post Joint Investigation Questions Honesty, Security Of Gambling Sites

[dreamline78]

Well, Marc''s either recognized that he''s clearly out of his depth and given up, or he''s gone to find reinforcements. Good luck. Most of the people who agreed with the tone of the story had no prior knowledge of the issue and their comments reflected that ("you choose to gamble online you get what you deserve"), and they have left their knee-jerk reactionary comments and moved on. Marc is the only one who remained to fight a pretty one-sided battle, so clearly he has some vested interest in keeeping online poker from becoming a fully-regulated industry in the US.

[michael0004]

brian,

I don''t mind lending my support. Particularly when it comes to outing hypocritical politicians who wrap themselves in the flag one minute and try to control what people do in the privacy of their own home the next minute. Besides, I have experience with a lieing Government Agency - The Department of Veterans Affairs - who, to save a few dollars in medical and other benefits, refuses to acknowledge that being stationed aboard a U.S. Navy warship conducting combat operations off the coast of Vietnam or in DaNang Harbor in 1971 is "service in the Republic of Vietnam." In other words, the VA has made up its own unique definition of the Republic of Vietnam to suit its own purpose in order to get around a law (The Agent Orange Act of 1991).

[minor_deity]

BTW... not just horse racing is allowed according to the UIGEA but so are online lotteries. Does anybody think a lottery is a skilled based game? LOL

[brian9194x]

michael0004, being that you don''t even play poker, but see the real issue here makes all the time I and others have spent arguing with marc worth it!! Thanks and it''s good to know people like you are out there!

[michael0004]

marc - judging from your many opinion-filled posts here, you have no facts to back up your opinions. Either admit this or give us some facts. For starters, point out the Federal law and the language of the law that states that playing poker on the Internet is illegal. You obviously work for an entity that has a vested interest in banning Internet Poker, so by virtue of your position with it, you should be familiar with the relevant laws. Of course, no such Federal law exists, so you won''t be able to cite it.

I''m not even a poker player or a gambler, internet or otherwise, but I know hypocrisy when I see it. The hypocrisy is with the politicians (usually Republican) who oppose Internet Poker, but allow race horse betting on the Interne. You talk about scams. But the biggest scam is being conducted by these politicians and the U.S. Government that will stoop to any level to try to control what people do in the privacy of their own homes. In this case, they insist on lieing to the American people about the legality of on-line Poker playing rather than admit that Internet poker playing does not violate the Wire Act.

[minor_deity]

LMFAO, everything in this newscast/expose'''' was, indeed, a cold and hard fact. Period and end of the story.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by marcpratt at 12:51 PM : Dec 02, 2008

Straight from the link marcpratt posted (re washington post):

Richmond, Va.: This is all very interesting, but I thought online betting was illegal. True?

Serge Ravitch: Placing sports bets is illegal as per the Wire Act, but playing online poker is not covered by the Act and is not illegal under federal law. A handful of states (Washington state) do ban it, but it''s legal to play in the vast majority of the US.

Hoisted on your own petard marcpratt! I guess according to YOUR OWN SOURCES not everything in that story was "a cold hard fact". So if they are so blatant in lying about one of the main issues regarding this story how can you trust anything else they say unless they back it up with proof?

[kevin_c5]

Most of this discussion is devoted to poker but there is an irony in this overall situation that should be noted. The major league sports are all against online poker (which arguably is the game most inconvenienced by the asinine UIGEA).

The Wire Act is a failure. Just look at the controversy over referees in the NBA. Illegal sports bets are still made by phone and are even easier to make in the age of e-mail and P to P internet sites.
A smoke signal would work for this purpose!

It''s easier to confound the Wire Act than atempts to block poker (which also fail) because they do not even require continuos interaction by the wagerers.

What is more ironic is that these morons who can''t acknowledge that the attempts to prohibit online gambling have failed, is that regulation (which most poker players want) derives tax income and has largely been effective.

So, winners or losers or whiners (like marc) would seemingly all be best served by regulation.

Of course those gut-felt principles that guided us so well in Iraq and Afghanistan, would have to be abandoned in favor of accepting reality . . . alas,
you can guide a horse to water to you can''t make him think.

[brian9194x]

I''d be curious to know marcs relationship with William Wichterman.

It''s pretty apparent from marcs statements and actions that he is on someones payroll.

[dreamline78]

You are right about one thing so far, Mark. Cheating DOES take place on every site. But it goes something like this: Idiot #1 and idiot #2 are sitiing at the same table together, and are also talking to each other through AIM or MSM, telling each other what they have. This kind of cheating is really low-threat stuff, for one because almost invariably the players that employ this method of cheating make their patterns too obvious, and the sites also take note when certain players always seem to be at the same table. These cheaters are quickly identified, their accounts are closed, money is confiscated, and any players who were cheated as a result are compensated. You''re right, that happens most every day, on every site. PokerStars, in particular, is the most thorough and vigilant of any of the sites. I anicipate that you''ll ask for proof of this, since you seem so incapable of taking anything at face value.

[dreamline78]

It absolutely is slanted, you would have to be blind not to see that. The tone of the Washington Post article takes a much more nuetral stance, and that is really all that we are asking for. The online poker community has known for monnths that this story has been in the works, and we''ve had mixed feelings on it. The hope was that when this story finally got out to the mainstream, people would see that what the industry needs badly is to be regulated. Prohibition is absolutely out of the question when you talk about a game as popular worldwide as poker is. People are going to play; the underground card rooms in New York (which ARE illegal) are proof of that. But we also were rightly worried about the tone 60 Minutes would take when addressing the issue.

[minor_deity]

Playing online poker in the US IS NOT ILLEGAL! All you need do to prove me wrong is post a federal law that cites playing online poker in the US is illegal. That''s it. Very simple. Except that law does not exist so no one can post it.

[marcpratt]

..."slanted piece of journalism CBS produced to back up your''''s"

"Slanted"...I never thought you would have thought so. How strange indeed...

[dreamline78]

Sorry, you cannot have it both ways, Marc. If we can''t use a discussion page on the Washington Post to back up our argument, you can''t bring up that 12 minute, slanted piece of journalism CBS produced to back up your''s.

[marcpratt]

..."just because you see it on tv or the news, doesnt mean its FACT."

LMFAO, everything in this newscast/expose'' was, indeed, a cold and hard fact. Period and end of the story.

[brian9194x]

oh and apprently you have a missunderstanding as well. just because you see it on tv or the news, doesnt mean its FACT.

[brian9194x]

marc, where are your facts to prove ALL online poker sites are scams????????????????? waiting........

[marcpratt]

..."--how many freaking links have been posted for you that cleary back up everything we say!?!?! geesh."

None, that''s the problem. Clearly, you have some sort of gross misunderstanding of the difference between conjecture and evidence. Chat boards and the opinions or statements on them are not evidence, obviously. Statements by the sites themselves are not evidence, especially under the current state of affairs.

Now, if you triple-pinky-swear that it''s legit. Well, that would do it for almost everyone. That would put the issue to bed once and for all.

This is such a friggin'' joke.

[dreamline78]

Here it is one more time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/11/26/DI2008112602847.html

You never know, he may have missed it the first seven times it was posted. Let''s give him the benefit of the doubt.

[brian9194x]

And you have to facts that it isn''''t or hasn''''t been going on all along. All evidence and common sense is overwhelmingly against online poker.

--how many freaking links have been posted for you that cleary back up everything we say!?!?! geesh.

[brian9194x]

oh and the post to the WP web debate discussing this opposes just about everything you say. Do not include the WP when you say they back you up please.

Apparently you dismiss this link every time it is posted for you.