Oct. 4, 2006
Congress Busts The Online Poker Boom
Ken Adams: New Internet Gaming Law Will Squash Underdog Dreams Of Scoring Big
-
-
Chris Moneymaker, the 2003 World Series of Poker champion, competes on the fourth day of the first round of the WSOP no-limit Texas Hold 'em main event at the Rio Hotel & Casino July 31, 2006 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (GETTY)
-
A new Internet gaming law will make it difficult for at-home online poker players to quit their day jobs like Greg Raymer did after winning the World Series of Poker. (AP Photo/Isaac Brekken)
-
-
Interactive In The Cards A poker playing guide and terms, top players, famous poker faces and more on the game.
In 2003 an anonymous Tennessee accountant with the unlikely name of Chris Moneymaker invested $100 in an online poker tournament in which the first prize was a $10,000 entry in the annual World Series of Poker championship in Las Vegas.
Moneymaker went on to win the World Series championship bracelet and $2.5 million, igniting the spark that fueled an astounding three-year boom in the business of tournament poker. The combination of widespread television coverage (made possible by the invention of the "hole card" camera that enables viewers to see each player's hidden cards as the play of each hand progresses) and Internet poker, led millions of new players to enter the tournament arena, hoping to duplicate Moneymaker’s success.
The simplest way to measure the explosion in tournament poker in the United States is by the number of contestants in the annual World Series of Poker championship event. During its 33-year history prior to Moneymaker's win, the average number of contestants was 181. Three years after Moneymaker appeared on the David Letterman show to talk about his leap from small-stakes online player to world champion, 8,773 players put up $10,000 apiece to compete for the 2006 world championship bracelet and $12.5 million in first-prize money.
Nearly 80 percent of them won their seats by entering inexpensive online tournaments.
A high proportion of the newly minted Internet players are in their 20s and early 30s. Whereas the World Series field used to be composed of grizzled veteran professionals, during the last few years it has been dominated by young neophytes playing in only their first or second World Series competition.
The huge explosion in tournament poker generated a mass market for poker-related products and services. Poker books and television shows proliferated. My TiVo — which is set to record all shows relating to "poker" — used to record a few shows a week. Now it records dozens.
When Greg Raymer won the World Series championship in 2004 after qualifying in an online tournament on PokerStars, he promptly quit his job as an in-house lawyer at Pfizer. PokerStars signed him to an exclusive marketing contract that paid him much more than his law job.
For the last few years, Greg has been featured in PokerStars’ television and print ads, encouraging the rest of us amateur players to indulge the fantasy that if we play on PokerStars and win a seat in the World Series, we, too, might be able to quit our day jobs, play poker full time and sign a lucrative endorsement deal with a company marketing to the expanding population of worldwide poker players.
All of this came to a screeching halt last weekend, when an unexpected confluence of political events led Congress to stick a provision into a port security bill at the 11th hour — one that's designed to shut down Internet gaming in the United States.
There were no hearings and no debate in the Senate, originally created by the Constitutional framers to be the "world's greatest deliberative body," where the potential passions of the mob as expressed by the larger, more populist House of Representatives, would be slowed down and moderated by the careful consideration intended by the rules of the Senate.
Not this time.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., concerned that his involvement with the discredited Jack Abramoff (lobbyist for Indian gaming interests) might jeopardize his re-election prospects in November, instructed the House leadership to pass a bill restricting Internet gaming in the United States — no matter what it took. The House did just that.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who would love to run for President in 2008, was eager to do the same in the Senate to show the vocal Christian right wing of his party that he shares their aversion to gambling. (Remember the Reagan days, when the conservative wing of the Republican Party won elections by railing against big government meddling in people’s lives? I guess those folks will have to vote Democratic now.)
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
Call me irrational but if your children get on the computer with your credit card or your bank account and blow it all gambling then thats your failure to do your job as a parent, you can't stand over them all the time but doing this would be alittle more difficult then setting up a myspace account or whatever. If your kids are over 18 and has his or her own accounts then hopefully if you've done your job as a parent well enough this wont be a issue, Theres your constructive proposal, be a parent to your kids.
I think you are missing the issue, it's not all about gambling. I'm not going to pretend I wont miss it but the fact that a bill taking away something I consider to be my freedom can be tacked on to something unrelated, slipped through at the last minute while nobody was looking or half asleep is not constitutionally correct.
9-11? Thats reactive thinking, how about the intelligence before?
Just so everyone knows the words "you" and "your" are meant as a generalization.
TELL me,IF we did not play poker nor gamble at all, would we possibly SUPPORT a bill that seeks to curb an activity that addicts youngsters early, produces 90+ losers(some catastrophically--losing educations, homes, marriages)& allows unregulated sites to do as they please with the public4s money??
I4ll bet a whole bunch of us would vote for the ban. As a lifetime Democrat, I would like to see the Dem party do better than it is. But we have offered NO solutions nor constructive proposals. Can we offer a better performance in protecting the American public then the current administration? While terrorists keep hitting all over the world & continue vowing to get us again--even bigger than 911--WE have NOT been HIT ONCE in 5 years!!! Coincidence????
Yeah sure, let4s throw im all out, & sit back while we win the elections, take power, then watch the hungry jihadists hit us like we4ve never seen before, including 911. My family is Democrat to the core, & three of us LOVE playing online poker, but *** it, I4ll vote to protect my family & our children FIRST, before demanding that unregulated offshore strangers be allowed to enter every american child & adult4s home with an invitation for destructive addiction.
Reading this article makes me realize how out-of control our rational thinking is, as computer poker gamblers.......PT
Get out there and do your civic duty!!!!
PROHIBITION breeds crime. History has proven this. The war on drugs has proven this. We should have the freedom to decide our own moral issues as long as the harm no one else. What will they want to ban next? Online Stock Trades? Is that not yet another form of online gambling?
The people who are against on-line poker are the ones who are losing the most money.
Casino's, and the government tax loss.
Anyone who says different is probably supporting this bill.
Or directly effected by the loss of revenue.
You finally found something that is important! You know they say the opposite of pro is con so Congress must be the opposite of Progress! When are our politicians going to tackle the tough issues instead of sidestepping every one that comes along. I know! When we have new politicians of course I wouldn't bet on it! "wink"
also ... one point of order ... you have a mistake in your lede. moneymaker won on a $40 entry, not $100. (i believe $100 was his deposit, from which he plucked his $40 entry.) just an fyi.
-- Dan Michalski
PokerBlog.com
Pokerati.com
The total number of internet poker players is huge, and if you are old enough to play for money you are old enough to vote. We hold a very strong hand and if we play our cards right we can win.
I won't give any republicans my vote or my chips in the coming elections. And by-the-way Mr. Hastert -- I VOTE IN ILLINOIS!
1) Maybe now that internet gambling is gone mom and dad will stop working 60 hours a week and spend it with their families instead of expecting the schools to raise their children.
2) A person that chose to gamble verses paying their child support will now instantly become a great responsible father or mother.
3) Alcoholism, reality TV, the growing gang problems and illegal immigration are all minor things compared to gambling.
4) Passing this bill means that predatory lenders may be able to get more of their 32% interest rate, therefore more campaign contributions.
A good family starts at home and it's very hard work. Don't take away my freedoms and my childrens because some people don't understand this. My kids had a really great christmas last year because of gambling, say what you want but it's much better then my meager salary could provide, it's material I know but it felt great to be able to do that. I'm sorry if that makes me irresponsible. To repent I will stop investing in stocks and withdraw from my IRA, after all, thats gambling.
See you all at the mandatory tent sermons in the near future.
Call it like it is! Quit playing the moral angle. That has gotten so overdone. It's about $$$ and someone isn't getting it.
Typical regressive republicans thinking they are morally better than everyone else.
I hope this really hurts them in November.
As far as the Right-wing zealot who claims this will mean more child-support... Upon what data are basing this claim. How is depriving me of a personal liberty going to benefit the children of the world.
Give me a break.
- by jesturner October 4, 2006 6:34 PM EDT
- good, Children's parents are losing child support and other money that can be spent on food and clothing and house payment/rent. I think the generation in their 20/30s think there is an idea that we are going to "strike it rich".
- Reply to this comment
See all 20 Comments