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.
But Frist could not move a bill through committee and onto the floor prior to the November elections. So he found a way to slide a provision into an unrelated bill designed to increase security at America’s ports, without any hearings or debate. At the last moment, just before Congress recessed so Hastert and Frist and their colleagues could go home to campaign for re-election, the Senate passed the port security bill, including the Internet gaming provisions.
For the booming poker industry, this was as bad a beat as losing to a 3-outer on the river. Had the bill not been passed before the recess, it is unlikely it could have passed after the elections. Opponents in the Senate would not have been afraid to stand up and object to an ill-considered bill being tacked onto an unrelated statute without debate or full consideration of the opposing arguments and alternate ways of regulating online gaming. After Election Day the Abramoff scandal loses its power to influence elections.
Technically, the new law does not make it illegal to play poker on the Internet. Instead, it makes it illegal for any bank, credit card company or other financial intermediary to process transfers to or from an Internet gaming site.
In other words, there is no practical, safe way to legally deposit money into your PokerStars account to play in a tournament or take money out if you win.
The word on the street is that three of the largest Internet poker sites — PokerStars, Party Poker and Pacific Poker — will shortly announce that they are withdrawing from the U.S. market. The last of the major sites, Full Tilt Poker, is on the fence about what to do.
My hunch is that the government will turn up the heat on Full Tilt sufficiently to persuade them to follow the same course.
The ramifications for players and for the business of poker are dramatic. Attendance at the World Series will probably drop by at least 50 percent. None of the tens of thousands of Chris Moneymaker and Greg Raymer wannabes will be able to win a seat at next year’s World Series by playing online.
The number of poker shows on television will drop as well. (Most are now sponsored by Internet sites. It makes no sense now for them to spend money marketing their sites in the United States.)
The value of tournament purses will drop significantly, as will the value of player endorsement contracts. In sum, Congress will probably succeed in turning the clock back to pre-Moneymaker days, in terms of the size of the tournament poker market in the United States. A bad beat for the shareholders who invested in poker industry stocks. Harrah’s, which hosts the World Series, will take a hit as will businesses that invested in the booming poker industry.
I predict things will not stay this way for long. Once the election is over, those with an economic interest in the poker industry (including the banks and credit-card companies) will prevail on Congress to replace this hastily contrived political fix with a more sensible legislation that legalizes, regulates and taxes online gaming.
Already the countries where online gaming sites are incorporated are objecting to the United States barring them from the U.S. market. The World Trade Organization, of which the United States is a member, has held that it violates free trade agreements signed by the United States. (When the United States tried to argue that each country has the right to ban products that offend its moral values, the WTO pointed out that gaming is legal in nearly every U.S. state in the form of horse racing, dog racing, state lotteries, jai alai and more.)
Imagine if the federal government banned every form of activity that Congress deemed bad for us — smoking and drinking, for example. The last time they tried that, in Prohibition days, it was a fiasco. For now, I expect that a number of Internet "speakeasy" sites will crop up, looking to profit from the market that has been abandoned by the reputable sites like Party Poker and PokerStars. Players who send money to those sites and end up getting cheated will have Speaker Hastert and Sen. Frist to thank.
I haven’t thought about moving to Canada since Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara threatened to draft me to fight in a war I believed was wrong-headed and unjustified. Hastert and Frist may have finally pushed me over the edge. After all, how else can I become the next Greg Raymer?
©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