ITH Poker Forum

[Doc T River]

http://www.wsgc.wa.gov/faq/internet_gambling.pdf

[kinnipak]

why does Adobe ask me to purchase a license to view this?

[Doc T River]

I have no idea. It did not ask me. Sorry about that.

[nsidestrate]

why does Adobe ask me to purchase a license to view this?

I'm going to guess your set-up is screwy. It doesn't ask me on several different machines.

[kinnipak]

I have no idea. It did not ask me. Sorry about that.

Not your fault. My computer has just gone haywire on me. VERY messed up.

[janeg]

This kills me.

Gambling involves three elements: prize, chance and consideration (entry fee, wager, or anything of value). If one of these elements is removed, it is no longer a gambling activity.

And then

In 2004, advance deposit wagering for horse racing was authorized by the Washington State Legislature. This is a separate law from the Internet gambling prohibition.

You can legally bet on a horse race, over which you absolutely no control, but cannot play a game of poker where you make a decision on each turn of the card

[Doc T River]

I liked where it said that playing online with an overseas based site was illegal in the United States.

In case anyone wonders where I found out about this, it was in a thread from 2plus2. Some aide to an official in Washington state directed a 2plus2 poster to the linked document.

[kinnipak]

You can legally bet on a horse race, over which you absolutely no control, but cannot play a game of poker where you make a decision on each turn of the card

If someone were to ask an elected political proponent of the UIGEA to explain why this is allowed to occur, what possible explanation can be offered? Is there any response as to why it makes sense? It really confuses me.

[Piscivorous]

You can legally bet on a horse race, over which you absolutely no control, but cannot play a game of poker where you make a decision on each turn of the card

If someone were to ask an elected political proponent of the UIGEA to explain why this is allowed to occur, what possible explanation can be offered? Is there any response as to why it makes sense? It really confuses me.

Yes it does make sense. The horse racing lobby is very powerful and so are the lottery lobbies. The poker lobby was until Abramoff got sentenced to jail time. The UIGEA doesn't make it out of committee if all forms of online gambling are included.

[kinnipak]

[Yes it does make sense. The horse racing lobby is very powerful and so are the lottery lobbies. The poker lobby was until Abramoff got sentenced to jail time. The UIGEA doesn't make it out of committee if all forms of online gambling are included.

I understand the political pull of these groups and the power they wield . What I am asking is if you ask a Senator(or any politician), who has voted for the UIEGA and publicly supports it, why they think it makes sense. Why they support horse racing and not online poker. I would like to know why it is ok to bet on one activity online and not the other. What criteria and information was used to form their opinion? Where did the information come from and was it verified?

It just does not hold water in my mind. Granted I have a lot of leaks, but how can any person legally justify the act of wagering on one vs the other as being ok for the first, but not the second.

[Piscivorous]

I understand the political pull of these groups and the power they wield . What I am asking is if you ask a Senator(or any politician), who has voted for the UIEGA and publicly supports it, why they think it makes sense. Why they support horse racing and not online poker. I would like to know why it is ok to bet on one activity online and not the other. What criteria and information was used to form their opinion? Where did the information come from and was it verified?

It just does not hold water in my mind. Granted I have a lot of leaks, but how can any person legally justify the act of wagering on one vs the other as being ok for the first, but not the second.

That's the case though. None of them got a chance to argue for or against the UIGEA because it was introduced as part of the Safe Port Act. No committee discussions, no political discourse on the House floor or in the Senate.

The Act was passed at midnight on the day Congress adjourned for the 2006 elections. Though a bill with the gambling wording was previously debated and passed by the House of Representatives,[4][5][6] the SAFE Port Act (H.R. 4954) as passed by the House on May 4th (by a vote of 421-2) and the United States Senate on September 14th (98-0),[7] bore no traces of the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act that was included in the SAFE Port Act signed into law by George W. Bush on October 13th, 2006.[8] The UIGEA was added in Conference Report 109-711 (submitted at 9:29pm on September 29, 2006), which was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 409-2 and by the Senate by unanimous consent on September 30, 2006. Due to H.RES.1064, the reading of this conference report was waived.

Meaning that because they had already passed the SAFE Port Act, and Bill Frist inserted the UIGEA into the Act, while disallowing a reading of the conference report, most of the Congress who voted on the SAFE Port Act did so with no knowledge of the additions.

If you were to ask most of them to this day, most would state that they didn't get a chance to make any distinction let alone read the text of the Conference Report.

[kinnipak]

Exactly. We all know this(poker players I mean). In fact, it's how most stupid things get passed into law because it gets attached to a larger bill and gets through un noticed. God Bless America.

I have seen interview video of US SENATORS who admit to voting to pass a bill WITHOUT EVEN READING IT. They ADMIT it. They say it is impossible to completely read a Bill before they vote for against it.

How can this not be a serious point of contention in a court of law to have it over turned?

And I know this is the reason why lobbyists and politicak groups have come to exist. To keep what THEY want in regardless of what else there is attached.

Just boggles my mind.

ok. Rant over. Thx for tuning in.