New at Reason

David Weigel | October 26, 2006

In his debut as a full-fledged Reasonoid, Radley Balko patiently explains to Republicans why eliminating something people have fun with might not result in millions of happy voters.

Comments

|10.26.06 @ 2:11AM|#

The bill doesn't ban online poker, casinos or sportsbooks.

It only affirms that financial transactions to and from illegal internet betting shops are illegal. The actual definition of an illegal internet betting shop is not further defined in this bill, instead relying on the presumptive view that the Wire Act naturally expands to the internet.

The bill therefore puts the onus on the banks and other financial institutions to comply with forthcoming regulations, but does not criminalise internet betting by bettors, nor does it further clarify the illegality/legality of internet betting.

|10.26.06 @ 2:17AM|#

Any congressista who voted for this bill yet is opposed to gun control is a hypocrite.

|10.26.06 @ 2:20AM|#

So how long will (some)Libertarians cintinue to consider Republicans the lesser of two evils?

|10.26.06 @ 4:44AM|#

for what its worth I've heard two non-political shows on Sirius radio denounced the bill in the past couple days. These are shows that never/rarely mention politics and the listeners all agreed in calls/e-mails -- obviously two small shows aren't enough to throw an election but some small indicator that people are actually paying attention to this...

|10.26.06 @ 4:48AM|#

seems like Balko is a real red blooded libertarian -- its nice to see phrases like 'but also attached an intrusive, unnecessary, big government measure to a bill that addressed important national security concerns.' back in the pages of reason again, I almost thought I was reading an FFF op-ed.

|10.26.06 @ 5:53AM|#

Link to the actual bill (it's kind of interesting):

H.R. 4411 Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act

I really wish that legislation under discussion was more regularly linked to or referenced by name and number in news articles! Same with statistical studies.

|10.26.06 @ 9:30AM|#

78% of statistical studies are never linked to because upon closer examination they do not support the proposition being advanced.

Dan T.|10.26.06 @ 9:50AM|#

Balko makes some pretty good arguments here, but if it's true that 20 million Americans gamble online then that means that something like 93% of Americans don't. And they probably see those that do as losers and aren't likely to get too worked up either way about it.

|10.26.06 @ 10:11AM|#

I think it was in a thread yesterday some were defending the GOP as preferable to the Dems when it came to protecting our liberties. Let's please note this GOP attempt to ban a harmless activity engaged in folks HOMES (the Dems have obnoxious ideas about banning smoking in clubs in some areas, though I point out again that in my home state it was a GOP assemblyman who introduced that measure most recently). In TX the GOPers have a law that bans SEX TOYS (I guess they are a threat to marriage?); the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to it this term. Sorry folks, when it comes to nannyism the GOP wins the Mary Poppins award this year...I mean, if it were your 21st birthday, who would you want to plan your party, Ted Kennedy or Sam Brownback?

|10.26.06 @ 10:56AM|#

I think Balko underestimates the number of people who really like to tell others what to do, and overestimates the number of folks who give a shit whether online gambling is legal or not.

|10.26.06 @ 11:24AM|#

I don't think that Radley is implying that it's a "holy shit, let's storm the Bastille" kind of issue, but it certainly has made voters out of a number of apolitical twenty-something males.

The only other forums I read are for a poker strategy (and bonus whoring) site, and there are a LOT of college-aged slackers who claim they will vote Dem simply because of this. Some (probably fairly small) percentage of them actually will. These were non-voters before Frist did this.

The other thing to remember is that the House version of the bill banned basically everything. Playing online, transferring money to/from betting sites online, thinking about cards... It's only because the Senate version was so watered down that it didn't actually do very much. So remember *that* when you fill out your ballot. My Democratic Congressman voted yes to the uberversion of the bill. Guess I can vote R there.

|10.26.06 @ 12:03PM|#

"In the wee hours of the last night of the last session of Congress, Majority Leader Bill Frist attached a ban on Internet gambling to a port security bill.

"It was a dubious maneuver, which not only prevented any real floor debate over the ban, but also attached an intrusive, unnecessary, big government measure to a bill that addressed important national security concerns. This meant that any senator who held the position that what Americans do with their own money in their own homes on their own time is none of the government's business couldn't vote against the gambling ban, lest they risk being smacked about the head with the "soft on national security" cudgel."

The real issue, and the real crisis, if one wishes to refer to it as such, is the procedural one.

And I have given up pretending Nancy Pelosi could be worse than that sleazy, loathsome, homunculus Bill Frist.

|10.26.06 @ 12:13PM|#

"I mean, if it were your 21st birthday, who would you want to plan your party, Ted Kennedy or Sam Brownback?"

Sam Brownback, the party would be boring, but none of the girls would have to drive home with Ted Kennedy.

|10.26.06 @ 12:25PM|#

We need a Poker Party. No, not a smoke filled, beer swilling night of Texas Hold'em. A political party that advocates the rights of Poker players.

The U. S. Poker Party.

If one is formed, I'll say, "Deal me in."

|10.26.06 @ 12:26PM|#

Card Player Magazine contributor Nolan Dalla did a reader survey a few years ago to try to determine the political thinking of the poker community. His conclusion was that the majority of players who responded are libertarian. Having been a part of the poker (20yrs) and libertarian (30yrs) communities myself I have to believe that most of the players who consider themselves libertarian are one-issue libertarians, e.g. gambling. From the many poker table conversations I've been involved in and have overheard, I'm inclined to believe that the great majority of serious poker players are liberal Democrats. Although they do try to stay politically neutral, it even leaks into Card Player's editorials. Lots of limousine Liberals, very few real libertarians.

Legate Damar's observation that this Internet Gambling issue will drive young internet poker players to the polls is valid, these people are pissed-off, mostly anti-Republican to begin with and will vote for the Democrats. Who can blame them?

|10.26.06 @ 1:08PM|#

We need a Poker Party. No, not a smoke filled, beer swilling night of Texas Hold'em. A political party that advocates the rights of Poker players.

Why not both? The meetings would be great.

|10.26.06 @ 1:16PM|#

David,
True! And 10% of each pot could go to the campaign war chest.

|10.26.06 @ 1:19PM|#

All it does is prevent American financial companies from processing the transfers. This means that foreign companies will do it instead. In other words, all the laws does is to transfer American dollars directly overseas with nothing in return while reminding the voters that Republicans love to stick their noses in other people's business by passing free lunch morality laws.

Well done, politicians.

|10.26.06 @ 1:44PM|#

if it were your 21st birthday, who would you want to plan your party, Ted Kennedy or Sam Brownback

Since I would want all my guests to make it home alive and unmolested, I'd probably go with Sam.

|10.26.06 @ 4:04PM|#

Guys there is only one solution to oppression, resistance.

When the Libertarian milita calls, I will be there with my M1A Springfield.
Who's with me?

|10.26.06 @ 4:16PM|#

Terry,

We'll all be right behind you.

|10.26.06 @ 4:39PM|#

Stupid laws and regulations will be what historians point to when they discuss the decline and fall of the American economic "empire". Drive away the money! Great idea. We're already fighting a losing battle in so many industries, not to mention the question of how long we can keep subsidizing and using tariffs to protect our agriculture business.

|10.26.06 @ 5:37PM|#

Buckshot,
You have been a poker player for 20 years?
Yea, where?
Me, I have been for roughly 8, though I have only made it to Vegas 3 times in the last year and ten months, since Jan. 2005.

|10.26.06 @ 6:15PM|#

As far as I can tell, TV poker is likely to be off shored to Bangalore poker rooms. ALL the excitement, a fraction the cost.
Buckshot: a guy who ended up as a crptographer for the OSS in China in War Two grew up in KC, Mo, poker rooms. He wrote a memoir tying lessons learned as a cardsharp in KC to things that kept him alive as a spook.
Facinatin book. PB, in the......very early 70's. I had more than a few buds who earned a living at poker at the time. Never had the talent or interest, myself. Aint got a pr of Jacks or better on deal (5card) fold. Odds are: you wont take the pot. so said the spook.......made me a dull poker player. just as well...

Paul|10.26.06 @ 6:32PM|#

So how long will (some)Libertarians cintinue to consider Republicans the lesser of two evils?

Joe:

Speaking for myself, I will always consider Republicans to be the lesser of two weevils.

Bumper sticker in relation to the Balko article:
I blew my kids tuition playing on-line poker, and I VOTE!

|10.26.06 @ 8:35PM|#

MUTT:

Your friends advice for 5 card draw is sound, Jacks are a minimum starting hand in high draw games, depending on the number of players. Unfortunately, draw is a dead game.
Best advice for occasional players in all forms of poker:
First option, Fold.
Second option: Raise.
Third option: Call.
Poker is a bully's game, attack the weak, avoid the strong. Like at Hit & Run here, I know who the "players" are and I steer clear of them unless I'm holding a good hand. Anyone can beat the fish, but watch out for the sharks.
Nixon reputedly was a good player while in the service, but Amarillo Slim played with him after he was president and said he wasn't as tricky as advertised.

Terry:

I like you better when you're being civil. Your comments aren't the problem, it's the name calling at the end of the comment.
I played at the Bicycle Club for years, started in 1985 when only draw poker was legal in California. Thank God those days are over, draw is BORING, Holdem is exciting. I've been to 7 out of the last 8 WSOP's, in 2005 the staff was unprepared for the huge turnout (TV and Internet interest boosted the numbers) so I got shut-out. 500 miles, sorry we can't seat you, 500 miles back home. I cussed those motherfuckers for 8 straight hours. I've yet to place in the money, the fish usually die in the first few hours, but then you have to deal with the REAL players. There really is a big difference between the good player and the great players. The WSOP is tough.

I don't get to play as much these days, but I take the occasional trip to Reno or the Bay Area. The small clubs in the valley have such prohibitively high rakes that it's not worth it. I love to play, not give my money away.

Paul|10.27.06 @ 12:11AM|#

Poker is a bully's game, attack the weak, avoid the strong. Like at Hit & Run here, I know who the "players" are and I steer clear of them unless I'm holding a good hand. Anyone can beat the fish, but watch out for the sharks.

But, Buckshot... that's simply the way the smart people play at life. So I guess that makes smart people bullies? Hmm, interesting theory...

Poker aside, my philosophy in life is "don't bet unless you know you're going to win"

|10.27.06 @ 9:38AM|#

But, Paul....Poker is a microcosm of life in many ways, the math, psychology, body language, relationships. You size up the competition and proceed accordingly. Smart poker players (winners) are indeed bullies, otherwise they wouldn't win. I've read your comments and if you have someone dead to rights and can win the debate, you don't pull your punches. Right on. But if you were to argue poker strategy with me, I would be the bully ane you would be scrambling for cover. Smart people are bullies if they are engaged in competions of any kind, why give away your edge? If your compasionate side compels you to help hungry people, that's make you a good person, but not if you're competeing with them for the last crumbs, then you would be a fool.

"Poker aside, my philosophy in life is,'don't bet unless you KNOW you're going to win'."

The problem is, you don't KNOW your going to win as a matter of certainy, but as a degree of probability. Don't bet unless you THINK you're going to win, and don't think you're going to win until after you've done your homework. One of the things that makes life interesting is trying to figure out what's going to happen next. If you only bet on sure things, you'll find yourself betting on tommorrow's sunrise.

If you have decided I have a weak hand, you can force me out of the pot just by betting, you don't NEED a better hand, you only need for me to BELIEVE you have a better hand. You don't KNOW I'm going to fold, but you've been watching me play (you have been paying attention to how I've been playing, right?) and have decided there is a high degree of probability that you have me fooled. Then you will be a successfull bully.