Legalized Online Gambling found support in the U.S. House yesterday.

[FuzzyDunlop]

Link

Great news for poker, but could this be bad for sportsbooks? I would think that if megacorp casinos can operate legal online poker, they would use their newly bought political influence to tighten the noose of offshore books.

[Lo-CalDallasBuKe]

I think there is a possibility.

[gauchojake]

Our lawmakers are retards. I learned poker in the Boy Scouts so it must be good! LOL WTF really?

The same old retread arguments of "poker is a game of skill" and "increased tax dollars to close the deficit" need to stop. How about this, I want to spend my own money how I see fit and since you are an elected official I demand you let me. I'd also like to play in an environment that is fair and I can have some recourse if I get scammed.

These people have no concept of a gambler's mentality either. State lotteries are still going to get their pound of flesh no matter how much gambling is legal on the internet.

end rant. This shit drives me nuts.

[FuzzyDunlop]

"I learned poker in the Boy Scouts so it must be good!" = "Those lobbyist checks finally cleared"

[DDT]

This shit pisses me off

[mighty maron]

This offers more support then online gambling in congress

[icancount2one]

Poker is skill in the same way as sports-betting, though it was really hard to beat NLHE after UIGEA and the popularity of shortstacking, but when it's publicly legal the seas will be stocked with fish! Plus maybe I'll get my (small) roll back from full tilt!

[FuzzyDunlop]

Poker is skill in the same way as sports-betting

I would disagree in that in poker, you are guaranteed to be playing for other players money while the house sits back earning juice, not putting the house in the position to find someone to bet the opposite way or be exposed.

[jgray]

I would disagree in that in poker, you are guaranteed to be playing for other players money while the house sits back earning juice, not putting the house in the position to find someone to bet the opposite way or be exposed.

What does that have to do with the OP's point about skill?

[FuzzyDunlop]

Skill of the competitor was one of the Dominant Factor Tests of the judges ruling in the U.S. precedent setting case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs Walter Watkins, which established poker as being a skill game. There is no competitor while placing a wager with the house using the same Test.

[jgray]

Skill of the competitor was one of the Dominant Factor Tests of the judges ruling in the U.S. precedent setting case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs Walter Watkins, which established poker as being a skill game. There is no competitor while placing a wager with the house using the same Test.

Got it. Actually that's one of the flaws in the test. The question of whether something involves skill or chance does not only turn whether there's a competitor. Sports betting is more similarly analogized to day trading in stocks. There's skill involved in both and the book, like the broker-dealer, merely processes the action (for a fee of course). The only difference is that the book, unlike the broker-dealer acts as sort of a credit business. The BD needs someone on the other side to process the trade (with the assistance of the clearing firm). The book does too, it just adjusts the line to motivate that other side action. It may also try to take advantage of a position by keeping a line artificially skewed to one side but that's no difference than a broker-dealer completing the transaction out of its own holdings.

In the end, it's just easier for loser legislators to say their losses were a product of bad luck (chance) than ackowledge that they lost because they suck at evaluating the information available.