Comments on: Why the online-poker crackdown makes sense

By: MichaelQ2765

MichaelQ2765 — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:29:35 +0000

Thank God for the people voicing there opinions here there is a true american voice represented by the respondents not the author “silver spoon brain washing”

By: MichaelQ2765

MichaelQ2765 — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:24:51 +0000

The small amount of people who lose thier life savings can be supperted by tax $ s we give Pakistan 20 Bill ayear to not give nuclear info to muslum extremists .do you think that will support gamblers annonymous for one year. You cannot evade the personal responsability issue. If your house getts robbed you probably think its not your fault?

By: MichaelQ2765

MichaelQ2765 — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:15:43 +0000

The other day as I walked home,Isaw some people on the corner handing out literature. I stopped introduced myself ,shook hands . they where a church group ,you see I dont like the porn shop on the corner either.But when asked to join them no. See I assume the responsability to teach my “Daughter”to make better choices than to be a porn star or drug addict. And I told them not only as Americans Do we have the right but the responsability to respect those with diff opinions.When confronted with the aspect of a society that would not tolerate thier religion ,they concieded,how ever I requested that my input not detere them from thier task.Plainly We as americans have afforded thru the constitution to do as we chopse within the boundries of that document and its interpretation
[B S] The Government has no legal right to make laws to Interpret our possible missunderstanding of our lack of accountability of what may or may not occur in the course of our life.How about Hey Full Tilt Poker Great site cant get my money out , my choice, my reprocussions, my lesson learned .You dont trust online casinos dont play .Just because there is a porn shop on the corner doesnt make you a sex addict. The US is in trouble our leaders are out of touch with who they are and what thier responsabilities are our forefathers ,of which I am adirect decendant,were responsable community leaders usually volentering thier time and serviice for the greater good of the community.exam Obama said Health care a law if people dont buy it we will impose a fine????The leaders in my community raised money for a homeless shelter couldnt decide wear to build offered bus tickets instead .New Billboard”Bums, No tolerance,Eliminate the problem”Should say”Selfish,Greedy,Control freaks,terminate with extreme predudice”

By: elecengrman

elecengrman — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:18:30 +0000

Hasn’t this happened several times before? Wasn’t Phil Helmuth involved in some type of online poker cheating scheme? Since the government can’t seem to do anything about online poker sites existing, you’d think it would make laws to protect the people who decide to play from getting ripped off.

By: seannartiff

seannartiff — Sat, 21 May 2011 18:16:59 +0000

Back to the author’s point:

“The point here is that it’s the job of the government to look after the weakest members of society.”

Freedom = Great Responsibility. Do you want the government constantly monitoring everything you say and everything you eat. In my opinion the government’s ‘job’ to support freedom and equal human rights. IT IS EASIER TO PROTECT THE WEAKEST MEMBERS OF SOCIETY BY LEGALIZING ONLINE GAMBLING. IF THE INDIVIDUAL OR A FAMILY MEMBER CALLS A GAMBLING HOTLINE THEY COULD HAVE RESTRICTIONS PUT ON THEIR ACCOUNTS BECAUSE THEY PERSON CAN’T ACT RESPONSIBLY. IT WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF HAVING YOUR LICENSE REVOKED FOR A DUI.

By: Curmudgeon

Curmudgeon — Thu, 19 May 2011 20:04:56 +0000

“… it’s the job of the government to look after the weakest members of society.”

Hmmm. I don’t think so. It’s the job of government to promote and advance societal norms and goals. You may feel that should include looking after the weakest members of society, but I suspect that’s secondary to many other norms and goals.

As for gambling, it’s a simple random reward behavior, which psychology research has demonstrated is one of the most addictive of reward schedules. I don’t think the social aspect plays into it very much for most people; rather it’s the hit of adrenaline from getting a reward delivered randomly.

I have no problem with gambling, especially government sponsored and taxed gambling. In my mind, it’s a tax I can choose whether or not to pay. I choose not to.

By: junkcharts

junkcharts — Thu, 19 May 2011 19:38:56 +0000

Bravo! It’s really hard to reconcile what Levitt’s mode of thinking is. His comment on drugs and prostitution is telling. If he doesn’t like the outcome, he would reject economic analysis. He would shelve his own economic principles and follow his daughter’s reasoning even though his daughter has less education, less life experience, and I’m not even sure she is an economist! He also needs to address how the government should decide whose daughter to listen to.

By: MaysonLancaster

MaysonLancaster — Wed, 18 May 2011 22:28:05 +0000

Felix –

Given that the main reason for the crackdown was the hefty campaign contributions from the bricks-and-mortar gambling industry, your argument is not tenable. I mean if it was, then why are Vegas, Atlantic City, and the many Indian casinos legal?

By: TinyOne

TinyOne — Wed, 18 May 2011 21:39:09 +0000

Exhibit #1 when debating the proposition “Felix Salmon is a liberal weenie”

By: TeamJotty

TeamJotty — Wed, 18 May 2011 21:35:18 +0000

“The point here is that it’s the job of the government to look after the weakest members of society.” Huh?

I’m sorry but gambling isn’t a major source of weakness in society. I’m fine with people who believe in a nanny state, but aren’t there bigger problems on the table?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol. htm

What we need to do is ban alcohol again!

C’mon, Felix. How can you stand by the quote above but yet feel differently about alcohol? Or maybe you don’t.

Let’s be consistent here.

By: Mr.Do

Mr.Do — Wed, 18 May 2011 21:05:52 +0000

I wouldn’t want my daughter to date a pro-athlete. Should that be illegal too?

By: jjhould

jjhould — Wed, 18 May 2011 19:05:02 +0000

Online poker never should have been shutdown the way it was. It would have made much more sense for the sites to be taxed, rather then closed. The online poker industry brings in over 25 billion a year, and that number was only expected to grow in the coming years. Wouldn’t it have made sense to tax it, so the government gets their cut, and the players can still continue playing.

Instead of doing that, the biggest sites were shutdown, however, there are still sites available to U.S players. Sites like Carbon Poker http://bit.ly/gwGK2V are still accepting U.S deposits and withdrawals. So, if people still wanted to play, they could. Seems like the government didn’t stop U.S players at all, just made things a little harder, and the best part is, they still aren’t getting any tax revenue.

By: GlibFighter

GlibFighter — Wed, 18 May 2011 19:01:57 +0000

Levitt = glib.

By: BarryKelly

BarryKelly — Wed, 18 May 2011 18:57:59 +0000

There’s several huge flaws in your world perspective, Felix, but here’s one from the big-government side of the camp (i.e. assuming that govt’s job is indeed protecting weakest):

“The point here is that it’s the job of the government to look after the weakest members of society. Ultimately, if someone becomes a drug addict or loses their life savings gambling, it’s society as a whole which has to pick up the pieces and support that person. And so the government has an incentive to circumscribe such activities and even make them illegal — even if a handful of people could engage in them successfully.”

This presupposes that making something illegal is what looks after people. But that’s not how it works. What it does is washes governments’ hands of the problem. Instead, you get drug use, prostitution, gambling, run entirely on a criminal basis with even LESS protection for those “weakest members”. Advocating making these things illegal does exactly the opposite of what you’re after. If people want to gamble, they’ll find a way; better to have it regulated than people suffering much worse threats from money-lenders etc.

By: djiddish98

djiddish98 — Wed, 18 May 2011 18:53:38 +0000

“After all, the vast majority of poker players never go pro, and the vast majority of poker pros never become champions. Overall, the number of people who lose money playing poker is much larger than the number of people who make money at it.”

This argument seems to be in favor of banning any sport known the man. Replace the word “poker” with “baseball”.

Playing baseball has a cost associated with it (bat, balls, renting fields, paying for uniforms), so plenty of people lose money playing baseball with no fat MLB contract to show for it.

Also, god forbid the amount of time spent on baseball leisure, when that time could be spent hitting the books and working hard! It’s as if kids are addicted to baseball! (Ok, this last one is a bit extreme)

What’s the difference though? Both are leisure activities. I’m sure I’ve spent more of my (and my parents) hard earned cash on baseball related supplies (without actually enjoying baseball growing up) than I’ve lost playing poker. And the camaraderie of the baseball team has as much social value as my improved understanding of probability via online poker.

Besides, there is NO difference between state lottery and poker, besides who’s pocket is lined. In fact, a poor person is much more likely to win some money in poker due to dumb luck than winning the lottery.