| Posted by: Kinkikos at September 24, 2007, 2:54 am | | Topic: Wouldn't this be interesting? Forum: Card Chat |
Any Canadians want to speculate how our country will follow suit? Any criminal statutes in Canada touching on online gaming are currently not enforced.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Insomniac_1006 at September 24, 2007, 1:29 am | | Topic: Wouldn't this be interesting? Forum: Card Chat |
Federal legislation is pending...
H.R. 2046, Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act
H.R. 2610, Skill Game Protection Act
H.R. 2140, Internet Gambling Study Bill
H.R. 2607, Internet Gambling Tax Act
And on the heals of the WTO iolation it is only a matter of time before the US starts supporting, and profiting from internet poker, imho
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: MississippiMud at September 24, 2007, 12:35 am | | Topic: Wouldn't this be interesting? Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by HappyHowie
Actually, I agree with you. The US casinos want to be able to start their own online sites that are government regulated. They don't want the competition from overseas operators. Banning the existing sites is only a first step.
I'm not sure, but I think that many are getting geared up to open sites when they can.
I think what is likely to happen is the major casino operators will buy out the major online sites. MGM Mirage, Harrahs, Steve Wynn and others will look to buy the bigger sire. Or they might start up their own, compete for a while, let the alue of the current sites drop and then buy em out.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: riverboatrat at September 23, 2007, 9:30 pm | | Topic: Wouldn't this be interesting? Forum: Card Chat |
difficult to say, good card players are great liars
but even bad politicians are even greater liars.
How do you get a read on that ?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: HappyHowie at September 23, 2007, 9:27 pm | | Topic: Wouldn't this be interesting? Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by MississippiMud
If your referring to casinos I don't really think that is the case. The major and even minor casino operators would love to get their hands into the online poker/gambling pie.
Online poker has helped their business not hurt it. You may not see them leading the charge to legalize online gaming but as soon as it becomes legal they will jump in with deep pockets and take over.
Actually, I agree with you. The US casinos want to be able to start their own online sites that are government regulated. They don't want the competition from overseas operators. Banning the existing sites is only a first step.
I'm not sure, but I think that many are getting geared up to open sites when they can.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: MississippiMud at September 23, 2007, 8:57 pm | | Topic: Wouldn't this be interesting? Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by HappyHowie
You have to understand that the law was not passed because of the "luck s. skill" issue. That is total subterfuge. This bill was backed by US gambling interests that wanted to restrict competition. They gave lot's of money to select politicians under the guise of "moral alues."
If your referring to casinos I don't really think that is the case. The major and even minor casino operators would love to get their hands into the online poker/gambling pie.
Online poker has helped their business not hurt it. You may not see them leading the charge to legalize online gaming but as soon as it becomes legal they will jump in with deep pockets and take over.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Lana_Faith at September 23, 2007, 8:36 pm | | Topic: Wouldn't this be interesting? Forum: Card Chat |
yanno on second thought, this is a BAD idea. With our luck, Strom Thurmond would donk all the good players out early on in the tourney, and then have a heart attack. Then we'd have this huge chipstack sitter till the end of the tourney, or worse yet, he'd delegate play to one of his AIDES.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: beardyian at September 23, 2007, 11:06 am | | Topic: Wouldn't this be interesting? Forum: Card Chat |
Just get all the politicians (scum ) to play in a tourney between themselves - their egos alone would defeat the luck idea.
Can you imagine a politician when asked 'was it luck or skill that won it for you' reply with anything apart from "skill obviously"
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: HappyHowie at September 23, 2007, 8:48 am | | Topic: Wouldn't this be interesting? Forum: Card Chat |
You have to understand that the law was not passed because of the "luck s. skill" issue. That is total subterfuge. This bill was backed by US gambling interests that wanted to restrict competition. They gave lot's of money to select politicians under the guise of "moral alues."
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Wild Rivers at September 22, 2007, 6:28 pm | | Topic: Wouldn't this be interesting? Forum: Card Chat |
Just reading over threads on gambling legislation and it occurred to me that this question of "luck s. skill" can be settled once and for all with a tournament of all 435 members of the U.S. House and 100 Senators, each with a freeroll buy-in s. 535 poker professionals each with a buy-in of $10,000 (just to make it fair). "Luckiest" group takes the money AND the issue!
| | Static Link |
|