Illegal online gambling arguemt: Stokes' Blog....
The story about Stokes' poker playing career is sad, poignant.
http://blog.mlive.com/deadmoney/2011/04/us_online_poker_crackdown_leav.html
He was a professional poker player who paid his bills - and his taxes - and supported his family from online poker playing.
If it is viewed as a crime, then it's arguably a victimless one - as the only ones he "took" from were from players who did play as well as he did, precisely because he was disciplined and worked hard at it - professionally, many would say.
However, the "gubment" lawyers are will make the argument that income from a technical crime is still illicit income, but it's hard to argue with on a compassionate basis.
What if he robbed banks - but worked out a method where he didn't carry out shooting anyone in the process? The banks or "system" can afford it. He didn't hurt anyone, and I would do it too if I could.
What if he counterfeited money? - The economy and "system" can support it.
What if he sold grass - people don't overdose on pot like they do on meth or crack, so then it must be "okay."
What if he were a corporate procurement executive, and took a kickback for a product that was "almost as good but slightly more expensive" - with a mortgage to pay, car loans to pay, and college tuition for his daughter at Carnegie-Mellon? Okay now?
All these arguments can be made for beating or bleeding the system when it suits us, and BOY can we present some very compassionate arguments that sound absolutely reasonable on that basis.
Maybe the evil IRS and the state tax departments want their cut - and they do indeed. It's how we pay for schools and police and Medicare and social security - and for wars and "International police actions" that we may strongly disagree with, too.
Maybe they want to prevent children and unauthorized people from gambling - and they do, and that's all right also.
But when gambling is in any sort of a dirty or in a "grey area," the floorboards really buckle under the industry.
People did know - or should have known - that going in it all was technically illegal, ("marginally illegal but apparently tolerated" is a much better description), and that it all would eventually be shut down with the tolerance limit point reached - until re-opening legitimized.
"Job Closure Scenarios with heartbreaking stories" happened for all sorts of good and bad people, and obeying the law or not: factories that shuttered their doors on its workers when operating legally: U.S. Steel, Automotive parts suppliers, ship building docks, you name it.
But illegal gamblers who made a living from it - even if their proceeds were spent on their children's Catholic School Tuition, and live an All-American middle class life - stretch it a bit for me a tad.
Dealing is a legal job, - and so is being a professional player in a legal card room or casino.
There are players who make a good living by playing player-banked poker and Pai Gow in the legal card rooms of California and Washington State, (and some house-banked games, too.) They suit up for work often in jeans or in a wheel-chair, just like the rest of us, even if disabled, in Disability-compliant casino facilities. All legal, no excuses about traveling.
The argument that "we weren't arrested or stopped quickly enough - to prevent us from making a living from it for a while - should make it permanently legal for us" - doesn't fly with me. If a victimless crime taxes the population as a whole - in any tiny but widespread way - it adds up to a massive deficit.
The squatter's rights argument of:
"We got away with this for a quite without getting caught or shut down - so it should now be made legitimate for me, and given to me, dammit!" is at question.
IMHO.
But I have said all along you have to be nuts to play poker online. This is just one of the things that could happen. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
Quote: odiousgambitI have sympathy, sure. That sympathy might evaporate if I knew all the facts, a guy like this, making this kind of cake, often has software assistance against his opponents. Just saying.
Odious - thank you.
Hold 'em in poker in many online poker rooms has become more of a math exercise than its original mix of gambling espionage, deduction, and yes - luck.
Bots have somewhat destroyed the game, and made it a superficial "computer operators' job" and math exercise, - and not a gambling skill game. This should be illegal as a definition of gambling.
until the states decided to have their own version of the numbers game. Off course the state can only afford to pay
500 to 1 , not the 700 to 1 the bookies paid. Need to run all those commercials to attract bettors. So nice to know my buying a lottery ticket supports our parks systems. Seem almost unpatriotic not to spend half my paycheck on the numbers or lottery !
Why is his situation different from any of the gamblers who suddenly find themselves without one of thier income streams?
Are we really supposed to feel sorry because this was his only source of income?
You'd have to be living in genuine denial to think that the golden goose would be immortal.
Quote: VirgiThere has to be SOME losers.
Then let me be the first to admit that I am a net loser in online poker.
While first off I agree online poker is horrible because half the fun of poker is the conversation at the table and the interaction with people. But lets not act like online poker takes no skill, because it does! I play lots of no limit poker live(granted the buy in is only 1k and the blinds are 5/10) and I always laugh when people think poker is like the movie "rounders". First off are you really going to get a "tell" off someone at a 4-8 table LOL? And secondly big time pros playing for big time money dont have any physical tells. At most you might be able to pick up on someones betting rabbits but thats about it.
Quote: PaigowdanPeople did know - or should have known - that going in it all was technically illegal, ("marginally illegal but apparently tolerated" is a much better description), and that it all would eventually be shut down with the tolerance limit point reached - until re-opening legitimized.
Not at the Federal level it wasn't. There are no federal laws against a player making a house-banked non-sports wager online. The CAFC has ruled that "the Wire Act does not prohibit non-sports internet gambling" (cite). See also this pre-UIGEA analysis. The UIGEA was passed because Congress could not agree on language that actually outlawed the placement of wagers themselves. It's far easier to go after a handful of electronic payments processors than millions of US citizens.
Absent clear Federal law, it's a State issue. In many states, Oregon included, the act of placing a wager on a proposition that is not specifically authorized by law is a crime -- usually a misdemeanor. As the article above indicates, in Nevada it's the opposite -- the Commission has explicitly been authorized to figure out how to regulate online wagering as a precondition of legality.
In any event, given the recent US DoJ opinion of online gaming, it seems poor planning for the poker player to have nothing lined up in the event of a crackdown. Just because something's not illegal doesn't mean it can't disappear anyway. Ask any manufacturing worker whose company has moved production to a foreign factory or any tech professional who's been terminated in favor of outsourced overseas labor.
Quote: MoscaPuritanism, plain and simple.
True, but it's not like the guy didn't know it going in.
Quote: Paigowdanand college tuition for his daughter at Carnegie-Mellon?
As someone who has just paid for 4 years at CMU, he must have been quite a good player....
Quote: SOOPOOhe must have been quite a good player....
Or had a bad tax accountant.
Quote: PaigowdanGuys,
The story about Stokes' poker playing career is sad, poignant. Blah Blah Blah Blah
I guess it would be expecting too much for you and others to understand he did nothing illegal and at no time at all, even now, was playing poker online illegal in any way.
Quote: JimMorrisonI guess it would be expecting too much for you and others to understand he did nothing illegal and at no time at all, even now, was playing poker online illegal in any way.
No, it wouldn't.
He, along with countless others, were simply shut down.
Quote: VirgiEver since the poker site shutdowns the forums are loaded with people claiming to having regularly made 6 figure incomes for many years. All of a sudden these people have got the whole country asking themselves why not me? There has to be SOME losers.
I'm not buying the guy's story 100%. So he pays taxes on all his poker income? I'll bet he doesn't. What he probably pays is taxes on LIVE wins that he has to pay taxes on because of the amounts or because of the notoriety, so he made it sound like he regularly pays taxes on his online income also. I played online and I do ok, but I've never reported one penny of my online income to the IRS because who in their right mind would?
Online poker isn't all it's cranked up to be anyway. There's no such thing as an online pro, only live table pros. In a live game you learn to quickly read other players or you take the highway. You learn who's going to fall for this or that based on their physical movements and idiosyncracies. Online is nothing more than a lot of guessing about this or that. The skill level is not even half of what it is in a live game.
First off, do you ever think that maybe if you are reading forums populated by online players you will have a greater percentage of online pros? Unless you're reading a cooking forum and it's loaded with people who made 6 figures playing cards then I think your logic is pretty dumb.
No such thing as online pros? LOL ok whatever. There were tons of online pros, still are actually but they just aren't playing from the US without a VPN. I prefer a live game but I still am a winning online player and it's getting offensive all these people who don't believe it's possible just because they don't have the ability to win. I'm a losing player in the stock market, I think it's pretty much gambling and I have no edge and have never done good. So I choose not to do it. I don't believe it's impossible to make money in the stock market, I don't doubt others have done so, I just know I don't have that skill and don't choose to learn it. I accept it and go on and am happy for anyone who does make money.
Quote: PaigowdanNo, it wouldn't.
He, along with countless others, were simply shut down.
Glad you can understand that. Your original post talked about it being illegal and "illicit" income etc which in no way is true at all.
Quote: VirgiDid you ever think that the reason you win at online poker and lose on Wall St. is because online you have no idea who or what you're playing and it's mostly a guessing game, whereas to be successful in the market takes economic knowledge across the full spectrum of what-ifs along with having either studied or are studying detailed reasons behind fluctuations, reactions, investments, and individual stock strengths & weaknesses. In other words, it take a ton of skill, far more than playing a group of unknowns that may or may not even speak English.
Good for you if you're one of those who've come out during this shutdown phase and said they've made money on it. Try to stay sharp because no doubt it'll soon be legal in the USA as soon as the Government figures out how to make money off of it. I'm simply saying that it's very strange how many big winners there suddenly have been. Maybe Uncle Sam's watching and checking their tax returns? From what I've learned, every penny won is reportable.
I'd say it's completely the opposite. Poker is also a game of information and knowledge, I happen to have more skill at that than I do at stocks. I have no doubt that if I dedicated myself to playing the stock market that I'd be successful. I choose not to dedicate my time learning it.
I don't think all these people have come out during the shutdown, I think you and most others simply didn't pay attention or care before. 2+2 has always been a community with a high percentage of winning players. Pocket 5's also and other sites. I haven't "come out" now, I've been vocal online for 7 years on various sites.
Quote: JimMorrisonI guess it would be expecting too much for you and others to understand he did nothing illegal and at no time at all, even now, was playing poker online illegal in any way.
False. He broke Michigan laws repeatedly. The Michigan statutes provide:
"750.314 Winning at gambling.
Any person who by playing at cards, dice, or any other game, or by betting or putting up money on cards, or by any other means or device in the nature of betting on cards, or betting of any kind, wins or obtains any sum of money or any goods, or any article of value whatever, is guilty of a misdemeanor if the money, goods, or articles so won or obtained are of the value of not more than $50.00. If the money, goods, or articles so won or obtained are of the value of more than $50.00, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00."
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(atedrwecvzbwxev1p5f5ww55))/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-750-314
With a minor exception for recreational card games in senior homes, it would seem that all cash poker is illegal in Michigan. Playing "online" or not is irrelevant.
Many other states have similar prohibitions. You may be correct with regard to U.S. Federal law, but for many U.S. citizens those are not the only laws that apply.
Edit: more directly, the Michigan government website makes it very clear:
"Currently under state law it is illegal to gambling[sic] over the Internet in the State of Michigan."
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mgcb/Is_it_legal_to_gamble_over_the_Internet_in_Michigan_340671_7.htm
Quote: MathExtremistFalse. He broke Michigan laws repeatedly. The Michigan statutes provide:
"750.314 Winning at gambling.
Any person who by playing at cards, dice, or any other game, or by betting or putting up money on cards, or by any other means or device in the nature of betting on cards, or betting of any kind, wins or obtains any sum of money or any goods, or any article of value whatever, is guilty of a misdemeanor if the money, goods, or articles so won or obtained are of the value of not more than $50.00. If the money, goods, or articles so won or obtained are of the value of more than $50.00, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00."
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(atedrwecvzbwxev1p5f5ww55))/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-750-314
With a minor exception for recreational card games in senior homes, it would seem that all cash poker is illegal in Michigan. Playing "online" or not is irrelevant.
Many other states have similar prohibitions. You may be correct with regard to U.S. Federal law, but for many U.S. citizens those are not the only laws that apply.
Edit: more directly, the Michigan government website makes it very clear:
"Currently under state law it is illegal to gambling[sic] over the Internet in the State of Michigan."
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mgcb/Is_it_legal_to_gamble_over_the_Internet_in_Michigan_340671_7.htm
Umm I'm from Michigan and maybe that's old but there are poker games all over the place. Bars, bowling alleys, etc. Not to mention tribal casinos of course.
The internet portion you cited is flimsy anyways, it does not mention poker and a valid argument is that poker is a game of skill. I have never heard of anyone being charged let alone convicted which gives further credence to the fact this law does not apply.
Regardless we have been talking about federal law in this discussion.
Quote: vert1276Well when you say card games at casinos in Michigan or card rooms, thats not what the poster was talking about. Those are legal card games a licensed and taxed by the state. Online gambling is not, and is against the law in Michigan. That would be like saying its legal to run numbers because the state sells lotto tickets.
I was responding to this point he made which is not true "With a minor exception for recreational card games in senior homes, it would seem that all cash poker is illegal in Michigan. Playing "online" or not is irrelevant."
And I didn't say card rooms, I don't consider a bowling alley with a cash game in the corner a card room yet they have them. Perhaps our definition of card rooms differs but it doesn't change what he said.
In any case, like I said before, nobody has alleged anything with state law until now. We're talking federal and we all know that. Bringing up some law that may or may not apply (again poker is a game of skill), that nobody has ever been charged with, that nobody has even brought into the argument before seems pointless to me.
Quote: JimMorrisonGlad you can understand that. Your original post talked about it being illegal and "illicit" income etc which in no way is true at all.
Jim, it is obviously viewed by the gov't as illegal, which is why the federal DOJ [sic] had the FBI close down Fulltilt, Pokerstars, and Ultimate bet. They weren't playing.
People going about their business as they see fit (without any assumption to the legality of the particular business)
- can get screwed or sideswiped, - also without regard to the legality of the screwing.
It's just that when the Department of Juctice has the Federal Bureau of Investigation shutter an operation,
you assume that the DOJ/FBI were acting legally as law enforcers, and the "shutdown-ee" had been acting illegally.
Quote: PaigowdanJim, it is obviously viewed by the gov't as illegal, which is why the federal DOJ [sic] had the FBI close down Fulltilt, Pokerstars, and Ultimate bet. They weren't playing.
People going about their business as they see fit (without any assumption to the legality of the particular business)
- can get screwed or sideswiped, - also without regard to the legality of the screwing.
It's just that when the Department of Juctice has the Federal Bureau of Investigation shutter an operation,
you assume that the DOJ/FBI were acting legally as law enforcers, and the "shutdown-ee" had been acting illegally.
Actually you should assume the "shutdown-ee" is innocent until proven guilty.
In your original post you refer to the actions of the player as illegal, illicit etc. The actual law is only about facilitating the transfer of money to the sites. Under the law it is impossible for the players to be guilty of anything. Congress is pretty stupid but they aren't stupid enough to make tens of millions of constituents criminals. Well actually I guess they have been that stupid in the past but not this time. That was my whole point, players were not breaking the law and did nothing illegal or illicit. The sites are a whole different matter that will either settled in court or with a plea agreement (much more likely).
Quote: PaigowdanIt's just that when the Department of Juctice has the Federal Bureau of Investigation shutter an operation,
you assume that the DOJ/FBI were acting legally as law enforcers, and the "shutdown-ee" had been acting illegally.
ah, but what was illegal was using US banks to process the gambling, not the gambling itself. And what they allegedly were doing was pretty bad, claiming that the funds were some other thing rather than gambling proceeds.
Quote: JimMorrisonUmm I'm from Michigan and maybe that's old but there are poker games all over the place. Bars, bowling alleys, etc. Not to mention tribal casinos of course.
The internet portion you cited is flimsy anyways, it does not mention poker and a valid argument is that poker is a game of skill. I have never heard of anyone being charged let alone convicted which gives further credence to the fact this law does not apply.
Regardless we have been talking about federal law in this discussion.
No we haven't. You simply said that playing poker over the Internet is not illegal, and that's untrue in Michigan. It's also untrue in Oregon, where I live, and Washington, and about 10-15 other states.
And the "valid argument" that poker is a game of skill also applies to blackjack and video poker. What constitutes "skill" is also defined by each state, and many states have *differing* definitions of where the line is drawn between games of chance and games of skill. Moreover, the Michigan statute cited above doesn't require card games to be chance-based at all in order to be illegal. If I dealt out 51 cards from a deck and bet you $100 at even-money that you couldn't guess the remaining card, that's not a game of chance at all. If you played and correctly deduced the remaining card, you would be guilty of a misdemeanor under MCL 753.314. If a hypothetical card game with no random element is illegal, so is poker.
As a practical matter, no state agency is going to go after an internet gambler. But lack of enforcement of a law doesn't mean the law isn't there.
I sympathize with your desire that online wagering, and poker specifically, be legalized in the U.S. I want that too -- I personally stand to gain much more from that outcome than most other folks. But arguing about the current laws, and the interpretation thereof, isn't going to get you there. The lawmakers have an enforcement division and you don't. The right way to effect the change you seek is to lobby your lawmakers to *change* the law, making it explicit that the sorts of activities you seek to pursue are, in fact, protected by law.
Quote: gofaster87Im going to piss off a lot of people but I dont think online gambling should be legal at all. Gambling, in general, has taken over recreation in America and many studies and surveys have said that its Americas biggest past time now. It ruins many lives and brings in a lot of criminal element. Im a gambler at heart but I have some self restraint and pay my bills first but many people out there are weak and succumb to to the idea its an easy way to make money. They lose everything including home and family. Gambling was fine when it was restricted to the few major cities it was legal in. Now its too easily accessible. Ive seen too many successful professionals ruin their lives. Yes, I know its their choice, but you have to realize not everyone can make the right choice in life. Why make it too easy? I also dont believe making anything legal will ease the criminal element as they say with legalizing pot. Criminals will always find a way to make money. I love a nice live game of Omaha high/low or pineapple. I couldnt see doing this online.
Whether it should be legal or not is a policy question. I just want the people to have the opportunity to debate that question. The reality is that gambling exists, that gambling online exists, and that there is a strong demand in America for it. If that demand is not met by domestic supply, it will be met by foreign supply. Until recently, that foreign supply has been of dubious regulation. Many of my early clients had games which were 100% rigged and would never pass regulatory muster in any legitimate jurisdiction. When demand is high enough, prohibition is a less effective policy than regulation+taxation. The question is whether demand is sufficiently high.
Quote: JimMorrison
Actually you should assume the "shutdown-ee" is innocent until proven guilty.
Why, - Whenever the authorities shut down an operation?
If the Department of Health shut down a restaurant, would you eat there? - I'd certainly assume they were shut down for good reason in good faith public service (unsanitary conditions, etc.)
Quote: JimMorrisonIn your original post you refer to the actions of the player as illegal, illicit etc. The actual law is only about facilitating the transfer of money to the sites.
If that's the law they broke, then an illegal act was committed. The "No money" play sites were not shut down. You can still play poker online - just for no money, making that a "non-gambling" action. No money involvement makes for no gambling occurring.
Quote: MathExtremistNo we haven't. You simply said that playing poker over the Internet is not illegal, and that's untrue in Michigan. It's also untrue in Oregon, where I live, and Washington, and about 10-15 other states.
Yes we have been talking federal law in all these discussions. Your post is the first I read that brought up state law making it illegal. And I still disagree about Michigan's law. The state of Washington specifically outlawed online poker and the sites pulled out of Washington. I do not believe that the statute you cited for Michigan does anything about poker at all. It's a moot point but I do strongly feel that, I'm not just arguing semantics here.
Quote: MathExtremist
I sympathize with your desire that online wagering, and poker specifically, be legalized in the U.S. I want that too -- I personally stand to gain much more from that outcome than most other folks. But arguing about the current laws, and the interpretation thereof, isn't going to get you there. The lawmakers have an enforcement division and you don't. The right way to effect the change you seek is to lobby your lawmakers to *change* the law, making it explicit that the sorts of activities you seek to pursue are, in fact, protected by law.
I do not want online gambling legal except poker, I have my own selfish reasons for that. And I'm not trying to argue interpretation to get us anywhere, I have no desire at all to be part of a movement to change things. I did my time in the legislative branch and am very familiar with how laws are made and have little interest in getting involved in this issue.
Quote: PaigowdanWhy, - Whenever the authorities shut down an operation?
If the Department of Health shut down a restaurant, would you eat there? - I'd certainly assume they were shut down for good reason in good faith public service (unsanitary conditions, etc.)
I hope the health dept does a better job than our law enforcement. I live in Vegas therefore I don't have a lot of respect for law enforcement, not when Metro is out beating on and murdering people as they see fit. But one of the cornerstones of our legal system is innocent until proven guilty and it scares me that people automatically think someone is guilty just because a federal indictment says they are.
Quote: Paigowdan
Quote: JimMorrisonIn your original post you refer to the actions of the player as illegal, illicit etc. The actual law is only about facilitating the transfer of money to the sites.
If that's the law they broke, then an illegal act was committed. The "No money" play sites were not shut down. You can still play poker online - just for no money, making that a "non-gambling" action. No money involvement makes for no gambling occurring.
That law could not be broken by an individual, only by the poker sites and/or banks, it was specifically written that way. There was nothing in that law at all to criminalize any behavior by players.
There's two great sites for tracking simply (or just for curiosities sake) your current stake on most websites. The first, www.sharkscope.com only deals with tournaments and sit n go's. Certain sites don't allow this but depending on where you play you should be able to see some stats. The second is www.pokertableratings.com which deals in solely cash games but also gives you some techinical data to improve your play. The downside to the second is to see anything worth while you need to sign up, but its free and I've never received an email from them to date.
I would class myself as a notch above recreational. I play for fun but only because I cannot seem to break the barrier between break even and consistantly profitable. My username on pokerstars is Morphius04 and if you search for me I am very slightly profitable on both cash and sit and go's, however even though the total amounts to just over $100 profit I would count myself as breakeven due to my varience.
As for bots, I think most large poker sites and mostly free of bots. To have a bot be worthwhile (PokerTableRatings has a BOT Score ;)) it has to play consistantly at small stakes, no bot is sophisticated enough to crack the high levels. Any truely consistant play at the lower levels is easily spotted by the websites and in fact Pokerstars use CAPTCHA in the chat box as one of their methods for bot detection (I don't play on any other sites so don't know about them, however I work in a company that uses the iPoker/PlayTech software).
I know certain bits from both several years as an above average recreational player, plus an employee working within the industry so if you want any more info and I know the answer feel free to ask.
- Jason
Quote: gofaster87Im going to piss off a lot of people but I dont think online gambling should be legal at all. Gambling, in general, has taken over recreation in America and many studies and surveys have said that its Americas biggest past time now. It ruins many lives and brings in a lot of criminal element. Im a gambler at heart but I have some self restraint and pay my bills first but many people out there are weak and succumb to to the idea its an easy way to make money. They lose everything including home and family. Gambling was fine when it was restricted to the few major cities it was legal in. Now its too easily accessible. Ive seen too many successful professionals ruin their lives. Yes, I know its their choice, but you have to realize not everyone can make the right choice in life. Why make it too easy? I also dont believe making anything legal will ease the criminal element as they say with legalizing pot. Criminals will always find a way to make money. I love a nice live game of Omaha high/low or pineapple. I couldnt see doing this online.
Should all pharmaceuticals / alcohol / tobacco / bingo halls / lotteries / sports (and more that I can't think of) be illegal as well as people can get addicted to each and every one of those which can ruin their lives. What line do you draw between freedom and protection?
Quote: PaigowdanIf the Department of Health shut down a restaurant, would you eat there? - I'd certainly assume they were shut down for good reason in good faith public service (unsanitary conditions, etc.)
I don't know definately about USA but I assume like in the UK the DoH wouldn't shut down a restaurant unless they were guilty after an inspection. You can be arrested over evidence of a crime and are innocent until proven guilty. A restaurant will be closed down after several hygiene points have failed during an inspection at which point they are guilty.
Big difference between the two
