|
I'm a casual online poker player so I'm a bit bummed out. Though the language says "predominantly games of chance" and this I'm sure this definition will be challenged by somebody. Poker is increasingly a game of chance the worse you are at it (whereas roulette has no skill element that can increase your odds of winning beyond certain probalistic levels).
What really annoys me is that when they couldn't get the ban passed on its own they attached it, at the very last minute, to a port security bill that they knew had to be passed for political reasons going into the election. This practice is almost as malignant, in my view, as earmarking.
The fact that there are carvouts for bingo and lotteries is amusing and cuts into the moral highground of the proponents since bingo and lottery are the greatest scams in all the legitimate gambling world.
As you probably know, the fact that stupid people will do stupid things isn't a valid argument for disallowing non-stupid from doing that activity. The fact that some people find an act immoral without direct harm to others is not valid reason to disallow others from doing that activity. So the addiction and morality problems don't fly with me. And the common argument against brick-and-mortar gambling doesn't apply either since online poker can't be blamed for localized increases in petty crime.
What it really is, is protectionism for American gambling corporations. It'll be interesting to see how the specifics shake out and I don't think it iwill kill it completely though the marketplace will likely consolidate.
|