|
Pokerstars is an online poker site. Pokerstrategy is an educational training site. They are not the same site. The TSL3 is sponsored by pokerstrategy.com. |
On April 16 2011 09:45 mprs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:37 sikatrix wrote:
cashed out 12k via check on stars, hopefully it gets here and doesn't bounce I'm in the same boat for 9k via check. :S :S :S come through canada (even tho this has nothing to do with it) EDIT: although, I wonder if leaving it in pokerstars might be better. If the check bounces you are kinda screwed forever  )
if it bounces you just message support and you get another one sent
|
On April 16 2011 10:09 sikatrix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:45 mprs wrote:On April 16 2011 09:37 sikatrix wrote:
cashed out 12k via check on stars, hopefully it gets here and doesn't bounce I'm in the same boat for 9k via check. :S :S :S come through canada (even tho this has nothing to do with it) EDIT: although, I wonder if leaving it in pokerstars might be better. If the check bounces you are kinda screwed forever ) if it bounces you just message support and you get another one sent
Hmm, so is cashing out money equivalent to a bank run? I know little about this but from what I've read it appears to be akin to one, as they won't have any more money if everyone cashes out, right?
Also, this won't affect MightyAtom since his businesses have nothing to do with the illegal companies mentioned in the OP's tl;dr section, right? :O
|
On April 16 2011 10:09 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:03 Drowsy wrote:On April 16 2011 09:52 semantics wrote:On April 16 2011 09:44 Ingenol wrote:On April 16 2011 09:43 Seide wrote:On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote:
So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers. How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task. Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter. Are you qualified to assign which tasks are worth their resources? Yes, we fucking elected them and paid the taxes to give them the resources. By that logic you would be qualified to build roads, police people and fight fires. So next time you are being robbed or your house is on fire, you should just mosey on over the the police and fire stations to borrow equipment becuase you clearly don't need the trained professionals. Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:02 Drowsy wrote:On April 16 2011 09:24 semantics wrote:On April 16 2011 09:11 Drowsy wrote:
Thank goodness the U.S. government is tackling the hard-line issues like this one instead of silly shit like America's massive incarceration rate, unsustainable transfer payment systems, or an outrageously inflated budget. who says this isn't for the budget :D increased income! I always enjoy these posts, I dislike the government in general so when they deal with one thing I'm going to complain about another thing they deal with poorly, as if the said government is incapable of multitasking. Zeesh it's like you're the government mother nothing is every good enough for you is it? This is a non-issue and the time spent on "dealing" with it could much better be directed almost anywhere else. That assumes time does not exist and things happen in sequence without having a delay in execution. If i bake a pizza can i not also cook some pasta during the time the pizza is in the oven.
By that logic, my elected officials should spend money on all kinds of shit I don't want them to. They may as well pour money into Unicorn research. Do you know how foolish that sounds? Of course we want the government to spend money on things like building roads, law enforcement, and firefighting. That's a very far cry from launching a crackdown on an online card game. Clearly because I, and most likely the vast majority of American citizens, don't want their tax dollars spent on this, we also don't want a public police or firefighting force. Infallible logic.
|
I can't seem to be able to get anything other than the forum index on 2p2 to connect. Anyone else have any other luck?
Christ, this can only go down from here.
|
On April 16 2011 10:12 Z3kk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:09 sikatrix wrote:On April 16 2011 09:45 mprs wrote:On April 16 2011 09:37 sikatrix wrote:
cashed out 12k via check on stars, hopefully it gets here and doesn't bounce I'm in the same boat for 9k via check. :S :S :S come through canada (even tho this has nothing to do with it) EDIT: although, I wonder if leaving it in pokerstars might be better. If the check bounces you are kinda screwed forever ) if it bounces you just message support and you get another one sent Hmm, so is cashing out money equivalent to a bank run? I know little about this but from what I've read it appears to be akin to one, as they won't have any more money if everyone cashes out, right? Also, this won't affect MightyAtom since his businesses have nothing to do with the illegal companies mentioned in the OP's tl;dr section, right? :O
Only bankrun if they don't keep all of the depositors money in their own secure accounts ie. they reinvest it elsewhere.
|
A friend told me about this while at was at work. My basic response was this: I have no real sympathy for those who can't access their money or funds. This has been illegal since its existence and you were taking a risk in putting your money into something that could have been seized at any time. I saw a documentary on this on ABC about a year ago and I wised up - I decided not to put any money into pokerstars - where I was playing pretty heavily with "play" money.
|
On April 16 2011 10:13 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:09 semantics wrote:On April 16 2011 10:03 Drowsy wrote:On April 16 2011 09:52 semantics wrote:On April 16 2011 09:44 Ingenol wrote:On April 16 2011 09:43 Seide wrote:On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote:
So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers. How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task. Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter. Are you qualified to assign which tasks are worth their resources? Yes, we fucking elected them and paid the taxes to give them the resources. By that logic you would be qualified to build roads, police people and fight fires. So next time you are being robbed or your house is on fire, you should just mosey on over the the police and fire stations to borrow equipment becuase you clearly don't need the trained professionals. On April 16 2011 10:02 Drowsy wrote:On April 16 2011 09:24 semantics wrote:On April 16 2011 09:11 Drowsy wrote:
Thank goodness the U.S. government is tackling the hard-line issues like this one instead of silly shit like America's massive incarceration rate, unsustainable transfer payment systems, or an outrageously inflated budget. who says this isn't for the budget :D increased income! I always enjoy these posts, I dislike the government in general so when they deal with one thing I'm going to complain about another thing they deal with poorly, as if the said government is incapable of multitasking. Zeesh it's like you're the government mother nothing is every good enough for you is it? This is a non-issue and the time spent on "dealing" with it could much better be directed almost anywhere else. That assumes time does not exist and things happen in sequence without having a delay in execution. If i bake a pizza can i not also cook some pasta during the time the pizza is in the oven. By that logic, my elected officials should spend money on all kinds of shit I don't want them to. They may as well pour money into Unicorn research. Do you know how foolish that sounds? Of course we want the government to spend money on things like building roads, law enforcement, and firefighting. That's a very far cry from launching a crackdown on an online card game.
I agree with what you're saying--that people living under the government should give it its direction, but to say "of course we want...firefighting" is just your opinion. Why should the government build roads or fight fires, or even enforce laws for that matter (the last one is a little more obvious).
What is the purpose of government? That is the only question that really matters.
|
On April 16 2011 10:14 enzymezero wrote:
A friend told me about this while at was at work. My basic response was this: I have no real sympathy for those who can't access their money or funds. This has been illegal since its existence and you were taking a risk in putting your money into something that could have been seized at any time. I saw a documentary on this on ABC about a year ago and I wised up - I decided not to put any money into pokerstars - where I was playing pretty heavily with "play" money.
Luckily it's not a crime to have poor reading comprehension.
It's not illegal at all unless you live in a state where it's defined as such. Like New York or Washington.
God I wish 2p2 was up.
|
On April 16 2011 10:13 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:09 semantics wrote:On April 16 2011 10:03 Drowsy wrote:On April 16 2011 09:52 semantics wrote:On April 16 2011 09:44 Ingenol wrote:On April 16 2011 09:43 Seide wrote:On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote:
So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers. How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task. Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter. Are you qualified to assign which tasks are worth their resources? Yes, we fucking elected them and paid the taxes to give them the resources. By that logic you would be qualified to build roads, police people and fight fires. So next time you are being robbed or your house is on fire, you should just mosey on over the the police and fire stations to borrow equipment becuase you clearly don't need the trained professionals. On April 16 2011 10:02 Drowsy wrote:On April 16 2011 09:24 semantics wrote:On April 16 2011 09:11 Drowsy wrote:
Thank goodness the U.S. government is tackling the hard-line issues like this one instead of silly shit like America's massive incarceration rate, unsustainable transfer payment systems, or an outrageously inflated budget. who says this isn't for the budget :D increased income! I always enjoy these posts, I dislike the government in general so when they deal with one thing I'm going to complain about another thing they deal with poorly, as if the said government is incapable of multitasking. Zeesh it's like you're the government mother nothing is every good enough for you is it? This is a non-issue and the time spent on "dealing" with it could much better be directed almost anywhere else. That assumes time does not exist and things happen in sequence without having a delay in execution. If i bake a pizza can i not also cook some pasta during the time the pizza is in the oven. By that logic, my elected officials should spend money on all kinds of shit I don't want them to. They may as well pour money into Unicorn research. Do you know how foolish that sounds? Of course we want the government to spend money on things like building roads, law enforcement, and firefighting. That's a very far cry from launching a crackdown on an online card game.
you say card game but it's a large amount of money they deal with.
Also what you say is that "I am always correct do things my way or the highway" If i desire drinking age to be 6 just because i pay the people running the place doesn't make me the soul voice of reason behind how the government handles the legal drinking age.
On April 16 2011 04:51 Manit0u wrote:http://www.businessinsider.com/boy-genius-online-poker-scandal-2011-4Show nested quote +Meet The Boy Genius Who Just Took Down The Online Poker Industry
The internet is still coming to grips with the huge online gambling bust that just took down the U.S.'s three biggest online poker sites.
But Australia's Courier-Mail already has the scoop on the one man who may have single-handedly built the online industry ... then handed it to the U.S. government on a platter.
According to this story, Daniel Tzvetkoff was a young Australian entrepreneur who set up the payment processing schemes used by the biggest poker sites to handle their (mostly illegal) transactions.
He made Full Tilt Poker and Poker Stars millions of dollars — and making as much $150,000 a day for himself — but then got even more greedy and started taking them for himself. They sued him, demanding more than $100 million of their own money back.
Then last April, Tzvetkoff was arrested in Las Vegas and charged with the same crimes those sites founders were charged with today: money laundering, bank fraud, wire fraud. As an Australian citizen with a lot of wealth, he was considered a flight risk and denied bail.
Then after a "secret" meeting with prosecutors, he was suddenly out on bail. And now, his former colleagues are the ones facing serious jail time.
Daniel Tzvetkoff knows the operations of these poker site inside and out. He's the one man positioned to give these companies to the U.S. Attorneys on a silver platter. And it looks like that's exactly what he did, cooperating with the authorities to avoid his own lengthy jail sentence.
All the major gambling prosecutions in the U.S., since Tzvetkoff's arrest have been run out of the office of Arlo Devlin-Brown, the Manhattan Asst. U.S. Attorney, who is Tzvetkoff's "handler."
According to a source, "He knows how to reverse-engineer transactions to determine its original source," making him very valuable to investigators.
And the biggest irony of all? It's been rumored that the only reason the FBI got their hands on him is because Full Tilt or Poker Stars (the companies he used to work for and stole from) tipped off the FBI that he was going to be traveling to the United States
They ratted him out ... and he turned the tables. No honor among thieves.
And as the Courier Mail put it, if this were still the old days, he'd buried in the Las Vegas desert right now. http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/web-kings-life-on-the-line/story-fn6ck45n-1226039907165
|
On April 16 2011 10:14 enzymezero wrote:
A friend told me about this while at was at work. My basic response was this: I have no real sympathy for those who can't access their money or funds. This has been illegal since its existence and you were taking a risk in putting your money into something that could have been seized at any time. I saw a documentary on this on ABC about a year ago and I wised up - I decided not to put any money into pokerstars - where I was playing pretty heavily with "play" money.
Its never been illegal...
(Unless you live in Washington)
|
On April 16 2011 10:12 Z3kk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:09 sikatrix wrote:On April 16 2011 09:45 mprs wrote:On April 16 2011 09:37 sikatrix wrote:
cashed out 12k via check on stars, hopefully it gets here and doesn't bounce I'm in the same boat for 9k via check. :S :S :S come through canada (even tho this has nothing to do with it) EDIT: although, I wonder if leaving it in pokerstars might be better. If the check bounces you are kinda screwed forever ) if it bounces you just message support and you get another one sent Hmm, so is cashing out money equivalent to a bank run? I know little about this but from what I've read it appears to be akin to one, as they won't have any more money if everyone cashes out, right? Also, this won't affect MightyAtom since his businesses have nothing to do with the illegal companies mentioned in the OP's tl;dr section, right? :O
Most online poker sites separate all of their user's money/winnings from the company's, at least thats what they claim. So theoretically, everyone could withdraw all of their money and they should be able to cover it. Whereas a bank actually does stuff with the money people put in, so its possible for a bank to not be able to cover when every single person wants to withdraw money.
|
On April 16 2011 10:14 enzymezero wrote:
pokerstars - where I was playing pretty heavily with "play" money.
No money in play money, everyone's solid.
Also, anyone seriously debating whether or not poker is a skill game should subscribe to a training site, like DeucesCracked or something, for a month, watch as many videos as possible, and THEN try to form a coherent argument against poker being a skill game.
It's not possible.
|
On April 16 2011 10:17 Titan48 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:12 Z3kk wrote:On April 16 2011 10:09 sikatrix wrote:On April 16 2011 09:45 mprs wrote:On April 16 2011 09:37 sikatrix wrote:
cashed out 12k via check on stars, hopefully it gets here and doesn't bounce I'm in the same boat for 9k via check. :S :S :S come through canada (even tho this has nothing to do with it) EDIT: although, I wonder if leaving it in pokerstars might be better. If the check bounces you are kinda screwed forever ) if it bounces you just message support and you get another one sent Hmm, so is cashing out money equivalent to a bank run? I know little about this but from what I've read it appears to be akin to one, as they won't have any more money if everyone cashes out, right? Also, this won't affect MightyAtom since his businesses have nothing to do with the illegal companies mentioned in the OP's tl;dr section, right? :O Most online poker sites separate all of their user's money/winnings from the company's, at least thats what they claim. So theoretically, everyone could withdraw all of their money and they should be able to cover it. Whereas a bank actually does stuff with the money people put in, so its possible for a bank to not be able to cover when every single person wants to withdraw money.
Ah, so they don't actually invest it and do secure it :3
That's good, I suppose--hope everyone who has money on one of these online poker sites is able to safely withdraw money if he/she chooses to do so ><
|
On April 16 2011 09:57 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:50 Modafinil wrote:On April 16 2011 09:28 Wohmfg wrote:On April 16 2011 09:23 Modafinil wrote:On April 16 2011 08:10 trias_e wrote:On April 16 2011 08:02 Modafinil wrote:Is "poker" gambling in Oregon? Yes: ORS 167.117 (7): "Gambling" means that a person stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. Because it is against Oregon state law, it is a violation of the UIGEA. We could repeat this for every state. But even if UIGEA didn't exist, it'd still be illegal in your state, and sites could still be liable under state law, which is fine for any definition of "illegal". Poker isn't necessarily gambling under that definition. Poker is under the control or influence of the person, due to the option to bet/fold/raise at any given street. Over 70% hands involve pure skill: They end before showdown, meaning someone bet everyone out of the pot. Clearly it is only the actions of players that determine such hands, as no cards are ever shown. Even the hands that do involve some sort of chance are not as clearcut as say, a roulette spin, because of the fact that players make the choice to call or fold in any given situation, a choice that is clearly skill based. Whether or not poker is a game of chance or a game of skill is something that must be determined, and hasn't been determined in any court that I know of. It's not a question of chance vs. skill. It's a question of whether you are 1. risking something of value (your tournament buy-in or your blind, raise, or call in a cash game) 2. upon the outcome of a future contingent event (what cards are coming next, or the actions of your opponent) 3. not under the control or influence of the person (the cards that come out, or your opponent's actions) 4. upon the agreement or understanding that the person will receive something of value (the pot, or the tournament payout) 5. in the event of a certain outcome (having the better hand, your opponent folding, or finishing in the money). You might bet your opponent(s) out of every pot preflop, but every time, whether or not he folded was out of your control. That's a "future contingent event". It was never sure he was going to fold. You don't know what your opponent is going to do, because you don't know his cards. Even if he folded to your first 99 PFRs, you don't know that he's going to fold to the 100th. And even if you were going to be dealt the nuts, you didn't know that until you had put some money in the pot, somehow. You risked money on a future contingent event. It doesn't need to be clear-cut, you just need to put money in, not knowing what would happen, with the possibility of winning something. I don't think you can defend the law in this way. In chess, I don't know what my opponent's next move will be. Therefore, by your reasoning, it is gambling if I put money on myself to win. Maybe if you reword it it will make more sense. Yeah, it probably would be gambling if you bet on chess... not sure why that's a surprise. So any chess tournament where it costs to enter is gambling?
Ah, now that's probably tricky. If it's a tournament with an entry fee, but a pre-set prize, then maybe not. You're just paying an entry fee. Often there's some kind of prize fund supplementing the tournament, from club fees or something. Even if you had to "join the club" to enter the tournament, and all the prize money comes from the "club".
It's different in poker - usually it's a tournament where you pay $50+5 or something, with the $5 as your fee and $50 going into the winnings pot with a payout structure like 60%/30%/10%, that's probably gambling, even if you're playing chess.
I mean, if you go play chess hustlers in the park for money, that's gambling, definitely. That's just "I bet you $50 I can beat you in chess."
I know it's a dumb semantic difference, but it's more about the appearance of it than the logical difference. You can definitely gamble on chess. But most tournaments just aren't going to be treated as "gambling". If millions of people were spending billions of dollars competing in online chess, the law would treat it differently. Sure, some people do. But not at the same level as poker.
Chess has a different cultural situation than cards. It's not rational but it's how people operate.
|
On April 16 2011 10:20 Z3kk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:17 Titan48 wrote:On April 16 2011 10:12 Z3kk wrote:On April 16 2011 10:09 sikatrix wrote:On April 16 2011 09:45 mprs wrote:On April 16 2011 09:37 sikatrix wrote:
cashed out 12k via check on stars, hopefully it gets here and doesn't bounce I'm in the same boat for 9k via check. :S :S :S come through canada (even tho this has nothing to do with it) EDIT: although, I wonder if leaving it in pokerstars might be better. If the check bounces you are kinda screwed forever ) if it bounces you just message support and you get another one sent Hmm, so is cashing out money equivalent to a bank run? I know little about this but from what I've read it appears to be akin to one, as they won't have any more money if everyone cashes out, right? Also, this won't affect MightyAtom since his businesses have nothing to do with the illegal companies mentioned in the OP's tl;dr section, right? :O Most online poker sites separate all of their user's money/winnings from the company's, at least thats what they claim. So theoretically, everyone could withdraw all of their money and they should be able to cover it. Whereas a bank actually does stuff with the money people put in, so its possible for a bank to not be able to cover when every single person wants to withdraw money. Ah, so they don't actually invest it and do secure it :3 That's good, I suppose--hope everyone who has money on one of these online poker sites is able to safely withdraw money if he/she chooses to do so ><
It is far more complicated than that. As I said, leaving a significant sum of money in such a shady legal framework is extremely poor financial management, I cannot believe people would actually do it.
|
On April 16 2011 10:21 Modafinil wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:57 Wohmfg wrote:On April 16 2011 09:50 Modafinil wrote:On April 16 2011 09:28 Wohmfg wrote:On April 16 2011 09:23 Modafinil wrote:On April 16 2011 08:10 trias_e wrote:On April 16 2011 08:02 Modafinil wrote:Is "poker" gambling in Oregon? Yes: ORS 167.117 (7): "Gambling" means that a person stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. Because it is against Oregon state law, it is a violation of the UIGEA. We could repeat this for every state. But even if UIGEA didn't exist, it'd still be illegal in your state, and sites could still be liable under state law, which is fine for any definition of "illegal". Poker isn't necessarily gambling under that definition. Poker is under the control or influence of the person, due to the option to bet/fold/raise at any given street. Over 70% hands involve pure skill: They end before showdown, meaning someone bet everyone out of the pot. Clearly it is only the actions of players that determine such hands, as no cards are ever shown. Even the hands that do involve some sort of chance are not as clearcut as say, a roulette spin, because of the fact that players make the choice to call or fold in any given situation, a choice that is clearly skill based. Whether or not poker is a game of chance or a game of skill is something that must be determined, and hasn't been determined in any court that I know of. It's not a question of chance vs. skill. It's a question of whether you are 1. risking something of value (your tournament buy-in or your blind, raise, or call in a cash game) 2. upon the outcome of a future contingent event (what cards are coming next, or the actions of your opponent) 3. not under the control or influence of the person (the cards that come out, or your opponent's actions) 4. upon the agreement or understanding that the person will receive something of value (the pot, or the tournament payout) 5. in the event of a certain outcome (having the better hand, your opponent folding, or finishing in the money). You might bet your opponent(s) out of every pot preflop, but every time, whether or not he folded was out of your control. That's a "future contingent event". It was never sure he was going to fold. You don't know what your opponent is going to do, because you don't know his cards. Even if he folded to your first 99 PFRs, you don't know that he's going to fold to the 100th. And even if you were going to be dealt the nuts, you didn't know that until you had put some money in the pot, somehow. You risked money on a future contingent event. It doesn't need to be clear-cut, you just need to put money in, not knowing what would happen, with the possibility of winning something. I don't think you can defend the law in this way. In chess, I don't know what my opponent's next move will be. Therefore, by your reasoning, it is gambling if I put money on myself to win. Maybe if you reword it it will make more sense. Yeah, it probably would be gambling if you bet on chess... not sure why that's a surprise. So any chess tournament where it costs to enter is gambling? Ah, now that's probably tricky. If it's a tournament with an entry fee, but a pre-set prize, then maybe not. You're just paying an entry fee. Often there's some kind of prize fund supplementing the tournament, from club fees or something. Even if you had to "join the club" to enter the tournament, and all the prize money comes from the "club". It's different in poker - usually it's a tournament where you pay $50+5 or something, with the $5 as your fee and $50 going into the winnings pot with a payout structure like 60%/30%/10%, that's probably gambling, even if you're playing chess. I mean, if you go play chess hustlers in the park for money, that's gambling, definitely. That's just "I bet you $50 I can beat you in chess." I know it's a dumb semantic difference, but it's more about the appearance of it than the logical difference. You can definitely gamble on chess. But most tournaments just aren't going to be treated as "gambling". If millions of people were spending billions of dollars competing in online chess, the law would treat it differently. Sure, some people do. But not at the same level as poker. Chess has a different cultural situation than cards. It's not rational but it's how people operate.
In chess, you can't raise the stakes during the game. In poker you can.
|
On April 16 2011 10:09 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:03 Drowsy wrote:On April 16 2011 09:52 semantics wrote:On April 16 2011 09:44 Ingenol wrote:On April 16 2011 09:43 Seide wrote:On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote:
So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers. How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task. Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter. Are you qualified to assign which tasks are worth their resources? Yes, we fucking elected them and paid the taxes to give them the resources. By that logic you would be qualified to build roads, police people and fight fires. So next time you are being robbed or your house is on fire, you should just mosey on over the the police and fire stations to borrow equipment becuase you clearly don't need the trained professionals. Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:02 Drowsy wrote:On April 16 2011 09:24 semantics wrote:On April 16 2011 09:11 Drowsy wrote:
Thank goodness the U.S. government is tackling the hard-line issues like this one instead of silly shit like America's massive incarceration rate, unsustainable transfer payment systems, or an outrageously inflated budget. who says this isn't for the budget :D increased income! I always enjoy these posts, I dislike the government in general so when they deal with one thing I'm going to complain about another thing they deal with poorly, as if the said government is incapable of multitasking. Zeesh it's like you're the government mother nothing is every good enough for you is it? This is a non-issue and the time spent on "dealing" with it could much better be directed almost anywhere else. That assumes time does not exist and things happen in sequence without having a delay in execution. If i bake a pizza can i not also cook some pasta during the time the pizza is in the oven.
An elected official has obligations to his constituents. If we elected our firemen we'd certainly have the right to tell them how we want them to fight fires, and they'd have an obligation to listen to us. That being said, they can listen to us and do the opposite anyways. They just won't be re-elected.
There would be no one more qualified to let elected officials know where we want funds distributed to than the people electing them, in any case. The government exists to serve the people, not its own agenda.
|
On April 16 2011 10:23 Hatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:20 Z3kk wrote:On April 16 2011 10:17 Titan48 wrote:On April 16 2011 10:12 Z3kk wrote:On April 16 2011 10:09 sikatrix wrote:On April 16 2011 09:45 mprs wrote:On April 16 2011 09:37 sikatrix wrote:
cashed out 12k via check on stars, hopefully it gets here and doesn't bounce I'm in the same boat for 9k via check. :S :S :S come through canada (even tho this has nothing to do with it) EDIT: although, I wonder if leaving it in pokerstars might be better. If the check bounces you are kinda screwed forever ) if it bounces you just message support and you get another one sent Hmm, so is cashing out money equivalent to a bank run? I know little about this but from what I've read it appears to be akin to one, as they won't have any more money if everyone cashes out, right? Also, this won't affect MightyAtom since his businesses have nothing to do with the illegal companies mentioned in the OP's tl;dr section, right? :O Most online poker sites separate all of their user's money/winnings from the company's, at least thats what they claim. So theoretically, everyone could withdraw all of their money and they should be able to cover it. Whereas a bank actually does stuff with the money people put in, so its possible for a bank to not be able to cover when every single person wants to withdraw money. Ah, so they don't actually invest it and do secure it :3 That's good, I suppose--hope everyone who has money on one of these online poker sites is able to safely withdraw money if he/she chooses to do so >< It is far more complicated than that. As I said, leaving a significant sum of money in such a shady legal framework is extremely poor financial management, I cannot believe people would actually do it.
Oh, okay... Still, for those who make a living off of [online] poker, it really is the only way, I suppose.
|
On April 16 2011 10:25 rabidch wrote:
In chess, you can't raise the stakes during the game. In poker you can.
What does that have to do with anything?
|
On April 16 2011 10:21 Modafinil wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:57 Wohmfg wrote:On April 16 2011 09:50 Modafinil wrote:On April 16 2011 09:28 Wohmfg wrote:On April 16 2011 09:23 Modafinil wrote:On April 16 2011 08:10 trias_e wrote:On April 16 2011 08:02 Modafinil wrote:Is "poker" gambling in Oregon? Yes: ORS 167.117 (7): "Gambling" means that a person stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. Because it is against Oregon state law, it is a violation of the UIGEA. We could repeat this for every state. But even if UIGEA didn't exist, it'd still be illegal in your state, and sites could still be liable under state law, which is fine for any definition of "illegal". Poker isn't necessarily gambling under that definition. Poker is under the control or influence of the person, due to the option to bet/fold/raise at any given street. Over 70% hands involve pure skill: They end before showdown, meaning someone bet everyone out of the pot. Clearly it is only the actions of players that determine such hands, as no cards are ever shown. Even the hands that do involve some sort of chance are not as clearcut as say, a roulette spin, because of the fact that players make the choice to call or fold in any given situation, a choice that is clearly skill based. Whether or not poker is a game of chance or a game of skill is something that must be determined, and hasn't been determined in any court that I know of. It's not a question of chance vs. skill. It's a question of whether you are 1. risking something of value (your tournament buy-in or your blind, raise, or call in a cash game) 2. upon the outcome of a future contingent event (what cards are coming next, or the actions of your opponent) 3. not under the control or influence of the person (the cards that come out, or your opponent's actions) 4. upon the agreement or understanding that the person will receive something of value (the pot, or the tournament payout) 5. in the event of a certain outcome (having the better hand, your opponent folding, or finishing in the money). You might bet your opponent(s) out of every pot preflop, but every time, whether or not he folded was out of your control. That's a "future contingent event". It was never sure he was going to fold. You don't know what your opponent is going to do, because you don't know his cards. Even if he folded to your first 99 PFRs, you don't know that he's going to fold to the 100th. And even if you were going to be dealt the nuts, you didn't know that until you had put some money in the pot, somehow. You risked money on a future contingent event. It doesn't need to be clear-cut, you just need to put money in, not knowing what would happen, with the possibility of winning something. I don't think you can defend the law in this way. In chess, I don't know what my opponent's next move will be. Therefore, by your reasoning, it is gambling if I put money on myself to win. Maybe if you reword it it will make more sense. Yeah, it probably would be gambling if you bet on chess... not sure why that's a surprise. So any chess tournament where it costs to enter is gambling? Ah, now that's probably tricky. If it's a tournament with an entry fee, but a pre-set prize, then maybe not. You're just paying an entry fee. Often there's some kind of prize fund supplementing the tournament, from club fees or something. Even if you had to "join the club" to enter the tournament, and all the prize money comes from the "club". It's different in poker - usually it's a tournament where you pay $50+5 or something, with the $5 as your fee and $50 going into the winnings pot with a payout structure like 60%/30%/10%, that's probably gambling, even if you're playing chess. I mean, if you go play chess hustlers in the park for money, that's gambling, definitely. That's just "I bet you $50 I can beat you in chess." I know it's a dumb semantic difference, but it's more about the appearance of it than the logical difference. You can definitely gamble on chess. But most tournaments just aren't going to be treated as "gambling". If millions of people were spending billions of dollars competing in online chess, the law would treat it differently. Sure, some people do. But not at the same level as poker. Chess has a different cultural situation than cards. It's not rational but it's how people operate.
Both the hustling in the park and playing in a tournament with a set tournament prize pool mean that you're risking something of value (your first point in your original post).
No difference by the law, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
