[mike777]

"On Tuesday, the U.S. Justice Department in a civil suit accused Messrs. Lederer, Ferguson and Furst, and another director of the company behind the Full Tilt Poker website, of defrauding thousands of online poker players out of more than $300 million that is still owed to them. The government said that, in total, the 23 owners of the site had taken out $444 million in distributions over..."


http://online.wsj.co...1398633386.html

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2011-September-22, 08:56, said:

"On Tuesday, the U.S. Justice Department in a civil suit accused Messrs. Lederer, Ferguson and Furst, and another director of the company behind the Full Tilt Poker website, of defrauding thousands of online poker players out of more than $300 million that is still owed to them. The government said that, in total, the 23 owners of the site had taken out $444 million in distributions over..."


http://online.wsj.co...1398633386.html

Felix Salmon had a good piece on this

http://blogs.reuters...ull-tilt-ponzi/

Money quote:

Quote

In a weird way, strict anti-gambling regulations in the US are responsible for this fiasco. If poker sites were legal and regulated, we could trust the regulator — an arm of the US government — to protect gamblers’ funds. Casinos are strictly regulated; online poker sites should be as well. Instead, they became international fugitives, going to great lengths to make it possible for US gamblers to skirt regulations and use their sites. Up to and including buying banks:

[Hanoi5]

hrothgar, on 2011-September-22, 09:18, said:

Money quote:

So if 'daddy government' doesn't take care of us we're screwed? More power to the government?

Although I agree that if they had taken care it wouldn't have happened, it is also true that if you are doing something illegal you are risking some consequences...

[wyman]

I understand what he's saying (and I am *hugely* pro online poker) but saying something like "oh, it's the government's fault. If blow was legal and therefore regulated, this guy wouldn't have gotten a bad 8 ball and OD'd," is a little bit loaded.

And if anyone here has money locked up on Tilt, I'm pulling for you. glglgl

[hrothgar]

Hanoi5, on 2011-September-22, 09:25, said:

So if 'daddy government' doesn't take care of us we're screwed? More power to the government?

Yes... More power to the government. (Or, if you prefer to phrase things differently, less rat feces in our dinners)

[hrothgar]

wyman, on 2011-September-22, 09:28, said:

I understand what he's saying (and I am *hugely* pro online poker) but saying something like "oh, it's the government's fault. If blow was legal and therefore regulated, this guy wouldn't have gotten a bad 8 ball and OD'd," is a little bit loaded.

I don't see why... There are any number of examples where legalization and subsequent regulation have significantly improve quality.

Liquor quality in the US during / after Prohibition is a prototypical example; as are sanitary conditions for abortion providers before and after Roe versus Wade.

[aguahombre]

Thanks, Mike777. I hope this thread will continue with updates as they occur.

[wyman]

Anyone with a lot of time on his/her hands who wants to read more about this might try the 2+2 forums. The News, Views, and Gossip subforum has several threads on this. The signal-to-noise ratio is a bit lower, but the volume is massive, so there's a lot of signal in there.

[bd71]

hrothgar, on 2011-September-22, 10:22, said:

I don't see why... There are any number of examples where legalization and subsequent regulation have significantly improve quality.

Liquor quality in the US during / after Prohibition is a prototypical example; as are sanitary conditions for abortion providers before and after Roe versus Wade.

I think this is not the most helpful comparison.

Less helpful comparison: Prohibited black market (A) vs. legalized/regulated market (B)

More helpful comparison: Legalized/regulated market (B) vs. legalized/unregulated market (C )

Arguing that B>A does not mean that B>C. I'm not taking a position, but since I suspect that most here will agree that A is the worst scenario, the debate should be between B and C.

[wyman]

hrothgar, on 2011-September-22, 10:22, said:

I don't see why... There are any number of examples where legalization and subsequent regulation have significantly improve quality.

Liquor quality in the US during / after Prohibition is a prototypical example; as are sanitary conditions for abortion providers before and after Roe versus Wade.

It follows from his point that government should legalize and regulate everything that's both illegal and dangerous, but which would be less dangerous if regulated. Otherwise, he assigns blame to the government for any injury sustained as a result of the dangerous activity/substance/whatever. I assume he also blames the government for any immigrants killed by coyotes or otherwise as a result of human trafficking and any who die escaping from places like Cuba, since if we just had an open immigration policy, they would be better off. I also assume he blames the government if a guy gets an STD from a hooker, since if we legalized prostitution, then the hookers would have to register with the health department and maintain a clean bill of health.

And maybe you think we should have totally open borders and legal prostitution. And that's fine. My point is simply that some things -- not necessarily those, and certainly not poker -- should be illegal, and people who do things that they know are illegal do them at their own risk.

Government taxation and regulation of online poker would certainly be positive effects of "legalization" (note this is in quotes because its current legal status is unclear). But to say that the government is to blame for people being robbed by the owners of an online poker site is just silly in my opinion.

[PassedOut]

wyman, on 2011-September-22, 12:43, said:

It follows from his point that government should legalize and regulate everything that's both illegal and dangerous, but which would be less dangerous if regulated. Otherwise, he assigns blame to the government for any injury sustained as a result of the dangerous activity/substance/whatever.

Saying that something bad could have been prevented by government regulation is not the same as saying that the government is "to blame" for it happening.

[wyman]

PassedOut, on 2011-September-22, 13:34, said:

Saying that something bad could have been prevented by government regulation is not the same as saying that the government is "to blame" for it happening.

Quote

In a weird way, strict anti-gambling regulations in the US are responsible for this fiasco.

Am I missing something? [my emphasis added]

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2011-September-22, 13:34, said:

Saying that something bad could have been prevented by government regulation is not the same as saying that the government is "to blame" for it happening.

no, but saying gov't is responsible seems to assign at least some blame

[aguahombre]

When people want to do something, people will emerge to provide that service.

When government forbids an activity (drinking, poker, drugs, whatever), the people who emerge to enable that activity either were already criminals or become criminals.

Yes, in that way government is to blame: for most of the deaths perpetrated by the Mob during prohibition, and for the shady and/or shoddy money deals of FTP.

Absent prohibitions, people emerge who ---acting in their own best interests --- improve the service provided and keep the unsavory types in line; OR people (customers or providers) emerge who demand of government that it regulate the activity.

Prohibition is just not a good idea.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-September-22, 14:01, said:

no, but saying gov't is responsible seems to assign at least some blame

I guess that's right, since the government imposes the anti-gambling measures. But most of the blame falls on the people who do not exercise personal responsiblity for what they do.

[Phil]

PassedOut, on 2011-September-22, 13:34, said:

Saying that something bad could have been prevented by government regulation is not the same as saying that the government is "to blame" for it happening.

OTOH, saying that something good happened when something was regulated is not the same as saying the government gets credit for it happening.

[Hanoi5]

aguahombre, on 2011-September-22, 14:09, said:

When people want to do something, people will emerge to provide that service.

(...)

Prohibition is just not a good idea.

I think killing people is prohibited. And I think that's a good idea in general. Unfortunately humans cannot agree on what's good or bad, there will always be opinions in favor and against anything.

[aguahombre]

Hanoi5, on 2011-September-22, 19:10, said:

I think killing people is prohibited. And I think that's a good idea in general. Unfortunately humans cannot agree on what's good or bad, there will always be opinions in favor and against anything.

Not particularly relevant to my post, or to yours. But is killing people a good idea, or the prohibition of it, in your opinion?

[Hanoi5]

The prohibiton is, of course, a good idea. Prohibiting alcohol may be bad, but then many deaths have come from drunk people. Prohibiting drugs may seem good but then Amsterdam is a nice city.

Killing is prohibited and yet many countries send soldiers to other countries to kill people.

In the end opinions are like asses and everyone should treat their religion like their penises, but we'll continue to discuss all this all over again.

[aguahombre]

Well, maybe we should stick to discussing prohibition of things not so far on one end of the scale, like poker...and not try to compare it with murder.

My post stated the Probibition (U.S. Volstead Act) led to deaths; was not a value judgement about people's pleasures, but rather an opinion about government deciding what those pleasures should be.