As I wrote a few weeks ago, this is a subject of particular interest to me. Had I known about the hearing before today, I would have taken the day off work and gone. As it stood, I had to settle for watching the live stream.
Well, trying to watch the live stream, in any case. This became a frequent occurrence:
My office has a T1 line, so I know the problem wasn't on my end. It's great that D.C. offers live streams of hearings, and to the government's credit, the video of the hearing was posted extremely quickly, but the buffering issues during the hearing were unbearable. Maybe once that online poker revenue starts pouring in, they can spring for better computer equipment.
The hearing lasted over four hours. I lost interest way before that, but here are some of the more interesting moments from the first half or so, along with where in the video they occur.
00:01 -- Evans begins the hearing by going over the parameters of the bill. The three biggest points: 1) Players will only be able to access the system from between 10 a.m. to 4.a.m., presumably to keep the real degenerates from losing all their money, 2) Players will only be able to access the system from approved hot spots inside the city, as opposed to their homes, and 3) Players will only be able to deposit $250 a week.
Immediate reaction from the online poker community to these has been less than kind (especially that last one), but for what it's worth, I'm fine with all of them.
07:30 -- Evans reminds us that even though online gaming has already been passed (however unknowingly) by the council, it can also be unpassed. Okay, Jack, we get it. Your dick is as big as Brown's.
17:15 -- D.C. CFO Natwar Gandhi reads the list of what games will be available online: Blackjack and Victory at Sea (yeah, I don't know what that is, either) at first, followed by poker, bingo, e-scratch (I'm assuming that's an online version of scratch-off lottery tickets, which...wow, how lame do you have to be to play those?), and "random number generated games," which I take to mean online keno or slots. I think they'd be better off sticking with just poker, blackjack and bingo, but whatever.
39:40 -- Evans seems to suggest to Gandhi that since the council might decide to unpass the online gaming legislation down the road, wouldn't it be swell if they could just agree to drop the whole thing now before any more money is spent? Gandhi suggests this is something Evans and the council perhaps should have considered before they voted for it. Burn.
(And ultimately, this is Evans's biggest problem. He can complain about how online gaming in D.C. came into being, and to be fair, it's not a wholly invalid point. But the bottom line is that Evans and the rest of the council voted for it. So now he gets to live with it.)
1:01 -- Evans is relieved to hear that D.C. libraries can be blocked from accessing the gaming site. Next issue: Suppose two businesses, X and Y, each want to license an authorized hot spot for online gaming. Isn't there a danger of X bribing someone in government to ensure it gets one and Y doesn't? A confused D.C. Lottery chief Buddy Roogow does his best to pretend this is somehow a valid concern, and reassures Evans they'll keep an eye out for that sort of thing.
1:26 -- Councilman Tommy Wells asks Attorney General Irv Nathan about how the placement of gaming hot spots will be legislated and/or regulated. Nathan responds that formal legislation likely won't be necessary, and essentially says that basic common sense should be sufficient. Wells wants to know what will happen if a hot spot somehow ends up in a school. Or the basement of the Wilson Building. Rather than explain the definition of common sense, Nathan simply assures him that schools and the basement of the building they're currently sitting in would almost certainly not be granted gaming licences.
1:35 -- After Evans goes off on a tangent about how the city taking money from poor people via online gaming is wrong or something, Gandhi points out D.C., with its roughly 1,000,001 different forms of lotteries, crossed that Rubicon a long time ago. Evans acknowledges the point, but then seems to imply that if it were up to him, there would be no D.C. lottery. Yeah, good luck running for mayor with that as your platform, Jack. Seniors in D.C. love lottery tickets like teenager girls love Bieber.
1:52 -- In a surprise cameo, Patrick Thibodeau of DC Blogs pops up to speak out against the implementation of online gaming in D.C. Suffice it to say that I disagree with him on this, and when he brought up the issue a few weeks ago on his site, I posted a response to his concerns. You can check it out here, if you want.
Anyway, that's about when I bailed. So let me just close with this: It's fairly obvious that Evans and Wells would like to kill online gambling in D.C. Or in the very least, keep delaying its implementation indefinitely. They shouldn't. Aside from providing much needed revenue to the city, there's a basic question of personal freedom. There's no reason why Americans shouldn't be allowed to play poker online, and that freedom trumps concerns about exploiting the poor or those with gambling problems. As Gandhi points out, D.C. embraced gambling a long, long time ago. The difference is, poker--and even blackjack or bingo or whatever the hell Victory at Sea is--actually gives the player a chance to win. Scratchers don't. Lotto drawings don't. So if we're not going to do away with the whole lottery apparatus in the interest of protecting potential problem gamblers, the very least we can do is give them fighting odds.
5 comments:
SCOTUS,
You are one of the most entertaining bloggers anywhere, and perhaps the only one to view the video.
But regarding the law, the hot spot provision is worrisome. The DC Lottery can issue as many permits as it wants and can, in my Adams Morgan neighborhood, technically issue a permit to every bar and restaurant.
And what will that lead to? Bars and restaurants that offer gambling will see new types of customers arriving in the morning and afternoon to gamble. Gambling may become their leading source of profits as well as food and liquor sales. These businesses may start focusing on supporting gamblers, such as expanding the number of gambling terminals and creating environments that cater to different age groups. Before too long, 18th Street may begin to see neon signs that say, simply, “casino.” Those signs will be an entirely accurate description of the activity allowed inside these establishments.
It's going to trash the neighborhood, bring in more crime and likely prompt payday loan operations to set up shop offering $250 'gift/debit cards' that gamblers can use to replenish their accounts.
The games they are offering go well beyond poker. The so-call random electronic numbers games are slots, which typically have the worse odds in a casino.
The local ANCs have no input on this, or means to even limit the number of casinos in any neighborhood. Neighborhoods have more ability to give feedback on trash collection than they do on this.
This law is a disaster for the community, and the only reason it will raise tax revenue is because tourist and people who commute here to work. But it may actually hurt neighborhood businesses because all casinos do is compete for local dollars, and the jobs they create are created at a very high cost. Most communities reject gambling for that reason: the economics of it are terrible.
Hi, Pat. Thanks for stopping by.
This may surprise you, but I agree with some of your points. I'm not in favor of all online gambling. I support poker and, to a lesser extent, blackjack, because they're games of skill, not random luck where the odds are greatly against the player. So if there's a way to amend the legislation to allow poker and get rid of online slots, scratchers, etc., I'm all for it. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem likely, since the profit margin for Intralot and the city will likely be much, much higher on those games than on poker.
That being the case, I can see the temptation to say the entire plan should be scrapped. Here's why I don't think it should be: At least once a day, I go to the convenience store near my office, where I see low income workers, seniors, and even homeless people wasting their money on lottery tickets. What I spend on Powerball tickets in a year whenever the jackpot gets really high, is what some of these people drop on DC-4 tickets each day. Personally, I think it's ridiculous. But it is what it is. Offering the ability to gamble online might make doing so easier for people, but it's hardly creating a problem where one doesn't already exist. I'd be greatly troubled if people could make deposits using credit cards, but since that's not allowed, at least you won't have people going horrifically into debt. I agree that the gift card scenario you mention, or any credit for cash swap, shouldn't be allowed and needs to be carefully monitored.
In regards to the hot spots, I'll be interested to see how this plays out, but I don't think it'll be nearly as bad as you do. Ultimately, businesses will do what's most profitable. If catering to gamblers drives away other customers, you'll see a lot of them dropping the hot spots. Alternatively, if it increases revenues, how is that a bad thing?
Basically, I think there's room for middle ground here. Rather than try and kill the plan outright--which doesn't seem likely given that a repeal would require many more votes than just Evans and Wells--I would suggest that you, Dorothy Brizill, etc., encourage as many common sense provisions and as much community involvement as possible to prevent problem gambling. There's no reason why this has to be a zero-sum game between those who want online gambling and those who don't.
But to be perfectly blunt, like you, I have an agenda here, which is the legalization of online poker. This goes beyond simply my own desire to play. The U.S. is one of only four countries to outlaw online poker. The other three are Iran, China and North Korea. That's a pretty fucked-up group to be in. So if it's a choice between D.C.'s plan as-is and getting rid of the whole thing, I'm going to unapologetically push for the former.
You raise great points. I don't know if there is a middle ground. But the proponents could have crafted a limited pilot program allowing, as you point out, games of skill i.e. poker, blackjack, in a few central business district establishments. Instead, they won approval on the broadest measure possible and are going after the widest audiences imaginable with games like bingo and slots.
Thanks you for shedding some light on this topic.
@kob: you sir opened my eyes to the other possibilities a legalized online poker bill can bring, and surely, that scenario is likely to happen if things go out of control. Perhaps with the right amendments, this bill could bring better results for both the community and government.
Scotus, thanks for the transcript of the video.
You guys enlighten me regarding legalization of poker online in US. By the way I'm from UK.
Post a Comment