PPA and Balko
Balko should ask PPA where they get their money.
I wonder if he knows it's not from "members".
PPA isn't for legal poker, they are for heavily regulated poker with strong barriers to entry for providers of poker games.
Balko actually writes for Reason and calls himself a libertarian. He should be ashamed of himself for supporting those people.
I wonder if he knows it's not from "members".
PPA isn't for legal poker, they are for heavily regulated poker with strong barriers to entry for providers of poker games.
Balko actually writes for Reason and calls himself a libertarian. He should be ashamed of himself for supporting those people.
Labels: PPA
posted by Gary Carson at 3:07 PM
8 Comments:
where do they get there money?
Do you think poker should be unregulated, even with the current Absolute cheating scandal? The rate of tax imposed is a different matter. Britain was going to be good about this (legal, regulated, low tax) but Gordon Brown backed down on the tax promises, and now Pokerstars etc. will stay based on tiny thieves' paradise islands. This cannot be good. If the Absolute cheats weren't idiots they would have completely gotten away with it, because in Costa Rica who can stop them?
They won't reveal where they get their money. It's a secret.
It seems pretty clear to me that they represent their source of money, not members who are really nothing more than a mailing list. They just don't want you to know who they represent.
nerkul -
I used to work for a couple of major US banks. They are heavily regulated. Internal theft of customer monies was not exactly unheard of.
An alternative way to control cheating is simply completely legalize it and let customers have recourse in civil courts without the need for regulation. A few laws requiring financial and operational disclosure would be good.
Regulation has nothing to do with customer protection, there's plenty of ways to do that without regulation. Regulation is about protection of the industry from competition, nothing else.
A Costa Rican company with assets in the US is subject to liability in the US if we simply allow customers to have access to US courts.
What ways are there to protect customers without regulation?
Even if Americans could sue Costa Rican companies (which sounds unlikely given that no one on 2+2 has even mentioned it), the rest of us can't. I'm not so worried about lack of competition if the few companies have high standards and are subject to our laws.
Nerkul --
You can't sue an internet gambling company in the US as a customer becuase US courts won't allow it.
The US Justice Department would intervene claiming it's against public policy.
Do you really think posters on 2+2 is the sum total of all truth?
If you can't sue in the courts in your own country it's not becuase the US doesn't regulate them. It's because your country won't allow you to.
It's because I'm not a millionaire. I can't afford to sue rich companies based in Costa Rica, even if British laws applied there (really, is this possible? Surely countries laws apply only within their own borders?)
Let them be regulated then we can all get fair treatment.
I think "regulation" is soley so the Fed Gov't gets its cut of the action.
Post a Comment
<< Home