Fighting for the game in Washington

How we got here

Poker saw a tremendous explosion following the 2003 World Series of Poker, when an unknown accountant parlayed a $39 online tournament win into winning the biggest poker tournament in the world. If not for internet poker, this never would have happened. Likely Moneymaker would still be an unknown accountant and the poker boom may never have happened. But it did. With the help of internet poker, the game itself grew by leaps and bounds, and in 2006 our State and the Federal Government stepped in with measures to try and stop it. These measures were largely pushed by casinos and cardrooms who, very short sightedly, feared internet poker as a threat to their business.

Here in Washington, a State Senator, one with casino money in her coffers btw, introduced and pushed through a measure that specifically outlawed all internet gambling, going so far as to make playing a game of penny-ante poker a felony. This is the harshest anti-poker law in the entire country, coming from one of the most progressive States no less. In response to a question about the players who were displaced by this measure, her reply was "let them pump gas." Such a crass answer from an elected representative of the people is terrible, and it clearly demonstrated that her position was one of serving special interests and not one of serving the people.

Why they oppose internet poker

The feeling among the poker community is that the sole reason this measure was enacted was to protect casino and cardroom interests from a booming industry they saw as an enemy. I share that feeling as well, and it can be debated to death, but one fact is undeniable . . . The author of the bill and the Governor who signed it both took money from gambling interests for their election campaigns. Is that quid pro quo? You can be the judge.

Opponents have talking points to justify this action. You can go to the Washington State Gambling Commission site and find chapter and verse on their reasoning. Primarily to prevent problem and underage gambling, and criminal activities such as money laundering. We'll come back to this one. One thing I would note, however, is that the Mission Statement of the WSGC is "Protect the Public by Ensuring that Gambling is Legal and Honest." I can't think of a better argument for regulated internet poker than that.

Why Poker is different

Poker is largely recognized as a skill game, one that can be learned, one that can be taught, and one that is played against other players, with the odds the same for all. This is quite unlike games like Blackjack, where players play long odds against 'the house.' Those who do not understand this to be the case are simply willfully ignorant of the game. The vast amount of educational material, as well as internet forums and communities where the game is discussed, disected, and analyzed in depth, make learning not just about the game, but how to get better at the game itself, a click or two away.

Internet poker is no more gambling than is day trading on the stock market. In fact, I use this analogy often when trying to explain about poker to those who have no clue about the game. In both stock trading and internet poker, you have an investment account from which you make targeted investments. Whether this be buying a particular stock, or entering a poker tournament or sitting at a cash table, a small part of your total account is invested. Now, with stocks, as with poker, you make decisions based on incomplete information, using your knowledge and understanding of the situation. In stocks you can buy, sell, or hold a stock, depending on what the situation calls for. And in poker, you will bet, call, or fold in the same way. Not all of your investment decisions will be profitable ones, just as you will not win every poker hand, or every tournament. But a skilled trader, and a skilled poker player, will see his investment account balance rise over the long term. And that is the way success is measured. Just as not everyone can be a successful stock trader, not everyone can be a great poker player. But educating yourself about poker is far easier, and with proper management of your investment account, the risk of ruin is far less.

Reasons for regulation

The most important reasons for regulation are, in fact, the main reasons the opposition give for prohibition, those being to curb problem and underage gambling. A regulated poker site can and should be required to have a strict player identification protocol to assure players are who they say they are, and that they are at or above the legal age for participation. These could range from requiring multiple identification documents, including picture ID, to actually requiring players to register an account in person. Things like requiring a password to be entered manually every time the player logs on, and automatic log off after a period of inactivity, serve to assure that the registered player is the one actually playing. Problem gamblers demonstrate behaviors that software can recognize, and by far a regulated site with such requirements is the best way to identify, and offer help to, problem gamblers. Prohibition simply moved the games underground, where we have no idea who is playing and what problems that play may cause.

Fears of criminal element and money laundering issues are also best addressed by regulation. This puts everything out in the open. I mean, seriously, how does making an activity criminal do anything to get the criminal element out of it?? *facepalm*  

Transfers between players can be facilitated with what are known as 'play through' requirements, meaning you have to put the money in play before you can withdraw it. This prevents one person from sending money to another and then having that money immediately withdrawn. This alone would curb most money laundering concerns. 'Dumping' is also recognizable activity, and sites can shut down and report suspicious accounts that exhibit such behavior.

Getting the Legislature to act

This is always difficult, especially if you don't have a lot of money to throw at it, to get legislation through Olympia. They are busy with other important things, such as honoring the Seahawks for winning a playoff game, or arguing over whether or not they should honor a long serving member of the Congress. Nearly two thousand bills were introduced in the 2013 session, very few even got a hearing, even fewer will advance from the house of origin, and only a few will ever make it to the Governor's desk. It is this constant disfunction that has made the Initiative process in Washington so popular.

All across the nation, states are taking up the issue of internet poker. But they all seem to be looking at it from the angle of who should be able to profit by offering games, and how much the state should make in taxes. I believe that is because the issue is only being taken up where the industry giants are throwing money at it. The needs, wants, and rights of the consumer, the players themselves, are secondary at best, and without much voice in the process. But here in Washington a group of players has taken it upon themselves, with no help from industry or national advocacy groups, to press the Legislature to address the issue of internet poker, and to address it from the players' perspective. It will be a daunting task, but if the poker community in this state can come together and make the effort, so our voices can be heard, we can be successful and bring internet poker back for the players of the State of Washington. Join the fight for your rights.

#WAipokerNOW

@OlympiaChange

https://www.facebook.com/WashingtonOnlinePokerInitiative

WA State HB 1824

There is an interesting development in the politics of internet poker in the State of Washington. State Representative Paul Harris (R-Vancouver) has introduced HB 1824, which would remove the current felony criminal penalty against playing internet poker for money, and replace it with a civil infraction that would carry a $50 fine. On the face of it, this could be see as a great development in the State with the most oppressive anti-ipoker laws in the nation. But it warrants a closer look.

The current penalty has been on the books since 2006, and to date no player has ever been charged with a felony for playing internet poker. Not only that, but no internet poker operation has been charged under this statute either. The Washington State Gambling Commission makes it clear that they are not interested in going after players, and suggest that if your name came up in an investigation, you would most likely only receive a cease and desist type order. I dare say to charge an every day bloke with a felony for playing penny-ante poker from the privacy of his own home would be a quite costly exercise, that not only would be a huge PR nightmare, but may not even be successful. I have a hard time believing a jury in this State would see someone sent to prison for playing some $ .02/ .04 internet poker. Remember, the mission statement of the WSGC is to "Protect the Public by Ensuring that Gambling is Legal and Honest." I don't see how such a prosecution accomplishes that mission.

So, it's easy to see that the current penalty is ridiculous, and that it is not enforced. So why the need to change it? That is a serious question. What is the motivation behind replacing the criminal penalty with a civil penalty, without actually creating a framework to make internet poker "Legal and Honest?" I believe the answer lies in enforcement.

First comes the burden of proof, a far lower threshold than a criminal case, especially a felony case. And second is the penalty. A $50 fine is not even worth fighting, as defending against a $50 infraction would cost you more than $50 by any measure. The threat of a felony chased many players away from internet poker, but still some remain. Remove that criminal penalty, and many will return, one could safely assume. So playing internet poker becomes slightly less of a risk than driving ten miles an hour over the speed limit. And now you have a new revenue stream.

So I am left with this opinion. While I am totally against the current law as it stands, replacing it with a new penalty that will be far easier to enforce is not a reasonable solution. If Rep. Harris is serious about removing the criminal penalty against players of internet poker, then he should amend his bill to do just that. Changing it to a civil infraction is not a win for the players, it is a win for enforcement. I cannot, in good faith, support the bill as written.

This bill will receive a hearing on Tuesday, February 19th, before the House Government Accountability and Oversight Committee in Olympia. Perhaps we can convince our lawmakers to drop the penalty completely, and restore our freedom to play our game amongst ourselves in the comfort and privacy of our homes.