|
|
. |
 |
 he Guardian G2 Poker Column |
|
| |
|
 |
| |
 |
| |
| Victoria
Coren |
| Monday Nov 6th, 2006
|
| |
 |
| |
|
|
Last week, culture secretary Tessa Jowell hosted a conference to
discuss regulation for internet gaming. America, notoriously, has gone for the
outright ban - a strangely authoritarian step from a nation happy to bomb
dictator-led countries on the grounds of "raising the lamp of liberty". When a
guy in Minnesota wants to play a $5 online poker tournament, which doesn't suit
domestic casino owners or the religious right, it seems this lamp is hurriedly
snuffed out.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jowell does not support the US policy - "they
should have learned from prohibition" - and suggests instead a set of
regulations to protect the underage and addicted. While not as hypocritical as
the American approach, it is still strange to see such concern for our welfare
from the woman presiding over the removal of limits on slot-machine jackpots
and the building of supercasinos. In other words: removing protective
legislation with one hand, pushing for more with the other. I am sure she means
well, but the whole thing is a mess.
As plans roll on for these
super-casinos with their massive slot jackpots (slot machines being the most
addictive of gambling forms, responsible for the most visitors to Gamblers
Anonymous), the courts have spent a year trying to close down a London poker
club called Gutshot, where people can play a game of skill, against each other
rather than the house, for small stakes. Yet bridge (another game where luck
may triumph in the short term, but skill predominates over time) is played for
money in clubs all over the country.
The first thing that should be
done by any politician concerned with gaming legislation is differentiate poker
from games of chance against the house - both live and online. Until they make
this distinction, I will continue to believe they are meddling in things they
don't understand.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
| |
|
. |
|
Main Menu)
