In the Summer of 2006, Congress passed the Internet Gambling and Prohibition Act. To the chagrin of tens of millions of online poker players, the bill sought to restrict banks from allowing their customers to buy in to their preferred online poker sites.

Even though the bill didn’t impose any penalties on the individual poker player, it did seem to imply that the online poker player was doing something wrong, and possibly illegal. Major poker providers like Pokerstars continued to operate under the logic that the bill only outlawed games of chance. Poker, they argued, was a game of skill, and therefore not subject to this new ban.

This weekend, The New Scientist has come down decidedly on the side of the rounders.

Several studies cited by the magazine show an increased return for players who experience more than 1,000 hands of poker (an absurdly low amount for any practiced player). Another study showed that over 76% of hands end before a “showdown,” meaning that the players had made their decisions about folding or playing without seeing the cards in play. In other words, chance is completely eliminated from determining where the money ends up most hands.

To be perfectly fair, this bill was less a referendum on gambling (as it completely exempted online horse racing sites, for instance) and more a hissy fit thrown by a Congress upset that they couldn’t properly tax online gaming websites based overseas.

And so, apparently this hissy fit is not only without merit, it’s entirely without teeth. Nice work there, Congress.

Comments are closed.