Replies

"A good bet? Why? How is this supposed to help anyone? Are you really a libertarian?"

I'm not saying it was a good POLICY move. Nor am I saying it was GOOD for American morals (that law can make people moral somehow, that's a load). I'm saying--though you obviously miss it--that Frist is gambling there will be no backlash against such a vote. THAT is a good bet on his part POLITICALLY, because gamblers don't give a damn about the law, they care about being able to gamble. They will work around it, just as before internet gambling, they had bookies. It will be little or no impact upon the election.

I'm not saying it was a good POLICY move. Nor am I saying it was GOOD for American morals (that law can make people moral somehow, that's a load). I'm saying--though you obviously miss it--that Frist is gambling there will be no backlash against such a vote.

It's true - I missed it. So you have described why you don't think this will hurt him. I don't agree, but say you're right and there's no backlash against him. I still don't understand why this is a "good bet." What's the upside? Doesn't there have to be a promise of a gain for a bet to be good? Or are we talking about all the American casino money Frist is certainly benefitting from...

I will also say that playing poker is much more difficult to get around for gamblers than sports betting which only involves a better and a bookie. Poker involves many many players, and for a site to be successful, they must continue to sign up new players all the time. Underground sites won't be able to do this like sports betting sites...