by , Jul 22, 2009 | 4:12 pm

You can see how the debate over online poker regulation is getting more sophisticated. (And it makes a fun subplot during these times of health care debate.) While our side has effectively taken the argument away from our opponents about needing to protect children and potential addicts (and John Pappas’ TV skillz have gotten more polished), Les Bernal of Stop Predatory Gambling is now claiming the online poker model is unsustainable because it relies on 10 percent losing players to profit. (I think Full Tilt and PokerStars would respectfully disagree.)

While the opposition argument may be one of those frustrating argghs from someone who clearly just doesn’t get it — poker profits are based on rake, not degenerates who can’t afford their next buy-in — you can see we are moving to that next necessary phase of poker enlightenment, which is separating poker from other forms of gambling.

4 Comments to “PPA on CNBC”

  1. Alicia

    Pappas did a great job representing our side. Gotta say I’m a little disappointed in Mark Haines though, he usually jumps all over people that come on his show sounding like morons. I’m surprised he didn’t jump on the opposition a little more than he did.

  2. Kevin Mathers

    Why is it that these guys who are anti-gambling look alike?

    Case in point, the guy who linked online gambling to child abuse:


  3. Poker Shrink

    It’s the stock market that depends on 10% losing players or maybe that’s 50%.

  4. Kajagugu

    Why are they using screenshots from AP? WTF PPA? Are you all retarded? Sheesh….