Over the last few days a series of opinion pieces has appeared on the New York Times website, addressing the question of whether Internet gambling should be legalized.
The series was brought to our attention by Annie Duke, who authored one of the articles.
I perused the series and my attitude went from skeptical to concerned, not about whether Internet gambling should or shouldn't be banned, but about the qualifications of the so-called "authorities" who are penning these opinions.
Granted, each piece is just a few paragraphs long and not meant to cover the entire breadth of the issue but there are some seriously WTF points made.
If you haven't already read them, click through here to check out the eight pieces.
In almost all of the articles poker is still lumped in with the more general category of gambling. We all know this but still sad to see it in action so often.
The truth is many of the arguments and opinions contained in these articles would make a lot more sense if they were applied strictly to games like blackjack and roulette.
That said, there is an unbelievable amount of BS spewed by some of these guys. Earl L. Grinols stands out to me as the main offender.
"People generally don't embezzle from their employer, commit suicide or murder over a lost tennis game, though they do over their gambling losses," writes Grinols.
Really!? Did he just say that GENERALLY people embezzle, commit suicide or murder over their gambling losses?
It's easy for poker players to resist arguments that may negatively impact the game but if anti-gambling/poker proponents continue to make statements like this they risk eroding any foundation of reason and credibility they may once have had.
I suggest reading through all eight articles and letting us know what you think in the comment section below.