Football Related Random Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Continued in Part 2

 
I envy you Crimso! Must've been an awesome show.

He was very astute when it came to money. Was reading an article today which said he never played a note until he had his cash payment in his hand.....and years later, he sued John Lennon for using a line from one of his songs in a Lennon song...instead of money, they came to an agreement for Lennon to put 3 of Chucks songs on his next album. That move made Chuck a very wealthy man..

I grew up idolising this man, he fascinated me, but most of all I loved all his songs. My parents did too, we had majority of his records.

(check out on You Tube, Chuck and Lennon singing Johnny B Good, brilliant!...there are so many to see, all worth watching again.)
 
Last edited:
Fox had an article out about nightmare scenarios for each team. I'd say 2 wins, the beltings don't stop, Rockliff and Schache both leave, Beams plagued by injury all year. :eek:
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Fox had an article out about nightmare scenarios for each team. I'd say 2 wins, the beltings don't stop, Rockliff and Schache both leave, Beams plagued by injury all year. :eek:
Kevin Mitchell Jnr the gabba nazi says we can't play on the gabba this season, our home games moved to metricon.
 
:eek: Have just heard on the news that online poker is now banned in Australia...What!!

We love our poker, particularly Mr MM....and so does my son. 888 have already gone, PokerStars and PartyPoker are on their way.

No discussion, nothing in the papers, just bang, DONE!:mad:

..what the hell else is going to go pear shaped?
 
:eek:

No discussion, nothing in the papers, just bang, DONE!:mad:

This dates back to a review of the relevant act held back in 2012 I think and then there was another review a couple of years ago.

https://engage.dss.gov.au/review-impact-of-illegal-offshore-wagering/

Was pretty public at the time and public submissions were part of it. I was working in Intergovernmental Relations for QLD government back in 2012 and it was a reasonably visible national reform area. It certainly wasn't done in secret and was ultimately designed to plug unforeseen loopholes in the original act.

Edit: 2011, not 2012

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Gambling_Act_2001
 
Last edited:
This dates back to an inquiry held back in 2012 I think. Was pretty public at the time and public submissions were part of it.


Really? Thanks. We were unaware of that. Not going out and about a lot these days, it is oops, was good to pass a few hours playing poker, rather than sitting in a rocking chair looking at the 4 walls, or watching tv all day, ug!

Trust others (do-gooders)to ruin the fun for people..
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Well Pokies are regulated to an extent, not enough, but still. Online Poker was largely a free for all and most of the money was going overseas.

Coles tried to bring in $1 max bets, and they were knocked back. Wilkie tried to bring in tougher rules in 2012 and Gillard tore up the agreement. Xenophon has been trying to do something about it but the lobbyists have thrown their money against him. Definitely agree more has to be done. Nick X's strong stance against pokies is my favourite thing about him but i disagree with his stance on live sports betting.
 
:eek: Have just heard on the news that online poker is now banned in Australia...What!!

We love our poker, particularly Mr MM....and so does my son. 888 have already gone, PokerStars and PartyPoker are on their way.

No discussion, nothing in the papers, just bang, DONE!:mad:

..what the hell else is going to go pear shaped?
The Australian Poker Alliance, which my sister is part of, has been fighting hard to have poker excluded from the bill. Had to put up with hours of the senate "debate" on tv last night. All came to naught.
 
Well, at least someone tried to stop others stopping people from what they like to do.:thumbsu:

This is what gets me, if some don't like gambling, be it racing, poker, pokies or whatever, so be it, that is their choice.....let those that wish to indulge do so.....

It has nothing to do with other people what I/we choose to do with my/our time and money.
 
Well, at least someone tried to stop others stopping people from what they like to do.:thumbsu:

This is what gets me, if some don't like gambling, be it racing, poker, pokies or whatever, so be it, that is their choice.....let those that wish to indulge do so.....

It has nothing to do with other people what I/we choose to do with my/our time and money.

Brings us back to issues like certain recreational drugs. Like gambling, it can be fine if the person has the ability to self-moderate. If they don't, it can impose a significant social and economic cost.

People tend to use the nanny-state argument a lot, but usually only when their chosen vice is under threat.
 
Coles tried to bring in $1 max bets, and they were knocked back. Wilkie tried to bring in tougher rules in 2012 and Gillard tore up the agreement. Xenophon has been trying to do something about it but the lobbyists have thrown their money against him. Definitely agree more has to be done. Nick X's strong stance against pokies is my favourite thing about him but i disagree with his stance on live sports betting.
Its funny the online sports betting being targeted, if anything you should only be allowed to have an online account, similar rules to setting up a bank account. That way the government can shut it down if someone has gambling issues or criminal links.

The money with bookies of cash at the pub TAB is impossible to track. People with gambling problems can easily lie about how much they lost to family.

If you only have 1 way of gambling and it's all track able then it's very easy to regulate.

However would probably need a national approach and cost a few $$
 
MacMum


Senator David Leyonhjelm
19 hrs ·


I have a question for online poker players in Australia.

The government did not agree to my amendment to exempt poker and blackjack from the Interactive Gambling bill. However, there appears to be enough doubt about the legislation to indicate a review of the ban on online poker may be possible.

Probably the best way of pursuing this is a committee inquiry. However, this would involve a lot of work and it would be important for online poker players to make submissions and generally raise their voices in support.

You have plenty of other options for playing poker, so how important is this issue for you? If there was an inquiry, would you make a submission? If there were committee hearings, would you attend and give evidence if called. Would you play an active role in informing the public debate about online poker?

If you are not particularly concerned, I need to know. If there is enough support I will push for an inquiry.





 
The Australian Poker Alliance, which my sister is part of, has been fighting hard to have poker excluded from the bill. Had to put up with hours of the senate "debate" on tv last night. All came to naught.
Been following this for awhile. What frustrates me is that there is a real misconception that online poker is online pokies, there is no doubt senators voting on the amendment would have confused the two or at least not understood the difference.

Also don't know why the senator included blackjack. That's just another house game where the player (no matter how good they are) can never win long term.
 
Last edited:
My sister is a single mother to a 4 year old, and lives off of a disability pension. Before her disability became to much for her, she used to make a living from playing live (and online - but mostly live) poker. She was a sponsored player, lived a bit of a jet set lifestyle, and did quite well supporting herself.

Now she plays solely online and earns enough to supplement her medical pension. This bill is going to significantly negatively impact my sister.
 
Been following this for awhile. What frustrates me is that their is a real misconception that online poker is online pokies, there is no doubt senators voting on the amendment would have confused the two or at least not understood the difference.

Also don't know why the senator included blackjack. That's just another house game where the player (no matter how good they are) can never win long term.

My sister said as much, about black jack, on the Senators FB page. Oliver Gill chimed in to give his views as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top