The Beginning of the Death of Online Poker in the US

[russiaboss]

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/LSECWS/IFSPages/MarketNewsPopup.aspx?id=1308926&source=RNS (http://www.londonstockexchange.com/LSECWS/IFSPages/MarketNewsPopup.aspx?id=1308926&source=RNS)</PRE>

[russiaboss]

US moves to stop online gaming

David Teather
Monday October 2, 2006
The Guardian

Most forms of online gambling look certain to be banned in the United States after a last-minute deal in Washington sneaked legislation through on the back of an unrelated bill on maritime and port security.

The new law will make it illegal for American banks and credit card companies to process payments to online gaming companies.

The 11th-hour manoeuvring that reached into Saturday morning before congress broke for mid-term elections is a devastating and unexpected blow for the online gaming industry. An effort led by the Republican senator Bill Frist had appeared to stall after he failed to attach the measure to a bill authorising ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Article continues
Shares in online gaming firms, many of which are listed in London, are likely to suffer a mauling when markets open for trading today. PartyGaming, which floated on the London Stock Exchange last year, relies on the US for 85% of its revenue.

Politicians in the US have been attempting to ban online gaming for more than a decade. The present legal framework was drawn up to cover telephone betting in the 1960s and the position of online gambling has been far from clear. The bill now only needs the approval of president George Bush, who is expected to sign it into law on November 7.

Democrats accused Republicans of pushing the legislation to bolster popularity among conservative voters. Michael Bolcerek of the Poker Players Alliance in the US said the legislation "reeks of political gamesmanship".

Several states have begun a crackdown on internet gaming. In July David Carruthers, then BetonSports chief executive, was arrested at Dallas airport on charges of racketeering, fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy. He has pleaded not guilty. Peter Dicks, the former chairman of Sportingbet, was set free on Friday after New York state governor George Pataki refused to order his extradition to Louisiana.

[SackAttack]

I'm pretty sure the California Supreme Court recently struck down an effort to tie two unrelated November ballot measures together.

I have to wonder if that's a precedent somehow, someway for interested parties to fight this particular rider.

Has that been challenged in court before on a federal level?

[Honolulu Blue]

I'm pretty sure the California Supreme Court recently struck down an effort to tie two unrelated November ballot measures together.

I have to wonder if that's a precedent somehow, someway for interested parties to fight this particular rider.

Has that been challenged in court before on a federal level?

I doubt it; if it has, it lost a long time ago. Bills have been attached to unrelated bills in the U.S. since the era of the Barbary Pirates.

On this bill, I'll have to spend some time reviewing the actual contents, much as I'm not looking forward to it (legislative bills generallly make for dull reading, not being a lawyer and all - sorry Evil Twin). If they just cut the direct links between bank & online sin bin, then that'll be OK, because Neteller & Firepay are based outside the country and not affected by this silly law. If those transactions are presumptively flagged as casino transactions by the banks, there could be trouble. My guess is I'll be gettng an e-mail from my favorite sites explaining things (hopefully with a bonus attached - yum :p ), and then I'll see where to go from there.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I'm pretty sure the California Supreme Court recently struck down an effort to tie two unrelated November ballot measures together.

I have to wonder if that's a precedent somehow, someway for interested parties to fight this particular rider.

Has that been challenged in court before on a federal level?

That's state law, not federal law. That was also a ballot measure, something entirely different than a bill passed by a state or federal legislature. As stated, it's entirely legal and commonplace.

[Joe]

PartyPoker, PokerStars to pull out of US market

Gambling911.com has learned that PartyPoker and PokerStars will likely be following 888.com suit and be pulling out of the US market.

Sources close to both poker rooms have informed Gambling911 that statements should be issued some time Monday from the two firms.

PartyGaming, fearful of its share price tumbling, is expected to announce that it will focus exclusively on the European and Asian markets as well as Canada.

PokerStars reason for pulling is not known at this time since the company does not trade publicly. News regarding PokerStars came from a number of high level internet gambling executives close to the company though no official confirmation has come from PokerStars management itself during the early morning hours Monday.

Sportingbet is expected to continue operating in the US market despite legislation that pushed through Congress late Friday night which would prohibit US banks from sending payments to online gambling sites.

The banks have almost an entire year to comply, however, the smaller banks have already stated they would not have the necessary resources in place to monitor such transactions.

Sources close to NETeller have suggested that they will be reviewing a contingency plan with the intention of remaining in the US market.

PartyPoker is expected to announce they will be leaving the US market.


Industry executives are telling Gambling911.com that PokerStars plans on exiting the US market


While sounding less and less confident by the day, Bodog.com founder Calvin Ayre says his company has no intentions of making changes in the near future

The third party online cash processor, however, has in the past bowed to pressure from US authorities, specifically in the state of Maryland, which ordered the company to cease doing business with its citizens. Likewise, NETeller does very little advertising in the US as a result of "outside pressures".

Nevertheless, Gambling911.com sources feel relatively confident that NETeller will not pull out of the US market in the immediate future. NETeller has become one of the most popular payment processing methods. The company was started by a colorful happy-go-lucky hippie and transformed into a massive online payment processing empire, the biggest firm of its kind within the internet gambling sector since 2000. FirePay, another online gambling third party payment processor, is likely to leave the US market within the next six months, our source tells us.

A meeting will be held in London this coming Thursday between various payment processors, some of whom have already vowed to join possible legal action.

The internet gambling-friendly jurisdictions of Gibraltar and Antigua are already in the process of reviewing legal means to prevent the restrictions on internet gambling from going into effect. Antigua has already won a landmark case against the US with the World Trade Organization.

Bodog.com Founder Calvin Ayre issued a statement to Gambling911.com late Sunday night: "Bodog is a broad based digital entertainment company that has long ago ceased to be dependent on any one revenue channel. Bodog will continue to monitor things as they unfold but is not expected to make any changes until our study is completed."

London newspapers already began reporting Sunday evening that 888.com, perhaps the most trafficked online casino operation, would be pulling out of the United States market, though it was unclear what percentage of their overall player base consisted of US citizens. Estimates suggest that nearly 80% of PartyGaming's (PartyPoker) customers originate from the United States. PartyPoker is the largest online poker site, several times larger than its next closest rival, PokerStars. Paradise Poker, once the largest, is ranked number 3 and belongs to Sportingbet.

PartyPoker's exit from the US market would ironically make the playing field much more competitive.

In the past, long established offshore gambling companies have found new and innovative ways to get around payment processing issues.

Once reliant almost exclusively on Western Union, offshore sportsbooks were dealt a blow when Western Union began restricting transfers to such establishments in 2000 as a result of political pressure, most evident in the state of Florida. While complying to requests from authorities in the US, there was still plenty of wiggle room afforded to offshore betting companies looking to utilize instant cash transactions.

PayPal, wrought with security issues and complaints from state consumer agencies, entered the online gambling industry in 2001 and quickly departed after legal action was taken against them by the state of New York. NETeller capitalized as a result of this exclusion.

Shares in online gambling companies that trade publicly on the London Stock Exchange were expected to drop substantially Monday. Many companies were expected to release statements during the morning in order to prevent a "blood bath".

The fall out is expected to be substantial but more established "old school" brands, specifically in the sports betting sector, are likely to fare much better than their rivals in the online casino and poker markets. Online casinos which rely almost exclusively on credit card and electronic funds transactions are likely to be devastated as casino players are least likely to find alternative methods of payment.

Another area of concern lies with the casino and poker affiliate community which will be hit hard by the exit of an 888.com, PartyPoker and PokerStars, or even one of these large poker sites. Though it is widely anticipated that others will eventually move in to fill the void. Revenue derived from US players would be cut off in the short term.

It is doubtful that poker sites wishing to take on US players will be shut off completely from doing so via money transfers. Despite efforts to already restrict credit card processing since 2000, much of which has been successful, dozens of banks continue to allow such transactions.

While there are ways around this law (just ask the porn and rifle industries), publicly traded internet gambling firms view US lawmakers actions as prohibition and "unattractive" to the investing community, which in essence would make shares in these companies virtually worthless.

The internet gambling prohibition, a "watered down" version of previous language that falls short of clarifying a 1961 "wire act" and applying that law to gambling on the web, passed through Congress as an attachment to a popular port security bill. While many in the House expressed anger with the online gambling measure appearing on this unrelated bill, the House felt the port bill had to pass.

President Bush is expected to sign the bill into law as early as this Wednesday.


hxxp://www.gambling911.com/Party-Gaming-Poker-Stars-100206.html

[Toddzilla]

I think now is the time for a big US-based casino to take the bold step of opening up an on-line casino. Bellagio.com for example. They can put one of thise stupid disclaimers on the front page - just like porn sites do - making you affirm that you are 18 years of age or older and live in a jurisdiction where gambling is permitted. Then, wait for the lawsuit and take it to court.

[Flasch186]

[insert sarcasm]

was it Republicans or democrats who tied this ammendment to a very important homeland security bill, thus risking it's success or failure on a silly anti-online poker ammendment?

[end sarcasm]

[albionmoonlight]

I think now is the time for a big US-based casino to take the bold step of opening up an on-line casino. Bellagio.com for example. They can put one of thise stupid disclaimers on the front page - just like porn sites do - making you affirm that you are 18 years of age or older and live in a jurisdiction where gambling is permitted. Then, wait for the lawsuit and take it to court.

Why would the Bellagio, which makes plenty of money as a good old fashioned brick and mortar casino thank you very much, take on the legal expense and hassle of challenging a law that does much more to hurt its small online-only competition than it does to hurt the Bellagio.

I might be wrong about this, but it seems to me that the Bellagio (and other successful B&M casino operations) is the entity who this law helps the most. Whatever it would lose by not being able to open bellagio.com, it gains by having an entire sector of its competition legislated into oblivion.

[GoldenEagle]

Yesterday, I woke up and was feeling hopeful. I thought I had nine more months to play poker and build up a nice nest egg. But, today's word that 888.com and Party Gaming are pulling out of the market is not a good sign.

There is some hope developing in the WTO front though. Smaller countries are filing against the US saying that these ruiling will damage their economy (which is the truth). It may be our only hope.

[GoldenEagle]

[insert sarcasm]

was it Republicans or democrats who tied this ammendment to a very important homeland security bill, thus risking it's success or failure on a silly anti-online poker ammendment?

[end sarcasm]

The Republicians may have introduced it, but the Democrats did nothing to stop it. There is plenty of blame to go around for everyone on this.

[bronconick]

Yesterday, I woke up and was feeling hopeful. I thought I had nine more months to play poker and build up a nice nest egg. But, today's word that 888.com and Party Gaming are pulling out of the market is not a good sign.

There is some hope developing in the WTO front though. Smaller countries are filing against the US saying that these ruiling will damage their economy (which is the truth). It may be our only hope.

That goes with a massive assumption that the US even notices rulings against it that come from the WTO. Just ask the Canadian lumber industry about that.

[Samdari]

Since this is so easy to sidestep (most banks have had policies against taking credit card transactions from gambling sites) I am surprised that the big companies are pulling out. One thing I am certain of though - with demand so high, there is sure to be someone willing to fill the demand.

[Flasch186]

The Republicians may have introduced it, but the Democrats did nothing to stop it. There is plenty of blame to go around for everyone on this.


"Look at how the Democrats stopped a bill to shore up the same Port Security they have been complaining about!! We told you the Dems. were against security!!"

GE - They attached it to this bill just for that rigth there. Politics w/ security? well just sprinkle in some "family values" that'll get 'em.


makes me sick.

[Toddzilla]

Hey, isn't online poker in the US already illegal?

[Bonegavel]

Hey, isn't online poker in the US already illegal?

ding ding ding

[Subby]

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2844/sideoz9.jpg

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Why would the Bellagio, which makes plenty of money as a good old fashioned brick and mortar casino thank you very much, take on the legal expense and hassle of challenging a law that does much more to hurt its small online-only competition than it does to hurt the Bellagio.

I might be wrong about this, but it seems to me that the Bellagio (and other successful B&M casino operations) is the entity who this law helps the most. Whatever it would lose by not being able to open bellagio.com, it gains by having an entire sector of its competition legislated into oblivion.

To be clear, the major U.S. casino companies all support online poker IF it is regulated. That would seem to be the best of both worlds. All companies come into the U.S. and are taxed accordingly. That's the way it should have been handled. Frist's amendment does nothing to fix the situation. It's pandering to the "religious/moral" voting block. I usually vote Republican and even I can see it for what it is.

[GoldenEagle]

"Look at how the Democrats stopped a bill to shore up the same Port Security they have been complaining about!! We told you the Dems. were against security!!"

GE - They attached it to this bill just for that rigth there. Politics w/ security? well just sprinkle in some "family values" that'll get 'em.


makes me sick.

I am just pissed off about it as you are, but to blame the Republicans 100% on this is nonsense.

The bottom line is that American dollars are flowing overseas and not being taxed. No real jobs were created from the industry. It can be a highly addictive. No politican was going to stick their neck out on this, civil liberties be damned.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Hey, isn't online poker in the US already illegal?

Actually, it is not by rule. The Wire Act does not specifically state that online gambling is illegal. It was originally put into place to stop bets on horses and sporting events. The government has always tried to say that online gambling was illegal because it went across phone lines even though the law did not apply. They knew that and also knew that if they tried to enforce it that way that they would have to do the same with horse racing and the lottery, which both take wagers/money online.

They have used this amendment to stop the flow of money to the casino/poker sites without actually trying to make the Wire Act apply to online gambling. It avoids the obvious double standard that would result in that crackdown if they left the lottery and horse racing online. Pretty cheap way of doing it. If they think that it should be illegal, they should write a law to stop it. They won't do that because they know it won't stick.

[panerd]

I am just pissed off about it as you are, but to blame the Republicans 100% on this is nonsense.

The bottom line is that American dollars are flowing overseas and not being taxed. No real jobs were created from the industry. It can be a highly addictive. No politican was going to stick their neck out on this, civil liberties be damned.

You were all up in arms about never voting Republican a few days ago, what caused you to start toeing the party line again?

[GoldenEagle]

You were all up in arms about never voting Republican a few days ago, what caused you to start toeing the party line again?

I am not toeing the line. I am still not going to vote for Republicans nor will I vote for Democrats. All I am saying is that to blame this entirely on Republicians is not considering all of the facts.

[panerd]

I am not sure how reliable gambling911 is as our only source for this. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens. I am thinking about getting some of my money out of party poker though before there is a mass exodus. I also just deposited money at bodog last night, that may have not been the best decision. But I really don't think any of this is going to have that big of an effect. When has the government's war on anything ever worked?

[KeyserSoze]

And if you have a account in a non american bank? You know, you open an account in the "Bank of Costa Rica" to make investments, and then...

[Capital]

This article has been pickup up by the AP and is all over Yahoo Finance.

[Mustang]

Guys.. Guys.. Guys..

What will happen is now that the foreign gambling sites are locked out, the government will now look at regulating and taxing the industry and using the resulting windfall for things such as health care and.. and.

umm..

Excuse me while I stop laughing...

At least the local Indian tribe is doing a $200 Million expansion complete with a separate building for poker. Hopefully they will do tournaments finally.

[Coder]

I'm just curious, what if American casinos could open up online gambling sites.. now, online is more or less automatically worldwide.. but would non-Americans be locked out from using these online gambling sites?

We're basically seeing a situation here now where Americans and the rest of the world won't ever be able to play poker against eachother on the net...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Looks like some of the sites are planning to remain open to U.S. customers. If some sites close, it could mean a huge financial windfall if players migrate to the other sites. Both Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet are remaining open to U.S. customers even if the law is signed into law. The wording of this support e-mail even looks like they may challenge that the wording of the funds transfer portion of the law does not even apply to them........


Dear XXXXX,

Thank you for contacting us.

We first want to assure you that UltimateBet’s games are still available and that you can continue to enjoy the site as you always have. UltimateBet has offered its poker room since 2001, and is not located in the United States. UltimateBet is not going away as a result of this legislation.

Here at UltimateBet.com the management of player funds is held to the highest standard of a public company. 100% of player funds are deposited in a segregated account, at a top tier bank, the Royal Bank of Scotland in the United Kingdom. You can be assured that your funds are completely safe and secure and that you are welcome to play with or withdraw your funds at anytime as usual.

The new law does not change the legality of playing online games. The law does not impact people who play games from their computers. Instead, the law focuses on the payment processing of unlawful Internet gaming.

Our strong belief is that poker is a game of skill and therefore is not encompassed by this law. As set forth in the user agreement, we furnish a gaming environment, and participants are eligible to access this environment for their enjoyment where legal to do so. We do not undertake to assess the legality of play in any particular case as our users may access us from around the world.

We hope you continue to enjoy playing at Ultimatebet.com

[Jas_lov]

Yes, here's an email I got from 2+2 that someone sent to Full Tilt.

Hello,

Thank you for your email expressing concerns about the bill which passed
in the US Congress on September 29th as an attachment to a Port Security
conference report.

Until we fully understand the bill?s ramifications, we cannot comment on
how this bill might ultimately impact the ease with which our customers
will be able to transfer funds to and from FullTiltPoker. However, you
should note that there is a 270-day period during which any new banking
regulations will get enacted. We do not expect any impact to your
playing experience before that time.

Please also note that the bill does not criminalize individuals who play
poker from their computers. Instead, the bill will eventually attempt to
prevent the transfer of funds to illegal gaming businesses. As poker is
a game of skill, we do not assume that it will be affected by this new
bill.

Full Tilt Poker is legally licensed and regulated to offer its services
to anyone around the world. Because of this, we find it impractical to
make definitive legal judgments as to the laws governing poker from
nation to nation or state to state. It is the responsibility of each
customer to determine which laws may be applicable in the location they
are playing from.

We are always here to answer your questions and we thank you for playing
at FullTiltPoker.

Regards,

Albert
Full Tilt Poker Support


So, basically what Ultimate Bet and Mizzou said. These sites may become the new Party and Stars as players flock to these already respected sites. Party and 888 are both publicly held, so they were expected to drop out of the U.S. market. I beleive Neteller also issued a statement today saying this bill didn't effect them and they would continue business as usual. I'll try to find that statement also.

[Jas_lov]

dola- here's the neteller statement


http://investors.neteller.com/neteller/upload/PressreleaseSafePortActFinal2oct067am.pdf


Basically a wait and see approach, but they're continuing business as usual. I've looked at 2+2 and a lot of the other sites say the same thing as Full Tilt and UB including Bodog, Absolute, and Pokerstars hasn't done anything yet that I can see.

Here's another interesting article from banks that is promising

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061002/internet_gambling_banks.html?.v=1

[Capital]

Do you think that the bill is really targeting online Casinos (slots, blackjack, etc) and Online Sportsbooks and not poker? They quoting the Game of Skill line of thought. That appears to be what the above letters are eluding.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Do you think that the bill is really targeting online Casinos (slots, blackjack, etc) and Online Sportsbooks and not poker? They quoting the Game of Skill line of thought. That appears to be what the above letters are eluding.

Part of Frist's argument for getting this in was stories about people going broke playing online poker. This bill definitely was meant to target poker as well.

[GoldenEagle]

Most people do not consider poker a game of skill.

[Icy]

Part of Frist's argument for getting this in was stories about people going broke playing online poker. This bill definitely was meant to target poker as well.

Pretty stupid, what about ppl who get broke because they buy an expensive car and house and then they realize they can't pay it? What about the lots of famillies who get broke investing in the stock market? What about ppl who eats a lot and then get so fat and end dying? Will the USA goberment then ban to eat too much?

And how is internet gambling more addicting than going to a real casino? you can get broke there pretty easy too if you are stupid enought. The problem is not that there are certains things that can get you broke, but that some ppl is as stupid that will always find a way get broke.

A goberment can't try to control it all and to tell their citizens what they must do evey minute of their lives. This will fail in the long term, you will see.

[sabotai]

What about ppl who eats a lot and then get so fat and end dying? Will the USA goberment then ban to eat too much?

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/02/america/NA_GEN_US_Trans_Fat_Ban.php

Maybe not banning eating too much, but food is next on the hit list.

[DeeBrownforPresident]

It's nice how as the UK moves towards legalizing and regulating online poker, we do this :(

[Mustang]

It's nice how as the UK moves towards legalizing and regulating online poker, we do this :(

That's because we are idiots.

Granted, the bill says bars transactions with online gambling sites. I don't have any accounts tied directly into any gambling site. They all go through Neteller so, unless the bill includes blocking financial transactions with sites that do financial transactions with gambling sites, I'm not sure what this really does. (My credit cards are blocked anyways so...)

I haven't seen anything about blocking ISPs to gambling sites, banning advertisements or blocking financial transactions with banks that do business..

Is this bill just one big - "Oh my god, look at us, it's election time and we are taking a stand!" which really doesn't amount to anything..

Now, if they would just actually concentrate time and energy in useful things like.. oh.. I don't know.. making sure your kids aren't gunned down when they go to school, Iraq and alternative energy sources..

But.. no.. we get Poker bans.

[panerd]

Is this bill just one big - "Oh my god, look at us, it's election time and we are taking a stand!" which really doesn't amount to anything..

Now, if they would just actually concentrate time and energy in useful things like.. oh.. I don't know.. making sure your kids aren't gunned down when they go to school, Iraq and alternative energy sources..

But.. no.. we get Poker bans.

The real cynic in me thinks that the Republicans thought that the Democrats would vote against the bill due to the amendment and then they could run more television ads about how they aren't tough on protecting the ports. But that is too transparent to possibly be true isn't it?

[cartman]

The real cynic in me thinks that the Republicans thought that the Democrats would vote against the bill due to the amendment and then they could run more television ads about how they aren't tough on protecting the ports. But that is too transparent to possibly be true isn't it?

Nope. It's also the reason why it will be almost impossible for a Senator from either party to be elected president. There are numerous votes each year where a completely unrelated item is attached to a major bill. If a Senator supports the major part of the bill, but can't stand the attachment, and votes no, it will be the major part of the bill that will be remembered and used against the Senator later on in a presidential campaign. This is why governors have a much easier path to the White House.

[sabotai]

There are numerous votes each year where a completely unrelated item is attached to a major bill. If a Senator supports the major part of the bill, but can't stand the attachment, and votes no, it will be the major part of the bill that will be remembered and used against the Senator later on in a presidential campaign.

And, if he bites the bullet and votes yes for it, they'll just use his "support" of the unrelated item against him as well. Especially if it's some kind of tax increase. "He voted to increase taxes!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!"

[Fighter of Foo]

I am just pissed off about it as you are, but to blame the Republicans 100% on this is nonsense.

The bottom line is that American dollars are flowing overseas and not being taxed. No real jobs were created from the industry. It can be a highly addictive. No politican was going to stick their neck out on this, civil liberties be damned.

I'm rightfully blaming Bill Frist in particular.

[Capital]

Did anyone receive any communication from Party Poker? I would have thought they would be one of the first. But I guess if they are leaving the U.S. market, which still seems almost unthinkable, why would they care.

I did log on last night and over 90K was playing. Word didn't seem to affect many players. Although I did cash most of my money...just in case.

[GoldenEagle]

No one knows what the hell Party Poker is doing right now.

[Vegas Vic]

All I am saying is that to blame this entirely on Republicians is not considering all of the facts.

The House Rebublicans are the ones who made this legislation a priority, and they rejected Democratic amendments to further study the issue.

The Senate Republicans (lead by Frist), made this a legislative priority. First, he tried tacking it onto the Defense Appropriations bill, but his efforts failed. Then, in a late night maneuver, he got it attached to the vital Port Security bill, knowing full well that anyone voting against it would be labeled "soft on terrorism."

You can believe what you want to, but if the Democrats were in control of congress, this legislation would never have come up for a vote.

[Jas_lov]

The biggest effect so far that I've seen is the Crypto sites blocking out all U.S. players from playing on their sites which includes Interpoker, Sun Poker, William Hill, and Littlewoods. I was playing at Inter and Sun for their monthly reload so that kinda sucks. If anyone had money in those sites they are going to send a check for all account balances in the next 3-4 weeks. I knew I should have withdrew it, but I didn't think they'd completely shut out U.S. players. Pokerstars, UB, FT, and anything else not a Crypto site seem to be ok for now anyway.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Here's the latest list that I've been able to put together thus far. It would appear to me that Ultimate Bet could come out a big winner in this deal if they remain open to US customers.

Banned
- Party Poker (once the bill is signed)
- 888 (Pacific Poker)
- All sites on the Cryptologic network (William Hill, Inter, PokerPlex, Sun, Littlewoods)
- Dream Poker (some states)
- Already existing bans (Victor Chandler, Ladbrokes, WPTOnline, Everest)
- B2B network (Martin's, Wasa, 24h, Expekt)
- BetFred
- CPays casinos (All Playtech casinos might be following soon, by Friday. Including iPoker network (Titan/Noble)


Undecided
- Pokerroom & ongame network
- PokerStars
- Prima/Microgaming network
- other networks (pokerhost,gamesgrid,Action, Tribeca)
- Paradise/Sporting bet



Will Allow
- WSEX
- True Poker
- UB
- Absolute
- Bodog
- Poker.com
- Full Tilt

[GoldenEagle]

You can believe what you want to, but if the Democrats were in control of congress, this legislation would never have come up for a vote.

I agree with that 110%. But the Dems still voted for the bill and allowed it to be attached for a softer port saftey rules and for allowing bets to be made on horse racing.

Anyway, I am feeling pretty good about everything today. I think it will all be regulated and taxed eventually. Once the B&M casinos decide they want to pursue the online world, it will be legal.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I agree with that 110%. But the Dems still voted for the bill and allowed it to be attached for a softer port saftey rules and for allowing bets to be made on horse racing.

Anyway, I am feeling pretty good about everything today. I think it will all be regulated and taxed eventually. Once the B&M casinos decide they want to pursue the online world, it will be legal.

Just to be clear, most of the U.S. B&M casinos already HAVE pursued the online world. There has been more than one B&M casino that has already pursued and even setup a mockup site for online poker just to see how things would look (obviously, it wasn't actually implemented because of the current laws). The casinos actually want online gaming because they know it increases interest and draws more people in. They are ready to jump into the market very quickly if they can find a way to get regulation and get the servers in the U.S.

[Subby]

This thread has nothing on the great threads that came before it...

The Beginning of the Death of Drinking Alcohol in the US

The Beginning of the Death of Prostitution in the US

The Beginning of the Death of Getting High in the US

I am sure there are others.

[Toddzilla]

The Beginning of the Death of Civil Liberties in the US

[PSUColonel]

What will happen to Sportsbook.com? anyone know?

[PSUColonel]

I better damn well be able to bet on football and basketball online the way I always have. I will really be pissed, as I hate dealing with bookies because they screw with the odds so badly, and aren't reliable in terms of being around to take bets when you want. I will be really really pissed if this affects sportsbooks.

[Logan]

I better damn well be able to bet on football and basketball online the way I always have. I will really be pissed, as I hate dealing with bookies because they screw with the odds so badly, and aren't reliable in terms of being around to take bets when you want. I will be really really pissed if this affects sportsbooks.

Serious question...aren't sportsbooks (besides those located in Las Vegas) illegal?

[-apoc-]

I better damn well be able to bet on football and basketball online the way I always have. I will really be pissed, as I hate dealing with bookies because they screw with the odds so badly, and aren't reliable in terms of being around to take bets when you want. I will be really really pissed if this affects sportsbooks.

WSEX already stated they will continue to do business with US customers so that is one sportsbook you can use I don't know about the others.

[PSUColonel]

WSEX already stated they will continue to do business with US customers so that is one sportsbook you can use I don't know about the others.

Yes, but will my bank (Wachovia) do business with them? I don't see what the big deal is. I'm using a debit card (hence cash) and not running up a credit bill. What the hell is this shit?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Yes, but will my bank (Wachovia) do business with them? I don't see what the big deal is. I'm using a debit card (hence cash) and not running up a credit bill. What the hell is this shit?

Many of the banks in the US appear to be balking at even enforcing these rules simply for the fact that it's going to cost them a lot of money to set up any kind of enforcement of the rules. You'll have to keep an eye on it, but it appears initially that this isn't going to make as big of an impact as initially feared.

[primelord]

Serious question...aren't sportsbooks (besides those located in Las Vegas) illegal?

It depends who you ask and what their interpretation of the law is. Most people believe that if a law is being broken by making sports bets online it is the Wire Act. The people who feel that it is legal say that it is only illegal to accept a bet online. Not to place one. So you making a sports bet is not illegal, but the site accepting it is breaking a US law.

There are others that say these type of bets fall under state laws and unlike poker, which in many states laws falls into a pretty gray area, sports betting is almost always clearly defined as illegal. I believe that there has only been one guy ever successfully prosecuted for sports betting online. That was a few years ago though and it's possibly more have been since.

[Z²+]

Well, this thread has made up my mind for the topic of my research paper in my Law & Economics seminar. In my search for sources, I even found that there is a journal called the Gaming Law Review. If I'm going to spend the semester researching and writing, I might was well pick a topic that I'm interested in.

Coming up with a thesis was the most difficult part, but my preliminary argument is that prohibiting (or attempting to prohibit) online poker in the US is a futile effort, in that players will keep finding alternate ways to play, and that the US should legalize (and thereby regulate) the online poker industry as the UK does. (also, possibly trying to tie in an analogy to the evolution of music downloading - at first illegal but unenforced, followed by alternate sources as enforcement stepped up, ultimately ending with the legalization of licensed (regulated) music downloads from the record labels (much like a BnM casino opening an online poker room).

Just seeing all that in writing was simply my way of helping to put it into a somewhat coherent format. But at least I'll enjoy my topic.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Well, this thread has made up my mind for the topic of my research paper in my Law & Economics seminar. In my search for sources, I even found that there is a journal called the Gaming Law Review. If I'm going to spend the semester researching and writing, I might was well pick a topic that I'm interested in.

Coming up with a thesis was the most difficult part, but my preliminary argument is that prohibiting (or attempting to prohibit) online poker in the US is a futile effort, in that players will keep finding alternate ways to play, and that the US should legalize (and thereby regulate) the online poker industry as the UK does. (also, possibly trying to tie in an analogy to the evolution of music downloading - at first illegal but unenforced, followed by alternate sources as enforcement stepped up, ultimately ending with the legalization of licensed (regulated) music downloads from the record labels (much like a BnM casino opening an online poker room).

Just seeing all that in writing was simply my way of helping to put it into a somewhat coherent format. But at least I'll enjoy my topic.


That would be interesting to read. If you get a chance, update us with some of your findings once you get a good grip on the material through research.

[Jas_lov]

Yes, please update us Z. I took Law and Economics last semester and I wish we could have picked our topic to write on, but the professor limited it to The Death Penalty or Legalizing Marijuana. I would have rather been able to choose and done a topic like this one. There are so many economic implications to this including increased costs to banks which mizzou mentioned earlier and the point about downloading music and movies is interesting because people are still doing it for free which just proves your point that this is a futile effort. I have a feeling this bill won't end up amounting to much as the non public poker sites and the banks will do everything they can to prevent it. Publicly held sites like Party and 888 want the public to know they aren't breaking the law so that's why they pulled out.

[albionmoonlight]

Well, this thread has made up my mind for the topic of my research paper in my Law & Economics seminar. In my search for sources, I even found that there is a journal called the Gaming Law Review. If I'm going to spend the semester researching and writing, I might was well pick a topic that I'm interested in.

Coming up with a thesis was the most difficult part, but my preliminary argument is that prohibiting (or attempting to prohibit) online poker in the US is a futile effort, in that players will keep finding alternate ways to play, and that the US should legalize (and thereby regulate) the online poker industry as the UK does. (also, possibly trying to tie in an analogy to the evolution of music downloading - at first illegal but unenforced, followed by alternate sources as enforcement stepped up, ultimately ending with the legalization of licensed (regulated) music downloads from the record labels (much like a BnM casino opening an online poker room).

Just seeing all that in writing was simply my way of helping to put it into a somewhat coherent format. But at least I'll enjoy my topic.

The first critique that jumps out at me is that your thesis may prove too much. If the fact that people will find ways to engage in a certain illegal behavior means that we should legalize the behavior--then what is the point of having criminal laws at all?

I think that this is a critique that you can overcome, especially if you come at the topic from a law and economics perspective. You will, however, need to address that concern.

Sounds like a crazy-cool topic. Good luck.

[stevew]

Dear steve,

Due to the recent passing of the Unlawful Gambling Enforcement Act by the United States Senate on September 30, 2006, and its imminent enactment as federal law, we will no longer allow real money gaming activities from United States residents.

We regret to inform you that, consequently, we are closing your gaming account at Titan Poker.

Your balance is available to you. You may access your account and request the withdrawal of such balance, subject to any conditions that might apply, including bonuses received.

We appreciate your patronage, and apologize for any inconvenience caused. We hope to be able to offer to you our services again in the future.

Robin Steele
Manager
Titan Poker
"Become a Legend at Titan Poker"
hxxp://www.titanpoker.com

First such notice that i've received.

[Pumpy Tudors]

First such notice that i've received.
I didn't even know that you played poker.

[stevew]

I didn't even know that you played poker.

Not well.....anyways.

Basically I got some free money out of one of those party affiliates, and played on that for awhile(eventually had to withdraw most of that to pay some bills :( ). And then periodically they would send me another 40 bucks almost every month, and i'd play off of that until I could clear it and withdraw it.

I never played for cash at titan poker, just freerolls a few times.

[Logan]

It depends who you ask and what their interpretation of the law is. Most people believe that if a law is being broken by making sports bets online it is the Wire Act. The people who feel that it is legal say that it is only illegal to accept a bet online. Not to place one. So you making a sports bet is not illegal, but the site accepting it is breaking a US law.

There are others that say these type of bets fall under state laws and unlike poker, which in many states laws falls into a pretty gray area, sports betting is almost always clearly defined as illegal. I believe that there has only been one guy ever successfully prosecuted for sports betting online. That was a few years ago though and it's possibly more have been since.

Thanks for the explanation. My first thought is if there's any way to bend or twist a law to make it illegal, its illegal, and everyone is screwed.

Now, how does everything tie in to the "illegal to accept bets, not place them" when the person placing them isn't of legal age to gamble in their country (like I did a few years back)?

[Flasch186]

SUBJECT: New FirePay policy for US account holders

On September 30, 2006, the United States Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

Once President Bush approves the Act. FirePay (www.firepay.com) will no longer allow US consumer payments for online gambling merchants.

* Beginning the day President Bush signs the Act, FirePay will decline any purchase transactions from US FirePay account holders at any gambling merchant site.
* Ten days after President Bush signs the Act, FirePay will decline any transfer attempt made by any online gambling merchant to a US FirePay account.

All US FirePay accounts holders will continue to be able to make purchases and receive payments from non-gambling, online merchants, as well as “Deposit From” and “Withdraw To” their US bank account.

Click here for the latest news and opportunities for FirePay account holders.

** Please note:

1. This new policy will not affect FirePay account holders from outside of the United States

2. For any questions regarding these deadlines or policy, please email [email protected]


Sincerely,
FirePay
[email protected]

[Subby]

Firepay sucked anyway.

[Logan]

Firepay sucked anyway.

Is it crazy to think the other sites (Netteller, etc) will follow their lead?

[k0ruptr]

I've had about 4 emails from different sites stating closure of my account, luckily I got my money out of 90% of sites 4 months ago

[primelord]

Is it crazy to think the other sites (Netteller, etc) will follow their lead?

Is it crazy to think that? No.

However Firepay is in a little different situation than Neteller is. Firepay is a U.S. based company. It is far more difficult for them to ignore this than Neteller. I'd imagine if Neteller is going to pull the plug we will know within the next couple of days. Bush is signing the bill on Friday.

Some people were reporting that Neteller's inital reaction was that they are a non-U.S. based company making deposits into other non-U.S. based companies so this bill really can't apply to them. Whether that is accurate or not I don't know. I will say they voluntarily stopped allowing Maryland residents to open accounts, so it isn't like there isn't any history of them bowing to U.S. law makers before. This obviously will have a much larger affect on their bottom line though so I would imagine they are much more likely to fight now.

[Logan]

Thanks for the details.

[cartman]

Firepay is a U.S. based company.

Nope, FirePay is a plc (public limited company) that is on the London Stock Exchange.

[primelord]

Nope, FirePay is a plc (public limited company) that is on the London Stock Exchange.

I stand corrected.

In a bit of good news, both Neteller and Poker Stars announced today that they will be staying in the U.S. Market.

[Simms]

Stars' official statement, fwiw: hxxp://www.pokerstars.com/legislation/uigea/


Also, here's an interesting article from the LV Review-Journal I found this morning: hxxp://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/687079/internet_gambling_ban/index.html?source=r_technology


Key passages:

The costly, irresistible temptation of playing games of chance on personal computers has been eradicated. Right?

Wrong. Not only did Sen. Frist have to lard up the ports bill to win passage for his pet project, he included enough exemptions to rival the IRS tax code.



It also allows state-licensed casinos, once authorized within their jurisdiction, to construct Web sites with online poker and casino-style gaming. And these casinos would be allowed to provide links to other states and countries where gambling is legal.

This Internet gambling "ban" is nothing close to a ban at all...



"The casino lobbyists in Washington, D.C., thought this was a pretty good deal. It's actually better than that," Mr. Cabot said.

[cartman]

I stand corrected.

In a bit of good news, both Neteller and Poker Stars announced today that they will be staying in the U.S. Market.

Looks like I need to pull my $$$ out of Firepay and move it to Neteller. I need to dig up my Italian bank account info to move the money... :)

[stevew]

What about ISP's blocking the sites? Isn't that part of this legislation, or am I misinformed about that part.

Maybe Dubbya will forget to sign this on Friday, and it will get pocket vetoed.

:)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

What about ISP's blocking the sites? Isn't that part of this legislation, or am I misinformed about that part.

Maybe Dubbya will forget to sign this on Friday, and it will get pocket vetoed.

:)

It's much like the banking portion. They would like to force the internet companies to block some of the sites. But the logistics of it are complicated to the point that blocking those sites is next to impossible. It's simply not going to happen. This is more and more looking like a political thing than a bill with any actual teeth in it.

[primelord]

http://investors.neteller.com/neteller/upload/Pressreleaseupdate19oct06Final.pdf

Very unfortunate news. Neteller is pulling out afterall. For the time being they say it is business as usual. Within the 270 day period though it appears the plan is to cutoff deposits for all U.S. based players. Players will always be able to cash out.

This certainly doesn't have to mean the end of things. Another company can step up and fill the void. Still this is not good news.

[twothree]

I wonder if this will reduce the overall field of players in the World Series of Poker next year? Or, will the internet qualifiers come mostly from outside the U.S. next year?

[primelord]

I wonder if this will reduce the overall field of players in the World Series of Poker next year? Or, will the internet qualifiers come mostly from outside the U.S. next year?

Well there is news on that front as well. Apparently the WSOP is not going to be accepting internet qualifiers next year. An online site will not be able to buy you into the event next year. Now they can certainly just run satellites that give you enough money to buy yourself in, but supposedly history shows that when you give a player the cash rather than buy their seat they almost always just keep the cash.

I'd imagine the main event field will still be large next year, but probably a good ways dwon from the 8000+ this year.

[Subby]

Is Party still planning on pulling out of the US?

[primelord]

Is Party still planning on pulling out of the US?

They already have. You can still log in to Party to cash out (and join play money tables if you want to :)), but it no longer will allow U.S. residents to sit at a real money table.

[DeeBrownforPresident]

Check out http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/article/3356, there are alternatives currently available to neteller (I know mycitidel is still running, they advertise on pocketfives.com), and I'm sure more will be coming onto the scene.

[Flasch186]

anything new on this? Should we continue to take our laptops into our closets to play with the lights off hoping the feds dont come a barging in?

[Z²+]

anything new on this? Should we continue to take our laptops into our closets to play with the lights off hoping the feds dont come a barging in?

Well, after a month of research and two drafts of my seminar paper, my answer would be that you should feel free to play in your living room with your windows open and a sign over your door saying "Online Poker Played Here!"

The Supreme Court has already ruled that the Wire Act does not apply to online poker, so the Justice Department can make all the unfounded, outragious claims they like about the illegality of online poker -- until Congress actually passes legislation that explicity mentions online poker, they really can't barge in and arrest private players.

And since the UIGEA has language that only affects financial transactions that deal with "unlawful internet gambling" -- without giving this term a definition -- and since the Supreme Court has already ruled that online poker is not illegal under the Wire Act -- it can be argued that this legislation has absolutely no effect on online poker. At least, that's my argument in the first half of my paper -- the other half deals with all the confusion & ambiguity currently associated with the industry, and why/how it should be legalized and regulated.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_law/index

For anyone who is still interested (or for anyone who simply just doesn't want to trust a lowly 3L), the following website -- particulary the article archive from the past 2 to 3 months -- is an invaluable resource, in addition to an entertaining read.

Nothing above should be construed in any manner as actual legal advice, and the author is not holding himself out as a provider of legal services.

[panerd]

While I have no fear about ever getting arrested for playing $1/$2 online poker on my computer I wonder about the WSOP. Granted I don't follow poker that closely so maybe this has been discussed at length, but how are they going to handle American players being sent from the major poker sites? This seems like the ultimate pissing contest between Poker Stars and the Justice Department. While the government probably doesn't care all that much about online poker it will be hard for them to not do anything while the poker sites are showing how they fell about the new law on national TV.

[Simms]

While I have no fear about ever getting arrested for playing $1/$2 online poker on my computer I wonder about the WSOP. Granted I don't follow poker that closely so maybe this has been discussed at length, but how are they going to handle American players being sent from the major poker sites? This seems like the ultimate pissing contest between Poker Stars and the Justice Department. While the government probably doesn't care all that much about online poker it will be hard for them to not do anything while the poker sites are showing how they fell about the new law on national TV.

Harrah's announced a month or so ago that they won't be accepting any online sattelites for 2007 -- direct buy-in only.

There is some assumption that the bigger sites will eventually find a loophole to exploit somewhere, but aside from just giving winners the $12k and hoping they actually spend it on an entry, it's hard to say how, exactly.

[Flasch186]

looks like neteller stopped servicing the US today....glad this was attached to the Port security bill. Ill also be glad when earmarks have to be disclosed but I digress.

[McSweeny]

bah

so now how do i go about getting money into and out of poker stars?

[Z²+]

bah

so now how do i go about getting money into and out of poker stars?

It appears now that eChecks are the most viable option. Does anyone have any experience using eChecks on Pokerstars or online sportsbooks? Can your financial institutions block these transactions, like credit card companies can?

[Z²+]

On a side note, not that anyone is interested, but this topic and my "extensive" research netted me an A- on my seminar research paper. I'd submit it to the law review, but I since I'm protesting their elitist snobbery, they don't get to read it. Feel my wrath.


And by "extensive" research, I clearly mean the minimum amount that was required to support my thesis the night before the final draft was due ;)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

One Neteller founder (from Vancouver) just got arrested in Malibu by the feds. He sold his shares in Fall 2005 for 123 million and is now facing 20 years in the pokie. The other founder was just arrested in the US Virgin Islands.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=07c327e5-3aa6-4794-b600-617b347ade24&k=94082

[Lathum]

It appears now that eChecks are the most viable option. Does anyone have any experience using eChecks on Pokerstars or online sportsbooks? Can your financial institutions block these transactions, like credit card companies can?

I used echeck on pokerstars a while ago with no problem but when I tried tonight I gat a message telling me to contact support. I am awaiting their reply to my email and I'll let you know what happens

[sooner333]

eChecks might not work too well, I believe the main company that performed these transactions, Citadel, shut its doors to the U.S. as well.

I have read that one sportsbook (bet jamaica) has started their own debit card system to get around this, though I have no idea how it works.

[Jas_lov]

Never used an echeck before, but from what i'm reading it appears to be easy to use. The poker sites that stayed around must have figured neteller would be targeted and had other options in mind. I've really been cashing in at UB with their initial 100% deposit bonus plus their UB points to cash and now they have a 100% reload bonus up to $650 using one of their other methods to deposit so that's worth checking out. Also, Citadel pulled out of the U.S. market as well if anyone used them. I just used my debit card to deposit into UB so that's still an option as well if your bank allows it.

I'm more angry that Pinnacle pulled out of the U.S. market because I thought they were the best sportsbook out there. I might try Bodog or mansion. Anyone used these sites for sportsbetting and know if they have decent lines?

[Subby]

There was an interesting discussion on the Czaban show this morning that this bill will actually help stimulate organized crime...sportsbooks like Pinnacle closing up shop will lead to folks falling back on their mobbed-up corner bookie again...

[QuikSand]

A couple of the guys I know who make book have indicated as much to me -- in the last few months, they have had former regulars re-appear on their books and re-open "accounts," after being away for two to five years. Business is booming for the good old fashioned "Hey, Ricky, gimme a hundred on the Packers" school of sports wagering, it seems.

[Flasch186]

how are the ports though?

[CleBrownsfan]

hxxp://www.pocketfives.com/96A9211C-39F7-40B7-B787-15FDB5B5E918.aspx

As many of you know, the founders of Neteller were arrested early Monday morning. After gathering information from several credible sources today, including Citadel Commerce, the Poker Players Alliances, and other media contacts, we can safely say that the following facts about the events are TRUE:

1. Stephen Lawrence was arrested in the U.S. Virgin Islands. He resides on Paradise Island in The Bahamas, not property of the U.S. John Lefebvre was arrested in Malibu, California.

2. The charges, as stated, were money laundering to illegal gambling websites and RICO, which stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations. The latter was language used to arrest many mob members throughout history. It also includes drug trafficking and other violations.

3. The investigation had been ongoing since at least June of 2006 and evidence cited in the case goes back to the company's inception in 1999. The company started transactions with "gambling" sites in 2000.

4. The official citation states two instances where the FBI Agent in question wagered on NFL games. He used Neteller to deposit onto a sports wagering site, which was not named. This violates the Wire Act of 1961. The third violation does not list specific merchants, but an FBI Agent deposited onto three separate online, offshore merchants, described as "online gambling businesses." The NFL wagers amounted to $250 or less and the aforementioned deposits were all exactly $25.

5. The Board of Directors of Neteller has strongly urged that the company's shares, which are traded on the London Stock Exchange under the symbol "AIM," be suspended from trading. The value of these shares has plummeted recently.

6. Neither man has any current position within Neteller except for ownership rights. One left in December, 2005 and the other left in October, 2006. Both were the founders of the company.

7. I spoke directly with Neteller today and received the following wording: "From time to time, NETELLER revises the policies of our products and services. At the end of 2006, NETELLER began reviewing the instaCASH payment option, which resulted in the decision to retire this product from the US, effective January 16, 2007. As such, instaCASH is no longer available to US members. If you have any further questions, please visit http://updates.neteller.com."

8. Neteller is monitoring the U.S. situation closely, as can be expected. They stated "We have several deposit options available: 1. Online Check (EFT) - Money in your NETELLER account at no charge available in 4-5 business days. 2. Credit Card - Instantly fund your account for a fee of 3.9% 3. Bank Wire - Can be initiated from any bank worldwide. you must personally go into your local bank with the appropriate bank wire information to initiate a bank wire deposit to your NETELLER account."

9. Neteller assured me that all withdraw functions will remain as normal and continue without interruption for U.S. customers.

10. The complete case against Lawrence can be found here:
hxxp://www.casinocitytimes.com/news/article.cfm?contentID=163591

11. The complete case against Lefebvre can be found here:
hxxp://www.casinocitytimes.com/news/article.cfm?contentID=163594

12. The only information that has officially been released from Neteller is a press release. It can be found here:
hxxp://www.neteller-group.com/press/en/122.htm

13. An Associated Press article by Larry Neumeister stated, "Lefebvre and Lawrence also conceded in the company's offering documents that they were risking prosecution by the U.S. government, he said. Prosecutors said Neteller in 2005 alone processed more than $7.3 billion in financial transactions, 95 percent of which was derived from money transfers involving Internet gambling. Lawrence and Lefebvre were charged with conspiring to transfer funds with the intent to promote illegal gambling, and could face up to 20 years in prison if convicted."

14. According to Neteller's website, the actions taken today will not affect international users of Neteller, including withdraw options and InstaCash.

15. Neteller has not left the U.S. market. InstaCash is simply disabled for American users of the virtual wallet. The deposit methods available are given in #8 above. While a pullout from the U.S. market is one of the many possibilities that exist, it has not yet happened.

16. The charges were filed in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District in New York.

17. A U.S. Department of Justice statement released Tuesday concerning the arrest. It states, "LAWRENCE and LEFEBVRE are both charged with conspiring to transfer funds with the intent to promote illegal gambling. If convicted, both defendants face a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment."

18. The same Justice Department statement clarifies why the two were arrested and provides a link to several other arrests made: "This prosecution is part of the United States Departmentof Justice’s effort to combat unlawful internet gambling through, among other things, the implementation of the federal anti-money laundering statutes. Other recent examples of the Justice Department’s efforts in this regard include the indictments of two offshore internet gambling companies – Worldwide Telesports, Inc.,(indictment unsealed on May 17, 2006 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia) and BetonSports, PLC, apublicly traded holding company that owns a number of Internet sportsbooks and casinos, and its founder, Gary Stephen Kaplan (indictment unsealed July 17, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri). Additionally, in July 2003, one of Neteller’s competitors, PayPal, and its parent eBay, entered into a civil settlement agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Missouri to settle allegations it aided in illegal offshore and on-line gambling activities. As part of the agreement, PayPal agreed to forfeit $10 million, representing proceeds derived by PayPal from the processing of illegal gambling transactions."

19. Borth Lawrence and Lefebvre are Canadian citizens and were arrested independently on Monday.

20. Reports from the Associated Press on Wednesday, January 17, 2007, state that bail would be set for Lawrence on Thursday and was expected to be $5 million. Unconfirmed reports state that Lefebvre posted $5 million bail in a Los Angeles courtroom earlier today.

21. Word came from the online poker sites themselves regarding their policies for the short term regarding Neteller: Bodog disallowed all transactions involving Neteller for U.S. Neteller accounts. UB, PokerStars, and FullTilt are continuing to accept payments from Neteller as usual, just not InstaCash options for U.S. Neteller accounts. More information on this as it becomes available. CardPlayer has an excellent article about it that can be found here:
hxxp://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/article/8122

22. As of Wednesday, January 17, 2007, Neteller is no longer accepting payments from U.S. accounts to online poker or online gaming websites. For more information, including a complete Q&A, please click here. You will still be able to use Neteller for non-gambling transactions and peer-to-peer transfers as normal. Non-U.S. residents are not affected by this move and will be able to use Neteller as normal.

23. As of Wednesday, January 17, 2007, Citadel Commerce (myCitadel Wallet) is no longer accepting payments from U.S. accounts to online poker or online gaming websites. You will still be able to use Citadel Commerce for non-gambling related purchases. Non-U.S. residents are not affected by this move and will be able to use Citadel Commerce as normal. A link to Citadel's complete press release can be found by clicking here. I e-mailed the CFO of Citadel Commerce, who e-mailed back and said they had no further comment at this time other than what was in the press release. I know of no arrests or legal action taken against the company.

We will be adding credible information to this post as that information comes in and is verified by the staff of PocketFives.com.

[GoldenEagle]

I have a feeling in the back of my mind that this is all being orchestrated by Brick and Mortar casinos. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. B&M casinos have the cash to bribe politicians and the justice department to make these arrests. The B&M casinos are trying to cut-off as many online poker rooms as possible. Getting rid of Neteller accomplishes two things for them: 1) It hurts the business of the existing poker room, thus cutting off and further alienating its customer base, 2) It means that when B&M casinos do enter into the online market, they will not have to pay the expensive fees that Neteller has.

There is little doubt in my mind that online poker will be taxed, regulated, etc. on of these days. It is just going to be dominated by B&M casinos which will result in:

1. Higher rake, probably upwards to $5-6 a hand.
2. No more bonuses
3. No rakeback

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Getting rid of Neteller accomplishes two things for them: 1) It hurts the business of the existing poker room, thus cutting off and further alienating its customer base, 2) It means that when B&M casinos do enter into the online market, they will not have to pay the expensive fees that Neteller has.

Not true at all.

1) B&M have openly been critical of the law that Frist created. They don't believe that it's the proper way to deal with the situation and believe that government regulation and oversight allowing it in the US is the best way to handle things. The law as it currently stands reduces the amount of exposure for the game and the customers that come in as a result of that exposure until the industry reaches the point where US based poker sites become available.

2) Neteller fees have no bearing on the American market. Neteller would not be the primary funding broker if online sites were based in the US. It's only used because it was an easy way to get your funds into overseas poker sites or sports betting sites. If poker sites became regulated and based in the US, deposits would be as simple as your credit card, an electronic funds transfer from your bank account, or an online transfer site such as PayPal.

[Lathum]

I have a feeling in the back of my mind that this is all being orchestrated by Brick and Mortar casinos. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. B&M casinos have the cash to bribe politicians and the justice department to make these arrests. The B&M casinos are trying to cut-off as many online poker rooms as possible. Getting rid of Neteller accomplishes two things for them: 1) It hurts the business of the existing poker room, thus cutting off and further alienating its customer base, 2) It means that when B&M casinos do enter into the online market, they will not have to pay the expensive fees that Neteller has.

There is little doubt in my mind that online poker will be taxed, regulated, etc. on of these days. It is just going to be dominated by B&M casinos which will result in:

1. Higher rake, probably upwards to $5-6 a hand.
2. No more bonuses
3. No rakeback


I would be very surprised by this. The online poker boom has helped B n M poker rooms immensly and cntinues to be a gateway for more people to start playing.

[Lathum]

From pokerstars support regarding ECheck

Hello xxxxx

Due to recent events, effective immediately, Pstar Payments is no longer
processing E-Check transactions for U.S. players, including deposits of any
sort. Your $25 deposit will be returned to your bank account in the very
near future.

As an alternate method of depositing due to the problems with NETeller, we
are happy to reccomend that our US customers condider using ePassporte.

ePassporte is a Virtual Visa account that can be used online to
transfer funds to PokerStars as well as any other site that accepts
ePassporte transactions.

To use ePassporte, you need to visit www.epassporte.com and sign up for
an ePassporte account. Just select the 'Virtual Visa' option on the
ePassporte site to get started.

Once you've filled in your personal information, you may select the
method you'd like to use to transfer funds into your ePassporte
account. These methods include Visa, MasterCard, US bank accounts and
European bank transfers.

If you select Visa or MasterCard, a small pending charge will be sent
to your credit card to verify your Visa or MasterCard. This pending
charge will be added a few moments after you submit your request to
load your ePassporte account.

You can then call your credit card company or sign onto your bank's web
site to locate the amount of this pending charge. This pending charge
will disappear within a few days.

Once you have the amount of the pending charge, return to ePassporte's
site and use this amount to verify your credit card. Once you've done
this, your ePassporte account will then be funded and you can now
transfer these funds to your PokerStars account.

To make an ePassporte deposit at PokerStars, just visit our Cashier and
choose the ePassporte deposit method. Once you submit the amount you'd
like to transfer to PokerStars, you'll be taken to the ePassporte web
site where you just login and confirm the transaction. The funds will
be transferred to PokerStars immediately.

For information on any of our other deposit methods, please visit
http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/real-money/

Please remember that your funds remain safe at PokerStars. All player
funds are kept in a segregated account in a major European bank, and are
accessible to you at any time.

If there is anything else we can help you with, please email us again
any time.

Regards,

Sam E
PokerStars Support Team

[GoldenEagle]

1) B&M have openly been critical of the law that Frist created. They don't believe that it's the proper way to deal with the situation and believe that government regulation and oversight allowing it in the US is the best way to handle things. The law as it currently stands reduces the amount of exposure for the game and the customers that come in as a result of that exposure until the industry reaches the point where US based poker sites become available.

Most have the stances that I have seen have been neutral. Of course they are not going to come out and openly criticize a policy that they want to partake in down the road. However, Harrah's Casino made a significant contribution to Bill Frist's political campaign.


2) Neteller fees have no bearing on the American market. Neteller would not be the primary funding broker if online sites were based in the US. It's only used because it was an easy way to get your funds into overseas poker sites or sports betting sites. If poker sites became regulated and based in the US, deposits would be as simple as your credit card, an electronic funds transfer from your bank account, or an online transfer site such as PayPal.

US customers like and trust Neteller. they would ask for casinos to accept it if and when online gambling becomes regulated. Casinos, on the other hand, would prefer to use their own money transferring service, and probably charge a fee to boot.

[GoldenEagle]

I would be very surprised by this. The online poker boom has helped B n M poker rooms immensly and cntinues to be a gateway for more people to start playing.

That is true, but the see the money that online sites are raking in. There is stance is why are we letting foreign companies take in all that cash and we are not getting any piece of it? Did you see where Harrah's is no longer allowing third-party registration for the WSOP?

[Lathum]

The Harrah's thing seems more a by product of having to many people for the event. I have been playing poker in B n M casino's for 14 years including alot in Atlantic City and I can say without a doubt the boom in the industry times perfectly with the internet poker boom. Anything that brings in more customers is good for the casinos so why would they want to close them down?? They may get more of the existing customers in the short term but long term it would be a horrible descion for the overall growth of the industry.

[Lathum]

dola ePassporte seems much like neteller, I have to wait for them to make that stupid deposit into my account before I can deposit. grrrrrr.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Most have the stances that I have seen have been neutral. Of course they are not going to come out and openly criticize a policy that they want to partake in down the road. However, Harrah's Casino made a significant contribution to Bill Frist's political campaign.

US customers like and trust Neteller. they would ask for casinos to accept it if and when online gambling becomes regulated. Casinos, on the other hand, would prefer to use their own money transferring service, and probably charge a fee to boot.

As far as the political contribution, I wouldn't read too much into that. Harrah's and the rest of the casinos are lining most of the politicians pockets on both side of the aisle. They can't afford to lobby to just one side or the other.

Most trust Neteller because it was their best option of what was available. If/when the sites become US based, I'd switch to credit card or Paypal in a flash. I'd rather use a US-based paying system over a foreign-based system anyday.

[GoldenEagle]

The Harrah's thing seems more a by product of having to many people for the event. I have been playing poker in B n M casino's for 14 years including alot in Atlantic City and I can say without a doubt the boom in the industry times perfectly with the internet poker boom. Anything that brings in more customers is good for the casinos so why would they want to close them down?? They may get more of the existing customers in the short term but long term it would be a horrible descion for the overall growth of the industry.

My opinion is that are not attempting to shutdown online poker rooms because they want everyone to come to the B&M and play. My opinion is that they want to shutdown online poker rooms so that they can open up their own online casinos. In order to do that, they must slowly choke out the existing ones.

[GoldenEagle]

Most trust Neteller because it was their best option of what was available. If/when the sites become US based, I'd switch to credit card or Paypal in a flash. I'd rather use a US-based paying system over a foreign-based system anyday.

I liked using Netleller because of the ease of moving money and in and out of poker sites for the purposes of bonuses.

[MikeVic]

Aw man. I used Neteller for World Sports Exchange, and currently have $21 in shares on the Sharks winning the Stanley Cup. I hope this doesn't mean that eventually, the money I deposited into World Sports Exchange through Neteller will be lost.

[Simms]

Aw man. I used Neteller for World Sports Exchange, and currently have $21 in shares on the Sharks winning the Stanley Cup. I hope this doesn't mean that eventually, the money I deposited into World Sports Exchange through Neteller will be lost.

It won't be lost...you'll just have to use another method of withdrawal (like have them send you a check).

[Lathum]

My opinion is that are not attempting to shutdown online poker rooms because they want everyone to come to the B&M and play. My opinion is that they want to shutdown online poker rooms so that they can open up their own online casinos. In order to do that, they must slowly choke out the existing ones.

This seems like a stretch to me. They are making it illeagle to deposit money and closing down the deposit services etc... So if your theory holds true how would people deposit into the harrah's online casino?

[GoldenEagle]

This seems like a stretch to me. They are making it illeagle to deposit money and closing down the deposit services etc... So if your theory holds true how would people deposit into the harrah's online casino?

They will come up with something. Like I said, PokerStars paid all the fees on Neteller deposits that Harrahs would not want to pay when they eventually open up their online casino.

[Lathum]

They will come up with something. Like I said, PokerStars paid all the fees on Neteller deposits that Harrahs would not want to pay when they eventually open up their online casino.

If the " they will come up with something" theory holds true wouldn't the online poker rooms be able to use the same methods?

[Subby]

1. Higher rake, probably upwards to $5-6 a hand.
2. No more bonuses
3. No rakeback
Do you have any information that substantiates this or are you just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Do you have any information that substantiates this or are you just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks?

There's absolutely no truth to any of that obviously. Any site that would use that model would quickly find themselves bankrupt whether it was used now or in the future if US-based gaming sites became a reality.

[GoldenEagle]

If the " they will come up with something" theory holds true wouldn't the online poker rooms be able to use the same methods?

They will. However, how many people will want to mess with all that? To me, you, and everyone else reading this thread it is not that big of a deal. We are computer savvy and know that the other alternatives should be safe. But to the casual player, that is not the case. But if the see "Grand Casino Online", they will be willing to transfer they money to a place like that. That is what the casinos are hoping for, once they get off the ground.

[GoldenEagle]

Do you have any information that substantiates this or are you just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks?

hxxp://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8714897&an=0&page=0#Post8714897

That is a post that discusses how three Republican congressmen are talking about taxing and regulated the industry. It will happen, but US players are only going to be able to play at US casinos. That is just common sense. Congress will justify this as saying only those sites are "regulated"

As far as the high rake and no bonuses go, that is just a guess based on common sense. I think there will only be four or five sites in competition with each other as opposed to the hundred or so before the bill was passed. Less completion means less bonuses, etc.

[GoldenEagle]

There's absolutely no truth to any of that obviously. Any site that would use that model would quickly find themselves bankrupt whether it was used now or in the future if US-based gaming sites became a reality.

Are you kidding? If Americans are only allowed to play at "regulated" sites, all the money will flow to those. They will also be backed by huge multi billion dollar casinos.

Sites such as PokerStars, FullTilt, and Ultimate Bet will not longer be serving American players. The American players will play only at those regulated sites.

[Subby]

That is a post that discusses how three Republican congressmen are talking about taxing and regulated the industry.
Yes, this is part of the article.

It will happen, but US players are only going to be able to play at US casinos. That is just common sense. Congress will justify this as saying only those sites are "regulated"
Yes, this is your own unsubstantiated opinion. "Common sense" is code for "I don't feel like providing a supporting argument."

[Subby]

Sites such as PokerStars, FullTilt, and Ultimate Bet will not longer be serving American players. The American players will play only at those regulated sites.

Assuming that on-line gambling is eventually legalized, what makes you think those sites wouldn't establish on-shore entities and submit to regulation?

[B & B]

They might, but they will also be paying exponentially in 'regulation taxes' here as opposed to what they would be paying to operate/have customers in say Canada, Australia, etc.

[Subby]

They might, but they will also be paying exponentially in 'regulation taxes' here as opposed to what they would be paying to operate/have customers in say Canada, Australia, etc.
And no reason they can't have both.

Most of the big sites derived 75%+ of their customer base from the US. I think they could find a way to make it profitable. The B&Ms sure do...

[GoldenEagle]

Assuming that on-line gambling is eventually legalized, what makes you think those sites wouldn't establish on-shore entities and submit to regulation?

If you were a B&M card room, would you want to compete with PokerStars? I think there will be some sort of clause that says you must operate a land-based casino in the US to open up any virtual casinos.

[Subby]

Okay, then PokerStars buys a stake in Sam's Town or some other insignificant B&M and can legally operate on-line. It has the cash.

[GoldenEagle]

Okay, then PokerStars buys a stake in Sam's Town or some other insignificant B&M and can legally operate on-line. It has the cash.

Maybe. Or a B&M casino will purchase PokerStars. It is all speculation at this point, but I do not think the future holds much in terms of bonuses and rakeback.

[Subby]

B&M Casinos offer bonuses and rakeback all the time. Why would it be different on-line?

[dixieflatline]

That is a post that discusses how three Republican congressmen are talking about taxing and regulated the industry. It will happen, but US players are only going to be able to play at US casinos. That is just common sense. Congress will justify this as saying only those sites are "regulated"


I can tell you for sure that this won't happen. The UK would have a huge fit over this. They haven't cried to the WTO even though their sites have lost a lot of money from the US ban. If the US tried to do this they would complain and they have a lot more clout than antigua does. The only US argument now against antigua is online sportsbetting is immoral (but lottos and horse racing are fine). BTW, I pretty much agree with everything Subby has said here.

Lastly, I opened a click2pay account today. They look a lot like neteller from their website. Looks like all the big sites are taking transfers from them. Anyone use them before?

[stevew]

Yeah, I can't see bonus's going away. They do more than just get people to play at a particular place, sometimes they get people to play period.

[JHandley]

B&M Casinos offer bonuses and rakeback all the time. Why would it be different on-line?


Boy-Howdy! do they. They call them comps. Gifts to get people to play longer because they know the longer they play, the more money they'd make. How is that different from a bonus?

[Flasch186]

B&M story:

So Tuesday night this guy Jimmy holds a tourney at 8pm and as people are knocked out a cash game starts up. I called my dad to ask if he was going and he says, "you didnt hear?" He goes on to tel me that last week, at 3 am, 6 guys burst in with Uzi's and took everything from everyone. Jimmy proceeded to call the cops who showed up and proceeded to arrest him and take him to jail. So now we wont be going to local games unless theyre in the ritziest gated communities where Ill inevitably be a short stack at any cash game....so its tourney's only or the "boat".

[QuikSand]

Thanks, guys. I feel so much better educated on this subject now.

[GoldenEagle]

I can tell you for sure that this won't happen. The UK would have a huge fit over this. They haven't cried to the WTO even though their sites have lost a lot of money from the US ban. If the US tried to do this they would complain and they have a lot more clout than antigua does. The only US argument now against antigua is online sportsbetting is immoral (but lottos and horse racing are fine). BTW, I pretty much agree with everything Subby has said here.

In an ideal world, the online US poker rooms would be full of fish. We would also be allowed back on Party Poker, etc. There would be so much competition that bonuses and rakeback would be commonplace, similar to when you and I first started. The European and Asian markets would explode and you could play schools of fish 24/7, all while racking up bonuses and rake back. My hope is that we are heading in that direction, but I am not sure that UK would stand up to the US over Internet Gambling.

As far as Click2Play goes, I guess that is the route I am going as well.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

In an ideal world, the online US poker rooms would be full of fish. We would also be allowed back on Party Poker, etc. There would be so much competition that bonuses and rakeback would be commonplace, similar to when you and I first started. The European and Asian markets would explode and you could play schools of fish 24/7, all while racking up bonuses and rake back. My hope is that we are heading in that direction, but I am not sure that UK would stand up to the US over Internet Gambling.

If the US switches gears and allows online poker, it will happen exactly like that. Internet poker rooms will explode and it will be worldwide. The only thing the US will do is to ensure that scams from a cardplay perspective do not take place. Places like Harrah's aren't going to limit themselves to just US players. The revenue potential increases 5 and 6 fold if they open it up to the world. The world players will just play on US sites rather than ones based in the Bahamas, Cayman Islands, etc.

I'd agree that they may put in rules that only allow US players to play in US casinos base in the US. All that will happen is that the overseas based casinos will move to the US, which is all they've wanted for years anyway. It could actually be done quite quickly as most of the coding and support for the websites is already done in the US. If they made a requirement that they had to own a land-based US casino, most of these websites could buy a casino very easily with the ridiculous amount of money that they make on a yearly basis. It actually wouldn't be a bad investment anyway, as most casinos would get a major boost in traffic if poker sites became totally legal and regulated in the US.

[GoldenEagle]

I guess the only question now is when and if online poker will be regulated. My feeling is yes, since a $12 billion dollar industry rarely disappears.

[GoldenEagle]

FYI, Click2Pay no longer allows new US customers.

[primelord]

Thanks, guys. I feel so much better educated on this subject now.

Lol

[Subby]

I guess the only question now is when and if online poker will be regulated. My feeling is yes, since a $12 billion dollar industry rarely disappears.
You mean like recreational drugs or prostitution?

[Jas_lov]

Not to get anyone's hopes up, but Congressman Barney Frank is supposedly writing a bill to repeal the UIGEA. A couple people claim they have called his offices and confirmed this on 2+2 plus there's tons of articles here saying the same thing. Not sure if it will ever get passed but it's hope I guess. Apparently Party Gaming Stock went up quite a bit today with this news.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=UIGEA&btnG=Search+News

[Jas_lov]

Finally, Frank introduced the bill, The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, H.R. 2046.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/press042607.shtml

So I guess if you care, contact your representatives to gain support for this bill. States can still ban people from playing from what I'm reading, but once they have it regulated they could probably tax it and get revenues so they would be more inclined to allow it.

[Surtt]

Antigua is preparing the nuclear option.

In response to America's attempt to stamp out their internet gambling industry, they have formally requested that the WTO allow it to suspend its intellectual property obligations to the United States.
Was that the RIAA I just heard screaming.

hxxp://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/23/antigua_wto_us_gambling/

[SirFozzie]

Antigua is preparing the nuclear option.

In response to America's attempt to stamp out their internet gambling industry, they have formally requested that the WTO allow it to suspend its intellectual property obligations to the United States.
Was that the RIAA I just heard screaming.

hxxp://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/23/antigua_wto_us_gambling/


Ooohh. Welcome to interesting times.

[Lathum]

Antigua is preparing the nuclear option.

In response to America's attempt to stamp out their internet gambling industry, they have formally requested that the WTO allow it to suspend its intellectual property obligations to the United States.
Was that the RIAA I just heard screaming.

hxxp://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/23/antigua_wto_us_gambling/

so can someone translate?

[SirFozzie]

Basically, you have to let other nations do the same thing in your nation that you let your own nationals do

In this case, the US allows Off Track Betting for US registered folks, and doesn't allow non-US companies to do Off Track betting. So you can't call up an Antiguan registered company and place a bet on Sure Thing in the ninth race at Pimlico.

Antigua took it to the World Trade Organization, who's designed to handle this kind of thing. The WTO ruled for Antigua.

The US still refuses to change.

So, Antigua now has the right per the WTO, because of the US's unfair practices, to ignore the US's intellectual properties. This means that all that copyright protection the US enjoys? In Antigua, that means Antigua can use it WITHOUT paying the US one red cent.

For example.. if someone opened an AllofMP3 wanna be there? The US can't complain to the WTO.

If someone produced knockoffs of Microsoft Software in Antigua? They can do that too.

Basically, it's a huge sanction

[cartman]

so can someone translate?

Basically, Antigua is claiming that the US isn't honoring the ruling by the World Trade Organization that US policies were in effect sheltering US gambling interests at the expense of Antigua-based gambling interests. As a way of settling the US not honoring the ruling, the WTO can allow Antigua to basically produce anything that the US has intellectual property on (iPods, Nikes, movies, CDs, computers, software, you name it) and sell it without repercussions on the world market.

A small, but potentially huge exploit would be if Antigua decided to set up a torrent site to distribute RIAA and MPAA content. There wouldn't be a thing those organizations could do to stop the distribution of songs and movies from US companies if the WTO rules for Antigua.

[cartman]

D'oh, I was too slow typing.

:)

[Flasch186]

and from what it sounds like, or at least the Crib notes you gave us, Antigua is going to win.

[SirFozzie]

They already have the first round of judgements from the WTO. The US has not made the changes required by the WTO.

There is a VERY good reason why this is called the nuclear option.

[JonInMiddleGA]

There is a VERY good reason why this is called the nuclear option.

I don't really think it would go nuclear, at least not right away. I mean, the UK handled the Falklands situation without the need for nukes & even though we're a little stretched at the moment, I think a handful of Cub Scouts & a couple of PMS'ing den mothers could probably take Antigua.


;)

[SirFozzie]

yer a shmuck, Jon ;)

[INDalltheway]

Can someone help me get some money in my bankroll? I use PokerStars, but would be willing to change what I use.. PM if you can help.

[Lathum]

Can someone help me get some money in my bankroll? I use PokerStars, but would be willing to change what I use.. PM if you can help.

try paytrue.com

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

There will be a hearing concerning Barney Frank's upcoming bill to allow online poker on June 8th at 10:30 AM. Contact your federal representitives and voice your support for the bill.

Web link to watch the hearing.....
http://financialservices.house.gov/hearings_all.shtml


List of speaking participants......

Howard Lederer, Professional Poker Player and Poker Industry Software Consultant

Radley Balko, Senior Editor, Reason Magazine

Jon Prideaux, Chief Executive, Asterion Payments

Gerald Kitchen, Chief Executive Officer, SecureTrading Ltd

Pastor Greg Hogan (son robbed a bank when he went into debt http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/magazine/11poker.html?ex=1181102400&en=fc8a44c864ae13d0&ei=5070)

[Jas_lov]

An even better bill than Barney Frank's is being introduced Thursday by Robert Wexler(D-FL) which will exempt poker from the UIGEA legislation. This would ensure online poker could still be played everywhere and not leave it up to the states as in Frank's bill, although regulating it is probably the better way to get it passed in Congress than Wexler's outright repeal.

hxxp://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSN0643855220070606

Also, Howard Lederer won't be at the hearing Friday. Kind of bad timing with the WSOP going on.

[Surtt]

Just some more WTO saber rattling.
But it sounds like some other countries are starting to smell blood in the water.


hxxp://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/21/wto_antigua_us_gambling_eu_india_japan/

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Good to see that Antigua is continuing to push forward. This law isn't going to last much longer. They simply didn't think about all the consequences when they put it into effect.

[Surtt]

The main issue here goes beyond just online poker.
The US is, in essence, trying to rewrite it's commitment after being fond guilty of violating it.
If it does, anyone else would be free to do the same thing and the whole organization is going to be meaningless.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Another salvo. Lawsuit filed in New Jersey to have UIGEA declared unconstitutional and unlawful........

http://www.gambling911.com/Online-Gambling-UIGEA-071207.html

Updated: UIGEA Hearing Set for September 4

"A Federal Judge in the state of New Jersey has assigned a hearing date for its lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that seeks to have an new online gambling law, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) overturned. Gambling911.com has learned that the hearing date is set for September 4. Judge Mary L. Cooper of the US District Court in Trenton, NJ will hear the matter.

The group, the Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA), has a good shot, according to Cassimir Medford who has been covering the online gambling legal climate for Red Herring

iMEGA's goal is to get the court to declare the UIGEA unconstitutional and unenforceable, according to Medford. That’s because the group says the act violates the First Amendment’s rights to freedom of speech and commercial association as well as the Tenth Amendment’s protections of states’ rights to regulate online gambling.

'The UIGEA can still be enforced prior to the September 4 date,' he said. 'But we feel confident that the judge will prevent that from happening.'"

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

FYI to those of you still playing poker online. Ultimate Bet has just added a bad beat jackpot to a lot of its cash games. The games are becoming extremely juicy. Might want to head over there if you're looking for a site with an influx of fishy players.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I played poker last night and got coached to a 2nd place finish in a $3.25 6-handed sit-n-go.

Yeeeeah, I'm kind of the black sheep of the Bad Beats Crew (http://www.badbeatscrew.com). Err, no pun intended.

[ArlingtonColt]

I usually stick to 1 dollar 45 man MTT's on full tilt, I'm cashing about 50% of the time to keep me afloat. I just started playing a few months ago, so I still have alot to learn :P

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I usually stick to 1 dollar 45 man MTT's on full tilt, I'm cashing about 50% of the time to keep me afloat. I just started playing a few months ago, so I still have alot to learn :P

If you're patient, you can do really well at the micro levels at the sites. People don't value money at that level. I got my bankroll started by winning $5 in a freeroll tournament. Couple of years later, I now have $1200. I still play the lower levels because I can pretty consistently win $5-10 a night and have fun doing it. Going to the higher levels takes the fun out of it for me.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I'm going to be mad if the law stops me from killing the shorthanded NL5 and NL10 tables on PokerStars!!!

[cartman]

Wow, this might be the end of Absolute Poker if even part of this is true:

hxxp://www.poker-king.com/poker-king-articles.php?article=282

Absolute Poker: Going, Going..


The Absolute Poker controversy keeps getting more wild by the day.

So when we last left you, Absolute Poker had issued a statement denying that anyone had access to a "superuser" account and that no one could see any hole cards. After poring over the hand histories and evidence, they said, they had found no evidence of any wrong-doing. They would continue to investigate though, they had said. I thought at the time that Absolute Poker would just go into ignore mode from that point on, and the issue would eventually be dropped.

Well hold on..

Apparently, "CrazyMarco" (the player who had come second in that now infamous tournament that was won by "Potripper") asked for the hand histories from this tournament from Absolute Poker.

Absolute Poker sent the hand histories. Unfortunately for them, they also included the hole cards of every player at the table, and not just CrazyMarco's hole cards.

After viewing just a couple of hands, you can come to the conclusion that Potripper was cheating. The evidence is overwhelming. It is just ridiculous, and I find it hard to believe that they didn't do a better job of hiding it. Always getting his money in good, and never putting in an extra chip when he is behind in a hand. Going over the top of a re-raiser of a board of 8d 6d 3s holding the Q 10 of clubs, when his opponents are holding K J and Q J. Holding pocket Jacks against an opponent holding A Q, and check folding on the turn when a Queen comes out. Playing almost every hand when his opponents aren't dealt a big hand, but folding when an opponent at the table is dealt a big hand. Open folding KQ one hand (when an opponent is dealt AA), but raising 2/6 UTG when none of his opponents at the table have big hands. Going through a stretch when he wins something ridiculous like 65 hands out of a total of 90 hands. You can go on and on; if you need to see for yourself, there is plenty of evidence on Pocketfives and Twoplustwo. The people on those sites have done a TREMENDOUS job in getting these hand histories out to the public. Who knows how many other tournaments on Absolute were won in this fashion?

Absolute automatically loses all credibility because they say that there was no evidence of a "superuser" account in the hand histories. Oh really?

The best part of this story is just being fleshed out right now though. Who was involved in this operation?

Absolute Poker not only made a huge blunder in sending out the hand history with all of the hole cards displayed, but they also included the email addresses / account id's / IP Addresses of everyone who opened up a table as an observer during this tournament.

Apparently an Absolute Poker account with an ID of 363 opened up Potripper's table two hands into the tournament and railed him the entire way. The ID number is significant because this would indicate that this account was one of the first accounts EVER at Absolute Poker, making it likely that this is a person with extremely close ties to the company (employee, owner, shareholder, etc.)

Potripper folds the first two hands of the tournament, then ID 363 opens up Potripper's table to observe, and suddenly Potripper starts going wild, winning practically every hand.

The prevailing theory in the poker community? Potripper was a dummy account, and ID 363 had access to hole cards, and was relaying them to "Potripper."

Apparently the IP address of User ID 363 resolves to Costa Rica as well, which is home to Absolute Poker.

The story gets more interesting by the minute, and I am doing my best to keep up with it.

I feel that it's important to report on this story, as it has big implications for online poker as a whole. In the end, protecting players is much more important to me than burning a bridge with an online poker room. We need to do our part to get the story out there, so that everyone can figure out exactly what happened, and make sure that it doesn't happen again. Nothing can be explained away in regards to this situation, the cat is out of the bag..

More updates are coming on this story..


Evidently, the IP address of the railbird was tracked back to an Absolute Poker exec. 2+2 has the up to date info:

hxxp://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=beats&Number=12541923&page=0&fpart=1

[wade moore]

I don't play online poker, but man - that's some crazy shit.

[Flasch186]

no wonder ive been losing for the last 2 days ;)

[Chubby]

doesn't surprise me that this has happened. it only takes one bad apple...

[Toddzilla]

I just got finished reading those monster threads on 2+2...

OH SHI...:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

I think someone has got some 'splainin to do.

[Toddzilla]

Dola - I find in hilarious, and sad, that the Razz games on AP are borked so that the wrong hands get paid. Unreal.

[Maple Leafs]

Finally, an explanation as to why I can't win on Pokerstars anymore.

(Yes it is. Shut up. Yes it is.)

[Radii]

Holy shit. The simple fact that its possible for a hand history to be generated for a user with all the hole cards shows a MASSIVE problem. The rest after that is so over the top its amazing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Another great reason why the U.S. government needs to get off it's tail end and get this industry regulated and taxed with sites in the U.S. rather than overseas. There's a huge opening for U.S. casinos to bring in websites to the mass market if they just give them a chance.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Dola - I find in hilarious, and sad, that the Razz games on AP are borked so that the wrong hands get paid. Unreal.
Wait, I want to read more about this.

[Radii]

Wait, I want to read more about this.

I'm having no luck with the horrid 2+2 Search function, but the basic idea was a hand where both players caught horrendously paired boards. Lets say for example the 5 card hands that were shown down were:

A23JJ

and

A588K


a pair of 8s is the better low hand than jacks, but the pot gets awarded to the guy playing a pair of jacks. When the guy who lost e-mails support to point out that the logic determining who wins the pot is wrong, the response from support is something like: "A23 is a better low than A5K, the pairs don't play and aren't a part of the hand"

leading to comments about how at Absolute, the best possible 5 card hand must be AKKKK, the quads don't count, you've just got an ace low!

My details are not 100% right i'm sure, but dear god finding threads at 2+2 is horrid.

[chinaski]

*remembers all his bad beats on AP and wonders*

[Maple Leafs]

leading to comments about how at Absolute, the best possible 5 card hand must be AKKKK, the quads don't count, you've just got an ace low!

That's really terrible. You'd think they'd have some sort of super-user account so that they could test stuff like this.

[Flasch186]

That's really terrible. You'd think they'd have some sort of super-user account so that they could test stuff like this.

LOL

[Radii]

That's really terrible. You'd think they'd have some sort of super-user account so that they could test stuff like this.

Genius.

[sterlingice]

I'm not an online poker player and I see this as a big deal and interesting story. Whoops...

SI

[Radii]

http://wizardofodds.com/software/absolutepoker.html

Though some of the astronomical odds he's quoting are based on some impossible assumptions, the point being made here is very straightforward and easy to understand even if you don't play poker.

If you do play poker:


POTRIPPER had decision-making ability at the river 16 times, and he won all 16 of those times. When he had the best hand, he always raised. When he didn’t he either folded or bluffed against a weak opponent. Never once did he call on the river.

That might be all you need to read heh.

[Flasch186]

...and it seems AP has admitted it!

Just posted at P5s.

PocketFives just received a phone call from Absolute Poker confirming the suspicions of the online poker community over the past month. While we need to be vague in this post to respect their wishes, we can say that their systems were compromised, and that they are prepared to provide the details in a statement coming shortly.

Part of the statement will include a plan to refund players affected by this compromise.

We are extremely relieved to hear this outcome, as our most important goal in all this is to see justice given to those who were cheated in this process. Pocketfives is extremely proud to have played a part in the process of uncovering the impropriety that has occurred. We would of course like to thank all the other parties who played a key role in this process—specifically the folks that have been posting here and at twoplustwo.com.

This is great news for everyone. Keep your eyes out for the statement.

Extremely Relieved,

--Adam

[Toddzilla]

...and it seems AP has admitted it!:eek: :eek: :eek:

Kudos for AP to bite the bullet and set the record straight. This may not prevent the mass-exodus from their sight, but it should allow them so save face somewhat.

[Lathum]

does anyone have a link to the thread on 2+2 about this?

[cartman]

does anyone have a link to the thread on 2+2 about this?

It is at the bottom of my post above.

[Lathum]

thx

[gstelmack]

I'm just shocked that people were shocked that there was:

A) Cheating in a gambling environment.
B) Cheating when crossing borders to play (since there is zero risk to the companies).
C) Cheating in an Internet game.

[Passacaglia]

Their systems were compromised? Oh right.

[MJ4H]

Shock is not the same thing as outrage. I think there was only one of these at work with the people that aren't just stupid.

[Maple Leafs]

The AP scandal is currently the lead story on msnbc.com.

[Radii]

ugh. Not good.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

This is the main reason I won't gamble on the internet, or video poker, or video slots. Too easy to rig. I much prefer loaded dice, marked cards, or a magnetized roulette ball.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Rounder: The Poker Show has an hour-long episode dedicated to the Absolute Poker scandal. The guest on the show is the guy who broke the story on the 2+2 forums. Certainly a very interesting listen.

http://www.bigpoker.ca/resources/rounders/Rounders_The-Poker-Show_2007-10-21.mp3

[Flasch186]

this page of a huge thread at 2+2 tells the story...

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=12650247&page=0&fpart=10&vc=1

[Radii]

so even if you haven't followed along, this one statement while researching the people involved says quite a bit.. in reference to AJ Green, the guy presumed to be actually playing the tournament in question on the POTRIPPER account:

"While at Nine.com, AJ had a portrait done of himself that hung on his wall over his desk. The photo was a picture of him "American Beauty' style laying spread out on his futon covered in hundred dollar bills."

I'm not sure I can think of anything else that would more immediately and certainly qualify a person as a total douchebag.

[Ryche]

Just jumped into playing online some. Freerolled my way into two dollars, now I'm up over 13 :) Playing and fighting for a couple of bucks online is far more fun than it should be.

[Surtt]

From slashdot



MA Proposes Two Year Jail Term for Online Gambling

"The Boston Globe reports that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is trying to sneak a provision to criminalize online gambling. The bill, if passed, would make online gambling punishable by up to 2 years in prison and $25k in fines. Ironically, the provision is buried deep within a bill to allow the construction of three new casinos in Massachusetts to bring more gambling revenue into the state. 'If you were cynical about it, you'd think that they're trying to set up a monopoly for the casinos,' said David G. Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Democratic House representative Barney Frank, who earlier this year introduced federal legislation to legalize regulated online gambling, also criticized the move as 'giving opponents an argument against him.' Indeed, groups such as the Poker Player's Alliance, who were previously supportive of Patrick's plans to open the new casinos, have already announced opposition to the bill because of the online gambling clause."



Better be careful if you live in Massachusetts.

[Flasch186]

been running into buzzsaws and miracle flops for 2 weeks now. Its unreal. I cant believe how many people have flopped sets of 4, 5, and 7's against a 5-6X preflop raise. Im at a loss for words....

this has forced me to loosen up when I should be tightening up and Im seeing more ridiculousness.....like someone chasing a runner runner to a A high flush when I has the K high flush on the flop and we were both all in for over 100$. I just cant believe how the stars are aligning right now....

I cant force anyone off of the flop with huge raises and im watching people hit miracles left and right crushing me.


ugh

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Surprised no one posted this yet. Harrah's made a big announcement that they are exploring entering the online poker world.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/11/14/harrahs.online.ap/index.html

While this isn't a direct entry into the U.S. market, the fact that a U.S. company is exploring this option is indicitive that the U.S. market may be opening back up relatively soon. 2+2 members believe it may be as soon as late next year with regulation occurring in 2009.

[chesapeake]

2+2 members believe it may be as soon as late next year with regulation occurring in 2009.

Don't get too excited about the US law changing yet. Although Barney Frank, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, does have a bill that would make online gambling legal and regulated, it looks unlikely to move next year. This would be a very tough bill to pass in an election year. Maybe it will get some play in 2009, depeding on who wins the White House.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Don't get too excited about the US law changing yet. Although Barney Frank, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, does have a bill that would make online gambling legal and regulated, it looks unlikely to move next year. This would be a very tough bill to pass in an election year. Maybe it will get some play in 2009, depeding on who wins the White House.

FYI......Frank's bill is not the one that's most likely to pass. There's another bill currently up for debate that is much more likely to be the one that goes through. It has a much broader base of support than Frank's bill.

[Galaxy]

Sounds exciting if a bill is passed.

[chesapeake]

The only thing that has a tiny chance of pasing is Nevada Congresswoman Shelley Berkley's bill to study the issue. That would allow Congress to put the issue off until the study is completed it has a good year or two or ten to mull over the findings.

Chairman Frank's bill is the only one that would make any changes in the law that appears to have much of a chance. This is not to say that a Senator can't offer this or similar language to a bill at any time -- Majority Leader Reid (also from Nevada) probably would if he thought it might win. I'd simply rate that as highly unlikely to happen.

[Galaxy]

Such a shame that with all the crap in politics, they focus on this.

[chesapeake]

I think the point is that they are not focusing on this. That is why it is unlikely to pass.

If you are arguing that the legislation passed last year that made it more difficult to wager on the internet shouldn't have passed in the first place, I'd agree with that. Congressional Republicans airdropped it into a conference report on a port security bill -- very disappointing.

[Radii]

http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN1431132320071214

There seems to be some hope among the PPA that a WTO decision that is strongly against the US and includes intellectual property sanctions might make congress more likely to act on some of the bills that have been introduced.

[GoldenEagle]

I played at a table tonight on the Prima Network that rivaled the games pre-UIGEA. It was very loose and only one maniac at the table. All the players were from North America as well. I think word might slowly be starting to get out about playing online again.

[Galaxy]

Any updates on this?

[-apoc-]

I doubt much is going to happen on this during an election year personally.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I know that the posters over at the 2+2 forums and the Poker Alliance (PPA) leaders expect some movement towards removing the restrictions before the end of 2008. They haven't been very specific, but I know that there was a significant increase in the amount of money being invested in lobbying efforts and it's reportedly paying dividends.

[-apoc-]

Considering I withdraw my money from Stars straight to my bank account and could add money the same way if I wanted to with their Echeck option these restrictions are a joke anyway. All they did was take a few of the reputable and established companies out of the picture such as Neteller.

The problem was that the "ban" got a bit of media coverage and some of the fish thought they couldnt play anymore but considering the traffic these days, 140k on stars alone a few nights ago, I think most of them have made their way back.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Considering I withdraw my money from Stars straight to my bank account and could add money the same way if I wanted to with their Echeck option these restrictions are a joke anyway. All they did was take a few of the reputable and established companies out of the picture such as Neteller.

The problem was that the "ban" got a bit of media coverage and some of the fish thought they couldnt play anymore but considering the traffic these days, 140k on stars alone a few nights ago, I think most of them have made their way back.

Agreed. The only issue is getting your money into the sites, which can be a bit of a chore. Outside of that, not much has changed.

[Cap Ologist]

So, does anybody have a site or processor they'd recommend that's not a total pain in the ass to use?

[Lathum]

So, does anybody have a site or processor they'd recommend that's not a total pain in the ass to use?

pokerstars is using echecks with no problems

[Radii]

So, does anybody have a site or processor they'd recommend that's not a total pain in the ass to use?

I probably overstated the annoyance factor a bit when we PM'd. It sucks compared to the good old days but its not really that bad getting money in.

Full Tilt or Stars is pretty much where everyone is, Stars has echecks, full tilt doesn't.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Latest edition of the Ante Up! podcast has an interview with PPA chairman, Alphonse D'Amato, on where the current legislation stands in regards to online poker.

http://pod.sptimes.com/anteup139.mp3

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Post about the cost of online gambling bans...........

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/02/06/just-how-much-is-this-online-gambling-ban-costing-us/

Europe is getting pretty pissed off at the U.S. for some of its offshore gambling arrests and failure to recognize online gambling...........

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/03/10/goliath-vs-goliath/

[chesapeake]

No American ever lost a vote by kicking the Europeans in a trade case, and I expect the EU will recognize that going to the mat on this one will not ultimately get them where they want to be.

They do, however, have more guns on their side than the poor Antiguans, who can win every single WTO decision they possibly could and still get crushed like a grape.

[Radii]

Apparently ePassporte is no longer available as a deposit method and rumors are flying that they're getting the same treatment that Neteller got a couple years ago, but there is absolutely no confirmation of this at all. ePassporte isn't working as a deposit option anywhere, Absolute and Cake have removed it entirely(apparently, I woudln't touch absolute w/ a 10 foot pole but others are reporting that). FTP's deposit page for me has a popup that says that ePassporte is unavailable. Cake Poker's cashier page has the following notice on it:


To all Cake Poker Customers:
We have received notice from ePassporte today that they are unable to continue to provide CakePoker with merchant e-wallet services. We have since confirmed that this situation is not unique to CakePoker and is, in fact, industry wide.

While we are disappointed with this decision, we want to reassure all players that there will be no impact to either your account balances or your account status at Cake. We are pleased to have launched earlier this week with a new payment processor and have already secured alternative processors/eWallets that we will be launching in the weeks to come. We are also in discussions with other providers that will be making their services available in the CakePoker cashier soon. Players are welcome to inquire with Customer Support for more details.

As always, we value your business and will continue to make every effort possible to make your poker experience a great one.

Regards,
The CakePoker Team




People are reporting that epass ATM cards are working for people to get their money out immediately. I requested a bank withdrawl of the $200 I had in epass. Unfortunately I also had a $450 withdrawl going from Full Tilt -> ePass to try to take advantage of the current Pokerstars bonus, but its taken an unusually long time to process and I've e-mailed full tilt asking them if they can cancel the withdrawl.

BLEHBLEHBLEH.

[Radii]

Unfortunately I also had a $450 withdrawl going from Full Tilt -> ePass to try to take advantage of the current Pokerstars bonus, but its taken an unusually long time to process and I've e-mailed full tilt asking them if they can cancel the withdrawl.


Woohoo, just got an e-mail saying that my withdrawl request has been declined. <3 Full Tilt.

[QuikSand]

Woohoo, just got an e-mail saying that my withdrawl request has been declined. <3 Full Tilt.

Just trying to make sure I'm following you here... by "declined" there you mean canceled at your request, correct? (Not telling us that FT is suddenly into the business of declining its customers' withdrawal requests, followed by a sarcastic remark)

[Radii]

Just trying to make sure I'm following you here... by "declined" there you mean canceled at your request, correct? (Not telling us that FT is suddenly into the business of declining its customers' withdrawal requests, followed by a sarcastic remark)

I only got the generic "declined" e-mail from them:


Your withdrawal request has been declined. Please review your
personal account information to ensure that it is the same as the
information stored with your payment processor. You may correct
any of your personal information and try again. If you are still
unsuccessful, you may wish to try one of the other available
withdrawal methods.


and am hoping they do follow up with a response to my support request, but for now I'm assuming that this was either done to 'cancel' my transaction based on my support request, or that because of the issues at ePassporte they've cancelled all in process transactions. I haven't seen anything about the latter on 2+2 though.

But my comments weren't sarcastic at all, I am much happier right now having my money spread out between 3 poker sites at the moment(Stars, FTP, and Cake) than having anything sitting in ePassporte.

[Radii]

e-mail from full tilt:


As per your request, your withdrawal (transaction #xxxxxxxxx) has been
voided, and the funds have been automatically returned to your Full Tilt
Poker account.


so it looks like it was done b/c I requested it, all good! I don't know if they don't have any other sort of notification on cancelled/voided transactions other than to refer to them as "DECLINED" but the money is in the safest place possible atm(ie anywhere but epassporte) so I'm happy.



Prediction: ePassporte is completely finished at least as far as gambling transactions go. I give it 50/50 at best that I get the little money I had stupidly left in there within the next 3 months.

[kingnebwsu]

So this E-check thing on PokerStars is pretty legit, eh? I'm just nervous putting out my bank account information (though I'm totally fine doing a credit card...but there's no option for that anymore).

[-apoc-]

I have only had one problem with E-checks and have been using them to withdraw since dec. That was a withdrawl being delayed 2 weeks because of the processor screwing up and PS gave me a credit of 20% my withdrawl amount to my account for the inconvience.

If it was a smaller site I would be alot more concerned with it but PS is the industry leader at this point the last thing they want to do is screw someone out of a couple hundred bucks and get the bad press for it.

[Radii]

I have only had one problem with E-checks and have been using them to withdraw since dec. That was a withdrawl being delayed 2 weeks because of the processor screwing up and PS gave me a credit of 20% my withdrawl amount to my account for the inconvience.

I had problems with an e-check deposit around the same time, but have otherwise used e-checks many times without issue. Completely agree with differentiating Stars from everyone else too as far as this stuff goes(even full tilt at this point imo).

[kingnebwsu]

I think everyone had problems around the time you guys mention. I will deposit some money tonight then...thanks :)

[Lathum]

FWIW I never had a problem with ECheck

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

House Resolution 5767 dies in committee...........

http://hardboiledpoker.blogspot.com/2008/06/uigea-lives-hr-5767-dies-in-committee.html

This Bachus guy from Alabama is a piece of work.

[cartman]

Looks like one of the bills has finally cleared a hurdle. The House passed a measure that relaxed the restrictions that were put in place. It's now up to the Senate to also pass the measure.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080918-house-passes-bill-to-relax-internet-gambling-restrictions.html

[chesapeake]

Don't hold you breath. All that happened was Barney Frank passed a small bill he wrote out of his own committee. Consideration by the full House is not yet scheduled.

Given the remarks made at the markup by the Republican ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, their side opposes the bill. If Frank's bill is to pass next week -- the last week of this session -- it would have to do so on the Suspension calendar, meaning that it would need to get two-thirds of those voting to vote aye. With the GOP opposition, they don't have that. The vote in committee was 30-19.

Sorry to be the wet blanket.

[gstelmack]

Poker site cheating: Poker site cheating plot a high-stakes whodunit - Crime & courts - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26563848)

I remember some discussion on this a while back when it first started coming to light.

[stevew]

I can't be the only one who secretly hopes Frank can sneak his bill into the bailout package. Would be sweet sweet justice.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Great news here. New bill introduced that would separate poker from the UIGEA and would regulate/tax the online poker industry. A link to the full bill (28 pages) is below.....

[S.3616] Poker Bill Introduced by U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (NJ-D) (09/30/08) (http://www.scribd.com/doc/6325373/S3616-Poker-Bill-Introduced-by-US-Senator-Robert-Menendez-NJD-093008)

[RainMaker]

Well today I'll trudge down to a Western Union to collect cash from some random person in the Phillippines. The government has really taken the fun out of sports gaming. Payouts and Deposits have become really tough these days and I hate that feeling I get in my stomach getting the cash hoping I don't pop up on some watchlist or something.

Any news on this from Washington?

[panerd]

I have actually noticed the exact opposite with regards to deposits. All of my normal credit cards appear to be working again. Not sure what kind of money you are talking here. I play relatively small stakes (<$500) but if I were playing much higher I would probably go local and not mess with overseas.

[chesapeake]

Any news on this from Washington?

None. Given the economic crisis and host of other issues before Congress, addressing this issue remains unlikely, in my judgment.

[cartman]

None. Given the economic crisis and host of other issues before Congress, addressing this issue remains unlikely, in my judgment.

Well, the original ban was slipped into a bill on port security, so if they want to, they can find a way.

[chesapeake]

Well, the original ban was slipped into a bill on port security, so if they want to, they can find a way.

I think this is where I have a difference of opinion with some in this thread. No one in Congress cares enough about this issue to make it his or her Big Thing. Sure, Barney Frank has offered a bill and talked about how it would be a good idea to deal with this, but that isn't the same thing.

Supporting gambling is empirically a political liability -- the number of people that would vote against you and raise a big stink because of your support for the measure far outweighs the number of folks that would support you because you supported or sponsored the proposition. Poker players are not a big voting demographic.

Political contributions are not a factor; money from gambling interests is politically toxic.

So, to face off against the political opposition, you have to believe very, very strongly in the issue to want to take the necessary hit. No one in Congress with the necessary clout believes in this issue strongly enough. Intellectually, Frank supports changing the law, but he would never risk a must-pass financial services bill by jamming an internet gambling bill in there, which is what it would take to get this done.

[RainMaker]

I have actually noticed the exact opposite with regards to deposits. All of my normal credit cards appear to be working again. Not sure what kind of money you are talking here. I play relatively small stakes (<$500) but if I were playing much higher I would probably go local and not mess with overseas.

I don't have issues funding my accounts, it's withdrawals that are a pain in the ass.

[RainMaker]

I think this is where I have a difference of opinion with some in this thread. No one in Congress cares enough about this issue to make it his or her Big Thing. Sure, Barney Frank has offered a bill and talked about how it would be a good idea to deal with this, but that isn't the same thing.

Supporting gambling is empirically a political liability -- the number of people that would vote against you and raise a big stink because of your support for the measure far outweighs the number of folks that would support you because you supported or sponsored the proposition. Poker players are not a big voting demographic.

Political contributions are not a factor; money from gambling interests is politically toxic.

So, to face off against the political opposition, you have to believe very, very strongly in the issue to want to take the necessary hit. No one in Congress with the necessary clout believes in this issue strongly enough. Intellectually, Frank supports changing the law, but he would never risk a must-pass financial services bill by jamming an internet gambling bill in there, which is what it would take to get this done.

In a way it is, but not always. Some in government love bringing in jobs through casinos to their area. They also love using the lottery funds to pay for schools. I don't think the reluctance to legalize gambling is a consitutent issue as much as an issue with how strong the horse racing and Indian lobby is.

The sad thing about the issue is that legalizing it would bring in a ton of revenue to the government. All this whining about deficits and we are leaving billions on the table here. If the U.S. legalized it, regulated it so that players globally trusted it, there would be a ton of money brought into this country.

You're right though that it will never go through. It's a bill that won't help a Congrssman but could hurt. The religious organizations who want to dictate what everyone can do with their lives have a lot of power still.

[B & B]

I don't have issues funding my accounts, it's withdrawals that are a pain in the ass.

Thats swell if you dont plan on making money.

[chesapeake]

[quote=RainMaker;1992313]In a way it is, but not always. Some in government love bringing in jobs through casinos to their area. They also love using the lottery funds to pay for schools. I don't think the reluctance to legalize gambling is a consitutent issue as much as an issue with how strong the horse racing and Indian lobby is.[\quote]

You're mixing up lobbying prowess at the federal, state and local levels. From state to state and county to county, horses and tribes may have a strong presence. Nationally, horse racing is insignificant and the tribes are not well organized.

Horse racing is a perfect example of my point. They got the horse racing exception in the 2006 bill because the Senate Majority Whip at the time was Mitch McConnell, a senator from KY -- one of the few states where the horse lobby is genuinely powerful. There was no national effort in this regard whatsoever; rather, it was a powerful Senator looking out for parochial interests.

[RainMaker]

Wasn't Abramoff a big figure in gaming in Washington? There has to be some power there.

[chesapeake]

Wasn't Abramoff a big figure in gaming in Washington? There has to be some power there.

There's money there, certainly. He represented 4 tribes with gaming interests. Abramoff was convicted, among other things, of defrauding them.

There is a trade group that represents their common interests - the National Indian Gaming Association. It is not particularly active. A tip for any Congress-watchers out there: you can tell how active a trade association is by seeing how often they update their legislative website. These folks are still pimping a bill McCain dropped in 2006.

I should also point out, blunt though this may be, gambling is not a significant national issue. Given the political problems with the issue, Congress is highly unlikely to take it up without a compelling need to do so. Lobbying has very little to do with it.

[RainMaker]

This is somewhat good news.

Rep Frank to Unveil Online Gambling Bill - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/05/05/technology/tech-us-online-gambling-frank.html?_r=1)

[kcchief19]

The outlook now is better than it has been in a while. The thing is that this is an issue that isn't particular partisan -- case in point that the lobbying face of gaming is a Republican Alphonse D'amato and one of the staunchest supporters in Congress is flaming liberal Barney Frank.

It's the leadership that makes a difference. The GOP leadership was anti-gaming and the Democratic leadership is pro-gaming. That makes it much easier now to get a reversal through. Specter's switch actually plays a role in this too. If the Republicans could block legislation with no one person being blamed for it, they could block a lot of legislation. Now they need every Republican vote to stop cloture, and there are pro-gaming Republicans who don't want to be the deciding vote against it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but was the original ban passed as part of a banking reform bill? No real worries about sending Obama a gambling bill that casts him in a bad light -- just attach it to any other harmless piece of legislation.

The only real question is how much of a priority is it. Are the brick-and-mortar casinos now onboard? It sounds like if they can get a foot in the door by regulating games it would be a win for them. Plus, they were benefiting from the poker boom because people were playing online and then going to the casino -- the slowdown in online play has to be huring them.

[stevew]

Port security bill KC.

[Galaril]

My only question back to the OP is "who the hell is RussiaBoss anyways? First post must be the head of an international gambling syndicate that also plays FOF:)

[Galaxy]

I always been curious as to what the % of its revenues that casinos actually make from poker. It can't be that high.