The Beginning of the Death of Online Poker in the US

[saldana]

pokerstars is still up, but looks like only play money games..all the cash games appear to be taken down.

[Tekneek]

Of course these are all just fronts for Al Qaeda.

One of our last vestiges to our puritanical past. One day we will do away with this fear of gambling. It has been interesting, for me at least, to see how a lot of the same people out there, striving to protect us from gambling, otherwise demonstrate a total lack of concern for other important aspects of our lives.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by saldana

pokerstars is still up, but looks like only play money games..all the cash games appear to be taken down.

That is correct. Lots of speculation that the government is eliminating the competition so they can run their own, regulated sites.

Either way, an absolutely absurd situation and abuse of power.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Lathum

That is correct. Lots of speculation that the government is eliminating the competition so they can run their own, regulated sites.

Either way, an absolutely absurd situation and abuse of power.

Maybe this outrage will spill over to other authoritarian vice control measures. Like adults doing drugs or adults using adult prostitutes. Probably not. So while I am outraged (I love online poker) I say fuck em to the people that want me to rally to support them in their sudden anger at the crooks in Congress and the "justice" department trying to keep adults from engaging in what they consider risky behavior. (Not you Lathum just the online poker community in general)

[panerd]

I will add that it is pointless with the current technology for the government to not offer an alternative. Yeah you will scare off some people but vice has been around for the history of mankind, the FBI aint going to stop people from playing poker for money.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by panerd

I will add that it is pointless with the current technology for the government to not offer an alternative. Yeah you will scare off some people but vice has been around for the history of mankind, the FBI aint going to stop people from playing poker for money.

This.

It is kind of like Napster. Once the technology and demand are there you can't undo it.

[lcjjdnh]

Do you really think this is "vice control"? I'm more inclined to believe it's a result of a powerful gaming lobby-including the government's form of regressive taxation, the lottery-although I admittedly haven't followed legislative action very closely.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Do you really think this is "vice control"? I'm more inclined to believe it's a result of a powerful gaming lobby-including the government's form of regressive taxation, the lottery-although I admittedly haven't followed legislative action very closely.

It may just be coincidence, since I'm sure the FBI was planning this way in advance, but it does come just one week after this.

The District of Columbia is becoming the first U.S. jurisdiction to allow Internet gambling, moving ahead of traditional gaming meccas like New Jersey and Nevada.

A provision permitting D.C. to offer the gaming within its borders was included in the 2011 budget. A 30-day period for Congress to object to the measure expired last week.

D.C. Councilman Michael A. Brown says he hopes the revenue the district takes in will help offset cuts to social services programs. His office says conservative estimates from D.C.'s chief financial officer indicate the district could bring in $13 million through fiscal year 2014.

The district would be allowed to offer online poker and other games of skill and chance.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Do you really think this is "vice control"? I'm more inclined to believe it's a result of a powerful gaming lobby-including the government's form of regressive taxation, the lottery-although I admittedly haven't followed legislative action very closely.

No doubt. I think it has nothing to do with caring about vice but they can definitely sell it that way to a large number of voters (especially drugs and whores) that way. I remember 20 years ago where the only real alternative to Vegas was a home poker game and/or a bookie. Now a casino is within 10 minutes of anywhere I want to go. I admittedly would play online at "Harrahspoker.com" or "MGMsportsbook.com". I do think the vice control side (a compromise between “values” voters and the casinos) is not offering up that alternative to me.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Do you really think this is "vice control"? I'm more inclined to believe it's a result of a powerful gaming lobby-including the government's form of regressive taxation, the lottery-although I admittedly haven't followed legislative action very closely.

+1

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by panerd

I remember 20 years ago where the only real alternative to Vegas was a home poker game and/or a bookie. Now a casino is within 10 minutes of anywhere I want to go. I admittedly would play online at "Harrahspoker.com" or "MGMsportsbook.com".

And this is the part of it that gets me worked up. I can literally drive 5 minutes from my house and play poker in a casino, yet in Washington State it is a class c felony to play poker online.

It is like telling me I can go drink in a bar, but it is illegal for me to have a beer in my home. It is the same exact activity regardless of where I am doing it.

[saldana]

Originally Posted by Lathum

And this is the part of it that gets me worked up. I can literally drive 5 minutes from my house and play poker in a casino, yet in Washington State it is a class c felony to play poker online.

It is like telling me I can go drink in a bar, but it is illegal for me to have a beer in my home. It is the same exact activity regardless of where I am doing it.

except that when it is at the casino the government can tax it...multiple times in fact...they tax the casino for income when someone loses and then they tax the players for winning

[DaddyTorgo]

I see no problem with the government wanting to tax it frankly.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I see no problem with the government wanting to tax it frankly.

Neither does anyone in the poker community ( with the obvious few exceptions). The problem is instead of working to find a way to regulate and tax it, they are trying to shut it down all together. Probably in large part to lobbying from Native American, State Lotto, and Casino interests. And instead of being transparent about it they are playing up to the family values community and trying to make it into something it isn't.

The majority of pro players, and even many amateurs, pay taxes on their winnings and would love a regulated system. Hopefully this is looked back as a first step to that happening.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Neither does anyone in the poker community ( with the obvious few exceptions). The problem is instead of working to find a way to regulate and tax it, they are trying to shut it down all together. Probably in large part to lobbying from Native American, State Lotto, and Casino interests. And instead of being transparent about it they are playing up to the family values community and trying to make it into something it isn't.

The majority of pro players, and even many amateurs, pay taxes on their winnings and would love a regulated system. Hopefully this is looked back as a first step to that happening.

Fair enough...good stuff.

[Radii]

Agree w/ pretty much everything Lathum said.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by saldana

pokerstars is still up, but looks like only play money games..all the cash games appear to be taken down.

Fwiw, I logged in and got a message that PokerStars is experiencing some difficulties and it only affects the US players. Which is pretty weird in two ways, if you ask me.
A. if there's something going wrong, shouldn't there be an international action against the poker rooms? The USofA isn't the only place where these sites are facilitating illegal activities. It would have been a much stronger statement to coorporate with other countries' FBI-like instances.
B. PokerStars knows there are other countries where their product is at least frowned upon, losing the US players will be a big hit to their income. It's pretty clear that loss of, whatever percentage of players it is, will have no a big effect.

[Comey]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

It's pretty clear that loss of, whatever percentage of players it is, will have no effect.

Until Stars is gone come Monday (which is the rumor circulating).

[MIJB#19]

Hmm, not sure what happened there, but I meant to say that PokerStars has a big problem at the income side if they lose the USofA market. Hence the "no effect" was meant to read: "a big effect". I edited my post for that.

[Comey]

That's fine. Something seemed amiss, but I felt it was a good segue to discuss that rumor.

Tilt, from what I'm reading, is gone within a week. Same with AP/UB. Stars may survive, because it has a lot of European ventures that help. The whole thing is so sudden...it's rather depressing. I had little money on FTP...I don't imagine I'll see it again.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Comey

That's fine. Something seemed amiss, but I felt it was a good segue to discuss that rumor.

Tilt, from what I'm reading, is gone within a week. Same with AP/UB. Stars may survive, because it has a lot of European ventures that help. The whole thing is so sudden...it's rather depressing. I had little money on FTP...I don't imagine I'll see it again.

It is pretty surreal how sudden it has all been. I had no money on the sites because I haven't been able to play in a while.

That being said I have little sympathy for the people freaking out on 2+2 because they have tens of thousands tied up in the sites. You have to be aware of what you are dealing with. Given the recent history of processors getting shut down, etc...you were just asking for trouble leaving your whole bankroll there.

[jbergey22]

US Goverment thinks they can control what they entire world is doing. This is going to backfire badly unless they learn to fucking chill out. The country has much bigger issues than making a point to the people that like to play poker from their own home.

I really cant think of any goal this will accomplish other than pissing people off.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I really cant think of any goal this will accomplish other than pissing people off.

Maybe someone has numbers (percentage of US players affected so far) that would change my mind but at the risk of stating the obvious, given the reach of the sites they went after this week, I'd say it'll accomplish the goal of putting a pretty good dent in the number of Americans playing poker online. You can question why they want to do that fairly enough I reckon, but not necessarily the efficacy of this move toward that end.

And I say that as someone who thinks it ought to be legal, isn't prone to supporting additional taxation on hardly anything, and someone not exactly known for randomly backing moves by the current administration.

[Comey]

This isn't really about the gambling. There's a gent in Australia who created a program that created illegal payment processing. Turns out this guy helped the sites make hundreds of millions...only to get turned into the feds by them. He decided that cutting a deal and keeping his money was better than a 75-year prison term, and turned snitch.

Poker Indictments: Daniel Tzvetkoff May Have Given Up The Online Poker Industry To The Feds

In the case against the 11 charged, the case against the Australian is listed. If I'm this guy, I have no idea how I can think I can turn these guys in, with these interests at stake, and live to see the world end in 2012.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Do you really think this is "vice control"? I'm more inclined to believe it's a result of a powerful gaming lobby-including the government's form of regressive taxation, the lottery-although I admittedly haven't followed legislative action very closely.

I think a mix of both. I remember years ago when online gambling just hit and a lot of the rhetoric was "protecting kids". There is always an element of society that gets off on telling others how to live their life.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Neither does anyone in the poker community ( with the obvious few exceptions). The problem is instead of working to find a way to regulate and tax it, they are trying to shut it down all together. Probably in large part to lobbying from Native American, State Lotto, and Casino interests. And instead of being transparent about it they are playing up to the family values community and trying to make it into something it isn't.

The majority of pro players, and even many amateurs, pay taxes on their winnings and would love a regulated system. Hopefully this is looked back as a first step to that happening.

I agree. Most players would prefer to play with an American company that they know has at least some oversight.

It is not surprising that the law being used is one that was written by the party of "free markets" and "keeping government out of business".

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Comey

If I'm this guy, I have no idea how I can think I can turn these guys in, with these interests at stake, and live to see the world end in 2012.

Are you suggesting that there may be less than savory characters involved with the online gambling world?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It is not surprising that the law being used is one that was written by the party of "free markets" and "keeping government out of business".

It's also not surprising that the party aggressively enforcing these laws is the one that tells that the "free market" is the root of all evil and that government and business should operate as an essential merged entity.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

It's also not surprising that the party aggressively enforcing these laws is the one that tells that the "free market" is the root of all evil and that government and business should operate as an essential merged entity.

Where do you get this crazy stuff?

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Where do you get this crazy stuff?

It's an exaggeration, I admit, I was just amused by Rainmaker trying to blame the Republican party, when the enforcement is far more consistent with the ideals of the party actually enforcing the law (Not the pretense of it being a "vice" law, but the reality of it being about government intervention). He's mocking the "(claims to be) free market" party doing this, which is just amusing because the "less free market" party is actually doing it. (Neither are really "free market" parties, but the one actually enforcing these laws doesn't fake it quite as much).

It's not really a left/right issue at all, of course. The federal government has always been against gambling. They're just more aggressive now, for whatever reason.

If someone's upset about the websites being seized the blame should go to the people that are actually doing it, and the administration actually in power. Don't just blame your token "bad guys"

[Comey]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Are you suggesting that there may be less than savory characters involved with the online gambling world?

I don't know about less than savory...but I hope this guy has never seen what happens to Joe Pesci in Casino.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

It's an exaggeration, I admit, I was just amused by Rainmaker trying to blame the Republican party, when the enforcement is far more consistent with the ideals of the party actually enforcing the law (Not the pretense of it being a "vice" law, but the reality of it being about government intervention). He's mocking the "(claims to be) free market" party doing this, which is just amusing because the "less free market" party is actually doing it. (Neither are really "free market" parties, but the one actually enforcing these laws doesn't fake it quite as much).

It's not really a left/right issue at all, of course. The federal government has always been against gambling. They're just more aggressive now, for whatever reason.

If someone's upset about the websites being seized the blame should go to the people that are actually doing it, and the administration actually in power. Don't just blame your token "bad guys"

I have a hard time believing that the enforcement was a result of anything political - if it was anything more than "hey they got this Aussie guy to flip on the websites" then I presume it was driven by a career department official and not politically motivated.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

It's an exaggeration, I admit, I was just amused by Rainmaker trying to blame the Republican party, when the enforcement is far more consistent with the ideals of the party actually enforcing the law (Not the pretense of it being a "vice" law, but the reality of it being about government intervention). He's mocking the "(claims to be) free market" party doing this, which is just amusing because the "less free market" party is actually doing it. (Neither are really "free market" parties, but the one actually enforcing these laws doesn't fake it quite as much).

It's not really a left/right issue at all, of course. The federal government has always been against gambling. They're just more aggressive now, for whatever reason.

If someone's upset about the websites being seized the blame should go to the people that are actually doing it, and the administration actually in power. Don't just blame your token "bad guys"

I don't blame one side over the other. As I mentioned, there is an element of society that gets off on telling others how to live their life. Just pointing out that the side that pushed for this law and has been much more anti-online gambling than the other is the one that runs around with talking points centered around free market and less government interference. I guess they meant they stand for that as long as you sell mortgages or donate enough to their campaign.

The left's stance sucks to me but they've never pretended they weren't for the overbearing nanny state crap. I don't agree with them on this, but they aren't massive fucking hyporites.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't blame one side over the other...

Everything you typed past this sentence sounds like direct blame of one side.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Radii

Everything you typed past this sentence sounds like direct blame of one side.

Then you didn't read it properly. I just found a bit of irony that the law that caused this was written by people who claim to be for free markets and less government interference. Nothing more than pointing out hypocrisy of some out there.

The fact a Democratic controlled DOJ is putting resources into this while we haven't seen any major arrests for the massive financial fraud that took place over the years is beyond pathetic. Thankfully we elected a President who will keep us safe from people playing poker in their homes and Barry Bonds' lies.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I know that there's a lot of irritated players in the short term, but I think this is a good thing in general. This law has been on relatively flimsy standing for some time now, but it was hard to have any action as long as there was little to no enforcement. Now that some things have hit the fan, I think there will be more proactive challenges to the law that should eventually result in regulated online poker here in the U.S. sooner rather than later, which is what the players have been wanting all along.

[panerd]

Any word on online sportsbooks being next? I have quite a bit of money tied up in one and from the sounds of this online poker crackdown the US players aren't going to be getting their money out. Or am I reading this wrong?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Just pointing out that the side that pushed for this law and has been much more anti-online gambling than the other is the one that runs around with talking points centered around free market and less government interference.

The UIGEA passed 421-2 in the House (1 Republican, 1 Democrat each voting no), and 98-0 in the Senate.

So pretty much everyone that matters that sees this as a crime worthy of enforcement. And even people who lean towards "free markets" generally don't include criminal enterprise in that ideal. Someone can believe that free markets work but still wish to enforce criminal activity. (And a fair free market requires criminal enforcement). Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Someone who leans towards "free markets" can still be against a free illegal drug trade, or an illegal sex trade. Someone who speaks highly of "free markets" isn't a hypocrite because they don't believe in total anarchy.

I personally think free markets are incredibly important, essential for individual freedom, and the way civilization moves forward. But I still believe in criminal enforcement, high taxes to target undesirable economic and environmental behavior, intense government regulation in government-created entities like corporations. I know that makes me a dirty hypocrite in your eyes, but there's few true 100% extremists in the world. (thank god).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

The UIGEA passed 421-2 in the House (1 Republican, 1 Democrat each voting no), and 98-0 in the Senate.

So pretty much everyone that matters that sees this as a crime worthy of enforcement. And even people who lean towards "free markets" generally don't include criminal enterprise in that ideal. Someone can believe that free markets work but still wish to enforce criminal activity. (And a fair free market requires criminal enforcement). Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Someone who leans towards "free markets" can still be against a free illegal drug trade, or an illegal sex trade. Someone who speaks highly of "free markets" isn't a hypocrite because they don't believe in total anarchy.

I personally think free markets are incredibly important, essential for individual freedom, and the way civilization moves forward. But I still believe in criminal enforcement, high taxes to target undesirable economic and environmental behavior, intense government regulation in government-created entities like corporations. I know that makes me a dirty hypocrite in your eyes, but there's few true 100% extremists in the world. (thank god).

Just to be clear here, the law in no way made gambling online an illegal action. The government still relies on a decades-old law to make it illegal, though there are very few people that believe that law will stand up if challenged. The law made it illegal to deposit money in an off-shore poker site (or other gambling site). The reason that was done was because they knew very well the fine line they were walking if they attempted to make online poker an illegal action in itself (i.e. they knew it would likely fall to court challenges). This is just one step in what will be a long line of court challenges for this law that will likely lead to its downfall in the end.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

The UIGEA passed 421-2 in the House (1 Republican, 1 Democrat each voting no), and 98-0 in the Senate.

No, the SAFE Ports Act passed by those margins. The UIGEA was attached to the SAFE Ports Act. If it was a standalone piece of legislation, it would not have come anywhere close to those voting figures.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

No, the SAFE Ports Act passed by those margins. The UIGEA was attached to the SAFE Ports Act. If it was a standalone piece of legislation, it would not have come anywhere close to those voting figures.

It honestly was pretty shaky of even passing. That's the reason they tacked it on to that bill. That way, if you vote against it, you're voting for terrorists (or some other stupid argument).

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Just to be clear here, the law in no way made gambling online an illegal action. The government still relies on a decades-old law to make it illegal, though there are very few people that believe that law will stand up if challenged. The law made it illegal to deposit money in an off-shore poker site (or other gambling site). The reason that was done was because they knew very well the fine line they were walking if they attempted to make online poker an illegal action in itself (i.e. they knew it would likely fall to court challenges). This is just one step in what will be a long line of court challenges for this law that will likely lead to its downfall in the end.

Fair enough, thanks for making that distinction..

I was just looking at H.R. 2267, (aiming to legalize internet poker, but also heavily regulate it), and wondering where the non-hypocrite "free market" person is supposed to fall on that. One the one hand, there's heavy federal regulation involved, so people like Ron Paul that are supporting this must be hypocrites. But on the other hand, if someone prefers the status quo, (internet poker being illegal, and the aggressive prosecution and seizures of foreign sites with U.S. customers) - we know that's hypocritical too. This is tricky.
Or maybe, this vote isn't about free markets, but about whether online poker should be legal.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It honestly was pretty shaky of even passing. That's the reason they tacked it on to that bill. That way, if you vote against it, you're voting for terrorists (or some other stupid argument).

This kind of shit irritates me when either party does it. Everything should be standalone.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

No, the SAFE Ports Act passed by those margins. The UIGEA was attached to the SAFE Ports Act. If it was a standalone piece of legislation, it would not have come anywhere close to those voting figures.

But it doesn't seem like there's been much political backlash over the federal government's opposition, forever, to gambling. That's what I'm having a problem with. The aggressive prosecution of these sites is being portrayed as this weird, fringe idea that only right-wing weirdos have, when we have a Democratic administration actually aggressively pursuing prosecution, and really not a ton of people overly concerned about that (except internet poker players).

I'm pretty sure internet gambling would have been illegal and prosecuted under Clinton, and Bush I, and Carter, and Ford, and all the Congresses that have passed through in the meantime.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

No, the SAFE Ports Act passed by those margins. The UIGEA was attached to the SAFE Ports Act. If it was a standalone piece of legislation, it would not have come anywhere close to those voting figures.

Thanks for that distinction too (that's a pretty big one).

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

But it doesn't seem like there's been much political backlash over the federal government's opposition, forever, to gambling. That's what I'm having a problem with. The aggressive prosecution of these sites is being portrayed as this weird, fringe idea that only right-wing weirdos have, when we have a Democratic administration actually aggressively pursuing prosecution, and really not a ton of people overly concerned about that (except internet poker players).

I'm pretty sure internet gambling would have been illegal and prosecuted under Clinton, and Bush I, and Carter, and Ford,......

Because the bigger issue is whether or not poker is gambling. Many states have made court rulings that it is a skill game, and should not fall under the same umbrella as gambling. That is why there is so much gray area.

Not to mention you can purchase lotto tickets, play keno, and bet on horse racing from your living room with your debit card in many states. Yet the line is drawn at poker, it can't possibly be because all the activities I mentioned generate revenue for the State, can it be!!!!!!!!!

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

Thanks for that distinction too (that's a pretty big one).

yes it is, and that is why so many people have had an issue with it. A few reps with an agenda basically snuck the law through at the 11th hour under false pretenses.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

yes it is, and that is why so many people have had an issue with it. A few reps with an agenda basically snuck the law through at the 11th hour under false pretenses.

Of course, no matter what the fed did - you'd still be out of luck in Washington, right? (per last year's State Supreme Court ruling upholding Washington internet gambling laws). I don't how much Washington does or can enforce those state laws. But that would be the interesting next question if the federal laws change - along with how many states would try to ban internet gambling if the fed laws changed. (If Washington did, I imagine a lot would, per my previous point about legislators being much more willing and motivated to ban gambling than a lot of people think they are).

I know they tried a commerce clause challenge in Washington, but that's not an argument that's going to go anywhere. How about a federal constitutional right to play poker online? I'm sure someone can make that argument.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

Of course, no matter what the fed did - you'd still be out of luck in Washington, right? (per last year's State Supreme Court ruling upholding Washington internet gambling laws). I don't how much Washington does or can enforce those state laws. But that would be the interesting next question if the federal laws change - along with how many states would try to ban internet gambling if the fed laws changed. (If Washington did, I imagine a lot would, per my previous point about legislators being much more willing and motivated to ban gambling than a lot of people think they are).

I know they tried a commerce clause challenge in Washington, but that's not an argument that's going to go anywhere. How about a federal constitutional right to play poker online? I'm sure someone can make that argument.

Yeah, was a pretty high profile ruling in the poker world that many think may go to the supreme court.

I have no idea what Wa would do and won't be around long enough to care. My .02 on it is with the current budget deficit here right now to turn down a perfectly legal form of revenue is stupid.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

It's also not surprising that the party aggressively enforcing these laws is the one that tells that the "free market" is the root of all evil and that government and business should operate as an essential merged entity.

They are also the administration that extended the deadline for financial companies to comply with the regulations.