The Beginning of the Death of Online Poker in the US

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

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]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

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]

Originally Posted by Subby

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by Subby

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]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

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.

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

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]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Subby

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

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]

Originally Posted by Subby

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]

Originally Posted by dixieflatline

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]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

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]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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

Lol

[Subby]

Originally Posted by 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.

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&ne...nG=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...ss042607.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]

Originally Posted by 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/

Ooohh. Welcome to interesting times.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by 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/

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

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.

Spoiler