The Beginning of the Death of Online Poker in the US

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

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/inter...31132320071214

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]

Originally Posted by -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.

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]

Originally Posted by Cap Ologist

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]

Originally Posted by Cap Ologist

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/...an-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/...th-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]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by Radii

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]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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]

Originally Posted by -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.

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/...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...trictions.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

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)

[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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

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]

Originally Posted by cartman

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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

[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.