The Beginning of the Death of Online Poker in the US

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/LSECWS/IFSPages/MarketNewsPopup.aspx?id=1308926&source=RNS

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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 ), and then I'll see where to go from there.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

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]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

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

ding ding ding

[Subby]

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

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]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

"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]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

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]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

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]

Originally Posted by panerd

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/netell...l2oct067am.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/inter...anks.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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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]

Originally Posted by Icy

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/...ns_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]

Originally Posted by DeeBrownforPresident

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]

Originally Posted by Mustang

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]

Originally Posted by panerd

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]

Originally Posted by cartman

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]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

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]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

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]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

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]

Originally Posted by GoldenEagle

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