Update on Internet Gambling Ban

[MannyIsGod]

It was looking really good up untill a couple of days ago. It really seemed as though this would be far too low on the Senate's priority list for it to get enough attention to pass and there were several holds on the bill placed by certain senators.

However, almost overnight things are not looking so grand. Apparently Bill Frist is trying to attach the language to the Department of Defense Authorizations Bill. The DoD Authorization bill is what lays out many of the programs the DoD will run over the coming year. THIS BILL HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ONLINE GAMBLING, yet Senator Frist is inserting this language for many reasons.

1) The holds on the gambling bill itself aren't going to be removed, meaning it would be almost impossible to pass.

2) Anyone trying to hold up this bill will take a lot more political flak than they would for just stopping the internet gambling bill.

I think its complete horseshit. Its bad enough they are trying to pass this bill to begin with, but to insert it into something that is so damn different and irrelevent really just pisses me off. The status of things really won't be known untill Monday or Tuesday, but thats where they are now.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Well, but that's how a lot of things happen is with riders on important or necessary legislation.

I think it totally sucks, but one wonders about enforcement opportunities. I admit I haven't read up on it a whole lot, but is this going to be up to ISPs to enforce/block the law or solely on law enforcement?

Any info links you can provide would be appreciated, Manny.

[MannyIsGod]

They're going after the banking aspect of it. They want the banks to stop transactions between the bank and the gambling companies. This would require a large amount of effort on the banking industry's part and of course they dont' want to have to do that so they're fighting it.

All in all, it may end up being an uneforceable law because the banks may not be able to block transcactions from companies like Neteller or Firepay so we'll see where it ends up.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=law

Thats the best source of information on things right now.

[johnsmith]

They're going after the banking aspect of it. They want the banks to stop transactions between the bank and the gambling companies. This would require a large amount of effort on the banking industry's part and of course they dont' want to have to do that so they're fighting it.

All in all, it may end up being an uneforceable law because the banks may not be able to block transcactions from companies like Neteller or Firepay so we'll see where it ends up.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=law

Thats the best source of information on things right now.

Which website are you using for NFL this year? I've switched around to new ones each season for the last three years and I've been a little nervous about putting money into an account this year as I now fear never seeing it again thanks to our government focusing on such important legislation as this.

[MannyIsGod]

I havne't used any site for sportsbooking lately. I did use Sportsbook.com in the past.

I did just recieve something in the mail for Betonusa.com. They were offering 50 free bucks, so I may take that and blow it on a few games.

[johnsmith]

I havne't used any site for sportsbooking lately. I did use Sportsbook.com in the past.

I did just recieve something in the mail for Betonusa.com. They were offering 50 free bucks, so I may take that and blow it on a few games.

I've never used betonusa, I did use betonsports.com one year, I'd say avoid them as they will never stop emailing you and sending you shit........however, I did get a lovely mousepad from them.

[1369]

Sucks for the degenerate gamblers.

Sincerely,
Tony Bruno

[Spurminator]

Sucks for freedom.

What a manipulative rat Bill Frist is.

[NASCARdad]

Sucks for freedom.

What a manipulative rat Bill Frist is.

Is there something wrong with having good morals?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Is there something wrong with having good morals?

No, but when Bill Frist finds them, be sure to let us know.

[MannyIsGod]

It is looking good as of right now. The report will come out later today, but it seems as though Frist was unsuccessful in his hijak attempt. However, he will try again almost without a doubt before the session is over.

Bitch ass Frist.

[2centsworth]

It is looking good as of right now. The report will come out later today, but it seems as though Frist was unsuccessful in his hijak attempt. However, he will try again almost without a doubt before the session is over.

Bitch ass Frist.
good thing manny is Republicans don't vote str8 party lines. There will be some demagoging of the issue from the right but it won't fly. However, it will be taxed and regulated like I think it should.

[DarkReign]

They're going after the banking aspect of it. They want the banks to stop transactions between the bank and the gambling companies. This would require a large amount of effort on the banking industry's part and of course they dont' want to have to do that so they're fighting it.

All in all, it may end up being an uneforceable law because the banks may not be able to block transcactions from companies like Neteller or Firepay so we'll see where it ends up.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=law

Thats the best source of information on things right now.

I think your summary is correct, but I pull one conclusion from an unenforceable law.

No law or legal onus to pay if you do win. Interesting.

[MannyIsGod]

I think your summary is correct, but I pull one conclusion from an unenforceable law.

No law or legal onus to pay if you do win. Interesting.Oh fuck that. The IRS doesn't care if I make may money selling crack to 7 year olds on the playground, but they better get their damn cut. Seriously.

[AlamoSpursFan]

What do seven year olds pay for crack with? Yu-Gi-Oh cards?

:lol

[CubanMustGo]

Is there something wrong with having good morals?

Is there something wrong with the government rather than the family being the enforcer of morality?

[2centsworth]

Is there something wrong with the government rather than the family being the enforcer of morality?
Our government encourages good habits all the time. For example, Sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol, restricitions on strip clubs etc...

[cheguevara]

free country my ass

[2centsworth]

free country my ass
more free than what Che started.

[MannyIsGod]

Our government encourages good habits all the time. For example, Sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol, restricitions on strip clubs etc...And all of those laws are shit, IMO.

[SequSpur]

whatever....

[2centsworth]

And all of those laws are shit, IMO.
I agree to some extent, except when it comes to protecting children.

[George W. Bush]

Don't let Billy Boy get you down, Manny -- that's just how dimmocrapacy works!

[BeerIsGood!]

What does internet gambling have to do with protecting children? Morality is fine, but the problem is that there are many different views of what constitutes morality. Some people see no problem with spending 25 dollars to bet on their favorite football team when it has no effect on whether or not they can buy food or pay their bills. It's an entertainment expense - just like going to the ball game would be. There is no way to prove what actually constitutes morality, so what you get is people dividing into groups and fighting each other over what they believe is right. Since there is no way to prove what is moral or not, the government shouldn't get in the business of deciding what is moral. Besides, wouldn't that be the epitome of hypocracy? A government that sets morality standards that are violated by the very people that run the government and set the standards? I have no tolerance for that.

[MannyIsGod]

I agree to some extent, except when it comes to protecting children.I agree that steps should be taken (IE keeping strip clubs away from schools etc etc) to protect children. I just don't like being told what I can and can't do as an adult when no one else is harmed.

[MannyIsGod]

In the end this bill has very little to do with children or morality and everything to do with election year politics.

[2centsworth]

In the end this bill has very little to do with children or morality and everything to do with election year politics.
there's only regional support for this bill, not national. I don't think it has a chance of passing. Most republicans are with you on this one.

[MannyIsGod]

there's only regional support for this bill, not national. I don't think it has a chance of passing. Most republicans are with you on this one.You're way off man. Republicans are the ones PUSHING this bill. They were the driving force for it in the House, they are the driving force for it in the Senate, and the republican President will sign it faster than your aces can get cracked.

Frist has made some big changes to the rider and is trying to attatch it to the fucking DoDA bill once again. It looks like he has a really good chance. What is unknown is how much he changed the bill, but it looks like huge portions of it were taken out including any mention of a having ISP's block the gambling sites.



The saga continues, according to Congress Daily PM, but not in a good way. These a$$holes sure are determined:

JUDICIARY
Frist Making Last-Minute Bid To Block Online Gambling
Senate Majority Leader Frist's bid to attach a rider to the defense authorization bill that would crack down on online gambling has picked up momentum after it was thought to be written off earlier this week. "We are working and pushing and trying and hoping and negotiating -- but it's not done yet," said a top Frist aide, who declined to detail negotiations.
Gambling industry lobbyists have stepped up their presence, especially aiming to persuade the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees to jettison the provision as they attempt to file the conference report as early as Monday. "The question is whether the authorizers get enough grief over this that they force the [House and Senate] leaders to move off," said one top lobbyist. "Time is a major factor now. They have to file soon." The House in July passed, 317-93, a comprehensive measure to ban most forms of online gambling. Lobbyists said they feel the issue is primarily being driven by Frist's bid to court conservative Christians who play a critical role in the GOP presidential nominating process and for whom the online gambling ban is a top legislative priority.
Frist is pushing a truncated version of the House bill that essentially would bar banks and credit card companies from processing payments for online bets and make it a crime for a gambling business to accept credit cards, wire transfers or any other bank instrument to process payments for illegal gaming transactions. But, according to lobbyists, Frist was able to pick up key Senate support after including a carve-out for the politically powerful horse racing industry, which has supporters such as Majority Whip McConnell. House leaders appear inclined to go along with Frist, according to lobbyists, even though his rider does not include House language sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., that would amend the 1961 Wire Act to prohibit businesses from using all forms of new technology to accept bets over state and foreign lines. Goodlatte had strenuously fought to include changes to the Wire Act in the House bill, but that language has been considered too contentious to take up in the Senate. A top aide for Speaker Hastert said he was on board with Frist's bid. One lobbyist was even more direct: "Hastert's rolling Goodlatte." Goodlatte's office did not respond for comment.
One key question is the influence of the American Gaming Association, especially AGA President Frank Fahrenkopf Jr., a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. The AGA is calling for a commission to study the online gambling industry, including whether the United States should regulate and tax the industry rather than enacting a complete ban. It also counts Senate Minority Leader Reid as an ally. "I favor a ban. I don't like it. But failing that, I would certainly go along with a study," Reid said Thursday. Lobbyists said Native American tribes with gaming interests also are contacting lawmakers. Sen.
Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a gambling opponent, said Thursday he thought that his side would eventually succeed even if the rider was not included on the defense authorization bill, but possibly another piece of legislation before the end of the year. "We will find a way to get legislation on online gambling this year," said Kyl, who faces a tough re-election bid. "Some gambling interests oppose what we are trying to do, but I am confident that we have a way to get it done." -- by Bill Swindell

[MannyIsGod]

Well, it apperas as though the defense bill will not contain the language because it appears as though Frist is sticking it in the Port Security bill instead. Reports are unclear on whether or not its in there, but we should know later today whether or not I may have to actually find work once again in the near future.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, the internet gambling language is in the Port Security bill and it appears as though the House will pass it. The Senate is also likely to pass it.

This sucks very very badly.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, its really all unkown right now, but it will almost certainly effect everyone. Whatever level you play, if you are a pro you require fish to move up who have run well at the lower levels. The higher you move, the more this is true.

If I'm playing 400NL, then I basicaly want players that suck to run really hot at 1-2 NL or lower and end up moving up when they shouldn't. Otherwise I'm just playing against other 2-4 pros or semi pros.

You see, I'm not in danger of losing my bankroll or the ability to play. The US isn't going to block these sites and I'm still going to be able to move money out. But moving money in may become much harder, and if that happens then we'll definetly see a reduction in the number of new players. New players provide the money that I win, and without them it will be much harder to make the kind of money I'm making now. There will stil be new players from Europe, but the United States market is what really drives things. There are a lot of people in their early 20s who may see huge earnings just go away.

I'm trying to remain somewhat optomistic that the bill won't harm things that much, but I'm truely worried.

[MannyIsGod]

Party and Pacific Poker are banning American players. Party banning Americans is a sort of the 666 of the poker world. It means the end is near.

Pacific doesn't really matter in the long run, but Party is huge.

There are are rumors that PokerStars is going to do the same, but Lee Jones says they haven't decided a thing.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=7506764&page=0&vc=1

Anyone want to give me a job? :(

[johnsmith]

Party and Pacific Poker are banning American players. Party banning Americans is a sort of the 666 of the poker world. It means the end is near.

Pacific doesn't really matter in the long run, but Party is huge.

There are are rumors that PokerStars is going to do the same, but Lee Jones says they haven't decided a thing.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=7506764&page=0&vc=1

Anyone want to give me a job? :(


This is so fucking gay. I went to betonsports.com yesterday to try and start a new glorious NFL season-o-gambling and they were closed for business. Am I once again going to be forced to go through a bookie? You know what's funny, the government steps into regulate this and now I'm clearly going to be in more danger going through a shady bookie rather then out of the comfort of my own home. If I ever meet the congressmen that started this bullshit, I'm going to punch all of them in the nuts and say thanks for looking out for our best interests you fucktard.

[MannyIsGod]

I may start drinking before 9am.

[johnsmith]

I may start drinking before 9am.


Why would that be any different from any other day?

[Melmart1]

Because of this gotdamned, motherfucking BULLSHIT I will likely lose my biggest client this week. It is only a matter of time and I have a feeling the hammer will drop sooner than later. Anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of my income each month comes from this client, so a big FUCK YOU to Frist and everyone who supported this.

I might have to run to the store and start drinking this morning, too. :depressed

[MannyIsGod]

Because of this gotdamned, motherfucking BULLSHIT I will likely lose my biggest client this week. It is only a matter of time and I have a feeling the hammer will drop sooner than later. Anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of my income each month comes from this client, so a big FUCK YOU to Frist and everyone who supported this.

I might have to run to the store and start drinking this morning, too. :depressedI've literally come close to puking this morning. I'm following the news as close as I can, but it seems something breaks every few minutes and its usually bad.

I don't know man, I found a way to make more money that I'll probably make with any other job. It was going to pay for me to finish school and establish me pretty well as far as my finances go. This motherfucker was going to be debt free.

It was a nice dream.

[Melmart1]

Yeah, it's much more worrisome for you, Manny. I still have other clients to fall back on, so I can't pretend to know what you are going through. But I certainly sympathize, seeing as how my bread and butter is going away soon. I just keep waiting for the e-mail telling me to login for a conference call. The anticipation is making me ill.

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah, it's much more worrisome for you, Manny. I still have other clients to fall back on, so I can't pretend to know what you are going through. But I certainly sympathize, seeing as how my bread and butter is going away soon. I just keep waiting for the e-mail telling me to login for a conference call. The anticipation is making me ill.Eh, losing that much of your monthly income is a blow anyway you slice it Mel. Neither of us is going to come out of this smelling like roses, thats for sure. In the end, I knew this was a risk. I knew it could happen. I never believed it would come to this, but I guess I should never underestimate the political power derived from combining presidential asperations with the push of the Christian Right Wing asshats.

Its so fucked how much power that group weilds in this country.

[Spurminator]

This is one big steaming pile of bullshit.

[Melmart1]

Once people start trying to login to their accounts, I wonder if the backlash will begin or if people will just say 'oh well' and login to their free account.

[MannyIsGod]

This is one big steaming pile of bullshit.You what really fucking kills me? The carveouts the made for lotteries and Horse racing!!!! So, poker is wrong but betting on the fucking ponies isn't? Which takes skill, poker or the lottery?

There's already WTO litigation facing the US on this subject and this is goig to spur more. Free Trade .................................................. .......when it suits us.

[MannyIsGod]

Once people start trying to login to their accounts, I wonder if the backlash will begin or if people will just say 'oh well' and login to their free account.I dno't know man, part of me still doesn't think the US can stop it. I just wasn't prepared to wake up to news of the biggest company just rolling over to die.

Several of the smaller sites have said they're not going anywhere. I know the TruePoker.com CEO was on 2p2 today saying his site wasn't going to stop, and the WPEX Ceo did the same yesterday. Lee Jones who runs PokerStars has said they haven't made a decision yet, but that would be a HUGE boost if they decide to stay. They're a huge room, but I just don't know.

All of the stocks took huge hits today. Neteller took a 70+% dive today from what I read. I haven't actually seen the reports, but that wouldnt' suprise me.

But well, I can still play the lottery online. Thats not illegal.

[Spurminator]

Washington, D.C.:
Office of Senator Bill Frist
509 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3344
202-228-1264 (fax)

Nashville:
Office of Senator Bill Frist
28 White Bridge Road
Suite 211
Nashville, TN 37205
615-352-9411
615-352-9985 (fax)

[Melmart1]

This is kinda fucked up... But I admit it did make me feel better.

http://www.eog.com/uploadedImages/images/ENTERTAINMENT/fristnazicq2.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

Washington, D.C.:
Office of Senator Bill Frist
509 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3344
202-228-1264 (fax)

Nashville:
Office of Senator Bill Frist
28 White Bridge Road
Suite 211
Nashville, TN 37205
615-352-9411
615-352-9985 (fax):lol

Yeah, I guess we could call except that might be about as usefull as calling Dubya to talk him out of staying in Iraq.

There were numerous grassroots campaigns that involved calling the hell out of congress in the past 3 weeks and they worked. But when Frist tacked it onto the Port Security bill, no one was going to vote against that to save online gaming. I can't say I blame them either.

[MannyIsGod]

This is kinda fucked up... But I admit it did make me feel better.

http://www.eog.com/uploadedImages/images/ENTERTAINMENT/fristnazicq2.jpgI was just looking for that picture. Thanks.

[Spurminator]

I was thinking a nice steady flow of faxes would be nice.

[TheTruth]

I can hook you up with a room in my aunties house in sydney.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm just going to follow in Richard Lee's footsteps and become rich by being a local bookie. But I'm going to bust out of here before they catch me.

[katyon6th]

I'm sure I'll be seeing you head up to the Attorney General's office in my building sometime in the near future as well.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm sure I'll be seeing you head up to the Attorney General's office in my building sometime in the near future as well.They'll never take me alive.

[Spurminator]

I know this isn't the first time this kind of thing has happened, and I know there are a lot of more consequential issues that are decided on by our Congress, but for some reason this pisses me off more than almost anything our government has done, even in the last 6 years. It's such a transparent, unapologetic abuse of the system.

What a mockery.

[Phil Hellmuth]

I have read many public forums over the past few days. Until now, I have not spoken out publicly on the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, and the new version of this law which was attached to the Ports Security Bill on Friday night, although my views are probably foreseeable.

I do not believe most of the members here quite understand the degree of damage this new legislation will have upon the online gambling industry -- inclduing sports wagering, poker, and affiliated businesses such as MadJacks, et. al.

Before I comment upon this legislation and its detrimental impacts, first I should disclose that I have been involved in the poker business for more than a decade. I was and am the Media Director for the World Series of Poker. I was, until yesterday, the Director of Communications for PokerStars.com -- the second-largest online poker site in the world. I resigned my position based on legal advice. In 2004, I was the Editor of a sports betting magazine published by SportingBet USA. I also served as a guest handicapper here at MadJacks for four years. Please note that the opinions expressed here are not those of the World Series of Poker, PokerStars.com, or anyone else I have been affiliated with. They are my own.

Once this bill is signed into law (possibly as early as Wednesday, Oct. 4), it becomes effective immediately. This is why 888, PartyGaming, and others are suspending US operations, effective immediately. News has already been released that .COM (money) poker games will not be available to US residents. However, .NET (free) games will continue uninterupted.

I expect this to have a ripple afffect across the entire industry. Most of the larger poker sites, and likely offshore sportsbooks as well, will be forced to block wagers from US residents. Otherwise, all operators/employees are subject to arrest and prosecution if they enter US territory. Those here and elsewhere who have stated this new law "only applies to financial transactions" have a narrow and tragically misguided view of the legislation. It essentially makes any employee or agent of the offshore site a criminal under US law -- UNLESS they block transactions from US residents. In short, an executive from an offshore sportsbook could enter the US and not fear arrest, provided that company is not doing business inside the United States.

Hence, the impetous is on the sites themselves to shut down US operations and links to US clients. I expect that most of the larger sportsbooks and poker sites will follow this trend for a few reasons which follow:

1. First, many of the larger, more established compnaies will take a long-term strategic view. They will decide it is better to operate within the law, rather than break it. This is especially true for public companies subject to gaming law and regulations, such as Party, 888, etc.

2. Companies which comply with US law now will be in a better position to re-enter the US market, provided online gamlbing is eventually legalized.

3. While profits will decline in the short-term, these companies will be forced to expand into new markets (Asia, Latin America, and so forth) or perish. Those companies with diversified products (non-US sports on the betting menu, for example) will be in better position to make the adjustment.

4. I expect a number of rogue sites to pop up and circumvent the law. Clearly, some sites will emerge and take the risk of accepting US wagers because of great potential profit. Sadly, I expect some of these rogue sites will be poorly run and mismanaged and scandal will result, which impacts the entire industry, and this makes legaliztion in the US even more difficult.

5. I expect that most of the majors in the sports betting market will continue to operate through the end of football season (the most profitable time of the year) and use the 270-day enforcement discussion period as a grey area which can be exploited to their advantage. However, as arrests and prosecutions continue to make news (Caruthers, Dicks, etc.) some of the majors will be forced to confront the prospect of blocking US traffic. I also expect US officials to put pressure on some governments such as Costa Rica, Antigua, and others to regulate their own sportsbooks, in the manner that the US government is involved in drug policy in counties like Mexico, Columbia, and so forth.

6. I predict that most of the majors will conduct themselves in a professional manner, by refunding deposits and paying (winning) players upon request. More to the point, I am not withdrawing my money from any poker or sports betting account at this time. However, those sites which openly violate US law will risk eventually being targeted in international court. I admit to having less knowledge on this issue than any other. But I do not fear that well-established sportsbooks will run away with money. I can say with absolute certainty that the big poker sites will act in good faith. I think I know this industry well enough to express this confidence.

As to the impacts on poker and sportsbetting, this new law is going to be DEVASTATING. Especially for poker.

Consider that:

A. If poker sites cannot accept deposits from US players, that will kill 70-80 percent of the overall market. The question becomes -- is there eanough of a remaining market and enough contributing players in smaller markets to sustain operations and expansion? Perhaps. But it will take years, if not a decade to return to what has been the golden age of poker.

B. Online poker sites and sportsbooks will no longer be able to advertise (.COM-related services) inside the US. Media outlets will simply refuse to accept the ads. This includes print, television, and radio. Consider the implications. Thousands of new players were signing up daily at various sites. All of that vanishes. Sports gambling is less-relaint on advertising. However, the loss of the US market will force unforeseen changes in how these businesses are run, esepcially those companies that have multiple-gamling related products, such as BoDog, Paradise, etc.

C. Online betting sites will likely not be able to post banner ads and links to gaming sites, especially those based inside the US. "Aiding and abetting" laws could result in arest and prosecution for those who provide links to US residents. Poker magazines, online betting forums, and even MadJacks could suffer. I remain uncertain as to how severe this impact will be, especially at MadJacks. But for the hundreds of poker sites/sports sties and blogs out there that are dependent upon online poker and sportsbook advertising, many will go out of business. Once again, this might not seem a big issue to everyone, but these are the pioneers who are bringing in new poker players and sports bettors and when they dry up, the market skrinks and everyone is adversely affected.

D. Many sites use what are called affiliates. Persons who are affiliates and live inside the US will now be subject to arrest and prosecution, particualrly those who do not block financial transactions from the US.

E. The celebrity poker culture around star poker players will diminish. One poker site is heavily branded to many big names. Now, these players will no longer be able to promote their sites inside the US. Hence, their value and stature diminishes.

F. Big events like the World Series of Poker, which attract meany players and great inteerst from online poker sites, could decline in size for the first time in history. I am most sensitive to commenting upon this event because I still have a longstanding association with the WSOP. However, anyone who looks at the situation must conclude that the WSOP and major poker tournaments will be hurt by this new law.

G. Online gaming sponsorships of various products and services will decline. For instance, Golden Palace ads in boxing arenas, NBA stadiums, and on halftime shows will diminish, if not end completely. PartyPoker ads that are seen regularly on TV, on all stations, will fade away. Millions in advertising revenue will be lost by media companies (which begs the question (why were they not fighting this legislation?)

Keep in mind that these points are off the top of my head. I do not pretend to have a legal background. They are simply personal points of view and speculation as to the impacts of this new law.

Finally, there were some here and elsewhere who said not to worry, that the law would never pass, and so forth. Now, we see what happens when we remain complacent and passive. Aside from this being an outrageous violation of personal freedoms and privacy in this country, I view this issue as largely symbolic of the decline of civil liberties in recent years, and an eerie warning of what is to come. It brings to mind a bumper sticker I saw recently, "If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention."


Nolan Dalla
Las Vegas, NV

[Phil Hellmuth]

i pulled out a lot of my money on pinnacle sportsbook.

i am preparing for the worst and will come back if there is some uncertainity put to rest.

[Spurminator]

R.I.P:
Spurminator's Faith in the U.S. Government
(Oct. 4, 1979 - Sept. 30, 2006)

[Slomo]

4. I expect a number of rogue sites to pop up and circumvent the law. Clearly, some sites will emerge and take the risk of accepting US wagers because of great potential profit. Sadly, I expect some of these rogue sites will be poorly run and mismanaged and scandal will result, which impacts the entire industry, and this makes legaliztion in the US even more difficult.
And they'll use a situation they have created as proof of how right they were.

Unfortunately it's not the first time a government does it.

[1Parker1]

Maybe I'm just not understanding this right. Can someone explain it to me;

What exactly is the government's justification for this proposed Internet gambling ban. How exactly do they distinguish Internet Gambling to like Casino gambling or even those horse race gamblings at the track?

[Phil Hellmuth]

Maybe I'm just not understanding this right. Can someone explain it to me;

What exactly is the government's justification for this proposed Internet gambling ban. How exactly do they distinguish Internet Gambling to like Casino gambling or even those horse race gamblings at the track?

1. Money laundering. Even if .00001% does it, everyone gets the prohibition.

2. taxing reasons if they want to regulate it later.

those are my only 2 plausible reasons.

[Jimcs50]

What about FTP?

[MannyIsGod]

Maybe I'm just not understanding this right. Can someone explain it to me;

What exactly is the government's justification for this proposed Internet gambling ban. How exactly do they distinguish Internet Gambling to like Casino gambling or even those horse race gamblings at the track?Well, they stuck this legislation inside a port security bill and the country hasn't so much as blinked. Why? Because even though Tens of millions of Americans gamble online, no one is going to stand up for that because of the stigma gambling carries.

So, in short, they don't need justification, because no one is going to challenge them on it. It's blatant bullshit, but if no one calls you on it, who cares?

[MannyIsGod]

What about FTP?They're heavily American based, and I'd assume eventually they'd HAVE to cut off American clients because of how home grown that company is.

This is the email I got from them today.



Hello Manuel,

Thank you for your e-mail 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 Full Tilt Poker. 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 Full Tilt Poker.

Regards,

Edward
Full Tilt Poker SupportApparently they're going to use the window to its fullest, but at this piont I expect them to follow suit.

[MannyIsGod]

This a rundown of the sites and what they are doing right now

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=7509074&an=0&page=0&gonew=1#UNREAD

Pacific and Party have been the only ones to come out and say they are closing down to Americans. Actually, I think the Cryptologic network has done so as well, but that was a mostly European network.

Almost every other major site has come out with a letter like Full Tilt has, and some like TruePoker or WPEX have flat out said they are staying in business. Neteller has a new set of terms of service up today that you have to accept, but I couldn't tell you what is different. But they will likely still do the same until the government comes out and says exactly what they are stopping.

[MannyIsGod]

This is pretty big:

BC-Internet Gambling-Banks,0453 �
Banking group sees protections in Internet gambling bill �
With BC-Britain-Internet Gambling �
By GREG EDWARDS Ž
Dow Jones Newswires Ž

ST. LOUIS (Dow Jones/AP) — The Internet gambling legislation passed late last week by the U.S. Congress, which led to a major sell-off of Britain-based online gambling stocks Monday, remains a concern to the U.S. banking industry but isn’t as burdensome as feared.

“We got some language in the bill that looks like it protects the financial services industry,” said Steve Verdier, director of congressional relations for the Independent Community Bankers of America, which represents almost 5,000 banks in the United States. “It could have been a lot worse.”

The legislation is designed to prohibit U.S. banks and credit card companies from processing payments for illegal online gambling. Financial services companies and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had expressed concerns about the compliance burdens that would be imposed, such as tracking and blocking potentially millions of transactions.

Under the legislation as passed, “If you are acting as a normal bank, and you’re not in some sort of conspiracy with a betting house, then you are not going to be held liable,” Verdier said.

In addition, the legislation will be guided and enforced by regulations written by the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department.

“If they find that the banks just don’t have the technology to track and block these transactions, then we don’t have to,” Verdier said. “The Fed and Treasury are not supposed to ask us to do the impossible.”

Still, Verdier said, “we will have to see how those regulations get written.”

The legislation, attached to an unrelated port security bill, was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives Friday and by the U.S. Senate early Saturday. It is expected to be signed into law by President Bush.

Shares in Britain-based betting companies, such as PartyGaming PLC, 888 Holdings PLC and Sportingbet PLC, plunged Monday. The companies said they would suspend business from the United States if the legislation is enacted.

The U.S. Justice Department has been bringing fraud charges against online gambling companies and their executives.

For example, BetOnSports PLC and its former chief executive, David Carruthers, were indicted in June in federal court in St. Louis, and the company closed its U.S. operations Aug. 12.

[GINNNNNNNNNNNNOBILI]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/10/02/uk.betting.reut/index.html


LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Online gaming firms faced their biggest-ever crisis on Monday after U.S. Congress unexpectedly passed legislation to ban online gaming there, threatening jobs and hitting stocks by as much as 70 percent.

Britain's PartyGaming Plc, operator of leading online poker site PartyPoker.com, and rivals Sportingbet and 888 Plc said they would likely pull out of the United States and warned on future profits.

PartyGaming's shares fell 59 percent by 0725 GMT, while Sportingbet lost 64 percent, 888 was down 45 percent and gaming software provider Playtech fell 55 percent. Austria's bwin.com Interactive Entertainment fell as much as 22 percent in the first few minutes of trading.

U.S. Congress unexpectedly approved a bill early on Saturday that would make it illegal for banks and credit-card companies to make payments to online gambling sites.

The House of Representatives and Senate approved the measure and sent it to President George W. Bush to sign into law. Most analysts think his approval is certain.

"We believe that this will have a very material impact on the long-term prospects of online gambling, and in particular poker," said analyst Julian Easthope at UBS. "This will lead to a rapid decline in the use of online poker sites."

PartyGaming generates about 78 percent of its revenue from the United States, while Sportingbet gets about 62 percent there.

PartyGaming said in a statement: "If the president signs the act into law, the company will suspend all real money gaming business with U.S. residents, and such suspension will continue indefinitely.

"Any such suspension would also result in the group's financial performance falling significantly short of consensus forecasts for 2006 and 2007," it added.

PartyGaming's smaller rival Sportingbet said the likely ban would hit trading, and said it had scrapped a planned merger with World Gaming as a result of the passing of the legislation.

888 Plc said the move would hit its results, but stressed it remained a profitable and viable business.

Any ban would also hit payment-processors like Neteller Plc and Optimal Group's FireOne subsidiary.

Neteller Plc said the legislation would have a "material adverse effect" on its U.S.-facing business.

Copyright 2006 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

With these stock prices dropping so much, what's to stop one of these companies from just folding up and keeping everyones money?

[MannyIsGod]

If banks aren't held to the fire on these regulations, then I don't see how transactions to neteller will be illegal. If neteller still works to fund your account, I guarntee you online poker isn't dead. Many of the major sites may pull out of the American market, but I'm sure there will be companies run by people who don't give a shit if they can come back to America or not, and they'll continue to do business here.

Its not like these CEOs are in any danger to be extradited.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/10/02/uk.betting.reut/index.html



With these stock prices dropping so much, what's to stop one of these companies from just folding up and keeping everyones money?Why on earth would they do that? The money they have from everyone is far smaller than the money they'd make if they just stayed in business. The Stock prices don't mean that much, they're most indicative of how investors feel as to the actual strength of the company.

[Spurminator]

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

Press release

2 October 2006

US CONGRESS PASSES SAFE PORT ACT

NETELLER Plc (LSE:NLR), a leading online money transfer service provider, notes the recent action early on Saturday 30 September by US Congress to pass HR 4954, the Safe Port Act (the “Act”) which includes certain provisions to prohibit unlawful internet gambling through the restriction of payments to such sites.

The Act further states that there will be a period of up to 270 days beginning on the date of the enactment for a board including the US Federal Reserve and the US Attorney General to prescribe regulations requiring each designated payment system and all participants therein to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit restricted transactions.

The Company, in conjunction with its advisers, is considering the potential impact of the Act at this time. The Board believes that the Act may have a material adverse effect on NETELLER’s US facing business. Once the Company has more information about what the regulations will stipulate, it will have a clearer view of which companies are affected, how those companies will be expected to comply, and any possible resulting impact on the Company. In the meantime, the Company will continue to monitor the progress of this legislation and to energetically plan and adapt NETELLER’s business to minimise any potential adverse impact. The Company will remain focused on developing its business in line with its stated strategic objectives including geographical and product diversification.

The Company’s next trading update for the third quarter will be issued towards the end of October 2006. In the meantime, the Company will endeavour to keep shareholders informed of any material developments.

Enquiries:

NETELLER Plc

Andrew Gilchrist, Vice President - Communications +44 (0) 1293 555 726

Citigate Dewe Rogerson +44 (0) 207 638 9571

Sarah Gestetner/Seb Hoyle/George Cazenove

[MannyIsGod]

They had to say something, they took a huge shot today in regards to their stock prices falling.

I hate Bill Frist.

[SequSpur]

Not to be an ass but what do you expect? I mean really... how long was this free money going to go on? For every winner there is 10s to 100s losing their asses. Leave it to the US government to dictate again laws that control behavior amongst their citizens...

When is the free shit of our society supposed to come into play? Fuck, I have no idea.

[Kori Ellis]

So is Party Poker stopping US players now?

Because I thought that the rules wouldn't be put into effect until 270 days after Bush signs the bill.

[Melmart1]

OK, so I just talked to my boss who returned home after being in DC all last week lobbying against this. And he says that nothing will change. I am an independent contractor and I sell all rights to my work to him, so my job is safe, at least for now. He does not work for a casino at all and the company is quite diversified and is not going under, though they will take a hit.

So for the short-term, I am good. But I am not holding my breath either. But I think I will have a beer with my dinner tonight :)

[MannyIsGod]

Party isn't stopping right now, but when Bush signs it. He's supposed to sign it sometime in the next 2 weeks.

From the point he signs it, the law goes into effect, but the regulations for the banks will take UP TO 270 days to figure out. Those regulations don't look to be too severe according to people in the banking industry.

So basicaly, heres the breakdown on everything I can gather so far:

When the law is signed, it makes providing these services to Americans illegal. So executives of these companies will be in danger of American prosecution. Now, this obviously is scaring some companies, namely 888 (pacific poker) and Party. But other companies are playing a wait and see game to see exactly how things play out before they just give up.

Personally, if i was running one of those companies I don't think I'd let the US government tell me what to do. If they come here, they'd be subject to being arrested but really America isn't that nice. Being rich in Aruba trumps a damn trip to New York City in my eyes, but whatever.

Once he signs it, the federal reserve will come up with banking regulations within 270 days. This will specify what the banks have to do to comply with the law. Right now, it looks really good on this front, but I'm not sure how good. If they don't block transactions to Neteller then funding and cashing out will not be that big of a hurdle at all if Neteller goes on with business as usual. This is at least decently likely, but Neteller in the end may block American transactions if they feel the pressure of their shareholders.

IF that happens, I'm sure another ewallet will move into the forefront. Someone will step up and fill the void because the market is just too damn big to leave it alone.

I'm fairly confident that even aftere these regulations are in place, funding a poker account will not be that hard.

But what is worriesome, is what sites will be around after this all shakes out. If all the major sites cut out Americans, all that may be left will be smaller less secure sites. I'm not looking forward to having my bankroll reside on sites that are less than trustworthy and aren't monitored by foreign stock exchanges. Right now the sites out there are actually regulated in many respects just not by the American government. Its a big industry for the EU and they take care of it.

There's also other things that could happen with the WTO or with an exception for poker because it is a game of skill rather than a game of chance. I don't think these have a huge chance for success, but they're out there.

Basicaly, Party slit its own wrists today. Stars or Full Tilt will move into the slot they held if either stays, but how long either stays is really up in the air right now. If you have money on these sites its probably safe.

[MannyIsGod]

OK, so I just talked to my boss who returned home after being in DC all last week lobbying against this. And he says that nothing will change. I am an independent contractor and I sell all rights to my work to him, so my job is safe, at least for now. He does not work for a casino at all and the company is quite diversified and is not going under, though they will take a hit.

So for the short-term, I am good. But I am not holding my breath either. But I think I will have a beer with my dinner tonight :)Awesome news dude!

[LittleGeneral]

sergsergs e5yse4rty4tsergsdrgser4gws34ysw5uhj54tsxr5ujhe45cr yw6s54eyb457u5jnyrt5dyh5rsertsyerys46ws346ys4e5ysd rgshe5ys5e4u6rtiuft7iogy8uog879087ir6745ydurtrtudr tudrtu4ssydfghjhfhjkgyuikgyuir6tue5yuaweryserysetr udydtyklfutyfgyuioftutyiftyiftyuftyjhvkvj,hhlfgyui

[boutons_]

Regulated stop payment for online bets?

By Reuters
http://news.com.com/Regulated+stop+payment+for+online+bets/2100-1028_3-6122093.html

Story last modified Tue Oct 03 06:27:00 PDT 2006

The costs of policing a new U.S. Internet gambling ban for banks and credit card companies will be determined by regulators in the coming months, industry officials said Monday.

Government officials are expected to propose a "coding and blocking" system that will identify and stop payment to gambling sites, experts said. Many banks and credit card companies already voluntarily block Internet gambling transactions using such a system.

The Department of the Treasury and Federal Reserve Board have nine months to draft regulations after the new law, included in a package of port security measures passed by Congress on Friday and expected to be signed into law by President George W. Bush.

U.S. banks and credit card companies are optimistic that officials will prepare a workable system.

"If the Treasury (Department) and Fed can come up with reasonable rules here, it shouldn't be that bad," said Oliver Ireland, a lawyer who works with several financial-services payment providers, including Visa.

"The way they built (the new law), it gives us a chance to work with the regulators in a constructive way to come up with a system," said Greg Mesack, director of government relations for industry trade group America's Community Bankers.

United Kindom-based gaming companies such as Sportingbet.com, PartyGaming and 888 Holdings said on Monday that they would likely pull out of the U.S. market, their biggest source of revenue, and their stocks plunged.

Some banking-industry officials had worried that the new law would make them responsible for blocking payments by check as well as credit card, a requirement they had said would be unworkable.

But those concerns were allayed when lawmakers agreed to a provision allowing the Treasury and Fed to exempt checks from the requirement.

Experts said the system would not be foolproof but would bar the vast majority of bettors.

"I suspect some smart enterprising person out there will find a way to (get around) it. But for your average person who wants to get out there and bet on college football, you're not going to do it," said one lobbyist.

Ireland agreed. "I think this puts in place a broader blocking system that's going to be harder to get past for the Internet (gambling) sites," he said.

Story Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.




Copyright ©1995-2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

[Phil Hellmuth]

Not worried about this.

This doesn't hurt the individual, but only improvises the use of other/sneaky deposit methods now.

[MannyIsGod]

If they don't bar checks, then it won't be an issue at all. It doesn't look like Netellr will be effected either.

I now think the major hurdle is whether or not sites voluntarily pull out.

[tlongII]

If they don't bar checks, then it won't be an issue at all. It doesn't look like Netellr will be effected either.

I now think the major hurdle is whether or not sites voluntarily pull out.

I always pull out.

[MannyIsGod]

Best email I've gotten in a while. I had made Full Tilt my home site a while back, and now I'm very happy with that decision.


Dear O Rly Ya Rly,

Full Tilt Poker is here to stay!

As an online poker player, you have probably heard about the new legislation passed by the U.S. Congress earlier this week that attempts to prevent you from being able to transfer money to online gaming sites.

While this new law has prompted some sites to announce plans to abandon the U.S. market in coming days, we assure you that Full Tilt Poker will continue to provide all of its players - both inside and outside of the United States - with a full complement of real money ring games and tournaments for their enjoyment.

After consultation with numerous legal experts in this field, we want to make you aware of the following:

* Legal

The new U.S. legislation does not in any way attempt to criminalize the act of you playing online poker. By playing online at Full Tilt Poker, you are not breaking any U.S. Federal laws.

* Full Access

The passage of the new Internet Gaming law will not have any impact on your day-to-day experience at Full Tilt Poker. We will provide all of our players, everywhere in the world, with full access to all of our games and tournaments.

* Easy Deposits and Withdrawals

We will continue to provide our players with all of the safe, secure and convenient methods for transferring money to and from the site. In fact, in recent discussions with our payment processors, we have been assured that this new law will have no immediate impact on their day-to-day business. And as always, any monies that you have on deposit with Full Tilt Poker remain completely safe and secure.

Furthermore, we firmly believe that online poker is not encompassed by this new legislation. In any event, we will continue to lobby for an express carve-out for online poker and for your right to play a truly American game from the privacy of your own home and computer.

We are excited about the future here at Full Tilt Poker and in the coming weeks and months, we plan to roll out many new features designed to enhance your online poker experience.

We appreciate your loyalty to our site and, in turn, want you to know that we will remain loyal to our valued players in the United States and throughout the world.

We look forward to seeing you at the table.

Sincerely,

Full Tilt Poker

[T Park]

So pretty much the legislation doesn't do squat....

[Marklar MM]

So pretty much the legislation doesn't do squat....

From what I am getting, and I am getting little, it is illegal for online betting to be given to US consumers. But the US consumers cannot be held liable in this, so they cannot be charged if they do in fact gamble online. The companies are the only ones who can be charged, so if they continue to provide you with the service, they can be charged whenever they set foot on US soil. So if they don't want to enter the US, they are fine and dandy, and can still make money. The only thing really affecting this is how the regulations affect online transactions.

Ask Manny. I am uneducated with this.

[MannyIsGod]

So pretty much the legislation doesn't do squat....I don't think its as bad as it could have been, but its had severe adverse affects on the industry. The stock prices of the publicly traded sites took rough beatings and it may very well change the entire scene of online poker.

But if any other major sites take the same stance Full Tilt is taking - and I suspect a few will - then in the end its going to mean very little. If PokerStars takes the stance, then I don't see much the US will be able to do.

In the end, if these sites call the US's bluff then it might be the best thing for all parties involved IF it pushes forward legitmacy. It might make the US have to set forth regulation and legitimacy for poker. There is a market, and if that market is enough for a company like Full Tilt to go forward with business in light of the legislation then I'm not sure anything the US government can do will stop it.

Much of this may be my wishfull thinking as well. I'm biased, I need this business to not go away. So take it for what its worth.

[boutons_]

October 19, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor

The G.O.P.’s Bad Bet

By CHARLES MURRAY

Las Vegas

LAST week President Bush signed a law that will try to impede online gambling by prohibiting American banks from transferring money to gambling sites. Most Americans probably didn’t notice or care, but it may do significant political damage to the Republicans this fall and long-term damage to Americans’ respect for the law.

So, a month before a major election, the Republicans have allied themselves with a scattering of voters who are upset by online gambling and have outraged the millions who love it. Furthermore, judging from many hours of online chat with Internet poker players, I am willing to bet (if you’ll pardon the expression) that the outraged millions are disproportionately electricians, insurance agents, police officers, mid-level managers, truck drivers, small-business owners — that is, disproportionately Republicans and Reagan Democrats.

In the short term, this law all by itself could add a few more Democratic Congressional seats in the fall elections. We are talking about a lot of people (an estimated 23 million Americans gamble online) who are angry enough to vote on the basis of this one issue, and they blame Republicans.

In the long term, something more ominous is at work. If a free society is to work, the vast majority of citizens must reflexively obey the law not because they fear punishment, but because they accept that the rule of law makes society possible. That reflexive law-abidingness is reinforced when the laws are limited to core objectives that enjoy consensus support, even though people may disagree on means.

Thus society is weakened every time a law is passed that large numbers of reasonable, responsible citizens think is stupid. Such laws invite good citizens to choose knowingly to break the law, confident that they are doing nothing morally wrong.

The reaction to Prohibition, the 20th century’s stupidest law, is the archetypal case. But the radical expansion of government throughout the last century has created many more.

For example, all employers are confronted with rules and regulations from Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that they regard with contempt — not because they cut into profits, but because they are, simply, stupid. They impede employers yet provide no collateral social benefit. And so employers treat the stupid regulations as obstructions to be fudged or ignored. When they have to comply, they do not see compliance as the right thing to do, but as placating an agency that will hurt them otherwise.

The same thing applies to lesser degrees to all of us who find ourselves doing things that we know are pointless (think of various aspects of tax law) only because we fear attracting a bureaucracy’s attention. For millions of Americans, our day-to-day relationship with government is increasingly like paying protection to the Mafia — keeping it off our backs while we get on with our lives.

The temptation for good citizens to ignore a stupid law is encouraged when it is unenforceable. In this, the attempt to ban Internet gambling is exemplary. One of the four sites where I play poker has blocked United States customers because of the law, but the other three are functioning as usual and are confident that they can continue to do so. They are not in America, and it is absurdly easy to devise ways of transferring money from American bank accounts to institutions abroad and thence to gambling sites.

And so the federal government once again has acted in a way that will fail to achieve its objective while alienating large numbers of citizens who see themselves as having done nothing wrong. The libertarian part of me is heartened by this, hoping that a new political coalition will start to return government to its proper functions. But the civic-minded part of me is apprehensive. Reflexive loyalty to the rule of law is an indispensable cultural asset. The more honest citizens who take for granted that they are breaking the law, the more their loyalty to the law, and to the government that creates it, is eroded.

Charles Murray is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

[1Parker1]

Boutons, You are the Best! I'm doing a paper on the Internet gambling ban and how it relates to law and morality...this is a great article for that! :makeout

[MannyIsGod]

I never thought about it from that angle, but it seems to me that the demographics of gamblers do indeed point to a majority of them being Republican. I'm not sure how many of them will actualy vote based on this legislation, but its an interesting angle.

The Republicans are fucked either way, so w/e.

[SequSpur]

Look, this is bullshit, we all know it, just like alot of other stupid fucking laws, but honestly, if you want to gamble move to Shreveport, or Nevada.

If you want to place blame somewhere, blame the rich bastards in Las Vegas.

[MannyIsGod]

Look, this is bullshit, we all know it, just like alot of other stupid fucking laws, but honestly, if you want to gamble move to Shreveport, or Nevada.

If you want to place blame somewhere, blame the rich bastards in Las Vegas.So its bullshit, but we should just take it and move? Fuck that. If I want to blame someone I'm going to place the blame right where it belongs: At the foot of a republican party willing to pander to a few select special interest groups.

Las Vegas was primarly AGAINST the ban numb nuts.

[SequSpur]

Las Vegas was primarly AGAINST the ban numb nuts.

So the CEOs of the big hotels would rather you spend your money sitting your ass in a task chair in front of a computer?

or

would they prefer you and your SO flying in a plane and spending 3-4 days there spending all that dough on room, board and gambling...?????

You've lost your mind bro.

Republicans? WGAF about politics... this shit was done because it was hurting Vegas. Period.

No one gives a shit about you gambling except for Vegas. Why does Bush give a shit about you gambling?

Money is controlling everything and the money is in big biz.

[MannyIsGod]

Kevin, I've been reading about this shit for months, do you really think I'm not understanding what is going on? Frist pushed this legislation through because he wants to be president. The origional legislation is from a politician in - get ready for it - IOWA. Also, it pleases one of the biggest groups with political power - Chistian fundementalists. You see, in a perfect world no one would give a shit about me gambling. But they DO. Because they want to force their values on everybody. You see it everyday in all kinds of ways outside of internet gambling. You can't possibly have your head burried that far in the sand.

Do you think the big Vegas casinos don't want online gambling to be out in the open here? You don't think they want to jump into the market? What makes more sense, running an expensive ass casino or a website? People don't stop going to Vegas or any other gambling locatino because of online gambling. Thats just flat out wrong. Do you think Vegas has sufered over the past few years? Visiting a town like Vegas is about a lot more than just playing poker. You look at the WSOP next year and you will see an event that is decimated. There is no way they'll get the same amount of entrants as a direct result of this law. That HURTS Vegas. They lose out on a huge event that draws a good deal of people into the town. They lose advertising revenue because of this. Ask anyone who was in Vegas during the WSOP and ask them if they didn't see advertisements for Party Poker and other rooms.

[Melmart1]

this shit was done because it was hurting Vegas. Period.



You CAN'T be serious. Vegas is BOOMING. They can't put up new hotels and casinos fast enough to meet the demand. The city of Las Vegas sends scouts out across the entire country looking for professionals like police officers and teachers in order to entice them to move to Vegas permanantly. The highway from Southern California to LV is so crowded on weekends that some people give up and turn back cus they can't get into the friggin city! City officials are begging them to come during the week when it's not so busy. Hurting Vegas? Don't think so.

[MannyIsGod]

Congresswoman from Vegas - who recieves big campaign contributions from the gamin industry - speaks out against the law. I guess she didn't get Sequ's memo.


Shelley Berkley of Las Vegas Calls Move a 'Ridiculous Abuse of Power'
When a federal act to protect the nation’s ports came in front of Congress at the end of
last month, only two members voted against it. The Act was deemed an absolute necessity
in the fight against terrorism, and as Congresswoman Shelley Berkley said, how does a
politician in an election year vote against port safety?
They don’t, not even Berkley, a Las Vegas Democrat who called the passing of the
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) “an invasion of our privacy and it
takes away our citizens’ rights.”
“What could be a greater invasion of privacy than government telling you cannot play
Internet poker in your own house?” she said. “This was a breathtaking abuse of exercise
of war power.”

Berkley’s Congressional district includes just about all of Las Vegas, and she has ties
to the casino industry as a former vice president of government and legal affairs for
the Sands Hotel.
She’s one of a handful of politicians who spoke out against Senate Majority Leader Bill
Frist’s attempt at getting the UIGEA attached to a major defense spending bill. He
initially failed, but succeed later in the week at the last minute in the session before
Congress broke for a long election-year recess.

[SequSpur]

Vegas Hotel Casinos led the new revolution not some dumb congressman running for president.

[MannyIsGod]

Vegas Hotel Casinos led the new revolution not some dumb congressman running for president.Ok

[SequSpur]

yes, outlawing gambling should be against our rights like she said.

Now in order to qualify for the Holdem Championship, you will have to go to Las Vegas, rent a car, rent a room, buy the buffet, buy a tshirt, play their slots and ride their taxis... instead of sitting your lazy ass in a task chair.

Now do you understand?

[Spurminator]

For immediate release

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

Press release

19 October 2006
NETELLER PLC

Update on US position

Further to the Company’s announcement on 12 October 2006, NETELLER Plc today announced the following update in the light of the action on 13 October 2006 by US President George W Bush to approve and sign into law the SAFE Port Act incorporating the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 ("UIGEA” or the “Act”) which includes certain provisions to prohibit “unlawful internet gambling” by restricting gambling sites from accepting certain payments from US residents.

NETELLER, a company registered outside the US, will comply with the Act and its related regulations as if it were subject to the Act’s jurisdiction. This action is intended to ensure that the Company is able to continue to operate with the support of its principal commercial partners and to protect its shareholders, business partners, employees and reputation.


Various provisions of the Act, including the obligations of financial transaction providers such as NETELLER, remain unclear. This uncertainty should be largely resolved when the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System issue the regulations they are required to prescribe within 270 days.

In view of the importance of these issues, NETELLER has accelerated its review of the Act and all other relevant laws and pertinent developments. The Company also continues to closely monitor the regulatory situation and is determining what actions to take well before the conclusion of the 270-day rulemaking period.

In the interim, US-resident customers are able to use the NETELLER service as normal. The funds of US-resident customers are held in trust accounts and will be available for withdrawal, on demand. The ability to withdraw funds will exist regardless of the customer’s location or ability to transfer to any site.

NETELLER customers not resident in the US are not affected at all by the legislative changes in the US, and the Company will continue to operate its non-US business as normal, maintaining existing customer and merchant support across all the other markets it currently serves.

NETELLER remains focused on developing its business in line with its stated
strategic objectives including geographical and product diversification. The Company continues to launch localised services within the European market, most recently in Sweden and Denmark, and has plans for three further launches later this year. As well as focusing on the gaming sector outside of the US market, the Board considers the development of additional products and services for wallet users to be integral to
its diversified market strategy. We expect to share more information on these initiatives in the coming months. The Company is committed to maximising shareholder value both in the short and longer term, and will explore all possible strategic alternatives, including utilising its substantial resources, to ensure the achievement of its strategic objectives.

The Company’s trading update for the third quarter will be issued on Tuesday, October 31st, 2006. In the meantime, the Company will endeavour to keep shareholders informed of any material developments as and when appropriate.



Enquiries:

NETELLER
Andrew Gilchrist, VP – Communications + 44 (0) 1293 555 726

Citigate Dewe Rogerson + 44 (0) 207 638 9571
Sarah Gestetner/Sebastian Hoyle/George Cazenove

[MannyIsGod]

yes, outlawing gambling should be against our rights like she said.

Now in order to qualify for the Holdem Championship, you will have to go to Las Vegas, rent a car, rent a room, buy the buffet, buy a tshirt, play their slots and ride their taxis... instead of sitting your lazy ass in a task chair.

Now do you understand?I understand you're either:

a) am imbecile with very little understanding of the situation. Possible, but not as likely as:

b) you're being difficult just to be a shit.

Either way, this shit gets me very riled up because its such a personal subject and your posts are about as moronic as they get, so I'll just save myself some grief and ignore you.

[Kori Ellis]

NETELLER, a company registered outside the US, will comply with the Act and its related regulations as if it were subject to the Act’s jurisdiction. This action is intended to ensure that the Company is able to continue to operate with the support of its principal commercial partners and to protect its shareholders, business partners, employees and reputation.

So does this mean they are going to decide in upcoming days but probably not allow US users anymore?

[TheSanityAnnex]

So does this mean they are going to decide in upcoming days but probably not allow US users anymore?Does this also mean Poker Stars is done? Or will they be using a different service? Is Full Tilt going to be the only reputable site now?

[MannyIsGod]

I think that neteller release is something just to cover their asses and present to their shareholders. If the regulations come out tomorrow, they'll be weak as hell. The Fed just isn't going to be able to do much.

Poker Stars allows echecks and other deposit options that will still be there regardless of what neteller does. It would be nice if they started to accept click2pay because I just opened an account with them.

[AlamoSpursFan]

So if someone had never been to an online poker site, but suddenly found him or herself compelled to give it a try, what would one expect at, say, Full Tilt's site?

Hypothetically speaking, of course...

[AlamoSpursFan]

OK...I downloaded Full Tilt and tried sending them some cash, but my debit card was denied. Now what?

[SequSpur]

So Las Vegas was not concerned that gamblers were playing at home, spending their money overseas rather than unloading cash in their city, casinos and strip clubs.

That's just plain common sense. :lol

Politicians understand the art of spin, say something but do something else. The cool thing is I don't listen to them because they are full of shit. All of them.

Dude, if gambling is so successful and creates so much revenue for cities like Vegas and Shreveport, then why don't all states do it?

Because of Vegas.

[SequSpur]

OK...I downloaded Full Tilt and tried sending them some cash, but my debit card was denied. Now what?

Send them some type of money order, cashier's check or something and wait 4-5 days, then play.

Cards aren't going to work.

[Spurminator]

That's like saying people stop going to Football games if they're televised.

[AlamoSpursFan]

Cards aren't going to work.

I didn't figure they would, but the site made it seem like "no problem! we still take debit cards!"

[MannyIsGod]

I didn't figure they would, but the site made it seem like "no problem! we still take debit cards!"Sequ, per usual is wrong. Cards may work, but you may have to set up an ewallet service if your card doesn't work. These are services like Paypal where they deduct from your banking account then you can transfer the money to the site.

You can also do an echeck with both PokerStars and FullTilt. You should probably go with Stars as opposed to Full Tilt ASF. They have 1 dollar tournaments and the like so you don't have to in vest much money.

[SequSpur]

Sequ, per usual is wrong.

Manny is the only mofo on earth that knows whats up. I forgot.

[SequSpur]

I didn't figure they would, but the site made it seem like "no problem! we still take debit cards!"

If you can wait a few days, just send them some type of money order or something. or you can listen to Manny and have some type of gambling track record on your bank account and be a suspect later on in life.

[Zunni]

If you can wait a few days, just send them some type of money order or something. or you can listen to Manny and have some type of gambling track record on your bank account and be a suspect later on in life.
Yeah, because a money order absolutley CANNOT be tracked. :lol

Like all "morality" laws, they are not so much designed to stop the behavior as to make it difficult and shut up the fucking Puritans.

[MannyIsGod]

Manny is the only mofo on earth that knows whats up. I forgot.:lol

I'm far from the only one unless you're only talking about between the 2 of us. Between the 2 of us, I am the only one who knows whats going on.

Gambling track record? LOL, they take your name at the site and verify all the information. These sites aren't some back alley bookie, they're entirely regulated and legit. You have "records" simply by signing up. Not that it matters.

[GINNNNNNNNNNNNOBILI]

Congresswoman from Vegas - who recieves big campaign contributions from the gamin industry - speaks out against the law. I guess she didn't get Sequ's memo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb1pzayqPaI&eurl=

[Spurminator]

Well, both of my Poker sites have announced that they will restrict US users. Since I have limited options on a Mac I'm pretty much done.

I wonder if these sites are jumping the gun in order to rally players to make their voices heard at the polls on Nov. 7?

[MannyIsGod]

Spurm, Full Tilt has a full Mac client out.

[Spurminator]

o rly...

I'll check it out. Thanks.

[1Parker1]

Hi guys...I need your help. I've decided to write my law paper on this internet gambling ban. Basically, I'm supposed to take a legal controversey and analyze it "objectively"...so I can't really take a side. However, I'd like to understand the views from those who feel strongly against this ban (i.e. Manny, Spurminator, etc) and those who don't. I'm supposed to write about the opposition between the moral principles and the legal requirements of this proposed law.

So basically, what do you guys think may be the moral implications of this internet gambling ban becoming effective or of the current way internet gambling is regulated? I know someone else mentioned earlier that they think it's good because this way children won't be able to get on and gambling online so it regulates it in that sense. However, not sure how many youngsters have credit cards anyways to begin with...

Thanks in advance for your help guys! I'll make sure to quote ya'll in my paper as "Some male respondents feel..." :lol

[1Parker1]

P.S If you guys give me some really good quality stuff to use in my paper...there may just be an authentic Philly cheesesteak or Soft Pretzel coming your way in the mail ;)

[MannyIsGod]

From my perspective, the legislation is poor based on many different reasons:

1) I do not believe in government legislated morality.
2) Futility
3) Manner in which the legislation passed.
4) Government hypocrisy

In regards to my first qualm with it, I don't agree with government legislated morality in any form. I do not like legislation regarding alcohol consumption, pornography, drug use, or censorship because it is the act of using the government to impose the moral views of one segment of society on another. If the religious right in this country does not believe gambling is right, then by all means they should feel free to abstain from the practice but they have no right to stop consenting adults from deciding for themselves how they want to spend their time and money.

Secondly, the law is largely unenforceable. No one believes this will stop internet gambling in the least. While it has pushed out some of the larger and better regulated sites, there are still plenty of sites available. Many have declared their intentions to stay in the market. Also, the banking industry has already declared that they have very little ability to stop transactions in the way that politicians desire and the law itself states that the banks will not be required to do very much. Unenforceable laws merely keep the market in a gray semi legal area.

The legislation itself was nothing more than a political move. When you look at the people passing it, the proximity to an election, the unenforceable nature and the carve outs for horse racing and state run lotteries, its nothing but a hypocritical attempt to pander to the religious right in an effort to get them out to the polls next Tuesday. Its crap. The legislation will not help anyone with a gambling addiction but it will stop adults from engaging in an entertaining activity the government has no right to keep them from partaking in.

[1Parker1]

If the religious right in this country does not believe gambling is right, then by all means they should feel free to abstain from the practice but they have no right to stop consenting adults from deciding for themselves how they want to spend their time and money.

Interesting...where did you read that the proposed gambling ban had to do with opposition from religious activists?

What I don't understand is what exactly is their reasoning behind this proposed gambling ban? To keep children from gambling online since it can't really be regulated? To keep religious people happy who think that gambling is wrong? I understand that the true reasoning behind the government is probably because they aren't able to profit from the taxes on the winnings that people make. And so if they can't make any money off it, then they probably think no one else should either, hence the ban. But, I'm sure that's not how they put their reasoning...

[1Parker1]

P.S. Manny, your PM's are full....

[SequSpur]

Las Vegas.

[MannyIsGod]

The religious right is adamantly against gambling activities such as this. The congressmen (Frist and Leech specifically) passed the legislation largely because it is an issue that motivates those specific voters to get out and vote (similar to the way they use the issue of gay marriage). Also Frist has presidential asperations and passing this legislation is a good way to secure support from that segment for a presidential run in the form of money (campaign donations) and votes.

[SequSpur]

http://www.wildnatureimages.com/images%202/040204-116..jpg

[Marklar MM]

Las Vegas.

Your home=free. All the time.
Vegas=cash. Once in a while.

[SequSpur]

Your home=free.
Vegas=cash.

Exactly. It ain't the religious politicians that are stopping gambling on the internet.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

From my perspective, the legislation is poor based on many different reasons:

1) I do not believe in government legislated morality.
2) Futility
3) Manner in which the legislation passed.
4) Government hypocrisy

In regards to my first qualm with it, I don't agree with government legislated morality in any form. I do not like legislation regarding alcohol consumption, pornography, drug use, or censorship because it is the act of using the government to impose the moral views of one segment of society on another. If the religious right in this country does not believe gambling is right, then by all means they should feel free to abstain from the practice but they have no right to stop consenting adults from deciding for themselves how they want to spend their time and money.

Secondly, the law is largely unenforceable. No one believes this will stop internet gambling in the least. While it has pushed out some of the larger and better regulated sites, there are still plenty of sites available. Many have declared their intentions to stay in the market. Also, the banking industry has already declared that they have very little ability to stop transactions in the way that politicians desire and the law itself states that the banks will not be required to do very much. Unenforceable laws merely keep the market in a gray semi legal area.

The legislation itself was nothing more than a political move. When you look at the people passing it, the proximity to an election, the unenforceable nature and the carve outs for horse racing and state run lotteries, its nothing but a hypocritical attempt to pander to the religious right in an effort to get them out to the polls next Tuesday. Its crap. The legislation will not help anyone with a gambling addiction but it will stop adults from engaging in an entertaining activity the government has no right to keep them from partaking in.

Frist in '08!!!!!!!!!



It has been obvious for quite some time, and certainly since the Schiavo travesty, that the Bush-led Republican Party is the very antithesis of individual liberty and a limited federal government. The administration and its Congressional loyalists not only seek unlimited state power in name of combating terrorism but also in the name of enforcing private morality.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/gop-war-on-private-sphere.html



BTW, how does throwing an addicted gambler in jail help them?

[MannyIsGod]

The legislative maneuver was seen as a way for congressional Republicans to show they'd done something for the religious right in a session in which Congress accomplished so little for almost everyone.

"Gambling from your bedroom or living room or dormitory is not a socially useful activity," according to a statement from the office of Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, who pushed the legislation.

While accessibility of online gambling has surely lured its share of gullible gamers, just how comfortable should we be with government dictating which activities undertaken in our bedroom, living room or dormitory are "socially useful"?http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/287412_gamblinged.html


House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., concerned that his involvement with the discredited Jack Abramoff (lobbyist for Indian gaming interests) might jeopardize his re-election prospects in November, instructed the House leadership to pass a bill restricting Internet gaming in the United States — no matter what it took. The House did just that.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who would love to run for President in 2008, was eager to do the same in the Senate to show the vocal Christian right wing of his party that he shares their aversion to gambling. (Remember the Reagan days, when the conservative wing of the Republican Party won elections by railing against big government meddling in people’s lives? I guess those folks will have to vote Democratic now.)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/04/opinion/main2061902.shtml


Casinos in the U.S. traditionally have "fundamentally opposed" online gambling, said Holly Thomsen, spokeswoman for the American Gaming Assn., the casino industry's lobbying arm. Without "proper regulations," she asked, who would protect the children or the "problem gamblers"? In April, however, the industry group adopted a more neutral stance, saying the issue deserves further study, which was perhaps not a coincidence, because MGM Mirage and Harrah's, both members of the American Gaming Assn., now say they would like a piece of the action if it were legal.


-----

The casinos say their interest in betting via modem is not because they fear the competition. Many have wrongly predicted the demise of Las Vegas because venues for legal gambling — riverboats, lotteries, Indian casinos — have expanded, said Robert LaFleur, gaming analyst with Susquehanna Financial Group. But over the years, the conventional wisdom has become "the more gamblers, the merrier," because they'll wind up eventually in Las Vegas. "Anything that creates more gamblers is good for brick-and-mortar casinos," said Dennis Forst, an analyst for Keybanc Capital Markets.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-ackman29oct29,0,656569.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

[MannyIsGod]

These are important issues, and they deserve an honest debate. Unfortunately, the supporters of the three bills currently under consideration aren't interested in honest debate. All are pushing their bills as part of "lobbying reform," or the GOP's attempt to save face after many of its members have succumbed to their own moral failings.

Rep. Goodlatte and Sen. Kyle in particular have attempted to push their bills as "anti-Jack Abramoff" measures, referring to the now-disgraced lobbyist. I debated Rep. Goodlatte on his bill a couple of weeks ago, and was surprised when he spent most of his time talking not about the merits of his legislation, but about how passing his bill would send an important message to the American people about lobbying and corruption in Congress.


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6003

[MannyIsGod]

According to the New York Times, the gambling ban moves to the House floor for a vote next week, where it’s almost certain to pass. Here’s the kicker:

The majority leader, Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, announced a few days ago that the measure would be voted on this summer as part of what the Republicans call their American Values Agenda.

So because the Republicans have garnered public scorn for the unethical, corrupt, morally bankrupt way they’ve governed over the last decade, they’ve decided to make a last-ditch attempt to hold on to power by passing judgment on the morals of their constituents (most of whom, polls show, oppose the bill).

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/07/07/federal-ban-on-internet-gambling-marches-on/

[MannyIsGod]

It only gets worse from there. When the lobbying reform package fell apart, the Republicans tried a new approach, bundling the ban with flag burning, gay marriage, and a number of policies on the GOP social agenda as part of the "American Values" agenda. That's how it passed the House.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,224157,00.html

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

The American Gaming Association, while publicly supportive, was actually very luke warm regarding this provision. They had supported Senator Kyl earlier this Congress, but had stopped pushing for passage some time ago. So what happened to change their mind? One, the specific language of this proposal. It doesn't treat all forms of gambling in an equitable manner - specifically horse racing and lotteries. This is a no-no for the AGA. The second reason is much more interesting. The knee-jerk reaction to online gaming from the US casino companies (and the Indian casinos) was to do everything possible to shut down the unregulated, offshore competition. Once some of these offshore companies went public in London, their market values caught the eye of the US companies. The US casinos (and the reservation locked Indian casinos) then began to see that this offshore market - if legalized and regulated - could create a significant new stream of revenue. They essentially didn't want to burn a bridge that they might someday want to cross. . . . This provision was passed in spite of corporate sentiment, not in reaction to it. I doubt that you will find corporate casinos celebrating - or commenting at all - on the passage of this bill.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjdmOGIxY2VhNmRmODE4NjI1OTE0NTk0YzM1Y2YyYjM=

Vegas always wins.

[MannyIsGod]

Nice find.

[Spurminator]

"Gambling from your bedroom or living room or dormitory is not a socially useful activity," according to a statement from the office of Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, who pushed the legislation.

I'm utterly speechless.


:pctoss

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I just want the sandwiches:


U.S. officials have declined to participate in Tuesday's gambling summit in London, where lawmakers from 30 countries will discuss ways to regulate the industry, including the protection of minors and keeping the industry free of crime.

Officials from Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, Malta, Costa Rica and Antigua and Barbuda are expected to attend.

Antigua in particular has been engaging in a strong defense of Internet gambling, one of the tiny Caribbean state's few economic success stories.

It argues that the U.S. ban is in direct contravention of a ruling by the World Trade Organization last year that the United States amend some of its legislation to permit Antiguan gambling operations to offer their services to U.S. citizens on a level playing field.

Makes complete sense that we wouldn't attend, especially right after passing this ban. Right?


She also said that America's Prohibition legislation in practice forced otherwise law-abiding customers into the hands of the bootleggers.

Under new British gambling laws, online operators have a "social responsibility" duty written into licenses and policed by the independent Gambling Commission.

It requires them to work to prevent underage gambling, give prominent warnings about addiction and inform users how much time and money they have spent on the site.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/news/ci_4566673

[Marklar MM]

I'm utterly speechless.


:pctoss

I agree with you. They should just ban the internet if you ask me. It makes everyone socially useless.

[SequSpur]

Spin.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"Gambling from your bedroom or living room or dormitory is not a socially useful activity," according to a statement from the office of Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, who pushed the legislation.

Good thing I sat in the kitchen to play. What a joke.

[1Parker1]

Thanks for article quotes Manny and Pistons fan!

[Slomo]

Gambling sites play double or quits

Non-Americans like poker, too

By Burke Hansen in San Francisco (http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/?story_url=/2006/12/29/gambling-sites_round-up/) → More by this author (http://search.theregister.co.uk/?author=Burke%20Hansen%20in%20San%20Francisco)
Published Friday 29th December 2006 12:01 GMT

House of Cards A recovery in the online gaming economy act is gaining traction, according to several reports. The passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act by the US left a swath of economic misery in its wake, but efforts by the major players in the industry to refocus their energies on Europe and Asia are starting to pay dividends.

Both Sportingbet.com and Partygaming.com reported stronger than expected earnings last week, as increasing numbers of players from the European and Asian markets offset the loss of the enormous American market.

Partygaming.com reported an increase in daily poker revenue from $637,000 in October to $721,000 in November. Overall daily revenue in November, excluding the sportsbook, averaged $921,000.

Sportingbet.com reported an increase in traffic from 6,000 players per day to about 7,000 according to Gamingpublic.com, an industry trade paper. Banking giant UBS responded by upgrading its stock evaluation from reduce to neutral.

The wave of consolidation in the sector continues to pick up steam.

Harrah’s has agreed to a $27.8bn buyout, according to a company press release. The largest gambling conglomerate in the world is being taken private by a group of investors led by the Texas Pacific group, in one of the largest leveraged buyouts in history. Harrah’s began as a bingo parlor in Reno in 1937, and became the first Casino operator to be listed on the NYSE back in 1973. This comes on the heels of Murdoch’s BskyB’s takeover of 365 Media, which itself had just gobbled up longtime competitor Bowman’s.

It also follows the announcement a strategic partnership between the Sands and Cantor Gaming, and the confirmation by El Reg of ongoing merger talks between Ladbrokes and 888 Plc.

Scandinavian-oriented poker site Purplelounge.com recently rejected a $59m offer for half the company, according to Gambling911.com.

The collapse of the sector after the passage of the UIGEA has provided both the opportunity for consolidation- i.e., ridiculously low stock valuations relative to the cash generated by the sector- as well as the impetus to get big enough to weather any adverse legal developments in jurisdictions such as Germany, France or South Africa where internet gaming remains controversial.

It’s easy to imagine the online gaming sector going through same growing pains that beset the search portal industry in the late ‘90’s- too many competitors in a field likely to be dominated in the long term by a few major brands. Ironically, major American players like The Sands or MGM Mirage, with strong brands and cash to invest, are well positioned to pick up the pieces of a fragmented, weakened market.

Another response to the knee jerk reaction against online gaming by American authorities has been the development of poker currency exchanges to facilitate wildly popular online poker tournaments. Sites such as Pokerstars.com offer tournament credits which can be redeemed at a third party site (http://pokernews.com/exchange/) for real money at discounted rates.

American authorities just can’t seem to squeeze that genie back in the bottle. ®













http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/29/gambling-sites_round-up/

[MannyIsGod]

The American Market is still in full play for sites like Poker Stars and Full Tilt, but there is going to be another crucial day when the Feds come out with the completed regulations which should happen in the beginning of this year. I retain high hopes that the regs will be meaningless and do little to nothing to stop things, but there has been real damage done by the act mearly because so many casual players don't understand the legal situation and think it is illegal to play. Many thought it was illegal before, but they think that they're in danger of getting in some sort of trouble now (they are not). Hopefully with time they will move back into the market.

[GINNNNNNNNNNNNOBILI]

Manny, What's the deal with the whole neteller situation?

[MannyIsGod]

They pulled out. I have no idea what it means other than a big ass headache for now.

[screamformelongbeach]

Manny, What's the deal with the whole neteller situation?

Neteller's 2 head honchos were arrested the other day for violating the new legislation, which precipitated the shutdown of its U.S. operations. And this comes on the heels of Pinnacle Sports, regarded by most in the gaming industry as the best offshore sportsbook in the world, shutting down its U.S. operationsthis week. And I just read that Citadel, a leading processor of EFT's for the offshore gaming industry, is following suit. Obviously, a lot of dominoes are falling right now....

[MannyIsGod]

They weren't arrested for violating the new legislation. They were arrested for tax evasion or longer running violations of the law. They had no official position with the company, but either way I suspect you are right that Neteller made this move right now because of their arrests.

[Kori Ellis]

They weren't arrested for violating the new legislation. They were arrested for tax evasion or longer running violations of the law. They had no official position with the company, but either way I suspect you are right that Neteller made this move right now because of their arrests.


Are you sure?


Lawrence and Lefebvre are both charged with conspiring to transfer funds with the intent to promote illegal gambling. If convicted, both defendants face a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment

[Kori Ellis]

Manny, there's nothing about tax evasion in the Department of Justice statements. It's all basically about money laundering and promoting illegal gambling.

[Phil Hellmuth]

Neteller is a goner :(

[MannyIsGod]

Interesting, must be the money laundering that was mistaken for tax evasion. The illegal gambling must be for the wire act, because they aren't part of Neteller anymore so it can't be for the new law.

[MannyIsGod]

BAck then UIGEA was setup, I setup an account with click2pay. They are still operating and I'm using them for the time being, but I'd be lieing if I said I was confident they'llb e around long.

[1369]

Interesting interview on FSR this morning about Netteller. Neither one of the two guys for Netteller have never had an office in the US (They're Canadian) and the whole operation is based out of the UK which regulates them heavily. The guy on FSR (Forgot his name, but he does consumerbets.com) said he sees Netteller fighting heavily on the charges.

[timvp]

Interesting, must be the money laundering that was mistaken for tax evasion. The illegal gambling must be for the wire act, because they aren't part of Neteller anymore so it can't be for the new law.

That duo doesn't have an official role with Neteller, but they own a majority of the stock. It was a good ol' piercing of the coporate shield.

They got arrested due to the new law.

[GINNNNNNNNNNNNOBILI]

There are still several “e-Wallet” companies that online poker players can use to transfer money from their banks to their sites of choice. They include Instadebit, Click2Pay, Money Transfer, Payspark and ePassporte.

Why is it that big of a blow? Just need to switch companies... or am I missing something?

[Kori Ellis]

There are still several “e-Wallet” companies that online poker players can use to transfer money from their banks to their sites of choice. They include Instadebit, Click2Pay, Money Transfer, Payspark and ePassporte.

Why is it that big of a blow? Just need to switch companies... or am I missing something?

I'm guessing because eventually those other e-wallet companies are going to end too. And then you guys will just have the option of some fly-by-night companies that you don't know if they'll steal your money or not.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm guessing because eventually those other e-wallet companies are going to end too. And then you guys will just have the option of some fly-by-night companies that you don't know if they'll steal your money or not.Its too early to tell if any one else will leave the market. If worse comes to worst, it is quite possible that sites like Full Tilt will develop their own payment processors. In fact it is my understanding that Stars has already done just that to facilitate EFT transfers to bank accounts. That is simillar to what Party Poker did with IGM Pay which was their echeck service that worked with EFT withdrawls and deposits.

Losing Neteller sucks because it made it really easy to move money inbetween the companies and I never paid a single fee with them. Other services apply fees to your transfers and they aren't accepted by everyone. For instance, I can use Click2Pay for Full Tilt, but not for Stars so in order for me to move money to and from Stars I need to use Click2Pay, and my bank account which ties up money for longer periods of time and may cause me further fees.

EFT transfers work for right now, but I'm very interested to see the regulations the Feds are coming out with because that will show what the next step will be. Its not even been proven yet that poker sites will be included as illegal gaming as sports books and online casinos are because the wire act does not cover poker and the new law did not change that.

I don't think we'll ever run out of options to use but I think the big worry as Kori said is that eventually all the legitamate services are run out and all we are left with is dangerously unsecure and untrusthworth services. If it comes to that I'll have to reevaluate what I want to do.

[degenerate_gambler]

I think you can forget about E-wallets as well. After Neteller pulled out, all the little fish have or will follow suit.

The situation is what it is now...and no, it's not going to be as easy as it has been in the past to fund an account or move money around to various books.

Options now include cashier's check via Fed Ex, WU or bank wires. Was Neteller great? Hell yes, but with these regulations coming down the pike, better them than all the books.

Anyone that gambled in the 90's knows the process on how to manuever these waters like the back of their hand.


At least for now....it's back to the old days.

[Phil Hellmuth]

Click2Pay will it become to new big one??

[degenerate_gambler]

Click2Pay will it become to new big one??


Well they are NOT publicly traded as Neteller is so good news there.

[MannyIsGod]

The market is quickly becoming European and Asian based. I don't give a shit if the people I beat are from China or from the US as long as they suck. People saying the fish are going to leave is completely ridiculous because they still think that American fish are the majority of the market.

Click2Pay seems very secure. They are based in Germany as opposed to some little country, and they according to emails they've sent out they have no intentions of withdrawing from the market. Neteller on the other hand did release a statement shortly after UIGEA that they would more than likely leave.

I'm hopefull, but I honestly don't know how much of it is wishful thinking at this point.

[Das Texan]

Click2pay tells me that my IP is not from the United States.


Any other good sites?

[MannyIsGod]

epassporte