How are "the masses" even going to know about this bill?

[dtbog]

If this question has been asked and answered in another thread, feel free to ignore/lock/delete... but I haven't seen it anywhere.

How does the US government plan to inform the hundreds of thousands of prospective online gamblers about this new legislation and its implications?

(Will people simply be forced to catch on when their attempts to deposit to poker sites are denied?)

[ChoicestHops]

Why aren't the poker sites saying anything about this?

[mlagoo]

one way is that all the newspapers seem to be covering this as "an internet gambling bill was passed with port security legislation attached."

look at the washington post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000024.html

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]
Why aren't the poker sites saying anything about this?

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know, it's not their responsibility -- they want to collect rake up to the very last second possible, and probably beyond.

[jmillerdls]

I think once PP, PS, and other big poker sites start sending out the e-mails that they are no longer available to US players, and to get your money out immediately, that they will figure it out.

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000024.html

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
A coalition of on-line poker players and gambling Web sites tried to thwart the Internet gambling provision. Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance, argued that it could put familiar Web sites such as Party Poker and Pacific Poker out of business while pushing gamblers to "rogue Web sites with no protection for children and no protection for problem gamblers."

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, this argument has less than zero teeth. What does Party do about children and problem gamblers?

sigh.

[dtbog]

[ QUOTE ]
I think once PP, PS, and other big poker sites start sending out the e-mails that they are no longer available to US players, and to get your money out immediately, that they will figure it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would PP or PS do this?

Seriously, give me one reason.

[MicroBob]

well...it was worth a shot to CLAIM that they really do have safe-guards against children and problem gamblers.
Because that is one of the arguments the legislators were using AGAINST allowing online-gambling in the U.S.


Party does require you to be 18, right?
Or that you have to be of the legal gambling age in your area??


And if you tell Party, "I have a problem with gambling and I nee you to bar me from your site" they do so immediately.

I think they were also posting a 'responsible gambling' message on their site and perhaps even a Gamblers Anonymous phone # or something.

And they say it's for 'entertainment purposes only' and they may also have some language about gambling within one's means.


It's not much.
But it seems to be patterned after what the B&M's in the U.S. do. I believe that Party encoroporated such problem-gambler measures in order to counter such arguments that they are a rogue company and that they really are no different than the land-based U.S. casinos.

[DWarrior]

Some rooms also cap daily/weekly/monthly deposits

[Leader]

[ QUOTE ]
well...it was worth a shot to CLAIM that they really do have safe-guards against children and problem gamblers.
Because that is one of the arguments the legislators were using AGAINST allowing online-gambling in the U.S.


Party does require you to be 18, right?
Or that you have to be of the legal gambling age in your area??


And if you tell Party, "I have a problem with gambling and I nee you to bar me from your site" they do so immediately.

I think they were also posting a 'responsible gambling' message on their site and perhaps even a Gamblers Anonymous phone # or something.

And they say it's for 'entertainment purposes only' and they may also have some language about gambling within one's means.

[/ QUOTE ]

voluntary deposit limits too.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000024.html

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
A coalition of on-line poker players and gambling Web sites tried to thwart the Internet gambling provision. Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance, argued that it could put familiar Web sites such as Party Poker and Pacific Poker out of business while pushing gamblers to "rogue Web sites with no protection for children and no protection for problem gamblers."

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, this argument has less than zero teeth. What does Party do about children and problem gamblers?

sigh.

[/ QUOTE ]


well...it was worth a shot to CLAIM that they really do have safe-guards against children and problem gamblers.
Because that is one of the arguments the legislators were using AGAINST allowing online-gambling in the U.S.


Party does require you to be 18, right?
Or that you have to be of the legal gambling age in your area??


And if you tell Party, "I have a problem with gambling and I nee you to bar me from your site" they do so immediately.

I think they were also posting a 'responsible gambling' message on their site and perhaps even a Gamblers Anonymous phone # or something.

And they say it's for 'entertainment purposes only' and they may also have some language about gambling within one's means.


It's not much.
But it seems to be patterned after what the B&M's in the U.S. do. I believe that Party encoroporated such problem-gambler measures in order to counter such arguments that they are a rogue company and that they really are no different than the land-based U.S. casinos.