ok, so how does this bill stop people from playing poker again?

[CaptainBusto]

i havent actually read the law text, i probably wouldnt be able to make sense of it anyway. but what ive understood is that it basically targets casinos and cardrooms rather than banks, making it illegal for them to accept gambling-related transactions.
my question is, why would party poker, operating under gibraltar law, give a flying [censored] about american legislation? the same goes for neteller, moneybookers (both UK-based) and most, if not all, poker sites (mostly gibraltar based, servers in canada).
berge?

[A_C_Slater]

You will be unable to deposit via credit/debit card or neteller. An avid player will find a way around this (or keep a large working roll always available online), but fish will not go through all that trouble. Fish will only deposit if it's quick, easy, and convenient. With less fish the games will be tougher. It is not the end of online poker. Just expect the games to be a little tougher.

[jrz1972]

I gave the bill a pretty careful reading this afternoon. I was in the "the sky is falling" camp a couple of days ago, but right now I don't think this legislation is really all that big a deal on its own. It clearly goes after gambling sites, and it is very explicit about how e-wallets like Neteller are NOT in the business of gambling and therefore wouldn't be on any list of blocked sites.

It's always possible that foreign firms will voluntarily comply with US banking regulations or might cut off American players, but unless that happens, I am thinking this bill isn't nearly as worrisome as people think it is.

Just my two cents obviously. We'll have to see how things play out over the next few weeks.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
I gave the bill a pretty careful reading this afternoon. I was in the "the sky is falling" camp a couple of days ago, but right now I don't think this legislation is really all that big a deal on its own. It clearly goes after gambling sites, and it is very explicit about how e-wallets like Neteller are NOT in the business of gambling and therefore wouldn't be on any list of blocked sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect, you could not have read this legislation very carefully because there certainly is nothing explicit in there about Neteller not being covered.

Many agree with you that Neteller is not implicated, but the concensus is probably to the contrary.

[Jack Bando]

Slater, IMO, there are two kinds of fish. The ones who love poker and don't care about the money (doctors, lawyers, rich people, etc...) aren't stupid, if they still love poker, they'll find the same loopholes avid players find. The other fish, think they're good. Why won't they jump through the hoops? They're 'good' players who only lose due to 'bad luck'.

But we don't even know how tight the hoops to jump through will be at the moment, so guessing is somewhat futile at this point.

jrz, do you have any exp in law? It's VERY hard to understand a bill without the proper knowledge. Not saying you don't have this knowledge, but some people are claiming this bill outlaws poker and those who play poker are going to the slammer and ISP bans will be enforced, while others are wondering wtf these people are seeing.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
With all due respect, you could not have read this legislation very carefully because there certainly is nothing explicit in there about Neteller not being covered.

[/ QUOTE ]

The definition of "business of betting or wagering" (line 12 on page 219) explicitly says that it "does not include the activities of a financial transaction provider." But that's exactly what Neteller is.

And the prohibition on accepting transfers in section 5363 ONLY applies to people "in the business of betting or wagering."

In other words, the criminal prohibitions in this law only apply to people in the business of betting or wagering. Neteller is clearly not in the business of betting or wagering according to how the bill defines that term. Hence, transfers to and from Neteller are going to be perfectly fine.

It will be illegal for Party to accept a Neteller transaction, but it is not illegal for Neteller to let such a transaction go through, and it is not illegal to ship money from your bank to Neteller.

I should add that I don't have any formal legal training, but the bill's language is really pretty clear on this point.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
but some people are claiming this bill outlaws poker and those who play poker are going to the slammer and ISP bans will be enforced,

[/ QUOTE ]

These people just haven't read the bill. It basically does two things:

1. It makes it illegal for PartyPoker to accept funds.

2. It mandates regulation to block transfers to PartyPoker.

The bill goes out of its way not to update the Wire Act, and it does not criminalize gambling itself. It prohibits an ISP from operating a gambling site or posting links to a gambling site, but it doesn't require them to block access to somebody else's gambling site. And it isn't going to touch Neteller or other e-wallets that are not directly owned by gambling sites.

[CaptainBusto]

regarding neteller - from what i read in the mr.K thread, neteller most definitely IS covered by this bill.

also, i understand all the stuff about fish only being interested as long as its all quick and easy.

but neither of those was my question. this could work in one of two ways - either banks stop processing transactions to gaming sites or gaming sites stop accepting them (neteller is a "gaming site" in this case). now, from what ive understood, banks arent explicitly required to stop the transactions, the gaming sites are. BUT WHY WOULD THEY?

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
(neteller is a "gaming site" in this case).

[/ QUOTE ]

Neteller is absolutely, unambiguously NOT a gaming site under the terms of this bill. And any regulation canont touch Netller because transfers to and from such a site cannot be possibly be construed as "restricted transactions" the way this bill is written.

If somebody with extensive legal training has taken a close look at this bill and wants to correct me on this, fine, I will stand corrected. But I am now firmly convinced that most of the people pontificating on this this legislation either haven't read it at all or just gave it a brief scan before freaking out. (I was in the latter group up until today).

Just for the record, I fully expected this puppy to block transfers to Neteller, and when I skimmed the bill the first time, I thought it did because of all the talk about payment devices, money trasmitting services, etc. I now realize that my first reading was wrong, my initial pessimism was wrong, and my belief that the sky is falling was wrong.

I think in the coming days as more people actually print this out and spend some time with it, they're going to chill out.

[Dustin M.]

[ QUOTE ]
1. It makes it illegal for PartyPoker to accept funds.

2. It mandates regulation to block transfers to PartyPoker.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wait. How does it do this? Party doesn't operate from the US, so why would they care about a US law?

And if the bill doesn't affect transfers to and from Neteller from US bank accounts, how has anything changed?

[CaptainBusto]

by Mr.K, who i understand to be somewhat of an expert on the subject -
[ QUOTE ]
The focus of the bill is on processing and accepting payments for the purpose of gambling, with certain exceptions. My initial read of the language passed by Congress tonight is that instruments such as Neteller are clearly covered by the bill, and that as such these options will eventually be unavailable to players -- at least those players that live in the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

[CPHoya]

I do not intend this as a criticism. As an experienced law student who has written several briefs on the issue of statutory interpretation, I must highlight the following:

There are entire courses in law school - in *every* law school - on the topic of statutory interpretation/administrative law. The surest evidence that you are probably ignorant of a promulgated rule's meaning, either as a lawyer or as a layman, is reliance upon the "clarity" of statutory language.

From experience and education, the language is not sufficiently clear for lay interpretation, and will be hashed out over the coming *years* via prolonged litigation. At the least, a circuit court will eventually determine the meaning of this legislation, and the arguments used will seem extraordinarily foreign to people outside our admittedly bizarre profession.

An open mind is probably best.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. It makes it illegal for PartyPoker to accept funds.

2. It mandates regulation to block transfers to PartyPoker.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wait. How does it do this? Party doesn't operate from the US, so why would they care about a US law?

And if the bill doesn't affect transfers to and from Neteller from US bank accounts, how has anything changed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Party doesn't care about US law. Right now, they accept all sorts of wagers from people like me who live in states where this sort of gambling is banned. I doubt they'll suddenly start caring now. Stranger things have happened, and I wouldn't be shocked if Party decided to comply with US law, but I wouldn't be shocked if they just kept doing their thing either.

Banks are not going to block Neteller transfers. I suppose Neteller might voluntarily choose to comply with the same regulations US banks will have to follow when it comes to gambling sites, but that would obviously put them out of business so I doubt it. Even if Neteller does go along with US regulations, somebody else will come along to fill that niche.

Reports of poker's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

[jrz1972]

That's fine. It wouldn't shock me if this bill were somehow interpreted in a way that was inconsistent with its plain meaning, but that remains to be seen.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With all due respect, you could not have read this legislation very carefully because there certainly is nothing explicit in there about Neteller not being covered.

[/ QUOTE ]

The definition of "business of betting or wagering" (line 12 on page 219) explicitly says that it "does not include the activities of a financial transaction provider." But that's exactly what Neteller is.

And the prohibition on accepting transfers in section 5363 ONLY applies to people "in the business of betting or wagering."

In other words, the criminal prohibitions in this law only apply to people in the business of betting or wagering. Neteller is clearly not in the business of betting or wagering according to how the bill defines that term. Hence, transfers to and from Neteller are going to be perfectly fine.

It will be illegal for Party to accept a Neteller transaction, but it is not illegal for Neteller to let such a transaction go through, and it is not illegal to ship money from your bank to Neteller.

I should add that I don't have any formal legal training, but the bill's language is really pretty clear on this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is claiming that Neteller is subject to criminal penalties as being in the business of gambling. The provisions of the law that people believe may cover Neteller are the civil provisions that concern the funding of the gambling.

[jrz1972]

Okay. What part of the bill are you referring to specifically?

Edit: I'm assuming 5365b1B?

[Jack Bando]

We also have to see what happens regarding the law in the next couple of weeks, since the Doj/Feds will be working on how this will/won't be enforced, which is where the banks/Neteller should hopefully through some weight around for us.

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but some people are claiming this bill outlaws poker and those who play poker are going to the slammer and ISP bans will be enforced,

[/ QUOTE ]

These people just haven't read the bill. It basically does two things:

1. It makes it illegal for PartyPoker to accept funds.

2. It mandates regulation to block transfers to PartyPoker.

The bill goes out of its way not to update the Wire Act, and it does not criminalize gambling itself. It prohibits an ISP from operating a gambling site or posting links to a gambling site, but it doesn't require them to block access to somebody else's gambling site. And it isn't going to touch Neteller or other e-wallets that are not directly owned by gambling sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The only persons really affected are the employees, agents and affiliates of websites like PartyPoker, probably including professional endorsing the sites.

[Scorpion Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not intend this as a criticism. As an experienced law student who has written several briefs on the issue of statutory interpretation, I must highlight the following:

There are entire courses in law school - in *every* law school - on the topic of statutory interpretation/administrative law. The surest evidence that you are probably ignorant of a promulgated rule's meaning, either as a lawyer or as a layman, is reliance upon the "clarity" of statutory language.

From experience and education, the language is not sufficiently clear for lay interpretation, and will be hashed out over the coming *years* via prolonged litigation. At the least, a circuit court will eventually determine the meaning of this legislation, and the arguments used will seem extraordinarily foreign to people outside our admittedly bizarre profession.

An open mind is probably best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I care about this most from a stock market standpoint. The question is will the market overreact on Monday (usually it does). What are the chances that this has only modest impact on the real biz of PP over time?

[CPHoya]

All I have is an educated guess (we're well outside any limited expertise I may command): I'd wager on a slip over the short-term, but as the companies establish their profitability despite this legislation - which seems likely - the prices will stabilize.

Empirically, there were 17,000 players on PokerRoom, 16,000 on Full Tilt, and 87,000 on Party when I checked this afternoon (EST). It doesn't appear that player counts have taken the feared dip yet. Until the legislation is enforced and criminalizes something the average player has to routinely do, I don't see a large impact on the industry.

[NapoleonDolemite]

[ QUOTE ]


You will be unable to deposit via credit/debit card or neteller. An avid player will find a way around this (or keep a large working roll always available online), but fish will not go through all that trouble. Fish will only deposit if it's quick, easy, and convenient. With less fish the games will be tougher. It is not the end of online poker. Just expect the games to be a little tougher.

[/ QUOTE ]

About the fish thing: This isn't true. It isn't easy for players to make an initial deposit. It depends which method they go with, but it has been quite a hassle for a long time as, for the most part, credit/debit cards aren't allowed.

[oreopimp]

[ QUOTE ]
by Mr.K, who i understand to be somewhat of an expert on the subject -
[ QUOTE ]
The focus of the bill is on processing and accepting payments for the purpose of gambling, with certain exceptions. My initial read of the language passed by Congress tonight is that instruments such as Neteller are clearly covered by the bill, and that as such these options will eventually be unavailable to players -- at least those players that live in the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Id say keep an open mind. Im not sure how extensive K read through this bill or if he just scanned the bullet points. I hope JR is right though, its a more comforting outlook.

And if his interpretation is right it seems like the worry is how Neteller and Party will comply, if at all, with any US requests. Neteller stopped accepting Maryland customers a while back, so that has me a little worried.

[smellmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
by Mr.K, who i understand to be somewhat of an expert on the subject -
[ QUOTE ]
The focus of the bill is on processing and accepting payments for the purpose of gambling, with certain exceptions. My initial read of the language passed by Congress tonight is that instruments such as Neteller are clearly covered by the bill, and that as such these options will eventually be unavailable to players -- at least those players that live in the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Id say keep an open mind. Im not sure how extensive K read through this bill or if he just scanned the bullet points. I hope JR is right though, its a more comforting outlook.

And if his interpretation is right it seems like the worry is how Neteller and Party will comply, if at all, with any US requests. Neteller stopped accepting Maryland customers a while back, so that has me a little worried.

[/ QUOTE ]

i would say mr. k read this bill very extensively.

[jrz1972]

I like and respect Mr K a lot, and he deserves huge props for being a voice of reason around here when everybody was flipping out. But the posts people keep linking to are his first impressions of the bill. I agreed with those first impressions myself until I looked at the bill more closely, and now I think we both misread it.

I don't want this to be me vs. Mr K. If he comes back and says he disagrees with my reading, that's cool. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter what any of us think because it's going to be decided by regulators, judges, and suits sitting around tables in boardrooms.

It's important to remember that we're all on the same side here.