View Full Version : TruePoker will continue to welcome U.S players
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 08:28 AM
Can I make a Deposit to TruePoker from the United States ?
Congress passed the UIGE Act of 2006, which covers deposits made by US players to certain types of sites. Our read is that Act covers only sites which offer Sports Betting or Casino type games where you bet against the Site itself.
We are not going to be breaking any laws, we believe this Act does not apply to sites not in "the business of betting or wagering", which we are not.
We will need to see what develops in the payments processing industry over the next few weeks with respect to your ability to send money, but TruePoker's poker operations will continue for US players.
Summary:
TruePoker does NOT make or accept bets or wagers in which it has any stake in the outcome. So, our games and tournaments, and your deposits, are not covered by this UIGE Act of 2006.
TruePoker does not have a stake in the outcome of the games or tournaments we offer, in the US or anywhere else. (We do not offer casino games or sports betting, and so have no stake in the outcome and are not in the "business of betting or wagering")
Business Decisions:
Certain sites, such as Party and Pacific, have decided to abandon the US poker market as a busness decision. We view our commitment to our customes a bit differently. The Act does not outlaw playing poker on the Internet from the US, period. We certainly will accept deposits and new accounts as long as we can do so. We see NO reason to cut off play in any event under this Act.
As you do, We await developments in the payments processing industry, but it is business as usual for Truepoker's poker operations.
Coy_Roy
10-02-2006, 08:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Can I make a Deposit to TruePoker from the United States ?
Congress passed the UIGE Act of 2006, which covers deposits made by US players to certain types of sites. Our read is that Act covers only sites which offer Sports Betting or Casino type games where you bet against the Site itself.
We will need to see what develops in the payments processing industry over the next few weeks with respect to your ability to send money, but TruePoker's poker operations will continue for US players.
Summary:
TruePoker does NOT make or accept bets or wagers in which it has any stake in the outcome. So, our games and tournaments, and your deposits, are not covered by this UIGE Act of 2006.
TruePoker does not have a stake in the outcome of the games or tournaments we offer, in the US or anywhere else. (We do not offer casino games or sports betting, and so have no stake in the outcome and are not in the "business of betting or wagering")
Business Decisions:
Certain sites, such as Party and Pacific, have decided to abandon the US poker market as a busness decision. We view our commitment to our customes a bit differently. The Act does not outlaw playing poker on the Internet from the US, period. We certainly will accept deposits and new accounts as long as we can do so. We see NO reason to cut off play in any event under this Act.
As you do, We await developments in the payments processing industry, but it is business as usual for Truepoker's poker operations.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you very very much.
Berge20
10-02-2006, 08:30 AM
Props
RikaKazak
10-02-2006, 08:31 AM
I /images/graemlins/heart.gif U
linuxrocks
10-02-2006, 08:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
TruePoker does NOT make or accept bets or wagers in which it has any stake in the outcome. So, our games and tournaments, and your deposits, are not covered by this UIGE Act of 2006.
TruePoker does not have a stake in the outcome of the games or tournaments we offer, in the US or anywhere else. (We do not offer casino games or sports betting, and so have no stake in the outcome and are not in the "business of betting or wagering")
[/ QUOTE ]
Really ? Aren't you raking in money depending upon the outcome of a hand ? How does that not make you part of a business of betting and wagering ?
PierceAndPierce
10-02-2006, 08:32 AM
HOORAY!
No, do you guys accept Epassporte payments? =)
skunk1975
10-02-2006, 08:34 AM
Tried to pm but your box was full.
Thank you for taking a stand. I wish your customer service had responded to my emails when I was playing 8 hours a day for about 5 months on your site (your biggest games) I would have never left.
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 08:35 AM
No, we have no stake in the outcome, nor have we risked any money in the pot. Rake is a fee for the service, regardless of the outcome as to what player wins.
(Anyway, if it were an issue, a time charge system or a "flat rate per player hand dealt in" system would remove your concern. Thanks for raising it. My initial response is likely to remain our position, but in the "interesting" times, we are going to adapt as needed.)
(Ours is not a new reading of the term. In another statute, the Wire Act, this was the interpretation in dicta in a Federal Court of Appeals ruling.)
RikaKazak
10-02-2006, 08:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
No, we have no stake in the outcome, nor have we risked any money in the pot.
(This is not a new reading of the term. In another statute, the Wire Act, this was the interpretation in dicta in a Federal Court of Appeals ruling.)
[/ QUOTE ]
They provide a service for a fee...which is customer support/hosting the games etc. Basically for a fee, they let us bet against eachother.
SO NO, they do not have a stake in the outcome. They get paid the same wether player A or player B wins.
linuxrocks
10-02-2006, 08:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, we have no stake in the outcome, nor have we risked any money in the pot.
(This is not a new reading of the term. In another statute, the Wire Act, this was the interpretation in dicta in a Federal Court of Appeals ruling.)
[/ QUOTE ]
They provide a service for a fee...which is customer support/hosting the games etc. Basically for a fee, they let us bet against eachother.
SO NO, they do not have a stake in the outcome. They get paid the same wether player A or player B wins.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, that makes it clear. I wonder why PS, PP etc. are not using this clause.
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 08:40 AM
Berge,
How about a sticky for any thread where the CEO of a poker company posts that they will continue to accept US players ?
RikaKazak
10-02-2006, 08:41 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, we have no stake in the outcome, nor have we risked any money in the pot.
(This is not a new reading of the term. In another statute, the Wire Act, this was the interpretation in dicta in a Federal Court of Appeals ruling.)
[/ QUOTE ]
They provide a service for a fee...which is customer support/hosting the games etc. Basically for a fee, they let us bet against eachother.
SO NO, they do not have a stake in the outcome. They get paid the same wether player A or player B wins.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, that makes it clear. I wonder why PS, PP etc. are not using this clause.
[/ QUOTE ]
Party has partycasino etc.
Stars hasn't made an official ruling.
primetime32
10-02-2006, 08:42 AM
truepoker, if you are the last one standing i want to congratulate you on becoming a billionaire.
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 08:43 AM
Feel free to email me at management@truepoker.com.
As for your customer service complaint, send me your account name, I will resolve it.
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 08:46 AM
No. We had an agreement with them to develop a private label debit card system that never went forward. So, we have stuck with Neteller and Firepay.
We are awaiting developments in the payments processing business to determine who will or will not continue to serve the US poker market.
Artsemis
10-02-2006, 08:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
As for your customer service complaint, send me your account name, I will resolve it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Awesome.
adios
10-02-2006, 08:49 AM
I like it and it seems more than reasonable. Let the legal wrangling begin. Would it be possible to comment on WTO agreements that are in place that might have a bearing on this? But I understand that your statement makes it clear that your position is that the U.S. law does not apply to you due to the nature of your business.
antneye
10-02-2006, 08:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
.
We are awaiting developments in the payments processing business to determine who will or will not continue to serve the US poker market.
[/ QUOTE ]
True,
Assuming that the existing e-wallets fold, do you anticipate other means of being able to do commerce with US residents?
I will be the first one at your door as long as you feel confident that we will be able to exchange funds in both directions.
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 08:58 AM
Would it be possible to comment on WTO agreements that are in place that might have a bearing on this?
An interesting topic to be sure. I expect this greatly helps the WTO fight by Antigua, IF it draws in the UK politically. However, that is a long term fight, it would take longer than a year to bear fruit ... as well as requiring a likely change in control of Congress.
(Ironic that the Republicans, who favor free trade, would impose such protectionist legislation for the US poker market )
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 09:03 AM
I won't blow smoke. We will have to wait and see what develops.
We are not going to break any laws or agreements with the financial service providers, including Banks and ewallets. If they "fold" as you put it, we will do our best to replace them.
Remember, NOTHING in the Act affects cashouts, a site would always be able to cash you out.
There may be another loophole, but THAT would be proprietary if I can exploit it.
westmt01
10-02-2006, 09:03 AM
Wow, you guys are brave. I hope you're not planning to travel to the U.S. any time soon. I have a feeling the Justice Department is going to interpret the new law just a little bit differently than you do.
Jerry D
10-02-2006, 09:23 AM
It will be safe for them to travel to the US as soon as these right wing Republican religious crazies are out of office. A justice dept. that is not controlled by a right wing religious nut administration like Bush would not bother with wasting time going after online poker.
Gregg777
10-02-2006, 09:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, you guys are brave. I hope you're not planning to travel to the U.S. any time soon. I have a feeling the Justice Department is going to interpret the new law just a little bit differently than you do.
[/ QUOTE ]
From his statements it sounds like he will be looking for viable loopholes.
The loopholes always exist, glad someone is actively pursuing them.
realwtf
10-02-2006, 09:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It will be safe for them to travel to the US as soon as these right wing Republican religious crazies are out of office. A justice dept. that is not controlled by a right wing religious nut administration like Bush would not bother with wasting time going after online poker.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let me guess you are not in Washington State.
[ QUOTE ]
Can I make a Deposit to TruePoker from the United States ?
Congress passed the UIGE Act of 2006, which covers deposits made by US players to certain types of sites. Our read is that Act covers only sites which offer Sports Betting or Casino type games where you bet against the Site itself.
We are not going to be breaking any laws, we believe this Act does not apply to sites not in "the business of betting or wagering", which we are not.
We will need to see what develops in the payments processing industry over the next few weeks with respect to your ability to send money, but TruePoker's poker operations will continue for US players.
Summary:
TruePoker does NOT make or accept bets or wagers in which it has any stake in the outcome. So, our games and tournaments, and your deposits, are not covered by this UIGE Act of 2006.
TruePoker does not have a stake in the outcome of the games or tournaments we offer, in the US or anywhere else. (We do not offer casino games or sports betting, and so have no stake in the outcome and are not in the "business of betting or wagering")
Business Decisions:
Certain sites, such as Party and Pacific, have decided to abandon the US poker market as a busness decision. We view our commitment to our customes a bit differently. The Act does not outlaw playing poker on the Internet from the US, period. We certainly will accept deposits and new accounts as long as we can do so. We see NO reason to cut off play in any event under this Act.
As you do, We await developments in the payments processing industry, but it is business as usual for Truepoker's poker operations.
[/ QUOTE ]
COJONES GRANDE.
Vavavoom
10-02-2006, 09:44 AM
Vive Le Resistance
metsandfinsfan
10-02-2006, 11:00 AM
I used to play truepoker. If i could switch my acct to rakeback, i would play there again
For now, absolute will probably be my primary site with WSEX as well
oreopimp
10-02-2006, 11:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
COJONES GRANDE.
[/ QUOTE ]
I see it as a good thing. True pokers the new party. This is clearly the perfect time to fight for market share.
Phil153
10-02-2006, 11:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
TruePoker does NOT make or accept bets or wagers in which it has any stake in the outcome. So, our games and tournaments, and your deposits, are not covered by this UIGE Act of 2006.
TruePoker does not have a stake in the outcome of the games or tournaments we offer, in the US or anywhere else. (We do not offer casino games or sports betting, and so have no stake in the outcome and are not in the "business of betting or wagering")
[/ QUOTE ]
This is pure nonsense, and you know it. If not, get a new lawyer.
[ QUOTE ]
Certain sites, such as Party and Pacific, have decided to abandon the US poker market as a busness decision. We view our commitment to our customes a bit differently.
[/ QUOTE ]
I like how you relate it to "customer commitment". I'd say your site that your site is so small you have nothing to lose. You've been madly spamming these boards for a long time trying to get ANYONE to play on your site. You must be rubbing your hands in glee.
To everyone: there are many far better options than TruePoker that will also continue to service US players. Don't think this guy is the only one.
thetruest
10-02-2006, 11:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TruePoker does NOT make or accept bets or wagers in which it has any stake in the outcome. So, our games and tournaments, and your deposits, are not covered by this UIGE Act of 2006.
TruePoker does not have a stake in the outcome of the games or tournaments we offer, in the US or anywhere else. (We do not offer casino games or sports betting, and so have no stake in the outcome and are not in the "business of betting or wagering")
[/ QUOTE ]
This is pure nonsense, and you know it. If not, get a new lawyer.
[ QUOTE ]
Certain sites, such as Party and Pacific, have decided to abandon the US poker market as a busness decision. We view our commitment to our customes a bit differently.
[/ QUOTE ]
I like how you relate it to "customer commitment". I'd say your site that your site is so small you have nothing to lose. You've been madly spamming these boards for a long time trying to get ANYONE to play on your site. You must be rubbing your hands in glee.
To everyone: there are many far better options than TruePoker that will also continue to service US players. Don't think this guy is the only one.
[/ QUOTE ]
He's the only one that has came out about this, how can you not give him any credit for that.
wdcbooks
10-02-2006, 11:18 AM
Really Phil? Which sites would that be who have come here and confirmed that for us. I would love to know what you know. I will only play on a site who has made the type of committment that True Poker has. I will not sit around while a site examines the issues. I am too lazy to keep cashing out and setting up new accounts.
NoahSD
10-02-2006, 11:22 AM
I /images/graemlins/heart.gif you.
[ QUOTE ]
We will need to see what develops in the payments processing industry over the next few weeks with respect to your ability to send money, but TruePoker's poker operations will continue for US players.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear on things, can you provide a guarantee that if we put money in we'll be able to get it out easily, or are you concerned that that may not be the case?
Gregg777
10-02-2006, 11:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I am too lazy to keep cashing out and setting up new accounts.
[/ QUOTE ]
Amen, it's also risky.
semsorok
10-02-2006, 11:24 AM
big props
Suigin406
10-02-2006, 11:24 AM
thank you...at least one site isn't running like hell at the news of this bill...
spatne
10-02-2006, 11:31 AM
Listen. Unlike all the people who flooded this place in the eleventh hour, making it unreadable, TruepokerCEO has been here for months. In that time, he has been a productive contributor and good citizen of the forum. I'm more than happy to give his place a shot.
Lego05
10-02-2006, 11:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Listen. Unlike all the people who flooded this place in the eleventh hour, making it unreadable, TruepokerCEO has been here for months. In that time, he has been a productive contributor and good citizen of the forum. I'm more than happy to give his place a shot.
[/ QUOTE ]
Second.
Major props for all sites that will continue to operate as business as usual. So far to my knowledge this includes TruePoker, Bodog, and maybe WSEX.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Listen. Unlike all the people who flooded this place in the eleventh hour, making it unreadable, TruepokerCEO has been here for months. In that time, he has been a productive contributor and good citizen of the forum. I'm more than happy to give his place a shot.
[/ QUOTE ]
Second.
Major props for all sites that will continue to operate as business as usual. So far to my knowledge this includes TruePoker, Bodog, and maybe WSEX.
[/ QUOTE ]
And poker.com, they have been lost in the rubble.
heater
10-02-2006, 11:40 AM
Thank you.
Please add 100BB NL tables. Pretty please.
Phil153
10-02-2006, 11:43 AM
I think you can add Paradise Poker to that list. They're offering the same level of assurance as TruePoker (i.e. conditional on the banks).
NoahSD
10-02-2006, 11:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Thank you.
Please add 100BB NL tables. Pretty please.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah.. from what I know about truepoker, it's not really a great site right now, but presumably the 2+2 lobby could improve it a ton since their CEO is willing to talk.
kevstreet
10-02-2006, 11:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
truepoker, if you are the last one standing i want to congratulate you on becoming a billionaire.
[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously. With some sort of "legal" marketing campaign there is a lot of money to be made.
Good luck to you TruePoker, I really really wish you the best and hope to be playing there very soon. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
CORed
10-02-2006, 12:15 PM
I've never played on True Poker. I don't care for the gimmick of trying to make it like a live game. But I may have to give your site a try in appreciation for having the balls to stand up to the US government while Pacific, Party and probably many others are cutting and running. Just one word of advice: Stay the hell out of the US, if you value your freedom.
By-Tor
10-02-2006, 12:21 PM
everyone needs to pass the word on the Party tables so we can get all the guppies to True...
Ummm...don't point them here though..
CORed
10-02-2006, 12:27 PM
If your legal theory holds up, it looks like Party really shot themselves in the foot by offering Blackjack, flop color sidebets, etc. Of course, they had Starluck Casino, etc. before that. It will be interesting to see what Pokerstars does. They do not, AFIK, offer any casino type games or sports betting, so, if your legal theory holds up, they would be safe. Paradise, OTOH, has blackjack and sports betting. WPEX is using poker with 100% rakeback as a loss leader for their sportsbook, so their business model seems pretty shaky right now.
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 01:00 PM
We have no intention of violating any laws. However, the UIGE Act did not criminalize playing poker or operating sa poker site with US players.
(Deposit before the Act is signed if you are concerned, we plan to continue providing games to US players. We also see no restriction on cashing out players. Your ability as a practical matter to make Post-Act deposits will be subject to the financial transaction providers.)
oreopimp
10-02-2006, 01:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Thank you.
Please add 100BB NL tables. Pretty please.
[/ QUOTE ]
yeah you really need to add this.
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 01:06 PM
We currently offer 100BB Nl tables at $5 BB level, I'll see about adding/changing the other levels.
Kneel B4 Zod
10-02-2006, 01:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
it looks like Party really shot themselves in the foot by offering Blackjack, flop color sidebets, etc. Of course, they had Starluck Casino, etc. before that
[/ QUOTE ]
Party could/would shut all this stuff down tomorrow if they thought it would save their poker room. They think the issue runs deeper than poker vs. casino vs. sports betting.
88% of their revenue is from poker! they would certainly close down the other 12% if they thought it would save the other 88%. instead, they have chosen to shut down 75% of their entire business.
bigcil
10-02-2006, 01:10 PM
I have played at True for about a year off and on. Although there are some complaints about the graphis, you really don't pay too much attention to them. Their tables and limits are limited and have the tendency to break easily. They also have numerous tourneys but there are never enough people to fill them up. However, it seems due to recent events that the traffic will pick up and I will play there almost always now. CEO keep up the good work and I hope to see many of you there.
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 01:10 PM
There is nothing in the Act to restrict cashouts, period.
If some ewallet service decides to cut off ANY US transactions, in OR out, we have other ways to get you the money for a cashout .... altho, it likely would not be a instant as we all have enjoyed in the past.
We cannot know what Neteller or Firepay is planning to do yet ... We have asked.
westmt01
10-02-2006, 01:18 PM
Have your lawyers reached the same conclusion? Because I doubt very strongly the Dept. of Justice will agree with you.
Hey, more power to you, but I don't think Congress or the DOJ are willing to screw around with this. I know a guy who swears paying income tax is not mandatory (he can site statute after statute), so he doesn't do it. When the IRS catches up with him, they're not going to care about his agrument, they're going to come down on him hard. I think this issue is the same: you might be completely right, but the gov't is going to intrepret things the way they want to, and the consequences will be handed out accordingly.
I support your position but I hope you have some heavy-duty legal power to back you up. I also wouldn't be changing planes in any U.S. airports in the near future.
suzzer99
10-02-2006, 01:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Have your lawyers reached the same conclusion? Because I doubt very strongly the Dept. of Justice will agree with you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Right, but clearly one angle of attack for the poker sites is to take the stance that poker is not covered under this act, then let the US courts figure *that* issue out. It's a shot. I really hope PS has the balls to sign on to the fight.
Kneel B4 Zod
10-02-2006, 01:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have your lawyers reached the same conclusion? Because I doubt very strongly the Dept. of Justice will agree with you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Right, but clearly one angle of attack for the poker sites is to take the stance that poker is not covered under this act, then let the US courts figure *that* issue out. It's a shot. I really hope PS has the balls to sign on to the fight.
[/ QUOTE ]
again, if Party thought this was a reasonable argument, then why wouldn't they just shut down the 12% of their business that is non-poker?
pokerraja
10-02-2006, 01:25 PM
Thank you sir. I have played almost exclusively at PartyPoker over the last 4 years, full-time. This is the best news I have heard all weekend. I will download TruPoker tonight and make a deposit.
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 01:25 PM
"This is pure nonsense, and you know it. If not, get a new lawyer.'
This "pure nonsense" as you put it comes from the definition of "bet or wager" under this Act.
A purely poker site does neither, as it has no stake in the outcome of the games and risks no money in the pot. Since we do neither "betting or wagering", how can you assume us to be in the "business of betting or wagering'? We are not a sportsbook or casino.
There is an argument that if it is illegal for a player to bet or wager under State law, then a State law might reach bring us under the Act somehow as to new deposits. We will look at those issues of course.
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 01:32 PM
... I wish everyone would stop saying that.
We are not going to be breaking any laws.
Additionally, even if we were somehow covered by Section 5362, we just do not see how taking a US player deposit would break any law under any poker business model, provided the player is not banned from playing by State law.
I do not want to be the tallest weed in the garden, but the law is the law and nothing more than it says .... assuming it gets signed before a pocket veto takes effect LOL.
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 01:40 PM
I agree about PStars, but they have not come out with an answer definitely as to where they stand.
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 01:44 PM
Thanks.
Phil153
10-02-2006, 01:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"This is pure nonsense, and you know it. If not, get a new lawyer.'
This "pure nonsense" as you put it comes from the definition of "bet or wager" under this Act.
[/ QUOTE ]
Does the word "facilitate" mean anything to you? I don't mean to be rude (why do people think this gives them the leeway to then be rude? -P), but your interpretation of the legislation is shockingly wrong.
Why do you think Party Poker, a multi billion dollar company, took swift action to block US players from their site, cutting of 75% of their revenue stream and losing a billion in market value? They could just as easily disable access to casino games for US players and just offer poker, and then be in the same legal position as you claim to be. The simple fact is, your interpretation of this legislation is whack. Do you even have a lawyer on your staff?
edited to remove some extemporaneous attacks that really weren't necessary. -P
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 02:05 PM
I'll be glad to take another look, Phil.
However, where did you see "facilitate" in this Act ?
... while you are at it, could you also point out where operating a poker site from offshore is illegal under Federal law ? The Wire Act was not amended, why do you think the legality of operating or playing changed within the last three days ?
Finally, why would you steer players to other sites such as Paradise in other posts, but try and trash us here ?
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 02:46 PM
That would be great. Thanks.
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 02:55 PM
Glad to hear they are stepping up, have they posted that somewhere ?
(They run sportbetting, but maybe they will go for a solely-poker US presence. Although, I understand you think that would be "pure nonsense")
chrisptp
10-02-2006, 02:57 PM
I think True Poker has a perfectly reasonable interp of this law, and I'm glad someone is standing up and publicly stating that they intend to test this legislation instead of mutely accepting that 'the end is here.' I bet if conservatives knew everyone was going to roll over so easily, they would have saved themselves some time and just replaced the entire text of the bill with "Boo!".
Like everything Frist writes, this bill is a piece of crap. As i've said time and time again, panic is the worst possible reaction - it gives conservatives everythign they want and relieves them of the need to do any work to get it.
Party has to make some kind of vanilla statement because they have jittery shareholders.
I've dealt personally with the CEO of True in the past and I have no doubts about his intelligence or the competence of the staff working on this issue for them. I'm not sure why anyone is interested in tearing down one of the few positive pieces of news we've heard over the last few days.
I'd like to thank True for a rational, useful contribution to the discussion about this law and what it means for our industry.
Chris
whangarei
10-02-2006, 02:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Props
[/ QUOTE ]
i seem to remember that david and mason were closely associated with true poker long ago...they gave lessons and worked with them a lot. i doubt anyone who calls true ceo comments on this board SPAM has much idea of what has happened and why truepoker ceo is welcome on the forum.
djames
10-02-2006, 03:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
... I wish everyone would stop saying that.
We are not going to be breaking any laws.
Additionally, even if we were somehow covered by Section 5362, we just do not see how taking a US player deposit would break any law under any poker business model, provided the player is not banned from playing by State law.
I do not want to be the tallest weed in the garden, but the law is the law and nothing more than it says .... assuming it gets signed before a pocket veto takes effect LOL.
[/ QUOTE ]
You've mentioned a few times that you believe your site will not be breaking any laws. In my read, I don't argue that before any regulations are set forth.
However, you have yet to comment, unless I've missed it, how US players that do play on your site will ever be able to receive their funds. Can you comment on the language in the legislation that does continue to allow US players to withdraw money from gaming sites to US banks (perhaps with quotes)? Many seem to think this will still be legal & easily accomplished, but in my read I don't see why. So while the act of gaming on your site may not be illegal for either the US player or your site, what good is it if the players can't easily withdraw their funds?
Thanks in advance.
there are certainly reasons to consider that running a poker game for rake is not participating, but even if things had to be developed as membership clubs...there are lots of historical privileges to clubs.
and calling poker gambling has been successfully challenged on several occasions.
Kneel B4 Zod
10-02-2006, 03:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think True Poker has a perfectly reasonable interp of this law, and I'm glad someone is standing up and publicly stating that they intend to test this legislation instead of mutely accepting that 'the end is here.' I bet if conservatives knew everyone was going to roll over so easily, they would have saved themselves some time and just replaced the entire text of the bill with "Boo!".
Like everything Frist writes, this bill is a piece of crap. As i've said time and time again, panic is the worst possible reaction - it gives conservatives everythign they want and relieves them of the need to do any work to get it.
Party has to make some kind of vanilla statement because they have jittery shareholders.
I've dealt personally with the CEO of True in the past and I have no doubts about his intelligence or the competence of the staff working on this issue for them. I'm not sure why anyone is interested in tearing down one of the few positive pieces of news we've heard over the last few days.
I'd like to thank True for a rational, useful contribution to the discussion about this law and what it means for our industry.
Chris
[/ QUOTE ]
I have nothing against the site, and I have no reason to root against True Poker. I wish them well.
However, my assumption is that billion dollar companies like Party and Pacific have very qualified, expert lawyers advising them, and clearly they were advised that continuing US play (and I'm sure poker only play) would put them at legal risk. I fail to see how that puts them in a different place than True.
again, if this bold step works for True, then good for him, and I wish him well...I just hope he doesn't end up in jail.
[ QUOTE ]
I have nothing against the site, and I have no reason to root against True Poker. I wish them well.
However, my assumption is that billion dollar companies like Party and Pacific have very qualified, expert lawyers advising them, and clearly they were advised that continuing US play (and I'm sure poker only play) would put them at legal risk. I fail to see how that puts them in a different place than True.
again, if this bold step works for True, then good for him, and I wish him well...I just hope he doesn't end up in jail.
[/ QUOTE ]Small companies are not big companies and they are in far different situations. Additionally, small companies continually kick the crap out of big cautious large companies by being nimble and by taking smart risks.
chrisptp
10-02-2006, 03:09 PM
Party and Pacific both have casino concerns to protect. They know, just like every B/m has known for 6 decades, that slots are king - regardless of how much poker might be generating the short term.
I guarantee you that the long term biz plans of Party and 888 do not count Poker as their primary growth engine. Their casino concerns, however, have to be protected at all costs, and to continue to develop those areas, they have to shut investors up asap.
I think that is one alternative explanation to why True has one position and Party has another, and both can be viewed as correct.
SoBeDude
10-02-2006, 03:21 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I like it and it seems more than reasonable. Let the legal wrangling begin. Would it be possible to comment on WTO agreements that are in place that might have a bearing on this? But I understand that your statement makes it clear that your position is that the U.S. law does not apply to you due to the nature of your business.
[/ QUOTE ]
the USA pisses on the WTO. 'we' and I use 'we' loosely, care not what the WTO thinks or does.
-Scott
Kneel B4 Zod
10-02-2006, 03:25 PM
WRT to poker vs casino: you are 100% wrong. growth for online poker is MUCH bigger than in online casino games, and Party already has 88% of revenue coming from poker. in 3 years time, this was only going to be bigger as their market share increased. online casinos are by comparison an old, mature market - the growth prospects don't come close to poker, so your idea that Party is concerned about the growth of their online casino biz - well that must be far from the case.
your B&M comparison is flawed
PairTheBoard
10-02-2006, 03:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have your lawyers reached the same conclusion? Because I doubt very strongly the Dept. of Justice will agree with you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Right, but clearly one angle of attack for the poker sites is to take the stance that poker is not covered under this act, then let the US courts figure *that* issue out. It's a shot. I really hope PS has the balls to sign on to the fight.
[/ QUOTE ]
Right. A Test Case would at least give a Poker Carve Out via the Courts a chance. There certainly is substance to the argument. Just look at all the Poker Rooms in California.
PairTheBoard
chrisptp
10-02-2006, 03:32 PM
Not at all. I understand what the numbers are in the short term for Party and 888, but overall, online wagering on 'table games' crushes poker revenue.
It's a bigger pie, and it's what 888 and Party are shooting for. I don't think that's even a debatable issue.
The BM comparison, IMHO, is fine. BM's have have torn down and rebuilt their poker rooms a few times in the last couple of decades as poker got hot and cooled off, but slots have always stayed. Don't see any reason why this would be different online.
MicroBob
10-02-2006, 03:42 PM
TPCEO - Kudos to your continued participation on these forums and to your timely announcement.
TPCEO has been involved in quite a few threads about this issue while a lot of the other sites didn't participate in the discussions at all.
When it started to hit the fan with Party backing out, TPCEO was relatively quick to come right on here and make absolutely clear what his site's position is and will be.
He's also been involved in many discussions previously about completely non-related internet-poker issues (what kind of features, what kind of bonuses, stuff like that).
This is exactly the type of communication we want...but that we just don't get from most other sites.
You can say that they do this because they are a small site and they have nothing to lose anyway.
But there are actually lots of small and medium-sized sites who don't bother to do this. So TPCEO has to be given credit for being in the minority here.
Very very classy.
Now, to get all away from this whole legislation discussion:
TPCEO - As has been mentioned before, some 2+2'ers would be interested in playing there if you offered a 2d feature for your tables.
I still have difficulty following the action there because of the 3d-ness of it. The angles of the cards, somebody placing a bet on the opposite side of the table, etc etc.
Harder to multi-table imo.
I suggest that now is an opportune time to finally MAKE IT HAPPEN and WIN OVER even more of these available players looking for places to play.
I don't even really care if it's P-TRacker compatible or not. and may try to struggle through some of the 3d-ness of the site regardless.
But a 2d-version (at least as an OPTION for anyone who prefers it) might seal the deal for some.
Bluff1
10-02-2006, 03:53 PM
Downloading now go true go.
Instyle007
10-02-2006, 04:02 PM
Congratulations on having a backbone and not bowing to the pressure.
Told bad Party and 888 aren't following your lead.
AceCR9
10-02-2006, 04:05 PM
truepoker- hope your server is ready for a little more work!
BluffTHIS!
10-02-2006, 04:38 PM
TruePoker CEO,
Props to you from me as others, for your "cajones" and your interpretation. While obviously your interpretation can be viewed as self-serving, as you correctly note (and you are in fact an attorney if some here don't realize that IIRC), you are only obliged to follow the law as written, and have no obligation to follow any presumed intent. Thus if congress poorly worded the legislation to accomplish what they intended, in the same manner as if an attorney in any court in the land poorly drafted any motion or contract, then they just have to accept the consequences of same.
However I have a question. Is it not reasonable under your interpretation, to say that a sports betting site, which followed the theoretical sports book method of perfect line balancing, could also be in the legal clear here? Because they would thus just be "matching" the opposite bets of sports bettors at a given line, and would refuse a match without another bettor willing to bet opposite, in order that the book itself were not "matching", and thus possibly be "accepting" a bet or wager. Is this thinking of mine reasonable?
Edited to add: your PM box is full so please note thread I started in the zoo (internet gambling) addressed to you on other matters about your site.
mkflsam
10-02-2006, 04:44 PM
True, do you get automatic rakeback just for signing up? Or do you need to sign up under an affiliate?
adios
10-02-2006, 04:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like it and it seems more than reasonable. Let the legal wrangling begin. Would it be possible to comment on WTO agreements that are in place that might have a bearing on this? But I understand that your statement makes it clear that your position is that the U.S. law does not apply to you due to the nature of your business.
[/ QUOTE ]
the USA pisses on the WTO. 'we' and I use 'we' loosely, care not what the WTO thinks or does.
-Scott
[/ QUOTE ]
Not true actually witness:
Bush ditches steel import duties (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3291537.stm)
From the article:
President George W Bush has repealed US tariffs on imported steel to avoid a damaging trade war.
The decision follows a World Trade Organisation decision that the duties, imposed in March 2002, are illegal.
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 05:22 PM
"Is it not reasonable under your interpretation, to say that a sports betting site, which followed the theoretical sports book method of perfect line balancing, could also be in the legal clear here? "
Almost. They would have to watch that they did not employ any market-specialists to provide liquidity .... but basically, I think you are correct. There already are such sites which follow strictly a clearinghouse business model.
I just look at what was passed.
If Congress so clearly intended to outlaw online poker, as some say, why didn't they amend the Wire Act or at least use the word poker in this Act ? It is reasonable to think they knew what they were doing and limited the scope of their actions to where they could get the votes ... The House bill HR4411 attempted to amend the Wire Act, the version ultimately passed by both Houses did not.
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 05:29 PM
There is nothing in the Act which addresses or restricts withdrawals in any manner whatsoever.
Cashouts may not be as quick, if your ewallet shuts down US business entirely, but there is no prohibition in the Act.
Unless or until a different statute is passed, Congress has not chosen to stand between poker players and their cashouts.
DrewOnTilt
10-02-2006, 05:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, we have no stake in the outcome, nor have we risked any money in the pot.
(This is not a new reading of the term. In another statute, the Wire Act, this was the interpretation in dicta in a Federal Court of Appeals ruling.)
[/ QUOTE ]
They provide a service for a fee...which is customer support/hosting the games etc. Basically for a fee, they let us bet against eachother.
SO NO, they do not have a stake in the outcome. They get paid the same wether player A or player B wins.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, that makes it clear. I wonder why PS, PP etc. are not using this clause.
[/ QUOTE ]
Party is run by a bunch of pansies etc.
Stars hasn't made an official ruling.
[/ QUOTE ]
FYP
BluffTHIS!
10-02-2006, 06:03 PM
TruePoker CEO,
I am no lawyer as you are, but I don't think your interpretation is totally unreasonable. I would be interested the in views of other attorneys. That said, I do think your position exposes you to some risk if you set foot on US soil, as the DoJ might interpret differently and then make you take it up the chain to prove otherwise. I had my attorney once tell me on a business matter, "I don't advise doing that, but technically it's not illegal". I of course did it anyway, and thumbed my nose at the other party when they threatened me, and nothing ever happened. So it comes down to how scared/safe a client wants to play it.
P.S. I hope you noticed my thread I referenced above in the zoo addressed to you, although I realize it is detailed and may take you a while to respond to.
chicagoY
10-02-2006, 07:18 PM
You're a darn hero.
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 07:26 PM
I am not altruistic..... but thanks, its better than being called a felon.
Vote with your wallet, we are offering a 100% FTD and a 30% Reload Bonus currently.
Then vote again November 7.
Our credit card processing is running and so is Neteller.
See you soon ?
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 07:47 PM
Thanks, give us a tryout.
Hobbs.
10-02-2006, 07:50 PM
rakeback?
mprhino
10-02-2006, 08:01 PM
Truepoker,
This is encouraging news and I'm glad you are taking a stand. I'm not sure what sort of advertising you have in place now, (I currently live abroad) but once the dust settles, do you have plans in the works to launch a TV ad campaign that will let people know you guys are still around?
Thanks again
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 10:21 PM
Contact Chris at admin@truepoker.com.
Otherwise, our VIP program offers players up to 40% rakeback.
[ QUOTE ]
Contact Chris at admin@truepoker.com.
Otherwise, our VIP program offers players up to 40% rakeback.
[/ QUOTE ]I have to tell ya, you are one very smart businessman for spending the day here. Very very smart. Why 10 other sites arent doing the same is beyond me. But, kudos. I will play your site just for the effort you put forth. Good luck.
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 10:39 PM
Thanks.
TruePoker CEO
10-02-2006, 10:59 PM
Thanks, come on by and play some.
TruePoker CEO
10-03-2006, 12:42 AM
As you do, we also await developments in the payments processing industry with respect to deposit methods, but it is business as usual for Truepoker's poker operations.
You are welcome to play and thanks.
gdsdiscgolfer
10-03-2006, 01:01 AM
2D option?
BluffTHIS!
10-03-2006, 02:58 AM
TP CEO,
Out of curiosity, should the DoJ as seems likely, dispute your interpretation of the law and what it means to have a stake in an outcome, or be in the business of taking bets or wagers, and filed criminal actions against yourself or others, would the clarification of that interpretation be strictly a judicial one, or would it for a jury to decide?
I joined tonight and played some 2/4 no limit no-handed. Sign up and funding were a breeze. The software was fast and I generally liked it, other than some button placements. I give the site a high mark so far.
BluffTHIS!
10-03-2006, 03:02 AM
Utah,
I haven't checked out their software yet but plan to. I suspect however it is a small site without much game selection as they are not listed by pokersitescout.com. Do you find that to be true? Of course in the new landscape they have much more room to grow when the market leader bails.
[ QUOTE ]
Utah,
I haven't checked out their software yet but plan to. I suspect however it is a small site without much game selection as they are not listed by pokersitescout.com. Do you find that to be true? Of course in the new landscape they have much more room to grow when the market leader bails.
[/ QUOTE ]It is a smaller site but I was playing at 2:00a.m. central so it is not a good read.. But, as long as the tables are full that I am sitting at them I am happy as can be /images/graemlins/smile.gif I truly like the site. However, I really like the fact that their CEO spent the day here when everyone was freakin out and the big sites were worried about bullshitpress releases. I like the hussle and I prefer to do business with companies like TruePoker and that is where I will vote my gambling dollars for now. These things are oddly self generating and once they hit a threshold they can explode.
yukoncpa
10-03-2006, 03:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Utah,
I haven't checked out their software yet but plan to. I suspect however it is a small site without much game selection as they are not listed by pokersitescout.com. Do you find that to be true? Of course in the new landscape they have much more room to grow when the market leader bails.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bluff,
I signed up tonight as well, pretty late. It is a small sight. They have a couple NL 2-4's going and a NL 1-2. They actually seem to have more NL than limit holdem. No PL omaha, at least at this late hour.
Also, I do not believe PT or pokerace hud supports this site.
For me, the games were right up my alley, but I believe you are a higher stakes player than I am.
BluffTHIS!
10-03-2006, 03:15 AM
yukon,
I do player higher (now), but am very disciplined about game selection. I will drop down in a heart beat rather than play in bad games. Also I sometimes play 2 sites at once, so if I get a couple good tables on one site and another one somewhere else, that's fine.
I agree with Utah, that the more traffic a site gets, then the faster it's pace of growth. I do however think it behooves TP to get listed and covered by pokersitescout.com.
yukoncpa
10-03-2006, 03:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
yukon,
I do player higher (now), but am very disciplined about game selection. I will drop down in a heart beat rather than play in bad games. Also I sometimes play 2 sites at once, so if I get a couple good tables on one site and another one somewhere else, that's fine.
I agree with Utah, that the more traffic a site gets, then the faster it's pace of growth. I do however think it behooves TP to get listed and covered by pokersitescout.com.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bluff,
I had never seen the site pokersitescout before, thanks for the heads up. True poker is listed on bonuswhores.com as a medium sized cardroom. The games in the one day I played were soft. I can tell you that the site is indeed smaller than absolute, but hopefully this will all change.
I very much appreciate Truepokerceo's attitude and I hope he becomes the new market leader.
BluffTHIS!
10-03-2006, 03:33 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I very much appreciate Truepokerceo's attitude and I hope he becomes the new market leader.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this 100%. If not them, and Absolute or UB doesn't take off (assuming stars bails - if they don't they're on top), then most likely a CR based sportsbook w/poker like BoDog is going to shoot up fast.
TruePoker CEO
10-03-2006, 07:20 AM
We appreciate the business and will work to keep it.
(A 100% First Time Deposit bonus is automatic for new players, look under My Promotions in the drop down menu in ther Lobby to check your status.)
TruePoker CEO
10-03-2006, 09:53 AM
Apparently, there is some shifting in the interpetation of the Act by one expert.
In today's LA Times, Nelson Rose is quoted as follows:
That's a major weakness" of the new measure, said I. Nelson Rose, an expert in gambling law at Whittier Law School.
"It left out expanding the reach of the Wire Act, so poker sites can say, 'We're not covered by that.' "
This failure to amend the Wire Act to include poker is the first step of two positive analytic threads:
First thread: Playing online poker is itself not "unlawful Internet Gambling" under Federal Law (leaving aside State law for now), so deposits for online poker are not in connection with "unlawful Internet gambling".
1. The UIGE Act only related to deposits in connection with "unlawful Internet gambling".
2. Poker is not unlawful Internet gambling (under the Wire Act, leaving aside State laws for this discussion.)
3. Therefore, deposits in connection with online poker are not retricted by the UIGE Act.
The second thread, which was my initial thought,:
1. Even assuming that online poker were construed to be "unlawful Internet gambling", the UIGE Act only applies to acceptance of deposits by persons "engaged in the business of betting or wagering".
2. Poker site business models do not involve any risk of the site dependent upon the outcome of play; poker sites do not "bet or wager".
3. The poker-only business model is not a person covered by the restrictions of the UIGE Act.
4. (Where poker is regulated as "gambling" in State laws, it is specifically named ???)
TruePoker CEO
mikever
10-03-2006, 10:09 AM
I'm going to be pulling my money out of stars and looking for a new primary home, and the first place i will look into is Truepoker, because I have come to respect truepokerceo. I don't know if that's ultimately where i will play, but you deserve a look. Thank you.
TruePoker CEO
10-03-2006, 10:12 AM
Thank you.
We are looking to upgrade our 3D software and add the 2D option that people have requested.
New001
10-03-2006, 10:16 AM
2D software would likely make me a customer as well.
Good luck and thank you.
Quacker
10-03-2006, 10:18 AM
TP, any chances of PokerTracker compatability down the road?
fnord_too
10-03-2006, 10:37 AM
I see true poker has an affiliate program. You should let people just get rakeback if they don't sign up through an affiliate, cut out the middle man if someone already knows about the site.
Edit - I just found that section of the web site, it was hidden.
Chump Change
10-03-2006, 10:56 AM
TP ceo,
Do you spread any form of omaha? I assume so even if it's low traffic. I'm on board.
Anyone,
Point me towards or PM me about rakeback if you'd be so kind.
okterrific
10-03-2006, 11:00 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone,
Point me towards or PM me about rakeback if you'd be so kind.
[/ QUOTE ]
BluffBlank
10-03-2006, 11:03 AM
http://www.truepoker.com/Rakebackpage.html
Copernicus
10-03-2006, 11:13 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently, there is some shifting in the interpetation of the Act by one expert.
In today's LA Times, Nelson Rose is quoted as follows:
That's a major weakness" of the new measure, said I. Nelson Rose, an expert in gambling law at Whittier Law School.
"It left out expanding the reach of the Wire Act, so poker sites can say, 'We're not covered by that.' "
This failure to amend the Wire Act to include poker is the first step of two positive analytic threads:
First thread: Playing online poker is itself not "unlawful Internet Gambling" under Federal Law (leaving aside State law for now), so deposits for online poker are not in connection with "unlawful Internet gambling".
1. The UIGE Act only related to deposits in connection with "unlawful Internet gambling".
2. Poker is not unlawful Internet gambling (under the Wire Act, leaving aside State laws for this discussion.)
3. Therefore, deposits in connection with online poker are not retricted by the UIGE Act.
The second thread, which was my initial thought,:
1. Even assuming that online poker were construed to be "unlawful Internet gambling", the UIGE Act only applies to acceptance of deposits by persons "engaged in the business of betting or wagering".
2. Poker site business models do not involve any risk of the site dependent upon the outcome of play; poker sites do not "bet or wager".
3. The poker-only business model is not a person covered by the restrictions of the UIGE Act.
4. (Where poker is regulated as "gambling" in State laws, it is specifically named ???)
TruePoker CEO
[/ QUOTE ]
TPCEO...has Tony Cabot weighed in on the bill yet?
TruePoker CEO
10-03-2006, 12:40 PM
We are actively promoting Pot Limit Omaha this month.
We are also running some freeroll or $.01 entry PLO torunaments every weekday in October.
FeliciaLee
10-03-2006, 01:32 PM
I hate to be jumping on the bandwagon with everyone else (not my style), but I have to agree with the masses that when this all pans out, I won't forget True.
Honestly, I had forgotten the site even existed (no slight to you, TPCEO, I just never really got into online play). When I do play, I tend to go to Stars, because it is easy and I've always liked their software.
I am appalled at so many sites caving before anyone even says boo, and just tossing us to the wind with barely a wimper. I won't forget who refused to back down, for whatever reason (greed, nothing to lose or otherwise).
And when I do log on, no matter how rarely, it will be on sites that stood up to this absurdity. Never again to Party or Pacific. Never.
Felicia /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Wolf359
10-03-2006, 05:14 PM
I too am cashing COMPLETELY out of Party, and creating a TruePoker account. I'm a VIP at Party, they sent me to the WSOP, and I've made my sole living there for two years. But no more. My business is going to other sites that refuse to jump ship so absurdly soon. TruePoker is definitely worth a look, given the determined attitude displayed here.
BluffTHIS!
10-04-2006, 10:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently, there is some shifting in the interpetation of the Act by one expert.
In today's LA Times, Nelson Rose is quoted as follows:
That's a major weakness" of the new measure, said I. Nelson Rose, an expert in gambling law at Whittier Law School.
"It left out expanding the reach of the Wire Act, so poker sites can say, 'We're not covered by that.' "
This failure to amend the Wire Act to include poker is the first step of two positive analytic threads:
First thread: Playing online poker is itself not "unlawful Internet Gambling" under Federal Law (leaving aside State law for now), so deposits for online poker are not in connection with "unlawful Internet gambling".
1. The UIGE Act only related to deposits in connection with "unlawful Internet gambling".
2. Poker is not unlawful Internet gambling (under the Wire Act, leaving aside State laws for this discussion.)
3. Therefore, deposits in connection with online poker are not retricted by the UIGE Act.
The second thread, which was my initial thought,:
1. Even assuming that online poker were construed to be "unlawful Internet gambling", the UIGE Act only applies to acceptance of deposits by persons "engaged in the business of betting or wagering".
2. Poker site business models do not involve any risk of the site dependent upon the outcome of play; poker sites do not "bet or wager".
3. The poker-only business model is not a person covered by the restrictions of the UIGE Act.
4. (Where poker is regulated as "gambling" in State laws, it is specifically named ???)
TruePoker CEO
[/ QUOTE ]
CEO,
I think that indeed is a positive development in Prof. Rose's ongoing analysis of the new law. Also I would like to point out to those naysaying your interpretation that regardless of what Congress intended or didn't, the simple fact is that they have to word any law correctly for that intention to be translated into legal practice.
Attorneys screw up and sometimes don't get the wording of legal documents right, which is what we have the courts to decide. They had a very simple manner in which to clearly illegalize online poker, which is the manner many states use to avoid a loophole by which a cardroom operator claims to have a private club that is not covered. They word their laws as making it illegal to derive a profit from such operations, instead of trying to define and make illegal the acceptance of a bet or wager or having a stake in an outcome. This means that the only way to slide, if that, is to have a private club like a country club, where the players deal themselves, and no one is paid a fee or wage for running the game or dealing.
So the bottom line is that the attorneys who drew up this new legislation weren't necessarily the sharpest knives in the drawer.
AJackson
10-04-2006, 11:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TruePoker does NOT make or accept bets or wagers in which it has any stake in the outcome. So, our games and tournaments, and your deposits, are not covered by this UIGE Act of 2006.
TruePoker does not have a stake in the outcome of the games or tournaments we offer, in the US or anywhere else. (We do not offer casino games or sports betting, and so have no stake in the outcome and are not in the "business of betting or wagering")
[/ QUOTE ]
This is pure nonsense, and you know it. If not, get a new lawyer.
[ QUOTE ]
Certain sites, such as Party and Pacific, have decided to abandon the US poker market as a busness decision. We view our commitment to our customes a bit differently.
[/ QUOTE ]
I like how you relate it to "customer commitment". I'd say your site that your site is so small you have nothing to lose. You've been madly spamming these boards for a long time trying to get ANYONE to play on your site. You must be rubbing your hands in glee.
To everyone: there are many far better options than TruePoker that will also continue to service US players. Don't think this guy is the only one.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. What a miserable individual you are. You may be correct in what you are saying, but your entire tone is insulting. Here we have a poker site coming to us and your response is to bash him.
I've never played his site, but I've always appreciated his participation in this forum and if I ever go to look for a new poker home, his site will get a close look.
Generally I ahve pretty neutral feelings when it comes to internet people. Frankly, they don't even seem real and thus not deserving of my like or dislike. You are a big exception. I'm finding that I have strong dislike for you and hoping bad things happen to you, which I'm finding rather surprising.
BluffTHIS!
10-04-2006, 11:40 AM
Don't pay attention to Phil153, he's just a troll most of the time. Plus he's not even american so screw his opinion on anything to do with the new law.
TruePoker CEO
10-04-2006, 12:03 PM
If I can digress for a bit. I think* Tony has been and may yet be counsel to YouBet, which provides Interstate online horseracing betting. YouBet is the cheif beneficiary of the exemption for horseracing, along with the tracks thenselves. If so, he has his hands full with that client's interests in this area and it might be a conflict for him to opine on another industry.
( *I am not sure, but I remember it that way from when YouBet first appeared.)
Counsel other than Professor Rose will be weighing in soon, I am certain of that.
tangled
10-04-2006, 01:26 PM
Still, it seems that you are putting yourself in legal jeopardy -- the courts may not accept your legal interpretation. You could go to prison. I hope not, I hope you get a medal --but it could happen IMO.
Plus even before this latest legislation, werent 2 CEOs arrested under a previous statute. Forgive my legal ignorance if I am wrong about this.
[ QUOTE ]
Still, it seems that you are putting yourself in legal jeopardy -- the courts may not accept your legal interpretation. You could go to prison. I hope not, I hope you get a medal --but it could happen IMO.
Plus even before this latest legislation, werent 2 CEOs arrested under a previous statute. Forgive my legal ignorance if I am wrong about this.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but both were due to sportsbetting. Sportsbetting happens to be the one type of gambling that Courts have held that the Wire Act addresses.
I do have a question for True - how does third party RB and the VIP program interact? What are the VIP threshold levels? I could not find that.
TruePoker CEO
10-04-2006, 02:55 PM
"how does third party RB and the VIP program interact? What are the VIP threshold levels? I could not find that. "
Third party rakeback,where a player signs up thru you, is different than TruePoker's own VIP program, which includes a rakeback bonus.
A player may fall under your 3d party rakeback program (if you bring him in) or under the VIP, not both. The two do not intersect. If you bring a player in via a rakeback program, we will not steal him or allow him to circumvent you for another program or the VIP.
As for the VIP levels, the bonuses run from 15% - 40%. The minimum level, to get a VIP bonus is 2,000 raked hands. Bonuses are also tied to the revenue produced by your play last month and in the current month. A VIP must maintain play to get paid. We are looking at simplifying levels and allowing players to choose their own level, but it will all be tied to revenue .... and play. (We launched this in August and are revising it as we learn more. It is likely that November bonuses and qualifying play will be different than this month. (It is not a matter of how much we pay out, but how to get the best bang for the buck and reward players the way they want.)
TruePoker CEO
Copernicus
10-04-2006, 02:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"how does third party RB and the VIP program interact? What are the VIP threshold levels? I could not find that. "
Third party rakeback,where a player signs up thru you, is different than TruePoker's own VIP program, which includes a rakeback bonus.
A player may fall under your 3d party rakeback program (if you bring him in) or under the VIP, not both. The two do not intersect. If you bring a player in via a rakeback program, we will not steal him or allow him to circumvent you for another program or the VIP.
As for the VIP levels, the bonuses run from 15% - 40%. The minimum level, to get a VIP bonus is 2,000 raked hands. Bonuses are also tied to the revenue produced by your play last month and in the current month. A VIP must maintain play to get paid. We are looking at simplifying levels and allowing players to choose their own level, but it will all be tied to revenue .... and play. (We launched this in August and are revising it as we learn more. It is likely that November bonuses and qualifying play will be different than this month. (It is not a matter of how much we pay out, but how to get the best bang for the buck and reward players the way they want.)
TruePoker CEO
[/ QUOTE ]
Any VIP/rebate programs for tourney players?
Thanks for the Tony update. Too bad if youre right about the conflict, he's a creative attorney, not content to sit back and write the "safe" opinions. His thoughts on this would have been interesting.
RemyXO
10-04-2006, 03:59 PM
(1) TPCEO, you are the man. VNH. Never played at your site, but now I will, out of respect, if anything else. Thank you.
(2) Phil is on Frist's staff, looks like. Why would he go around trying to hammer down the point that online poker is illegal by the provisions of this act?
(3) I am a firm believer that this will be eventually cleared up in court. If the government never pursues the enforcement, everyone will just laugh and piss on them. If they do, they will end up detaining and/or taking to court someone from online poker community. After a year of marching through the process, it will end up somewhere in the Federal Court of Appeals that will rule that poker is a game of skill and the present Act does not outlaw online poker. Precedence will be set, and any further infrigements on our rights will be thrown out by any court in the United States.
(4) Even the DOJ admits that poker is not a "game of chance" ... why don't the poker sites get together and fund a litigation to settle this once and for all?? I think that's the approach that PPA should be taking as well. Screw behind-the-scenes lobbying, bring it all out to the sunshine and kick Frist in da nuts!
Cudos!
Copernicus
10-04-2006, 04:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
(4) Even the DOJ admits that poker is not a "game of chance" ... why don't the poker sites get together and fund a litigation to settle this once and for all?? I think that's the approach that PPA should be taking as well. Screw behind-the-scenes lobbying, bring it all out to the sunshine and kick Frist in da nuts!
Cudos!
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats why the legislation is written in terms of "games subject to chance". The writers werent going to let such an easy one like that get by, and is the main reason that poker isnt mentioned explicitly, since it is clearly subject to chance.
djames
10-04-2006, 04:29 PM
I don't understand. Why is everyone claiming to know exactly was is/isn't legal now anyway? Until the final regulations are set forth, no one can know. What am I missing? Is everyone arguing about what is legal until then?
[ QUOTE ]
(3) I am a firm believer that this will be eventually cleared up in court. If the government never pursues the enforcement, everyone will just laugh and piss on them. If they do, they will end up detaining and/or taking to court someone from online poker community. After a year of marching through the process, it will end up somewhere in the Federal Court of Appeals that will rule that poker is a game of skill and the present Act does not outlaw online poker. Precedence will be set, and any further infrigements on our rights will be thrown out by any court in the United States.
[/ QUOTE ]
Precedence has already been set on the "poker is skill" by decisions filed re: Billy Baxter back in the 80s by the Federal Appeals Court in New Orleans.
RemyXO
10-04-2006, 05:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Precedence has already been set on the "poker is skill" by decisions filed re: Billy Baxter back in the 80s by the Federal Appeals Court in New Orleans.
[/ QUOTE ]
Didn't Billy fight for being able to file with IRS as professional poker player? It's a bit different from operating an online poker room ... So, I am not sure if this can be treated as a precedence set in stone to declare poker as not gambling.
BTW, did y'all know that foreign poker professionals can get the same WORK VISA in the USA as, for example, professional athletes? So, even the US govenment recognizes poker pros being on the same level as, say, hockey players from Sweden! I just can't believe the friggin' double-standards that US government employs. I am telling you, when they touch any of the poker site executives and it ends up in court, they will tear Sen Frisk a new one. Unless, of course, it's one of the PartyPoker p#ssies, cause they are also operating a casino.
OFF TOPIC: He who ever makes a side bet on the flop color on Party is a moron and needs to take a Theory of Probability class.
poison_lady
10-04-2006, 06:21 PM
I just made an account over at true poker. Thanks for sticking by us!
Has your numbers increased TruePoker CEO?
TruePoker CEO
10-04-2006, 06:59 PM
Thanks.
We have a long way to go numberswise, but it does seem to be up from last week.
We understand that we are NOT Party-size, but we have been around for 5+ years and offer gaming promotions on an appropriate scale. To the extent we grow, game selection will improve and our promotions, tournament size, et cetera will grow.
Phil153
10-04-2006, 07:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
(2) Phil is on Frist's staff, looks like. Why would he go around trying to hammer down the point that online poker is illegal by the provisions of this act?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to hammer anything down, I'd very much like it if poker wasn't illegal under this act.
You guys don't seem to get it with this guy. He has a tiny, in my opinion very low quality site that's poorly run. He has been on these boards for years desperately trying to get any business, but his site still has very few players. Apparently he had a lot to do with Mason in the early days so he has their blessing to continually spam these boards.
But people should know he isn't doing this because he's brave or trying to help players out. He is pure businessman, and so desperate for business at his tiny site he'll take any risk to try and get players. Including flat out lying about the nature of this law. If he hadn't been dishonest about it in here and other threads, I'd have no problem with the guy. I just don't think he's someone you can trust. There are plenty of other options to service players that are in my opinion far bigger, far more trustworthy, and far more deserving of your business. He also seems to have a complete inability to attract fish to his site, almost all of his (tiny) player base appears to be the result of his efforts on 2+2.
That's all I'm going to say in this thread. Wait for the next bump by TruePokerCEO.
TruePoker CEO
10-04-2006, 09:36 PM
"Including flat out lying about the nature of this law. If he hadn't been dishonest about it in here and other threads, I'd have no problem with the guy. I just don't think he's someone you can trust."
Phil, I'm going to have to call you out on that one. We have never met, to my knowledge.
Our business company has been operating in online poker for 5+ years. We neither make bets nor wagers and have no stake in the outcome of games or tournaments. (Why you cannot understand the business model is beyond me.)
We always have been independently owned and operated, and are licensed in Antigua and then Kahnawake.
My professional credentials for legal analysis may be better than yours, but who knows ? The point is the validity of the analysis, not who makes it. Professor Rose seems to feel that there is real validity to my argument that poker sites are not covered by the recent Act, AND noted the argument in an LA Times article on the 3d. (I'm sorry, he must be "flat out lying" too.)
In contrast, you hide behind some anonymous post. At the same time you are ranting about legal "nonsense", you are trying to steer people to another site you prefer. (I have no beef with SportingBet, it has been active in the UK trying to get that government to act in the WTO matter.)
Okay, you've got a bug up somewhere about our site and about my posting here. I get that, but where do you get off attacking my integrity ? Grow up. You want to disagree with me or say my argument is "nonsense", fine.
Like everyone else, except the publicly-held sites that jumped to pull the plug on US players, we are interested in seeing what the financial services do about the deposits issues raised by the Act's spectre.
For our part, the Act clearly did nothing to criminalize operating a poker site. What support do you have for thinking "poker" is "illegal under this Act ?" Nevermind, the question was rhetorical.
Phil153
10-04-2006, 09:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In contrast, you hide behind some anonymous post. At the same time you are ranting about legal "nonsense", you are trying to steer people to another site you prefer. (I have no beef with SportingBet, it has been active in the UK trying to get that government to act in the WTO matter.)
[/ QUOTE ]
I have to respond to call you out on this. I have NEVER pushed another site, nor am I an affiliate. Your reference to Sportingbet is pure nonsense, I have NEVER mentioned them!! I dare anyone to look through my post history to check if I shill for another site. Mods can check my IP against other posters, this is the ONLY account I post under. More evidence that you'll say any lie you think you can get away with to make yourself look better.
As for the rest, there are many legal opinions written about this issue. People can make up their own minds who's being honest and who's not.
Annulus
10-04-2006, 09:53 PM
Phil, seriously wtf is your problem. This man is nice enough to come here and personally offer us a game. Of course he is out to pick up some business, thats the name of the game. Just like we just want to play.
cha59
10-04-2006, 10:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
He also seems to have a complete inability to attract fish to his site, almost all of his (tiny) player base appears to be the result of his efforts on 2+2.
[/ QUOTE ]
This statement couldnt be more wrong. Either you havent played there much or you are not very good at poker.
Lay off the guy. His site is small, but he seems like a good guy and there is a very high percentage of fish there.
TruePoker CEO
10-04-2006, 11:36 PM
You write vehemently that "I have to respond to call you out on this. I have NEVER pushed another site, nor am I an affiliate. Your reference to Sportingbet is pure nonsense, I have NEVER mentioned them!!".
Read your post in this thread on October 2, 11:43 am where you said, in full:
"I think you can add Paradise Poker to that list. They're offering the same level of assurance as TruePoker (i.e. conditional on the banks). "
A poster in this thread had given a list of sites which deserved props for declaring business as usual, including ours. You answered quickly, adding Paradise Poker, then compared Paradise Poker directly to TruePoker.
Even if you did not know Sportingbet owned the Paradise Poker operation, you were clearly making a direct comparison between a site you seem to prefer and ours, for which you have developed a clear dislike.
I don't think that mentioning that site was in any way spamming or shilling by you, but your offering props to Paradise/Sportingbet was entirely inconsistent with your concurrent rant about how it was nonsense for Truepoker to say poker was not criminalized by this Act. The subsequent direct comparison can be fairly called "trying to steer players to another site you prefer" over ours.
I'll stand by the statement that you went on tilt over above. Imagine if someone had called you a bad name or had made some truly derogatory remark about your integrity.
akishore
10-04-2006, 11:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You write vehemently that "I have to respond to call you out on this. I have NEVER pushed another site, nor am I an affiliate. Your reference to Sportingbet is pure nonsense, I have NEVER mentioned them!!".
Read your post in this thread on October 2, 11:43 am where you said, in full:
"I think you can add Paradise Poker to that list. They're offering the same level of assurance as TruePoker (i.e. conditional on the banks). "
A poster in this thread had given a list of sites which deserved props for declaring business as usual, including ours. You answered quickly, adding Paradise Poker, then compared Paradise Poker directly to TruePoker.
Even if you did not know Sportingbet owned the Paradise Poker operation, you were clearly making a direct comparison between a site you seem to prefer and ours, for which you have developed a clear dislike.
I don't think that mentioning that site was in any way spamming or shilling by you, but your offering props to Paradise/Sportingbet was entirely inconsistent with your concurrent rant about how it was nonsense for Truepoker to say poker was not criminalized by this Act. The subsequent direct comparison can be fairly called "trying to steer players to another site you prefer" over ours.
I'll stand by the statement that you went on tilt over above. Imagine if someone had called you a bad name or had made some truly derogatory remark about your integrity.
[/ QUOTE ]
TruePokerCEO,
You are an awesome person and I really respect your stance and courage. Please ignore this idiot attacking you like a fourth grader, and please do not let him deter you from continuing to post. I will also look into your site and may take my business there.
Thank you,
Aseem
Phil153
10-05-2006, 12:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Even if you did not know Sportingbet owned the Paradise Poker operation, you were clearly making a direct comparison between a site you seem to prefer and ours, for which you have developed a clear dislike.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I did not know that, and I apologise for calling you a liar unfairly (although you did make strong insuations about my motivations, which you probably knew to be untrue).
In that post I was simply offering offering an addition to the list of available sites, using available information at the time (i.e. trying to be helpful). I did not compare your site to Paradise, nor do I prefer playing there (I think they're a crap site).
[ QUOTE ]
The subsequent direct comparison can be fairly called "trying to steer players to another site you prefer" over ours.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it can't. Again you insuate things that simply aren't true.
[ QUOTE ]
Imagine if someone had called you a bad name or had made some truly derogatory remark about your integrity.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to spam my poker site, as you have a history of doing. My integrity or motivations are not of importance, unlike yours. I maintain that you are deliberately fluffling up the legal status of this bill. Whether you actually don't understand it, or are lying, I don't know. For another example of you claiming far too much in order to get business, check out this thread where you are called out by another poster for offering sketchy legal advice that fits your own interest:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=7519355&page=0&vc=1
Anyway, I'm done with this. I've spent enough time on this crap. My only interest in this whole thing was pointing out your obvious dishonesty, and seeing that you didn't gain from it. People are so grateful to have anyone give them certainty (no matter how real it is) that they don't care. So be it.
Good luck with your business.
BluffTHIS!
10-05-2006, 12:43 AM
Phil,
You have a history of trolling and he doesn't. He has been a positive contributor to this forum long before the passage of this legislation, and you haven't. And since you aren't even american, you don't have a stake in the the new law as we do.
And as far as his promoting his site, yes he has done that, although often in response to requests for information from other players. What do you think Lee Jones is doing here when he responds in his official capacity as a spokesman for stars?
TomBrooks
10-05-2006, 06:47 AM
Props to you, TruePoker CEO. It is always good to oppose Tyranical Government Oppression, no matter what country it comes from.
permafrost
10-05-2006, 08:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing in the Act which addresses or restricts withdrawals in any manner whatsoever.
Cashouts may not be as quick, if your ewallet shuts down US business entirely, but there is no prohibition in the Act.
Unless or until a different statute is passed, Congress has not chosen to stand between poker players and their cashouts.
[/ QUOTE ]
The Act does address withdrawals. The Act's definition of bet or wager includes a bettor's instructions to move funds from the account. Then by definition "unlawful Internet gambling" means to place a bet or wager using the Internet where such bet is unlawful under Fed/State law. The Act does not restrict withdrawals but does say they could be unlawful Internet gambling.
While your here, could you tell me what business Truepoker is in? Sorry if you have said and I missed it.
Thanks for taking a your stance and answering questions
Coy_Roy
10-05-2006, 08:43 PM
I've been with True Poker for about a year and I really like the play.
I do hope for an improved lobby some day though.
DamitBob
10-13-2006, 09:55 PM
One of my players forwarded this to me today
Dear US TruePoker Player:
Our records indicate that you are a resident of the State of Indiana and have deposited money in the past into TruePoker.
TruePoker is not in the business of betting or wagering. We have no stake in the outcome of any game or tournament among players.
Although TruePoker believes that the UIGE Act of 2006 does not cover our business, your State has been described as one in which it may be illegal for you to play online poker. Please check with your local attorney to determine whether your State laws prohibit your playing poker online.
We ask that you log onto TruePoker and check your listed location information. If you have relocated out of your State, to some other State, where playing poker online is not illegal, please update your information and mailing address.
If you have not changed your residence from your originally listed State, it would be imprudent for us to accept further deposits for your account and possibly illegal for you to play.
Sniper
10-13-2006, 10:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
One of my players forwarded this to me today
Dear US TruePoker Player:
Our records indicate that you are a resident of the State of Indiana and have deposited money in the past into TruePoker.
TruePoker is not in the business of betting or wagering. We have no stake in the outcome of any game or tournament among players.
Although TruePoker believes that the UIGE Act of 2006 does not cover our business, your State has been described as one in which it may be illegal for you to play online poker. Please check with your local attorney to determine whether your State laws prohibit your playing poker online.
We ask that you log onto TruePoker and check your listed location information. If you have relocated out of your State, to some other State, where playing poker online is not illegal, please update your information and mailing address.
If you have not changed your residence from your originally listed State, it would be imprudent for us to accept further deposits for your account and possibly illegal for you to play.
[/ QUOTE ]
This would certainly appear to be different from TruepokerCEO's statement in OP...
[ QUOTE ]
The Act does not outlaw playing poker on the Internet from the US, period.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe we can get an update from TruepokerCEO?
DamitBob
10-18-2006, 02:03 PM
His PM box is full and still no reply from True CEO.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.