US players will not be able to play in less than a Year (very long)

[JAque]

I am listing some of the reasons why I think in less than a year there will be no way of funding poker sites by large number of players using electronic means once the enforcement rules are in place. There always be a number of players that can work around the system.

1- The supporters of the legislation are well aware of third party funding methods like Neteller/e-cash, etc. In an interview with one of the senators, it was clear that they understand the need to stop those entities to be effective.

2- It will be very easy for the US government to require banks to stop transactions with any company that will allow funding to gambling sites even if they have a legitimate business outside gambling. Any third party funding company that does not comply with the US law , will not be allowed to use the US banking system.

3- Neteller noble efforts to put the burden of blocking US players on their merchants will not satisfy the US government. Either the US will force Neteller to block US customer funding gambling sites or they will be put on the list of blocked companies using the US banking system. (see this thread for Netellet attempts to shift burden to merchants http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...gonew=1#UNREAD) (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=7656562&an=0&page=3&gone w=1#UNREAD))

4- I am not a lawyer, but there is a lot wishful thinking on these forums that if company A receive payment from player this way and then company B processes the money this way and company C send a check to Site x , then the law does not apply. It is common sense to think that if the purpose of all these transactions is to bypass US law, the banks will be forced to block any transaction where the US banking system is the loop for any of those workarounds.


5- Proxy servers and post offices in Canada will not be a secure way to have your money online if you ever need to show proof of residency (utility bills, bank statement without P.O boxes, etc) .

6- Offshore banking is not a solution either as any bank doing business in the US will not knowingly violate the US law as it will affect their US operations. Some exceptions may apply but not for 1000s of players.

7- Sending cashiers checks to Juanita Martinez and Pedro Ramos in Costa Rica may work for a limited number of players. Eventually, the banks or money order companies will catch up with the scam and block certain type of transactions or will required some kind of proof of where the money goes.

8- Even if there are methods of funding in large scale outside the US banking system, the US government can use political pressure (including sanctions) on countries where these sites are regulated or operating from. This is in addition of perusing criminal avenues through extradition treaties.

9- The U S enforcing agencies that were perusing individuals under the Wire ACT on US soil (Sporting Bet CEO and others) before the passing of the Online Gambling Funding Prohibition Law, are not going to allow a few gambling sites (Pokerstars, FT, UB) to break the law and make billions. They will use any means to stop the funding first, apply political pressure on the jurisdictions where these sites operate or seek criminal charges and resort to extraditions treaties when possible. The political pressure can be indirectly applied through other countries.

10- If sites resort to shady schemes to fund players accounts in large quantities, I believe the players’ money could be in jeopardy.

11- The big difference now that the new law has passed is not the online gambling is illegal but that US financial institutions are at risk of criminal charges and civil penalties.


12- States in the US also have the power to enforce their own laws. Some sites already blocked certain players in the US if they are located from a particular state. This is very significant because it means that the sites feel legally threaten by laws on those states. What will happen when the enforcement laws of the new ACT are applied across all states??

13- As if the funding issue wasn’t enough, the new law also allows for blocking of internet sites by your ISP. Sites that want to comply with the law may find a way to get your IP address from the client poker software running in your PC. Therefore, proxy serves are not a solution either.


My opinion is that of course there will still few workarounds for the hardcore US poker player but no site will be able to manage and hide these transactions for 1000s of players. The fact is that the new law has the potential of enforcement 1000 greater than the Wire ACT. Financial institutions in general are a thousand times more regulated worldwide than other entities. In addition, probably 90% of financial institutions worldwide have to deal with the US banking /financial systems.

A similar example of how enforcement changes everything is how these offshore tax shelters were abused initially by a few millionaires. When these transactions become available to the average Joe, the IRS started cracking down and many individuals got in trouble. Of course, a lot these schemes still go on but only few individuals have the resources to battle the IRS with an army of lawyers. The others risk significant trouble if they get caught.

For the short term, you can enjoy the games but I believe as soon as the enforcing measures and guidelines are in place most sites will be forced to stop accepting US players.
A few sites may offer workarounds for very high volume players but I doubt that a workable method of funding can be found for 1000s of players.

The game skill argument seems also very grim as discussed in the article below.
I hope a LEGAL workaround is possible through the courts but it will not happen in the short term.

JAque

Good source of legal arguments about online gambling
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/online-poker-skill.htm
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal-Laws/internet-gambling-ban.htm

[glass_onion]

The fact of the matter is that we just don't know yet. You raise good points, but as you admited you are not a lawyer. These million dollar companies like neteller and stars hire lawyers, who so far seem to think all is well in the world.

But again, we just don't know yet. I think rather than freaking out about it, lets wait for people in the know to let us know.

[martindcx1e]

bah humbug?


oh ya there's also the possiblity of companies like harrah's lobbying for legalization/regulation/taxation of online poker.

[ski]

A lot of this post seems to assume banks will do everything in their power to stop transactions

I think the main thing is how hard they enforce it. If the feds+banks do everything in thier power to make it so we can't play poker then theres no chance.

I think an important thing to remember is it is in banks best interest from a time and money standpoint to let US players keep playing. I predict most will minumum necessary to get the Feds to leave them alone. The main issue is how much that is and if its even enforceable IMO.

[aislephive]

It's really no easy task for banks to regulate all of these transactions. There have been several posts in this forum about that. Considering your post hinges on the argument that the banking industry will have no problems following this legislation (which is entirely false) I don't see any reason to invest much into your argument.

[Synergistic Explosions]

Or, on the other hand, after the Republicans get blown out in the next election, the justice department blows off trying to enforce a near impossible law to enforce. While the banks show no initiative to police where transfers are coming from, with no pressure being applied by the Feds.

In effect, the status quo reverts back to where it was as far as online gambling is concerned. No fed department is created to enforce the new legislation because nobody in congress cares about it anymore. The Dems in control see the new bill for what it was, a crazy christian Republican spoonful of sugar, and could care less about trying to meet it's goals, as set by crazy christian loving republican ass kissers.

The Dems in control focus on what is really important to get our country back on track in the year 2007. Online gambling moves along as before, on the path to regulation in the year 2010.

[NickyD]

Well written post.As much as we dont like to admit it if the government really wants to enforce this issue they have the means. Big interests like Netteller,FT, UB,etc..will hang on till the end becaue they still continue to flourish. That is why lawyres and so called authorities continue to spout(that is what they are paid for). As much as anyone I hope this is wrong but some day we will have to accept reality.

[JAque]

A good examle of how banks implement check and balances to stop money laundering. Chase Bank software now requires that you provide an account number to buy your $30 money order. Is is not significant that they ask you if you have an account, it is significant that the software no longer allows the teller to issue the MO without providing and verifying your account.
I used to buy MOs and say , yeah I have an account and they never checked. I didn't want to drive an extra 5 miles to my bank. When criminal charges are possible, banks go to extremes.

JAque

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

IMO:

The biggest plus at this stage are the reports that the regulations will deliberatley be written in such a way to minimize the burden on the banks.

The biggest minus is that the banks will enforce them zealously anyway, and above and beyond the letter of the law.

[urko888_]

Like "Synergistic Explosions" said, just vote democratic down the line as a kind of protest vote until this crazy law has been repealed. Even if that takes 10 years we need to show the religious right who have hijacked this great country, that they can't [censored] w/ the rights of the common man.

[JAque]

Ditto. Most Banks always have gone beyond of what is required to protect themselves legally.

JAque

[protoverus]

14. Poker sites are already banning US players to avert any legal entanglements themselves. The list grows almost daily. Today came the announcement from Hollywood Poker. There may be HOPE that some will restructure to allow future play in some way, but the FACT is 4 of my major playing sites have already shut thier doors to US players.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Ditto. Most Banks always have gone beyond of what is required to protect themselves legally.

JAque

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not necessarily saying this will happen. I'm saying it could happen. And if it does happen, we're pretty screwed.

[JAque]

Ok, I think it will happen /images/graemlins/frown.gif,


JAqu e

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Like "Synergistic Explosions" said, just vote democratic down the line as a kind of protest vote until this crazy law has been repealed. Even if that takes 10 years we need to show the religious right who have hijacked this great country, that they can't [censored] w/ the rights of the common man.

[/ QUOTE ]


YESSS! The rights of the common man - why haven't we looked at that!! Where did I see that, yeah my right to gamble when how and where I want, it is here somewhere... can't find that page so hang on half a mo...well I can't find it but when I do I'll quote it for ya...

[Lawman007]

JAque, unfortunately, I think that your thoughtful analysis is probably right, but most people will never believe it until it happens, just like they never believed that the bill would pass until it did.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
Or, on the other hand, after the Republicans get blown out in the next election, the justice department blows off trying to enforce a near impossible law to enforce.

[/ QUOTE ]

The next election is for Congress. Congress doesn't control the Justice Department, the president does, and he's not going anywhere for over two years.

[Fly]

How about transferring money from a U.S bank account to European bank account and from their to neteller and poker sites?

[MobBarley]

Well written post Jaque. There's always going to be sites to play at, what a lot of people don't understand is that getting money back and forth is going to be our biggest problem.

[Herrigel]

[ QUOTE ]
How about transferring money from a U.S bank account to European bank account and from their to neteller and poker sites?

[/ QUOTE ]
some still don't get the point.

[Texibus]

no i think our biggest problem is getting the fish to still play steadily. You don't need to worry about money being moved. You need to worry about how bad players are going to respond to this legislation, because if they go we all lose our paycheck

[Python49]

[ QUOTE ]
1- The supporters of the legislation are well aware of third party funding methods like Neteller/e-cash, etc. In an interview with one of the senators, it was clear that they understand the need to stop those entities to be effective.

2- It will be very easy for the US government to require banks to stop transactions with any company that will allow funding to gambling sites even if they have a legitimate business outside gambling. Any third party funding company that does not comply with the US law , will not be allowed to use the US banking system.

3- Neteller noble efforts to put the burden of blocking US players on their merchants will not satisfy the US government. Either the US will force Neteller to block US customer funding gambling sites or they will be put on the list of blocked companies using the US banking system. (see this thread for Netellet attempts to shift burden to merchants http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...gonew=1#UNREAD)

4- I am not a lawyer, but there is a lot wishful thinking on these forums that if company A receive payment from player this way and then company B processes the money this way and company C send a check to Site x , then the law does not apply. It is common sense to think that if the purpose of all these transactions is to bypass US law, the banks will be forced to block any transaction where the US banking system is the loop for any of those workarounds.


5- Proxy servers and post offices in Canada will not be a secure way to have your money online if you ever need to show proof of residency (utility bills, bank statement without P.O boxes, etc) .

6- Offshore banking is not a solution either as any bank doing business in the US will not knowingly violate the US law as it will affect their US operations. Some exceptions may apply but not for 1000s of players.

7- Sending cashiers checks to Juanita Martinez and Pedro Ramos in Costa Rica may work for a limited number of players. Eventually, the banks or money order companies will catch up with the scam and block certain type of transactions or will required some kind of proof of where the money goes.

8- Even if there are methods of funding in large scale outside the US banking system, the US government can use political pressure (including sanctions) on countries where these sites are regulated or operating from. This is in addition of perusing criminal avenues through extradition treaties.

9- The U S enforcing agencies that were perusing individuals under the Wire ACT on US soil (Sporting Bet CEO and others) before the passing of the Online Gambling Funding Prohibition Law, are not going to allow a few gambling sites (Pokerstars, FT, UB) to break the law and make billions. They will use any means to stop the funding first, apply political pressure on the jurisdictions where these sites operate or seek criminal charges and resort to extraditions treaties when possible. The political pressure can be indirectly applied through other countries.

10- If sites resort to shady schemes to fund players accounts in large quantities, I believe the players’ money could be in jeopardy.

11- The big difference now that the new law has passed is not the online gambling is illegal but that US financial institutions are at risk of criminal charges and civil penalties.


12- States in the US also have the power to enforce their own laws. Some sites already blocked certain players in the US if they are located from a particular state. This is very significant because it means that the sites feel legally threaten by laws on those states. What will happen when the enforcement laws of the new ACT are applied across all states??

13- As if the funding issue wasn’t enough, the new law also allows for blocking of internet sites by your ISP. Sites that want to comply with the law may find a way to get your IP address from the client poker software running in your PC. Therefore, proxy serves are not a solution either.


[/ QUOTE ]
That sure is a f*ckload of energy spent to shut down a bunch of americans wanting to spend their own money playing a card game THEY want to. Where the f*ck is all that energy to shut down online lotteries or other exemptions made just to single out online poker? Forget about all the other problems this country has with crime, education, drugs, homelessness, etc, LETS THROW ALL OUR ENERGY IN STOPPING MS JOHNSON FROM BETTING $25 A WEEK AT A POKER TABLE!

[lfairban]

I think you miss one very important point entirely, that it is the opinion of some very knowlagable people that this ban does NOT apply to poker:

Legal Landscape of Online Gaming Has Not Changed (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/article/3272)

You also believe that this law will be enforce with every tool available to the federal government. My previous job was with state government enforcing a federal program by deligated authority. I can assure you this should not be a forgone conclusion.

Nonetheless, he point made above about what the "fish" think is very important.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
no i think our biggest problem is getting the fish to still play steadily. You don't need to worry about money being moved. You need to worry about how bad players are going to respond to this legislation, because if they go we all lose our paycheck

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the same thing. If the fish can't easily move money, they aren't going to play. They aren't going to open up a Swiss bank account, or jump through some other ridiculous hoops, to fund an online poker account.

[JAque]

Yes, aunt Jeanny (joking here) that lives in Germany may allow you to use her address and information to play online through a proxy server or other direct connection to her PC. You use her Neteller account. This is good for you and it works. You do realize that this is impossible to setup for 1000'of players without rasing flags somewhere? The sites will find out or the banks in Germany or US will. Yes, there are ways around but the point of my post was that the majority of the players will not be able to find a reliable method.

JAque

[genesisgkh33]

Lawman has signed in under JAque name here is my guess.
Just another long winded breakdown which is not applicable in the real world. Money flows downhill. You block off one avenue, another will be found. The gov already has banks monitering transactions looking for money laundering and terrorist funding. Do they really want banks taking time away from that to look for gaming transactions?

This was just a way for Frist to get money from the religious right for his Pres campaign. Bush didnt even say a word about online gaming when he signed the bill. Translation: Low priority. The online poker landscape will change. But the US is a gambling nation and online gaming isnt going away any more than alcohol did during prohibition.

PS The fish aren't leaving either. They lie to themselves about how much they lose and most are convinced they are (or could be) winning players. If losing $$$ doesn't stop them from playing, why would one or 2 extra mouse clicks to fund an account stop them?

[EgoSlasher]

[ QUOTE ]
4- I am not a lawyer, but there is a lot wishful thinking on these forums that if company A receive payment from player this way and then company B processes the money this way and company C send a check to Site x , then the law does not apply. It is common sense to think that if the purpose of all these transactions is to bypass US law, the banks will be forced to block any transaction where the US banking system is the loop for any of those workarounds.


[/ QUOTE ]


LOL, yeah ok, US banks will soon block all transactions to any foreign online bank..................... The incredible detriment this would mean for us in a global economy will surely be offset by the block of online gambling. Get a grip, this isn't really possible and if it was they still wouldn't do it.

[DuderinoAB]

ZOMG THE SKY IS FALLING WTF ARE WE GONNA DO?

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
They lie to themselves

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the pot calling the kettle black. lol

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL, yeah ok, US banks will soon block all transactions to any foreign online bank..................... The incredible detriment this would mean for us in a global economy will surely be offset by the block of online gambling. Get a grip, this isn't really possible and if it was they still wouldn't do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

^^^

Also, if the necessary oversight appears that causes PAPER CHECKS to be stopped by this legislation (and as I've stated in other threads if paper checks are good, that doesn't necessarily mean the fish have to mail anything), there are problems with that kind of control that go way beyond your "right" to play poker online.

[epee_master]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like "Synergistic Explosions" said, just vote democratic down the line as a kind of protest vote until this crazy law has been repealed. Even if that takes 10 years we need to show the religious right who have hijacked this great country, that they can't [censored] w/ the rights of the common man.

[/ QUOTE ]


YESSS! The rights of the common man - why haven't we looked at that!! Where did I see that, yeah my right to gamble when how and where I want, it is here somewhere... can't find that page so hang on half a mo...well I can't find it but when I do I'll quote it for ya...

[/ QUOTE ]

Persuit of happiness.

The 9th amenement states (paraphrasing) that just because a right isn't spelled out doesnt mean its not a right.

"a free man is he that... is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do."-Hobbes

[LearnedfromTV]

Sweet. I've been waiting for an expert to come along and clear this all up for me.

[ericicecream]

There are some good points here, but it remains to be seen exactly how hard government/banks are going to work at this. I think in the end it will not be hard enough to stop all workarounds, but may be enough to throw a huge dent in the system.

But alot can happen in the next year. WTO? Counter bill? Or possibly even a harsher bill could be passed? I think these are all wildcards

[5thStreetHog]

Good post,but you make alot of assumptions,all of which you side with the nearly worst case scenario.As we`ve seen nearly every day now,the situation probably will fall somewhere in the middle.Not as bad as the worst,not as good as the best.

[primetime32]

For some reason this post doesnt seem to worry me at all.

Banks simply are not going to spend billions to enforce this. How are they going to keep with millions of different transcations going from the US all over the world? Its practically impossible.

If you wrote that most players or alot of players will not be able to play, i would consider your post plausible. But to say that no one will play online in a year is borderline irresponsible. Actually it is irresponsible since the law in place does nothing to accomplish that mission.

And lets not forget that there is no way the republicans will still be in charge of both the house and the senate in a year so there will be no way a new improved bill comes down the pike for a while. It was hard enough to get this republican piece of crap through republican lead houses.

People on this site underestimate the cost to the banks of compliance. It is astronomical to say the least. And since they will be doing a half ass job and the poker sites will be doing all they can to avoid the rules it will be impossible to stop ALL of online poker for the US residents

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not necessarily saying this will happen. I'm saying it could happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is particularly unlikely to happen in this instance because the statute expressly provides that banks cannot be held liable so long as they comply with the regulations. banks have no incentive whatsoever to go one inch beyond what is required by the regs.

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
This is particularly unlikely to happen in this instance because the statute expressly provides that banks cannot be held liable so long as they comply with the regulations. banks have no incentive whatsoever to go one inch beyond what is required by the regs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify; I didn't state the point strongly enough. The statute provides a safe harbor for banks who block transactions so long as in doing so the banks are acting within the scope of the regs. In other words, if a bank goes beyond the regs, and in doing so blocks a transaction that shouldn't have been blocked (one not related to unlawful internet gambling), then they open themselves up to being sued.

So not only does a bank have no incentive to go beyond the regs, it actually has a very real interest in not going beyond them.

[jimmytrick]

At the present time there is no technology or methodology in place in the banking system to enforce this law and in response to concerns from the banking industry language was inserted to exempt enforcement if not practicable. While the DOJ may have some folks who want to earn their spurs on this issue, the Fed could care less.

I suspect in the end the regulations will be toothless. This is nothing new, there are tons of laws on the books that are not enforced. They just passed legislation to build a fence along part of the US/Mexican border. How do you think that is going to work out.

The law will reduce, somewhat, the number of people playing. This is bad enough. But it won't stop the games altogether.

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
At the present time there is no technology or methodology in place in the banking system to enforce this law and in response to concerns from the banking industry language was inserted to exempt enforcement if not practicable. While the DOJ may have some folks who want to earn their spurs on this issue, the Fed could care less.

I suspect in the end the regulations will be toothless. This is nothing new, there are tons of laws on the books that are not enforced. They just passed legislation to build a fence along part of the US/Mexican border. How do you think that is going to work out.

The law will reduce, somewhat, the number of people playing. This is bad enough. But it won't stop the games altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I pointed out in some posts immediately after the legislation passed, this sounds right to me. I think the exception you refer to could be very important, and has been overlooked by many of the commentators.

[LVcardjunkie]

you people can speculate all you want. you're just wasting your time while you should be playing poker.

[JOHNY CA$H]

[ QUOTE ]
The statute provides a safe harbor for banks who block transactions so long as in doing so the banks are acting within the scope of the regs. In other words, if a bank goes beyond the regs, and in doing so blocks a transaction that shouldn't have been blocked (one not related to unlawful internet gambling), then they open themselves up to being sued.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow that's a good point, one I have not heard brought up before. This looks more and more like a toothless bill to me.

[AAAA]

that is why there is a section in the law called Compliance...that section is what the banks need to do to cover their tails...and that is all they will do!

[MrBrightside]

[ QUOTE ]

13- As if the funding issue wasn’t enough, the new law also allows for blocking of internet sites by your ISP. Sites that want to comply with the law may find a way to get your IP address from the client poker software running in your PC. Therefore, proxy serves are not a solution either.{/quote}

I will say that I had thought of this as well (in this case, the client would get local IP address, not your proxy server's). This is spoofable with a client app (they are probably goign to use a windows API call to get your IP. You could run a program to spoof that and report the same IP as your proxy server).

[FearNoEvil]

I don't understand point #13. First of all, ISP's are only mentioned in UIGEA with regard to blocking sites if those poker sites are held on the ISP's servers. I don't think any of the poker sites reside on server farms which are held by ISP's used by US residents. So this aspect of the law shouldn't be much of a concern I don't think.

The second part of point #13 refers to poker sites finding your true IP, and blocking you, despite the use of a proxy server. This has nothing to do with the ISP aspect of UIGEA. Sites may do this if you are trying to play at a site which has blocked US players. But this assumes that all sites block US players.

[Unabridged]

i think its safe to assume that the war on drugs is higher priority than stopping internet gambling. the government likes to make a big show by passing laws and maybe busting someone famous, but when it comes to day-to-day enforcement they don't care unless they are getting money for it(ie large property seizures). thats why you can still order bongs and shroom spores from multiple sites on the internet, because there is very little money gained from busting these people. if pokersites stop putting "poker" in the name of their EFTs and start routing them through multiple european banks it will be well beyond the US's attention span.

[Bill Murphy]

Haven't scanned this thread yet, but HTF can online day-trading, or even a regular schmoe watching Lou Dobbs, reading USA Today's Money section, and then buying a mutual fund, be considered "skillful"?

Yes, I realize this is a Pollyannish question.

But still, this whole "carve poker out of the bill as a 'GOS'"is something that the folks fighting the bill should've been focusing on from the beginning.

Prolly too late now, and our current World Champ's skeellz our hard to convey to a skeptical layman, at best.

[Petomane]

Pot is illegal, yet millions of Americans use it.

Banks have profited from online poker tremendously. Are they really that zealous in finding out where ANY money comes from, unless it's blatant? They'd rather not know. Online poker is the least of it.

There are plenty of fish outside the USA - poker is taking off in a big way across the globe. So we lose some American fish, but gain the rest of the world.

As some posters noted, a lot depends on next month's elections. Bill Frist is already being investigated - he'll definately get indicted if the Democrats win. Was it wise to piss off millions of American poker players a month before the elections?

This smacks of the Abramoff cash for legislation scandal and all the players in that one are being indicted. If Bill Frist goes down, no one will enforce his dubious legislation.

I wish people wouldn't make speculative doomsday predictions on the legislation forum that are just uninformed opinions. We simply don't know what will happen yet. A multi-billion dollar cash cow doesn't just disappear into thin air.

Or maybe this bill was designed to wrest control from foreign operators into American corporate hands? This is what happened in Vegas in the 60's - ownership of the casinos was transferred from the "mob" to "legitimate" entities. As I recall, the gambling itself never paused for a nano second.

We simply have no idea what's really going down.

[The Rocket]

US sucks!!!!elvelen

[matrix]

man some of you guys are "glass is like totally empty dude" types...


there is HUGE demand for online poker around the world, including the US and because there is huge demand for this it WILL continue.

Yes the poker boom has taken a bit of a dent recently, yes we may well have just witnessed the peak.

But 1) there is a huge rest of the world out there and online poker and online betting/gambling is never going to stop (short of some apocalypse where playing online poker will be the least of everyones worries) - the world does not cease to exist outside of the USA.

2) noone really knows what is going to happen - but history tells us via things like the prohibition that demand for a product/service beats minor technicalities like laws *every* time.

3) if the games get tougher with less fish - learn to play better and quit whining.


IMHO there is no way in hell Poker is going to be unavailable to US players - and I mean most casual players and not just the dedicated types who find ways around even the strictest laws (there will ALWAYS be loopholes) even for a day.

the glass may not be overflowing right now but it's pretty dam full.

[MrBrightside]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand point #13. First of all, ISP's are only mentioned in UIGEA with regard to blocking sites if those poker sites are held on the ISP's servers. I don't think any of the poker sites reside on server farms which are held by ISP's used by US residents. So this aspect of the law shouldn't be much of a concern I don't think.

The second part of point #13 refers to poker sites finding your true IP, and blocking you, despite the use of a proxy server. This has nothing to do with the ISP aspect of UIGEA. Sites may do this if you are trying to play at a site which has blocked US players. But this assumes that all sites block US players.

[/ QUOTE ]

and I quoted badly above, so my comment was lost, but my guess is, worst case, this would be pretty spoofable. I can run a client/patch the windows so it reports the "right" IP (the one of the proxy server).

[rubbrband]

Why so much negativity and misinformation? Banks can't stop everyone and don't even want to try. This bill is largly unpopular and I dount it will be inforced to the full extent of the law as you sugest. Even if they do stop most transactions through neteller this will take over a year. It will be almost a year till the banks even have to start inforcing any kind of rules, besides that this bill doesn't stop cashouts anyways. Good advice to eveyone is keep playing and don't listen to doomsday morons who think everthing is that easy.

[adios]

Are you offering any lines on this out of curiosity?

[tehDiceman]

eh, as the US, let's just block any transcontinental transactions. shoot, we dont need to send money to any entity besides this country. this is what you are alluring to. if neteller gets shut out, someone will take the place, and so on, and so forth. it will continue to be a chasing game until the entire world is "blocked" from the US banking system and that will cause an economic issue far beyond the suposed benifits of blocking poker for this government. besides the fact, the likely regime change will carve out this legistlation and/or change it to allow regulation vs prohibition.

the idea of blocking the world from banking with the US on a "possibility" of poker transactions is ludicris, sure, they might tag a few to the list, but they wont be able to have a list that is 100 pages long of random and various company names that will continue to change as names get added. there is just too much time and effort and i think that "more important" matters will begin to rule over.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
eh, as the US, let's just block any transcontinental transactions. shoot, we dont need to send money to any entity besides this country. this is what you are alluring to. if neteller gets shut out, someone will take the place, and so on, and so forth. it will continue to be a chasing game until the entire world is "blocked" from the US banking system and that will cause an economic issue far beyond the suposed benifits of blocking poker for this government. besides the fact, the likely regime change will carve out this legistlation and/or change it to allow regulation vs prohibition.

the idea of blocking the world from banking with the US on a "possibility" of poker transactions is ludicris, sure, they might tag a few to the list, but they wont be able to have a list that is 100 pages long of random and various company names that will continue to change as names get added. there is just too much time and effort and i think that "more important" matters will begin to rule over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right for instance if Neteller is banned then will an Ewallet type operation that does business with Neteller be banned for instance? I'm sure OP will state that U.S. players won't go through the gyrations to do this. Who knows for sure? I don't and Neteller may be fine anyway.

[kslghost]

The reason that banks will not be able to stop this is because European Bank A and European Bank B will volunteer their services to Website C and thus Bank D in America will get f'd over for blocking all of these other Banks.

It may be harder in a year, but it will not be impossible. It is possible we may see reduced numbers, but there will be plenty of fury and anger thrown around by then. And plenty of other things can happen in a year.

And plenty of people beat me to posting this!

[dashman]

I recently spoke with a good friend of mine who is a bank manager and I explained the new law and its implications to him. He was dumbfounded first off as he didn't even have a clue and secondly agreed with me and many of you that it will be virtually unenforcable, especially with paper checks.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
I recently spoke with a good friend of mine who is a bank manager and I explained the new law and its implications to him. He was dumbfounded first off as he didn't even have a clue and secondly agreed with me and many of you that it will be virtually unenforcable, especially with paper checks.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's comforting coming from a branch manager. I asked one of the tellers at my bank about the law, and she said the same thing. The bank security guard agreed, so I guess we can all stop worrying now. LOL

[APatterson]

France and Germany have tried to stop online gambling because all gambling in these countries is state owned. The European court is trying them for beaking European anti-competition laws. Both France and Germany are likely to lose this case.
The UK are creating new tax regimes for online gambling companies to make it easier for them to be based in the UK, rather than Gibraltar, Isle of Man etc.

European banks will be dealing with online gambling companies for some time to come.

Netller is European.

[APatterson]

Land of the Free.

[cheiro]

[ QUOTE ]

6- Offshore banking is not a solution either as any bank doing business in the US will not knowingly violate the US law as it will affect their US operations. Some exceptions may apply but not for 1000s of players.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are implying that foreign banks will make costly adjustments due to U.S. legislation. Highly unlikely. The last sentence doesn't make much sense either.

[ QUOTE ]
7- Sending cashiers checks to Juanita Martinez and Pedro Ramos in Costa Rica may work for a limited number of players. Eventually, the banks or money order companies will catch up with the scam and block certain type of transactions or will required some kind of proof of where the money goes.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.. what? Since when do banks and "money order companies" have the authority to know where your cash goes?

[ QUOTE ]

13- As if the funding issue wasn’t enough, the new law also allows for blocking of internet sites by your ISP. Sites that want to comply with the law may find a way to get your IP address from the client poker software running in your PC. Therefore, proxy serves are not a solution either.


[/ QUOTE ]

The new law specifically states that ISP's are not responsible. Again, this would be a costly adjustment for the ISP's - with no benefit.

[jackaaron]

[ QUOTE ]

PS The fish aren't leaving either. They lie to themselves about how much they lose and most are convinced they are (or could be) winning players. If losing $$$ doesn't stop them from playing, why would one or 2 extra mouse clicks to fund an account stop them?

[/ QUOTE ]

[NozeCandy]

Just never go busto and this bill means nothing!!!!!!!