If the US regulates online poker......

[nutfloppa]

Do you think they would allow foreign citizens outside the US to play? Besides the lost tax revenue isn't the main reasons the government is cracking down is to stop the flow of money to other countries and the untraceable transfer of funds between players in and out of the country? Would the big name sites of today all be cut off or have to start up US only sites?

[poorolrich]

Well, if the U S regulated online poker like Nev/Atlantic City does then the tax would be collected on the gross/net profit. So, eveybody would be welcomed. Hey, Nev/Atlantic City goes after foreign players. But, I don't see it happening for acouple of years.

[TheRock69]

If it was regulated in the USA poker would be better than ever online. Think about it all other online gambling would be illegal except horse racing and this leaves all the online gambling junkies to play poker! Also they could lock up the cheaters.

[Lizard King]

Regulated online poker would suck. I think that you would only be able to play at an online poker site if you actually live in the state that its run in. So the poker sites would be tiny but fishy. It would take a few years to become regulated if ever.

[flafishy]

[ QUOTE ]
Regulated online poker would suck. I think that you would only be able to play at an online poker site if you actually live in the state that its run in.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly have you arrived at this conclusion?

[Lizard King]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Regulated online poker would suck. I think that you would only be able to play at an online poker site if you actually live in the state that its run in.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly have you arrived at this conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its my opinion that online poker would be a state regulated issue. So a Las Vegas run online casino would only be open to people in Nevada etc. But its probably wishful thinking that online poker will ever get a carve out even in more progressive states like Nevada. Online poker and weed have about equal chances of becoming legal.

[MikeyPatriot]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Regulated online poker would suck. I think that you would only be able to play at an online poker site if you actually live in the state that its run in.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly have you arrived at this conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its my opinion that online poker would be a state regulated issue. So a Las Vegas run online casino would only be open to people in Nevada etc. But its probably wishful thinking that online poker will ever get a carve out even in more progressive states like Nevada. Online poker and weed have about equal chances of becoming legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

IF this came to pass and IF it became a state-by-state issue, I doubt each state would license sites for their state only. More than likely, they would join networks that connected to other sites/states. I don't think this will/would happen though.

[muskie]

No, because weed has more support and more active support and it still isn't legalized. Regulated poker will never happen and if it does, there will be far too many pockets to fatten and the rake would be crazy!

[Yakuman]

The best thing for us is that poker stay offshore and unregulated, as it was before last fall. If it is "legalized," licensed and tax, the restrictions and rake might be hard for all but the top pros to overcome. Once the initial explosion of interest from the mainstream public, it could become difficult.

Imagine:
Ten percent (or more) rake.
No rakeback.
Bonuses watered down to the pointlessness of Vegas slot cards.
Mandatory tax records kept by the house.
Strict reporting requirements.
Incessant political backbiting, bitching and lobbing over this stuff.
Only players from within the USA cleared to play.
Age 21 minimum.
Deposit limits.
Stake limits.
Outright bans in some states to protect lotteries/local casinos.

Regulated poker is to poker what the OTB is to horse racing. You don't want it.

[rokstedy]

[ QUOTE ]
The best thing for us is that poker stay offshore and unregulated, as it was before last fall. If it is "legalized," licensed and tax, the restrictions and rake might be hard for all but the top pros to overcome. Once the initial explosion of interest from the mainstream public, it could become difficult.

Imagine:
Ten percent (or more) rake.
No rakeback.
Bonuses watered down to the pointlessness of Vegas slot cards.
Mandatory tax records kept by the house.
Strict reporting requirements.
Incessant political backbiting, bitching and lobbing over this stuff.
Only players from within the USA cleared to play.
Age 21 minimum.
Deposit limits.
Stake limits.
Outright bans in some states to protect lotteries/local casinos.

Regulated poker is to poker what the OTB is to horse racing. You don't want it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So much for the argument that most people play for recreation then. I mean, isn't that what everyone is saying? I play for fun. For the entertainment. All that stuff is meaningless to them.

Or is it?

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
The best thing for us is that poker stay offshore and unregulated, as it was before last fall. If it is "legalized," licensed and tax, the restrictions and rake might be hard for all but the top pros to overcome. Once the initial explosion of interest from the mainstream public, it could become difficult.

Imagine:
Ten percent (or more) rake.
No rakeback.
Bonuses watered down to the pointlessness of Vegas slot cards.
Mandatory tax records kept by the house.
Strict reporting requirements.
Incessant political backbiting, bitching and lobbing over this stuff.
Only players from within the USA cleared to play.
Age 21 minimum.
Deposit limits.
Stake limits.
Outright bans in some states to protect lotteries/local casinos.

Regulated poker is to poker what the OTB is to horse racing. You don't want it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be the "best thing" for us, as poker players, but it's also the one outcome that is absolutely not going to happen, with the status quo remaining.

There may be a poker carveout (or not), the UIGEA may be repealed and replaced (or not), but the one thing that will absolutely not take place is a combination of a) no new legal activity, followed by b) a rebirth in the growth of online poker.

Under the current situation, funding sources will continue to be become harder to find, and harder to use, thus driving away the most casual fishy players, and reducing the overall online player universe by a large factor. This will drive more of the sites either out of business, or out of the US.

What will be left are the hardcore, who don't mind wire transfers to Nicaragua or wherever, and their inherent vulnerabilities. And the games will have smaller, much tighter fields, and a lot of the more profitable action will dry up. That effect is already being seen.

No, the one thing that will NOT happen is a simple return to pre UIGEA status.

[pokerpunchout]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Regulated online poker would suck. I think that you would only be able to play at an online poker site if you actually live in the state that its run in.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly have you arrived at this conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its my opinion that online poker would be a state regulated issue. So a Las Vegas run online casino would only be open to people in Nevada etc. But its probably wishful thinking that online poker will ever get a carve out even in more progressive states like Nevada. Online poker and weed have about equal chances of becoming legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

IF this came to pass and IF it became a state-by-state issue, I doubt each state would license sites for their state only. More than likely, they would join networks that connected to other sites/states. I don't think this will/would happen though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I could see a system similar to the lottery powerball where several states are tied into one system, but some are excluded. You may for instance have a site that encompasses 30 states or so, but others that had no legal poker and others still that were only available to single states.

[Petomane]

There's a whole world out there of international fish and we need to get to them.

Weed is America's biggest cash crop, yet it's entirely illegal. So much for Americans obeying laws, rules and regulations.

There might be services soon that hook you up to sites of your choice via god-knows-what cyberspace camouflage. There might be services that prove you live in Deauville, France.

If enterprising minds created a very efficient, world wide poker network, they're not going to stop now. We have to wait for the dust to settle and see what happens.

[Yakuman]

[ QUOTE ]
So much for the argument that most people play for recreation then. I mean, isn't that what everyone is saying? I play for fun. For the entertainment. All that stuff is meaningless to them. Or is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

We would see a rush of recreational players for the first few months. That's not the problem. Given the number of hands we play, it will be harder and harder to beat the rake, plus all the wonderful excise taxes and transaction fees. Every political hack, dealmaker and special interest will want a piece of this pie. Once the initial bubble of interest subsides, this could get harder and harder.

Every argument for regulations centers on the idea that a short-term bubble of profitable fish will balance out a long term of padding the middleman's pocket. If you want to see how bad it can get, look at the horror show that is New York's OTB system.

[fatshaft]

[ QUOTE ]
The best thing for us is that poker stay offshore and regulated, as it was before last fall.

[/ QUOTE ]fixed the "un" for you there. Amazingly it is possible to be regulated without the USA becoming involved.

[slothinator]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a whole world out there of international fish and we need to get to them.

Weed is America's biggest cash crop, yet it's entirely illegal. So much for Americans obeying laws, rules and regulations.



[/ QUOTE ]

Two things:

1. Your are right about the growing international market offsetting some of the loss of American fish. I keep hearing that the Asian market is supposed to be taking off soon.

2. At the rate things are going, it will soon be easier to buy weed than deposit onto a poker site.

[Doom_Switch]

"The best thing for us is that poker stay offshore and unregulated, as it was before last fall."

WTF! No, that is not the best thing. The best thing would be to regulate and license it in the US. The pros (too numerous to mention) heavily outweigh the cons.

Imagine:

-Huge new pool of players trust sites
-Instant Cashouts (no more UB or Neteller delays)
-Huge new pool of players because of additional deposit methods (direct credit card, etc.., etc...)
-And most importantly, trusted sites that follow strict US audits!

What are your intentions in keeping the old status quo?

Look at Sweden as an example of regulation. It has been a huge success. Why do you want valuable US tax dollars going to Antigua and Costa Rica? And your weak arguements are purely speculation. Ideally, regulation would allow free competition, but I would settle for a government run monopoly site over offshore sites any day.

[Yakuman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The best thing for us is that poker stay offshore and regulated, as it was before last fall.

[/ QUOTE ]fixed the "un" for you there. Amazingly it is possible to be regulated without the USA becoming involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regulated by entities outside the US, that is.

[Doom_Switch]

And what type of regulation is that? Can you provide me with the regulatory details of Costa Rica or Antigua? What type of audits are required etc... No on fing knows.

[Yakuman]

[ QUOTE ]
"The best thing for us is that poker stay offshore and unregulated, as it was before last fall."

WTF! No, that is not the best thing. The best thing would be to regulate and license it in the US. The pros (too numerous to mention) heavily outweigh the cons.

Imagine:

-Huge new pool of players trust sites
-Instant Cashouts (no more UB or Neteller delays)
-Huge new pool of players because of additional deposit methods (direct credit card, etc.., etc...)
-And most importantly, trusted sites that follow strict US audits!

What are your intentions in keeping the old status quo?

Look at Sweden as an example of regulation. It has been a huge success. Why do you want valuable US tax dollars going to Antigua and Costa Rica? And your weak arguements are purely speculation. Ideally, regulation would allow free competition, but I would settle for a government run monopoly site over offshore sites any day.

[/ QUOTE ]

1.) People will still say poker is rigged, no matter what happens.
2.) Cashout delays will still occur, for security reasons.
3.) Credit cards deposits don't happen in Vegas and they won't happen online.
4.) The Swedes have an idiotic socialized poker site called Svenska Spiel. Phooey.
5.) The auditing firms who examine poker sites today are the likes of PriceWaterhouseCoopers, so that won't change.

[cuadpi]

[ QUOTE ]
Besides the lost tax revenue isn't the main reasons the government is cracking down is to stop the flow of money to other countries and the untraceable transfer of funds between players in and out of the country?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is the reason they are regulating it AT ALL. They are regulating it because the conservative right has deemed it bad for the family and society because gambling is for degenerates. Unfortunately, I don't think the left will overturn any legislation that has already passed because they don't want to alienate half the country. Maybe they will grow a pair someday, but I'm not counting on it anytime soon.

[Doom_Switch]

1.) People will still say poker is rigged, no matter what happens.

There will be propotionally less.
2.) Cashout delays will still occur, for security reasons.
I have waited up to 14 days for cashout and I don't think this is uncommon. UB is one example of a site that continues to exist although their CS is horrid. This wouldn't happen with regulation.
3.) Credit cards deposits don't happen in Vegas and they won't happen online.
How do you know this? Even if credit cards aren't available, which is just pure speculation on your part, I think it is safe to assume there will be plenty of alternatives.
4.) The Swedes have an idiotic socialized poker site called Svenska Spiel. Phooey.
Nice counter arguement. It have proven to be a huge success and cited so in may trustworthy sources. I would love to play but unfortunately it is only for Swedish citizens. There is no high rake and you set your own restrictions. Why insult such a successful example of regulation. What are your true intentions?
5.) The auditing firms who examine poker sites today are the likes of PriceWaterhouseCoopers, so that won't change.
These audits are very rare and questionable. When was PS last audited and where can I find audit methodology?

I don't know what your intentions are in making such a close-minded post. I will be happy to list many more reasons to regulate. Maybe instead of arguing against regulation you should put your effort towards a regulated US environment that offers fair competition.

[fatshaft]

[ QUOTE ]
And what type of regulation is that? Can you provide me with the regulatory details of Costa Rica or Antigua? What type of audits are required etc... No on fing knows.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll find the info you want here

Isle of Man
http://www.gov.im/gambling/

Alderney
http://www.gamblingcontrol.org/

Malta
http://www.lga.org.mt/lga/home.asp

Gibraltar
http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/gov_depts/inte...rnet_gaming.htm (http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/gov_depts/internet_gaming/internet_gaming.htm)

Kahnawakhe
http://www.kahnawake.com/gamingcommission/

Costa Rica
http://www.meic.go.cr/

Curacao
http://www.ciga.an/

Antigua
http://www.aoga.ag/links.html

Vanuatu
http://www.igc.vu/


[/ QUOTE ]

[fatshaft]

[ QUOTE ]
"The best thing for us is that poker stay offshore and unregulated, as it was before last fall."

WTF! No, that is not the best thing. The best thing would be to regulate and license it in the US. The pros (too numerous to mention) heavily outweigh the cons.

Imagine:

-Huge new pool of players trust sites
-Instant Cashouts (no more UB or Neteller delays)
-Huge new pool of players because of additional deposit methods (direct credit card, etc.., etc...)
-And most importantly, trusted sites that follow strict US audits!

What are your intentions in keeping the old status quo?

Look at Sweden as an example of regulation. It has been a huge success. Why do you want valuable US tax dollars going to Antigua and Costa Rica? And your weak arguements are purely speculation. Ideally, regulation would allow free competition, but I would settle for a government run monopoly site over offshore sites any day.

[/ QUOTE ] Got to agree with you here, the only way for online poker to be truly huge is for the USA to regulate, or of course for the WTO ruling to carry real weight and the US has to comply and allow free trade.

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
The best thing for us is that poker stay offshore and unregulated, as it was before last fall. If it is "legalized," licensed and tax, the restrictions and rake might be hard for all but the top pros to overcome. Once the initial explosion of interest from the mainstream public, it could become difficult.

Imagine:
Ten percent (or more) rake.
No rakeback.
Bonuses watered down to the pointlessness of Vegas slot cards.
Mandatory tax records kept by the house.
Strict reporting requirements.
Incessant political backbiting, bitching and lobbing over this stuff.
Only players from within the USA cleared to play.
Age 21 minimum.
Deposit limits.
Stake limits.
Outright bans in some states to protect lotteries/local casinos.

Regulated poker is to poker what the OTB is to horse racing. You don't want it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone please explain to me why U.S. regulation would create more rake? I don't see why the free competition between American sites wouldn't keep the rake the same, or drive it lower.

These are vague generalities, but play along for a moment. If offshorepoker.com can make $1 million a day in rake, couldn't a U.S. company settle for even a fourth of that and still be immensely profitable? Heck, even a million a week is vastly more than enough to fund a staff of programmers, marketers, customer service reps and accountants, while still paying every tax and fee, Right?

It's like what I keep hearing from all my stoner friends who did college papers on legalizing weed. The product itself costs so much more on the black market because of the rarity and the danger involved than it would in a store even if heavily taxed.

Why wouldn't a U.S. entrepreneur jump all over online poker in a legal environment? It would pay better than a chain of gas-and-gos, and would likely carry half the headache.

It may not be instant-billionaire money for the sites, but it would still make for a damn, damn good living.

Where am I wrong?

[Doom_Switch]

Trey, you are completely right. It's stupid morons like Yakuman who illogically speculate on what would happen. It's people like him who are small obstacles to regulation and they should do us rational players a favor and just jump off a bridge.

[DoGMaTiCMD]

I think if the us regulated it they would find a balance.. they arent going to apply rediculous rakeback if they want to keep people playing and funding the govt, right?

[*TT*]

This thread is pointless. I quote from a recent article on MSNBC:

"Officially, the US government considers online gambling to be illegal, although there appear to be loopholes excluding horseracing, some state lotteries, and intrastate online gambling."

There cannot be federally regulated gambling on the internet because gambling is a right that exists within the domain of States. The federal government only steps in when gambling occurs across state lines. Even with the above example of horseracing if a state outlaws this form of gambling then cross-state betting on horses is illegal and prosecuted by federal law.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[jschaud]

Is it at all possible that the government itself would decide to run the sites similar to how they run the lottery? You have michiganpoker.com and georgiapoker.com and they all end up on the same network or a couple different networks like how the lotto system works. you throw 25% of the rake to public schools and boom, now the PTA is on our side. Just random thinking.

[TheRock69]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it at all possible that the government itself would decide to run the sites similar to how they run the lottery? You have michiganpoker.com and georgiapoker.com and they all end up on the same network or a couple different networks like how the lotto system works. you throw 25% of the rake to public schools and boom, now the PTA is on our side. Just random thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be similar to the prima poker network. This could be the answer for the health care system that the government wants to improve so bad!