Reasonable Regulatory Matrix.

[DeadMoneyDad]

I know its way too soon for the PPA, the industry, or any of us to "show our cards" in terms of a final deal on this issue but there seems to be some confusion about what regulations are absolutely necessary.

South Africa recently passed a bill 180 degrees from the US position. In the BW discussion it seems NZ and Australia approach this issue from the same position.

http://casino.pokernews.com/news/2007/9/south-africa-parliament-online-gambling-bill.htm

From the PPA Mission Statement:

The Poker Players Alliance (PPA) is a non-profit membership organization comprised of online and offline poker players. Our membership consists of enthusiasts from around the United States who have joined together to speak with one voice to promote the game, ensure its integrity and protect the right to play poker.

The PPA’s mission is to guarantee poker players a secure, safe and regulated place to play. Through education and awareness the PPA will keep this game of skill, one of America’s oldest recreational activities, free from egregious government intervention and misguided laws.

There seems to be some value to hashing some of this out among ourselves. As well as keeping this issue out of threads where we are trying to accomplish other matters.


D$D

[oldbookguy]

The rules we would want should NOT exceed those enjoyed by current LEGAL online wagering, ala Skill Games.

See www.worldwinner.com (http://www.worldwinner.com) or
http://msn.worldwinner.com/cgi/msn/welcome.html then click terms and cionditions. This is the MSN portal to WW, located in Newton, Mass.

obg

[Skallagrim]

This what we get if the Wexler Bill passes as is. I am not sure that we will have the political clout to get that much freedom for poker... I hope I am wrong.

As I posted in the other thread, I would not be upset at a regulatory scheme that did the following: age verification, RNG cert., problem gambler program, and some US legal presence for resolving disputes in US courts. There should be no new taxes, and the tax reporting should be an end of the year total money in/total money out 1099 form.

Any more than that I would oppose, though I would live with some form of site taxes or licensing fees if they were set at low enough levels to NOT keep the smaller sites out of the market.

The above would be consistent with WTO too.

I doubt we can do better politically.

Skallagrim

[oldbookguy]

Exactly, and the WTO problem would be solved, no more EC suits or Antigua, they can offer Poker the same as anyother sites.

obg

ps- will check back later, my anniversary was yesterday and have to do the dinner thing. obg

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly, and the WTO problem would be solved, no more EC suits or Antigua, they can offer Poker the same as anyother sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Happy anniversary OBG (prob. should have taken her out to dinner yesterday, though /images/graemlins/grin.gif). Obviously the WTO thing would not be solved because of sports betting sites.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly, and the WTO problem would be solved, no more EC suits or Antigua, they can offer Poker the same as anyother sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Happy anniversary OBG (prob. should have taken her out to dinner yesterday, though /images/graemlins/grin.gif). Obviously the WTO thing would not be solved because of sports betting sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we have to we throw sports betting under the bus.

Leave UIGEA on sports betting or suggest any tougher regs on sports betting.


Just my personal opinion,


D$D

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly, and the WTO problem would be solved, no more EC suits or Antigua, they can offer Poker the same as anyother sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Happy anniversary OBG (prob. should have taken her out to dinner yesterday, though /images/graemlins/grin.gif). Obviously the WTO thing would not be solved because of sports betting sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we have to we throw sports betting under the bus.

Leave UIGEA on sports betting or suggest any tougher regs on sports betting.


Just my personal opinion,


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

We may throw sports betting under the bus, but Antigua apparently will not, so the WTO problem will not go away. And if any regulatory scheme does not solve the WTO problem, it will be harder to sell.

Personally, if Antigua and the US ever sat down and negotiated this dispute, I would like to see Antigua offer to take sports betting off the table - if the US also banned fantasy sports. I think that would be interesting.

[Richas]

It may be that the quickest way would be to copy the UK legislation and regulation. The worst part of which was the relatively high 15% tax take (though no tax on winnings). The fear was that nobody would want to pay these rates but less than two weeks in.....

How many UK Internet Gambling... (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-09-12a.155314.h&s=Internet+Gambling#g155314.r0)

[ QUOTE ]
to date the Gambling Commission has received 146 applications for operating licences that include provision for internet gambling. Of these applications, 77 have been granted, 68 are pending and one has been refused.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly, and the WTO problem would be solved, no more EC suits or Antigua, they can offer Poker the same as anyother sites.

obg

ps- will check back later, my anniversary was yesterday and have to do the dinner thing. obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Happy Anniversary!

But your statement is incorrect. If US ever authorized online poker, it would make them further out of compliance with the WTO.

The ruling is about remote gambling. If the US offers ANY remote gambling, they can not invoke the moral exemtion under Article XIV.

If it weren't for some sports betting guys, there would not be a WTO case today. How would the poker players like it if Antigua said, "Poker, and the masses including many college students, playing 24/7 is the problem. Let's do a deal where we don't offer poker since it's the real problem and we only offer sports 6 days abetting week, 10 hours a day so people don't become computer gambling zombies?"

I don't agree with the statement, and it may not have a strong chance of passing, but it could be argued. Wouldn't be nice, would it? Antigua is fighting for all remote gambling, including poker despite the fact that no major poker site makes Antigua home.

[yahboohoo]

There will have to be mechanisms to track money as it flows and transfers around the online gaming economy.

We tend to obsess about the social injustice and hypocrisy of anti-online gaming arguments (addictive, destructive, immoral, exploitative of children). But perhaps the most effective argument that can be made to sway legislators to oppose online gaming centers around the "opportunities for terrorist financing." Remember, UIGEA was slipped into the Port Security Act for this very reason -- "we must protect our borders."

It's unlikely any legislation will pass that legalizes online gaming without including strict guidelines for monitoring money and the various ways it can be laundered.

Sites today have limited interest in self-regulation with respect to chip dumping (esp. HU). And who knows what kind of transfers NETeller was allowing.

It's these large sums of money flying around (going where?? to whom???) that scares the US gov't the most. All the rest of their shit is moral window dressing. Surely, some politicians actually believe the drivel rolling off their lips. The rest just drum up some reasons to support what their big campaign donors told them to think.

[oldbookguy]

Thank you my friends, we were waiting for one daughter (wifes0 to arrive from out of town for the dinner.
As to sports betting, they really have to support the case in St. Louis and hope that Charming Bestsy thing works out since SB is only allowed in what, 2 states, Nevada and a limited game ran in state only in Washington?

Not much market there. And really, same for the Horse Wagering, that is only allowed in I believe, 7 states.

Games as Contests, 39 & D.C., market access.

obg

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
There will have to be mechanisms to track money as it flows and transfers around the online gaming economy.

We tend to obsess about the social injustice and hypocrisy of anti-online gaming arguments (addictive, destructive, immoral, exploitative of children). But perhaps the most effective argument that can be made to sway legislators to oppose online gaming centers around the "opportunities for terrorist financing." Remember, UIGEA was slipped into the Port Security Act for this very reason -- "we must protect our borders."

It's unlikely any legislation will pass that legalizes online gaming without including strict guidelines for monitoring money and the various ways it can be laundered.

Sites today have limited interest in self-regulation with respect to chip dumping (esp. HU). And who knows what kind of transfers NETeller was allowing.

It's these large sums of money flying around (going where?? to whom???) that scares the US gov't the most. All the rest of their shit is moral window dressing. Surely, some politicians actually believe the drivel rolling off their lips. The rest just drum up some reasons to support what their big campaign donors told them to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Transactions to gaming sites are a blip on the radar, if that. Massive amounts of money fly from worldwide OFCs, AND most terrorist financing flows thru their own system of local bankers(Hawala). Bahrain, Qatar, Abu Dhabi, and Dubai are all huge financial centres. Bahrain has more traditional Islamic finacing. Im really at a loss how an effective worldwide terrorist network can use gaming AND ONLY gaming to transfer money. Western Union from a fake ID to a fake ID is a whole lot easier and cheaper. Terrorist financing is a buzzword to make idiots shut their mouths and say, oh its a good thing if it stops it. The only "terrorist" money the Feds can really stop are the bank accounts Iran and North Korea have with more established banks.

[yahboohoo]

Many (most?) U.S. laws have little to do with what actually happens, but rather what could happen.

It doesn't really matter if terrorist money has been transfered using online gaming vehicles. What is important is that the U.S. gov't believes it's possible.

Was terrorist money transfered around places like NETeller and poker sites? I dunno, but I doubt it. Was it possible? Hell yeah. Chip dump. P2Ps. Gift cards. You name it. Across international boundaries. Washed at least twice.

Person A dumps $100,000 to Person B in a headsup NL poker game.
Person B vouchers/transfers it to Person C within the poker site.
Person C withdraws to NETeller.
Person C makes transfers/P2Ps to Person D within NETeller.
Person E uses Person D's NETeller debit card.

(Quite frankly, that's way more complicated than necessary. Before this year, miscreants could just keep all their transactions on NETeller.)

Terrorists washing money? Probably not. Drug dealers and other criminal types? Sure, for medium-sized transactions -- I could see that.

Edit: Typo.

[CPOSteve]

Some of you are thinking too big. This isn't about washing or transferring hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. It's about a foot soldier getting the $250 he needs to buy a plane ticket or rent a car or whatever. Those things are clearly possible and easy to do via a gambling site...and also very hard/impossible to track.

Do I think it happens? I honestly don't know, but it appears from reading some other forums that several sites have started to get very interested in people who make a lot of transfers; especially to people who move the money off the site soon thereafter. Now the obvious reason they would do this is they are losing the money from the site. The less obvious reason is they don't want to open a potential investigative door.

Steve

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of you are thinking too big. This isn't about washing or transferring hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. It's about a foot soldier getting the $250 he needs to buy a plane ticket or rent a car or whatever. Those things are clearly possible and easy to do via a gambling site...and also very hard/impossible to track.

Do I think it happens? I honestly don't know, but it appears from reading some other forums that several sites have started to get very interested in people who make a lot of transfers; especially to people who move the money off the site soon thereafter. Now the obvious reason they would do this is they are losing the money from the site. The less obvious reason is they don't want to open a potential investigative door.

Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

A few c-notes in a greeting card seems much easier to me.

But what the hell do I know,


D$D