Legal Question

[StitchNV]

I started playing online poker a few months ago, and I got ‘a say a few things just don’t feel right about it.

After chatting with a few players, and reading so many posts about bots, being able to see hole cards, and the infamous (J, J, J, Q, Q, being beat by Q,Q,Q, J, J, because of the river) an other situations like this… I’m just wondering if anybody knows where to find the laws that online poker sites have to follow in order to operate.

I only ask this because anybody that has ever worked in a casino in Nevada knows, and has a rightful sense of fear when they hear the name Nevada Gaming Board. (N.G.B.) a.k.a. “Shut your ass down for any form of cheating, or ‘Number Play.’”

Tonight alone I’ve read enough forums from both sides of the fence to make my eyes bleed, and I started reading the Wire Act of 1961 but legal print makes one side of my brain look at the order side of my brain and say, “It’s dark in here, and we may die.”

What I guess I’m getting at is, we do live in America, and most of your popular poker sites are based out of America… Despite what some people may say, in America we make the laws… Anybody following my drift?

Interesting reads for anybody that wants to know what mind set is at.

Full Tilt Stance (http://pokerforums.fulltiltpoker.com/viewtopic.php?t=28078)

The Other Side of the Fence (http://www.spicejar.org/asiplease/archives/000572.html)

And I can’t remember the rest, but if you want more proof from the internet poker sites, just read their FAQ’s or there forums. If you want more proof from the players just google “online poker cheating” and you’ll have your fill.

[[Phill]]

America is not the world.

Poker sites arent run from the US.

I dont live in the US so dont really care about the wire act - but its key to note it was created in the 60s. The dept of justice believes online gaming is illegal because of it, others from America will comment here.

Several sites are floated on the London Stock Exchange and thus have to be as open and honest as any business.

I guess what it all comes down to is do you think someone will collude or run a bot against you? Perhaps so, but because of the way sites log all the hands it is more likely you get colluded against in a live casino.

Plus RNGs are much more randon than a live shuffle and in the case of the best sites are certified by various 3rd parties.

Would i be more comfortable if there were tighter laws, sure, but the country making those laws definately shouldnt be the USA.

[StitchNV]

Well then not the USA, but in what other country could a group of people lobby the creation of a new law?

And you can’t really disrespect the us just because you don’t like the us. Sure, the executive branch sucks at the moment, but that dramatically changes every 4 years. If something like “online gambling” where to be focused on legally, then it would mostly be the legislative, and judicial branches that really put any thought into it. The only hand the executive branch would have init, or even care about would be how much money it would make the country.

[ QUOTE ]
Several sites are floated on the London Stock Exchange and thus have to be as open and honest as any business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because a website is on a stock exchange, doesn’t mean that it “must” be regulated. And the fact that it’s located on the London stock exchange and not the NYSE just means that they can’t be reported to the Better Business Bureau which is an institution that forces business’s to practices ethical means of conducting themselves.

I’m sorry, you didn’t post a single reason why this would be a bad idea.

And as far as a RNG being better then any live shuffle? That really depends on how well you shuffled doesn’t?

And I guess my only other question would be, if the US is so down on gambling, online or other wise, why is the WSOP be held in Las Vegas every year?

The US doesn’t really have anything against online gambling. The legislative branch just doesn’t like the idea of an non-monitored gambling system or not having the ability to regulate it.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Meh. This is a thinly disguised "online poker is rigged" post.

[MiltonFriedman]

You write:

"The US doesn’t really have anything against online gambling. The legislative branch just doesn’t like the idea of an non-monitored gambling system or not having the ability to regulate it."

How can you make the above statement ? Do the following ring any sort of bell with your consciousness ?

1. BetOnSports
2. Neteller
3. Sporting News
4. Paypal
5. The FBI website
6. BetUS
7. Esquire
8. The Wire Act, notwithstanding the Mastercard Decisions.
9. American Wagering (aka Leroy's Sports Book)
10.DOJ's response to Nevada's inquiry about online gaming legality.
11. The World Trade Organization, Antigua's claims, and DOJ's response withdrawing from the GATS.

Whatever you may think about the US possibly legislating to permit online gaming for the US market, it is nonsense to claim that the US (meaning the Federal government) is not actively prosecuting online sports betting companies and their financial service providers. It is also nonsense to claim that the US failure to abide by the WTO ruling is not based in a dislike for online gambling.

Milton

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I started playing online poker a few months ago, and I got ‘a say a few things just don’t feel right about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

All the "on-line poker is rigged" posts, blogs, and sites, let alone all manner of "cheat software" on the internet is one of the reasons I personally support some form of gaming commission as part of any effort to repeal the UIGEA. If for no other reason.

In the mean time take your questions or concerns about any site's RNG to: http://www.kahnawake.com/gamingcommission/

I'm sure they stand behind their woek and will be happy to dispell any fears you might have.

I've always wanted to listen in to the phone call an unhappy purchaser of a poker cheating program made to the Better Business, the police, or credit card company service center.

"Hello?"

"Yes I'd like to report a scam! I was cheated and I want my money back right now!"

"Yes sir/madam, could you tell me what you bought so we can process your complaint and why you feel you are due a refund?"

"Well I bought a program to cheat at on-line poker and it doesn't work at all!!!!"

After the laughter, "You were cheated when you paid someone to try and cheat at on-line poker, and you want me to do what?"

More laughter......... /images/graemlins/smile.gif



D$D

[Legislurker]

Yeah you will get a better reception in BBV or the zoo.

[StitchNV]

haha I posted this in the zoo, they moved it here.

[Skallagrim]

Poker sites that are clearly "here to stay" do not scare me in any way. Although not perfect, I am quite sure that FTP, Pokerstars, Absolute and a few others are completely legit and know that any hint of real rigging or other shenanigans would wreck havoc with their profits. I have no absolutely qualms playing or depositing at these sites at present. Its how the free market works.

Smaller sites require more scrutiny as there have been instances of rip-offs. But many small sites actually try harder to please their customers, you just have to do a little more homework before depositing money (usually a trip to the online gambling forum here will do).

Government regulation would have almost no effect on the above analysis, although a government license might make me a little less worried about some small new site that just opened up.

And, by the way, your overview of online gambling's current legal/political status is way off, as Milton demonstrated with his usual biting prose.

Skallagrim

[StitchNV]

[ QUOTE ]
Meh. This is a thinly disguised "online poker is rigged" post.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it’s not, it’s a blunt “Online gaming should be legalized and controlled” post. It’s just stated a lot like a “Pot smoking should be legalized and controlled” post.

[ QUOTE ]
How can you make the above statement ? Do the following ring any sort of bell with your consciousness ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the “On Second Thought… What dose the UIGEA really mean” by Weston, Garrou, DeWitt & Walters.

If you read between the lines, you kind ‘a start to get the picture.

The WA of 61 just laid an outline of the problem. People placing bets over the phone.

In 2006 Goodlatte and Leach just exploited the Wire Act for two reason.

1) It was a decoy, along with gay marriage, and stem cell research to take eyes off the war in Iraq
2) They needed ammo for there “American Values Agenda”

Something to keep in mind is that the probation of online gaming had been completely refused up until 2006. Online gaming started back in the late 80’s (or may have been sooner, I haven’t researched that part of it yet.)

When Goodlatte and Leach first tried to get their legislation passed, it was refused when it stood alone. The only reason any part of the UIGEA was approved is because they tacked it on to a completely different unrelated legislation that had more to do with Homeland Security then anything else, and everybody knows how easy it is for a bill to get past the senate as long as the cover page reads Homeland Security.

The US government is a tricky beast. 98% of the crap that goes on is only half the story. I think the major problem is the fact that gambling in general is shunned as a whole. Wither or not these men play poker doesn’t matter, there public image is what the have to act on.

Basically I think that if people started standing up and fighting for it, the bible beating zealots would have to back down because it would be staggering to find out how many politicians approved of internet gambling but just didn’t say anything because they didn’t think they had the public backing it required to push for it.
I say this strictly with the one fact that all the internet gaming prohibitions up until 2006 where shot down. Not just the fact that they didn’t have time to get to them, they went to legislation, where reviewed by both parties, and vetoed.

In the US something only becomes a "problem" if the right people want it to be... Even then, it's not a sure thing.

[StitchNV]

I'm late for a meeting with my lawers, but check this out. I just found it and only got to read a little bit of it, but its good so far.

Full for the fire (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-336es.html)

And I kind forgot where I was going with this, but keep in mind my stance is that if there where strict laws that gaming website had to abbide by, I think the goverments would be happier, customers would feel safer, and the websites them selves would have something to brag about as long as the followed the rules.

[JPFisher55]

In general, I trust the online poker sites not to cheat the players or rig the games. However, recent disclosures on the BBV and NVG forums about Absolute have caused me to wonder about Absolute and UB.
If you haven't read about this matter go to www.absolutepokercheats.com. (http://www.absolutepokercheats.com.) This is the only "online poker cheats or rigged" situation that I have seen with any validity or legs. But IMO, the evidence would satisfy the perponderance of evidence standard and probably the beyond reasonable doubt standard that someone at Absolute could see their opponents hole cards.

[Skallagrim]

Stitch, you got to do a little better research. The House of Representatives actually passed a version of the UIGEA in 2006 by a vote of like 315 - 95 (I know Engineer can supply the specific numbers and the names of each rep and their vote - more appreciation for Engineer's efforts).

It didnt get through the senate until the late night port security bill attachment only because of a few powerful republican senator's ties to certain gambling interests (like McConnell and Horseracing) - once those few were appeased Frist then got the support he needed to attach it.

Its a good question as to whether it would have passed the (then) republican controlled senate on its own - my guess is it would have with the same sort of appeasements thrown in, Frist just didnt have time to get there in the normal way.

We have to continue to work to correct this situation. Thinking regulated online gambling is a sure thing is to be way over-confident and hence a recipe for defeat.

Skallagrim

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

No it’s not, it’s a blunt “Online gaming should be legalized and controlled” post.

Good.Then STOP thinking anyone in the 2-party system (Ron Paul may be the exception) will ever cure things.

Vote in a Libertarian administration and not only will online gambling be legal, but the government will neither be allowed to stick their noses in the business (except to adjudicate fraud claims), nor will we be required to pay one cent of taxes on our winnings.

[StitchNV]

In a few weeks I’ll have more undisputable facts memorized, as apposed to just “how I feel” about the situation. (I’ve only been looking into for about 14 hours now.)

But I still feel strongly about asking internet gaming sites to conform to some, if noting else, rigged set of documented standers. If not government possessed, then at least an organization.

If you’re going to try to oppose any from of government, wither it be the US or UK, then you need to have some form of structure, or proof of standards.

I just don’t see online poker as something “worse” then online porn, and although online porn has its own issues, at least you don’t have to go thru some B.S. hassle to use your credit card to get a membership to one of those sites.

Just because we want to gamble online doesn’t mean we should have to go around the system we created to get it done.

[MiltonFriedman]

"I'm late for a meeting with my lawers"

Impressive opening line ... Is that related to anything relevant to this thread ?

You're not one of the OJ Defendants, are you ?

[MiltonFriedman]

Nice article, welcome to 1999 when it was written.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
In a few weeks I’ll have more undisputable facts memorized, as apposed to just “how I feel” about the situation. (I’ve only been looking into for about 14 hours now.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This entire thread is a monument to loud ignorance.

You should either (a) come here and ask about the things you know nothing about, or (b) do some serious research, form your opinions, and begin asserting your position. Instead, you start from ignorance, and start spewing poorly founded opinions.

I don't get it.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a few weeks I’ll have more undisputable facts memorized, as apposed to just “how I feel” about the situation. (I’ve only been looking into for about 14 hours now.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This entire thread is a monument to loud ignorance.

You should either (a) come here and ask about the things you know nothing about, or (b) do some serious research, form your opinions, and begin asserting your position. Instead, you start from ignorance, and start spewing poorly founded opinions.

I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you get it quite clearly.


D$D

[Merkle]

The absolute cheating link didn't work for me. Could you please repost the item? A few months ago I had some suspicions at that site. It was the only site I have not won at since the first year I played there.

One night there were a couple of players I was suspicious of and all of sudden 5 players spread out over 3 tables (2 or 3 at each table) suddenly lost their connections at the same time.

I haven't played there since.

[JPFisher55]

http://www.absolutepokercheats.com/

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
The absolute cheating link didn't work for me. Could you please repost the item? A few months ago I had some suspicions at that site. It was the only site I have not won at since the first year I played there.

One night there were a couple of players I was suspicious of and all of sudden 5 players spread out over 3 tables (2 or 3 at each table) suddenly lost their connections at the same time.

I haven't played there since.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having lost connection due to regional power and internet connection problems one such instance of a number of players loosing connection is not proof of anything. any further discussion of that or any related proof doesn't have a place in this sub-topic forum.

The place in any future legislation for improving the public confidence in every on-line poker is up for discussion here.


D$D

[Legislurker]

Ive read thru the issues with AP, I even remember sites about AP from 2-3 years ago. This just validates a lot fo the claims, not all, but enough. Im convinced someone had a super user account, that was WIDELY known about among AP personnel.
The fact that there is a mod only thread on it alone gives it credence. The HHs are inexplicable. And the HIGH probabliity that Mark Seif participated........the credibility of a major site is gone, and that brings the rest into question. Its guilt by association. We may not need to rehash the specifics, but AP is compromised.