PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points

[TheEngineer]

The PPA has completed its research and has decided the appropriate direction we should take with our comments. The biggest thing of note is that we should try to get "unlawful Internet gambling" defined. This is our chance to neuter the regs. I hope everyone will post a few, and will be forward this to their poker playing friends. Thanks.


http://pokerplayersalliance.org/news/newsandarticles_article.php?DID=293

On October 1st, the Department of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve issued proposed regulations which, if finalized, would direct banks, credit card companies and other payment systems to take certain steps to block payments for “Unlawful Internet Gambling.” These regulations are an outgrowth of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) which was enacted last October.

The proposed rule is subject to a 60-day public comment period, during which companies, trade associations and individual people have the chance to express to the regulators their feelings about the proposed regulation. PPA is encouraging its members to file comments with both the Dept. of Treasury and the Federal Reserve urging the regulators to exempt poker from the effect of the regulations, and to avoid adopting regulations that impact on personal privacy.

We urge you to comment in your own words -- the regulators take individualized comments far more seriously than large numbers of obviously scripted comments. However, in an effort to help our members formulate their comments, we are providing the talking points below:

1. The proposed regulations should be modified to clarify that they don’t cover games predominantly determined by skill, such as poker, bridge, mahjong and backgammon. Section 5362(1)(a) of UIGEA defines a bet or wager as “the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance,…” “Subject to chance” can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but in a gambling context it should reasonably be taken to mean games like roulette or slots where players bet against “the house” and success is determined by chance. Poker players compete, not against the house, but against each other, and the success of a player over any significant time interval is determined by that players’ skill.

2. The regulators must define what is and isn’t “unlawful Internet gambling.” The federal and state laws governing Internet gambling are very ambiguous -- nearly all of them were written before the advent of the Internet, and it is not clear how they apply to Internet gaming. In the proposed rule, the regulators emphasize that it is not their intention to clarify this question, because to do so would require them to examine the laws of every state with respect to every gaming modality. Yet that is exactly what they are requiring every bank and payment system to do individually.

3. The regulators should refrain from implementing the regulations until the U.S. resolves its international trade disputes. The World Trade Organization has found the U.S. to be out of compliance with its obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services because of its attempts at prohibiting Internet gambling. This is likely to cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars in lost market share and export opportunities. The U.S. government is in negotiations with its trading partners over this matter. Inasmuch as these regulations arguably make that situation worse, the regulators should hold off on finalizing the regulations until the U.S. can resolve its international trade obligations.

4. The proposed regulations should not infringe on personal privacy. UIGEA deputizes banks and payment systems and turns them into the Internet morality police. These regulations should not compel banks to scrutinize the private transactions of individual poker players and others. To do so is hostile to the personal and financial privacy of every American with a credit card or checking account.

5. The UIGEA and the enforcing regulations should not apply to Internet poker nationwide. Federal case law has consistently held that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting and very few states have any laws against Internet poker. These regulations should be clear to only block those transactions which are in fact against the law. Games of skill which are not outlawed under current federal law – such as poker, chess, bridge and majong -- should be exempt from the UIGEA and the regulations.

[BarryLyndon]

I'm not sure if this argument is valid:

Forget about calling up our congressmen and what not. What we really should be doing is calling ESPN and have THEM spend some $$/time on getting this done. Are they? Have they, as a business, spoken against this bill? Can they?

They got the dough and they got leverage because they are owned by Disney, and we all can/should assume that Disney has its hands on some lobbying and [censored]. Well - since ESPN is hugely responsible for the boom of online poker and since online poker is a massive catalyist for the continued growth in profits for ESPN re: poker (video games and broadcasts and advertisement space), shouldn't ESPN be taking care of this business?

ESPN IS THE WSOP, and the WSOP is being taken over by online players.

Personally, I think that EVERY MAJOR ONLINE PLAYER should be on the phone with ESPN to talk to them about what they are prepared to do.

Barry

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Forget about calling up our congressmen and what not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreicate your sharing your idea about ESPN, but why would we "forget" everything else? We have lobbyists in D.C. who NEED our support (i.e., this is not some random letter writing campaign). I can see ADDING ESPN to our efforts, but why would we drop everything else? Even if ESPN were willing to carry our water, we'd still have to do our writing to support that effort.

Also, we can try ESPN, but it's unlikely they'll be with us, IMO. The NFL is STRONGLY against us, and it's hard to see ESPN lobbying strongly against the interests of the NFL. Sure, we should all call and write to ESPN, but let's not pin our hopes on them.

I hope you'll call ESPN, your congressman, your senators, and write a comment or two regarding the UIGEA regs. Thanks!

[BarryLyndon]

This is a little bit loose, but at the same time, if I can offer an idea or two, you are more than welcome to it:

To begin, I'm sorry if my statement was too brash. OBVIOUSLY, we should call our congressmen and all other pertinent parties in support of online poker. However, we should not tend to overvalue letters to our congressman and, at the same time, undervalue the institutions that really get things done: lobbyists and/or large money institutions.


Barry

[schwza]

i have a few comments on the talking points.

[ QUOTE ]
1. The proposed regulations should be modified to clarify that they don’t cover games predominantly determined by skill, such as poker, bridge, mahjong and backgammon. Section 5362(1)(a) of UIGEA defines a bet or wager as “the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance,…” “Subject to chance” can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but in a gambling context it should reasonably be taken to mean games like roulette or slots where players bet against “the house” and success is determined by chance. Poker players compete, not against the house, but against each other, and the success of a player over any significant time interval is determined by that players’ skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

poker, backgammon, bridge (and i assume mahjong) are clearly games that are "subject to chance." chance certainly plays a part in those games, big or small, and by the bill's language those games included. you're suggesting a significant change to the regulations, and you need to provide justification for your assertion that "“Subject to chance” ... should reasonably be taken to mean games like roulette or slots where players bet against “the house” and success is determined by chance."

basically you say that we should replace the bill's authors' language, "subject to chance," with much weaker language, "determined by chance" without saying why.

i think a better way to frame the talking points would be roll up the discussion of skill vs luck into point 5, and avoid discussing the "subject to chance" language as it's not very favorable to us. just stick with the case law that the wire act doesn't apply to poker. citations on some of these things would be useful too.

[ QUOTE ]
2. The regulators must define what is and isn’t “unlawful Internet gambling.” The federal and state laws governing Internet gambling are very ambiguous -- nearly all of them were written before the advent of the Internet, and it is not clear how they apply to Internet gaming. In the proposed rule, the regulators emphasize that it is not their intention to clarify this question, because to do so would require them to examine the laws of every state with respect to every gaming modality. Yet that is exactly what they are requiring every bank and payment system to do individually.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think this is the strongest point and you should lead with this. it would also be worth mentioning the discrepancies between the DOJ's interpretation of gambling law with some of the case law that is out there, as this makes banks' jobs even harder.

[ QUOTE ]
3. The regulators should refrain from implementing the regulations until the U.S. resolves its international trade disputes. The World Trade Organization has found the U.S. to be out of compliance with its obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services because of its attempts at prohibiting Internet gambling. This is likely to cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars in lost market share and export opportunities. The U.S. government is in negotiations with its trading partners over this matter. Inasmuch as these regulations arguably make that situation worse, the regulators should hold off on finalizing the regulations until the U.S. can resolve its international trade obligations.

[/ QUOTE ]

i would make this section a bit more forceful. first, delete the first sentence, as it makes it sound too much like we're still in the middle of some dispute that could go either way when in reality we've already lost. then i'd rewrite the point as follows:

The World Trade Organization has found the U.S. to be out of compliance with its obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services because of its attempts at prohibiting Internet gambling. these regulations bring us further out compliance by _______________ [not sure on details], and our noncompliance is likely to cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars in lost market share and export opportunities. The U.S. government is in negotiations with its trading partners over this matter. the regulators should hold off on finalizing the regulations until the U.S. can resolve its international trade obligations and take steps to rebuilding its credibility in the international trade community as we encourage china and other nations to live up to their WTO obligations.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if this argument is valid:

Forget about calling up our congressmen and what not. What we really should be doing is calling ESPN and have THEM spend some $$/time on getting this done. Are they? Have they, as a business, spoken against this bill? Can they?

They got the dough and they got leverage because they are owned by Disney, and we all can/should assume that Disney has its hands on some lobbying and [censored]. Well - since ESPN is hugely responsible for the boom of online poker and since online poker is a massive catalyist for the continued growth in profits for ESPN re: poker (video games and broadcasts and advertisement space), shouldn't ESPN be taking care of this business?

ESPN IS THE WSOP, and the WSOP is being taken over by online players.

Personally, I think that EVERY MAJOR ONLINE PLAYER should be on the phone with ESPN to talk to them about what they are prepared to do.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

Forget ESPN, or even Disney, those crooks have no desire to risk a good thing.

What other major event with a prize pool the size of the WSOP is paid by the players??? Not only that the WSOP deducts for it's expenses!

The joke is with all the side business let alone the TV rights the WSOP is a profit before a sinle player sits down!

There are no expenses, in any other "sport" the pro's would be paid to play.

Give me a break!


D$D

[adanthar]

#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.

#1 has the same problem; you and I may think this, but, if pressed, the regulators could very well come to the exact opposite conclusion.

#3 and, to a lesser extent, #5, are the arguments that should be focused on. Don't ask the regulation drafters to come up with their own interpretations; instead, delay them and/or point them to existing case law. This is a much, much better approach than relying on people who likely know nothing about poker to decide whether it's a game of skill.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. The regulators must define what is and isn’t “unlawful Internet gambling.” The federal and state laws governing Internet gambling are very ambiguous -- nearly all of them were written before the advent of the Internet, and it is not clear how they apply to Internet gaming. In the proposed rule, the regulators emphasize that it is not their intention to clarify this question, because to do so would require them to examine the laws of every state with respect to every gaming modality. Yet that is exactly what they are requiring every bank and payment system to do individually.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think this is the strongest point and you should lead with this. it would also be worth mentioning the discrepancies between the DOJ's interpretation of gambling law with some of the case law that is out there, as this makes banks' jobs even harder.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we could also mention the liklihood of legal activity being blocked because of the conservative nature of financial entities. If it is unclear whether or not internet poker is allowed in a particular jurisdiction, and the regs provide no guidance, what is a bank going to do? Likley they will act as if it is illegal. If, say, four years down the road, the statutes are interpreted to show that it was legal, then that's four years of a legal activity that I couldn't engage in because of the failure of clarity in the regs. Why should the legality or illegality of an act be trumped by the risk averseness of the financial processors?

[Todd Terry]

I posted this in Tournament Circuit, lost some of the formatting transferring it here:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1. The proposed regulations should be modified to clarify that they don’t cover games predominantly determined by skill, such as poker, bridge, mahjong and backgammon. Section 5362(1)(a) of UIGEA defines a bet or wager as “the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance,…” “Subject to chance” can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but in a gambling context it should reasonably be taken to mean games like roulette or slots where players bet against “the house” and success is determined by chance. Poker players compete, not against the house, but against each other, and the success of a player over any significant time interval is determined by that players’ skill.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is both wrong and irrelevant.

It is wrong because under no reasonable reading of the phrase "game subject to chance" could poker not qualify. It is a game. It is subject to chance. Regulations are promulgated by the executive branch to implement legislation passed by Congress. It would be improper for a regulation to take a position at odds with the clear language of a statute. If this silly argument advocating a bizarre reading of statutory language is to be made anywhere, it needs to be made to a court in a lawsuit challenging the UIGEA, not to a regulatory agency.

It is also completely irrelevant. The UIGEA applies to unlawful Internet gambling. If online poker is not unlawful, the UIGEA doesn't apply. If adopted, this argument regarding "game subject to chance" would only support an argument that the UIGEA doesn't apply to online poker even though it is unlawful, which is silly.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The regulators must define what is and isn’t “unlawful Internet gambling.” The federal and state laws governing Internet gambling are very ambiguous -- nearly all of them were written before the advent of the Internet, and it is not clear how they apply to Internet gaming. In the proposed rule, the regulators emphasize that it is not their intention to clarify this question, because to do so would require them to examine the laws of every state with respect to every gaming modality. Yet that is exactly what they are requiring every bank and payment system to do individually.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The underlying legislation deliberately, explicitly took no position on defining unlawful Internet gambling. Therefore, regulations implementing that legislation cannot do so, period. In addition, it would be improper, and probably unconstitutional, for the federal government, let alone a federal regulatory agency, to take positions regarding the meaning of ambiguous state laws.

Not to mention, why are we asking the executive branch, which includes the DoJ who has taken the legally indefensible position that online poker violates the Wire Act, to define whether online poker is illegal? If they were to do so, which they won't for the reasons set forth above, we wouldn't like the answer.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The regulators should refrain from implementing the regulations until the U.S. resolves its international trade disputes. The World Trade Organization has found the U.S. to be out of compliance with its obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services because of its attempts at prohibiting Internet gambling. This is likely to cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars in lost market share and export opportunities. The U.S. government is in negotiations with its trading partners over this matter. Inasmuch as these regulations arguably make that situation worse, the regulators should hold off on finalizing the regulations until the U.S. can resolve its international trade obligations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is a good point. It will probably fall on deaf ears, but it's worth saying.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. The proposed regulations should not infringe on personal privacy. UIGEA deputizes banks and payment systems and turns them into the Internet morality police. These regulations should not compel banks to scrutinize the private transactions of individual poker players and others. To do so is hostile to the personal and financial privacy of every American with a credit card or checking account.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Unfortunately, this battle was lost a long time ago. Banks already are de facto agents of federal law enforcement. If you don't want your privacy invaded, the only alternative is to keep $2.8 million dollars in cash in your home, like a former WSOP final tablist.

There was an amusing article a while back in the Economist regarding the Patriot Act reporting provisions for banks. The banks, rather than risk severe penalties, took an overly expansive view of what needed to be disclosed to the Feds and literally buried them in an avalanche of data that was so big as to be completely useless because they lacked the manpower and tools to be able to wade through it.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. The UIGEA and the enforcing regulations should not apply to Internet poker nationwide. Federal case law has consistently held that the Wire Act applies only to sports betting and very few states have any laws against Internet poker. These regulations should be clear to only block those transactions which are in fact against the law. Games of skill which are not outlawed under current federal law – such as poker, chess, bridge and majong -- should be exempt from the UIGEA and the regulations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



See point 2 above, this is essentially the same point as asking them to define "unlawful Internet gambling". While the sentence about federal case law is correct, it's been very few cases, and the legality of online poker has never been addressed directly by any court. I'd love to hear from either the PPA or the online poker industry why this has not been done via a declaratory judgment action. I'm pretty sure I know the answer.

[BarryLyndon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if this argument is valid:

Forget about calling up our congressmen and what not. What we really should be doing is calling ESPN and have THEM spend some $$/time on getting this done. Are they? Have they, as a business, spoken against this bill? Can they?

They got the dough and they got leverage because they are owned by Disney, and we all can/should assume that Disney has its hands on some lobbying and [censored]. Well - since ESPN is hugely responsible for the boom of online poker and since online poker is a massive catalyist for the continued growth in profits for ESPN re: poker (video games and broadcasts and advertisement space), shouldn't ESPN be taking care of this business?

ESPN IS THE WSOP, and the WSOP is being taken over by online players.

Personally, I think that EVERY MAJOR ONLINE PLAYER should be on the phone with ESPN to talk to them about what they are prepared to do.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

Forget ESPN, or even Disney, those crooks have no desire to risk a good thing.

What other major event with a prize pool the size of the WSOP is paid by the players??? Not only that the WSOP deducts for it's expenses!

The joke is with all the side business let alone the TV rights the WSOP is a profit before a sinle player sits down!

There are no expenses, in any other "sport" the pro's would be paid to play.

Give me a break!


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, what are you talking about?

If you don't have lobbyists who have a vested interest in mainintaing online poker in the united states, you have no "economic benefit" or "social benefit" factor that is going to get Congress to care.

You need tangible benefits that Congress will see that will outweigh its own reasons for including online poker in the Act. So, saying that poker is a game of "skill" doesn't mean a [censored] thing, because you are not going to convince a Congressman that this nuance is more important than appealing to a religious/socially conscious community of voters.

Poker has a sufficient amount of business coverage and media coverage that lobbyists can become active in tailoring the language of this act. So, while we voice our opinions to Congressmen who have their secretaries read that [censored] while they are on the phone with colleagues/businesses/religious groups/etc. that really do matter, it's important to also appeal to potential lobbyists and cue in their minds what they are missing out on by choosing to attack another political venue this month.

and if I can't play online poker at night, I'm not gonna watch ESPN World Series either, because that would just [censored] depress me. So, yeah, Disney definitely has something to lose here.


Barry

[superpokermon]

[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.

#1 has the same problem; you and I may think this, but, if pressed, the regulators could very well come to the exact opposite conclusion.

#3 and, to a lesser extent, #5, are the arguments that should be focused on. Don't ask the regulation drafters to come up with their own interpretations; instead, delay them and/or point them to existing case law. This is a much, much better approach than relying on people who likely know nothing about poker to decide whether it's a game of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are good points, and I urge the PPA to take these points into consideration and revise the talking points. The regs, as currently written are not that strong. Asking for things such as clear definitions could cause them to be made stronger. The regs are fairly weak right now, let's not encourage the DOT to fix them so they actually mean something.

[Skallagrim]

OK, Time to truly coordinate our comments so they are in the best interests of online poker players. I am posting here first, but will also post this at the PPA website. For further understanding of the proposed regulations, people should also check out I. Nelson Rose's article at CompatiblePoker's site:

http://www.compatiblepoker.com/proposed-regulations-review.cms.htm

My thoughts in general are still that the greatest threat we face is bank blocking our (legal) transactions because that has no legal downside for them but there are clear risks if they let a"bad" one through. I doubt our transactions are enough to cause them financial loss sufficient to offset the risk. I see the best solution as insuring that our e-wallet transfers are not blocked (though I really hope some company with better service than epassporte comes along).

Specifically, I suggest the following differences with the PPA's proposed comments:

1) I think there is no way we are going to get the regulation writers to declare poker is a game of skill and thus not covered. The UIGEA language the PPA quotes here is irrelevant to the discussion, however, because this definition of gambling has no legal use under the UIGEA. If an already existing State law (we already know there is no such Federal law) makes poker gambling, then the UIGEA requires poker transactions from that state to be blocked regardless of any interpretation of "subject to chance."

It is, however, important to emphasize that the UIGEA clearly does not contemplate blocking transactions for EVERY game played for money on the internet. Certain games are obviously not gambling (chess), certain ones are in a grey area (poker, backgammon, bridge, mahjong) and others clearly are gambling (sports betting, slots). Point 1 should therefore emphasize how important it is to make sure legal gaming transactions are not blocked.

2) I agree that it will most likely be bad for us if the regulators are required to define "unlawful internet gambling." And I also believe their reluctance to do this is very strong. Thus I disagree with this point most strongly. Our comments should try to turn this to our advantage. If they feel it is too difficult for them, a body of lawyers in the Federal Government, to do, then of course it is also too difficult for banks to do. We should emphasize, therefore, that any bank that truly wants to correctly block illegal transactions while not blocking legal transactions will have to expend far more time and money to have "correct" policies than they estimate. The UIGEA specifically allows the regs to exclude the regulations from requiring practices that are too burdensome and costly. The push then should be for a bank policy that only requires blocking of only that gambling that is clearly illegal in all the US - sportsbetting and casino games. In states that have other specific laws about internet gambling, a bank operating in those states can/should also have a blocking policy in accord with that state's law. Banks should not have to know or interpret vague laws or laws of other states (again to costly).

3) I have no problem with this point, though I doubt it will make much difference to these particular bureaucrats.

4) Personal privacy is an issue, and reviewing every individual's transactions is again requiring too much. The regs should only focus on where the transaction is directed, not where it came from - in other words, its too much work and way to invasive to be asking customers where the money is going, its not too much to ask the far smaller number of recipients what it will be used for (of course if the recipient is an offshore bank or e-wallet they may not say, they have to comply with other countries rules, not ours).

5) This really a repeat of #1. Again, I just dont see much sympathy for poker coming from these guys. But sympathy for all sorts of legal businesses and the banks, I do expect.

Bottom line, the key is to get these guys to allow the banks to set simple, unambiguous policies as to whats allowed or not (these policies should then stay away from poker - in most states - because poker laws are the pinnacle of ambiguity). Since there is a lot of gray area out there, the regs should specify that a bank policy which blocks transactions to THE ACCOUNTS OF sportsbetting and casino sites is sufficient compliance at the Federal level, and which otherwise comports with any unambiguous state law of the state the bank is operating in is sufficient at the state level.

This I think (though please try and persuade me otherwise) is the best we can get and, hopefully, will still allow unrestricted transfers to e-wallets/foreign banks (because you know some of them will stay open to us poker players despite US pressure).

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

Besides my previous posted comments, I submitted one about the difficulty of a US bank dealing with its correspondent foreign bank when the US bank attempts to block an UIG transaction from the foreign bank. I urged the regulators to exempt cross border transactions on the grounds that the potential cost to US banks made applying the UIGEA to cross border transactions not feasible.

[Halstad]

[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I think there is a much greater chance they throw everything under "unlawful gambling" instead of saying everything but poker is "unlawful."

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
2) I agree that it will most likely be bad for us if the regulators are required to define "unlawful internet gambling."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is extremely important. We really do not give the regulators the opportunity to define unlawful internet gaming. They will almost certainly lump poker in with everything else.

At worst, keep the status quo in regards to what constitutes unlawful internet gaming, which is a very undefined murky area. At best, get the Wexler bill through and have poker recognized as a "skill game".

[JPFisher55]

I am in the minority on the definition issue. If the regulators did define online poker to be UIG, then an Action for Declaratory Judgment would be easier to bring because standing and ripeness issues would not exist. In addition, this definition is contrary to established federal case law.
The vague definition may cause banks to overblock and make such litigation more difficult to bring in federal court.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a little bit loose, but at the same time, if I can offer an idea or two, you are more than welcome to it:

To begin, I'm sorry if my statement was too brash. OBVIOUSLY, we should call our congressmen and all other pertinent parties in support of online poker. However, we should not tend to overvalue letters to our congressman and, at the same time, undervalue the institutions that really get things done: lobbyists and/or large money institutions.


Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I guess I'd say this isn't about letter writing. We do have lobbyists. They need our letters to support their efforts. Also, my OP doesn't mention writing to Congress at all....it's about commenting on the UIGEA regs, which is an extremely important topic right now. Maybe we can start a new thread on your topic if you like. Thanks.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
basically you say that we should replace the bill's authors' language, "subject to chance," with much weaker language, "determined by chance" without saying why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the comments. I guess I should clarify that these are not my talking points...these are the PPA's.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you expand on the reasons behind why? Is it something along the lines of what JPFisher said? Thanks /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Todd Terry]

[ QUOTE ]
I am in the minority on the definition issue. If the regulators did define online poker to be UIG, then an Action for Declaratory Judgment would be easier to bring because standing and ripeness issues would not exist. In addition, this definition is contrary to established federal case law.
The vague definition may cause banks to overblock and make such litigation more difficult to bring in federal court.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are the standing and ripeness issues to which you refer? Why is, "I play poker for a living, I tried to transfer money to an online poker site, it was blocked" not sufficient to satisfy standing and ripeness? Any online site as a plaintiff could satisfy them now as well.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put me in the Mason and Bluffthis camp until I get a decent reason to follow this lead.

All this seems to do is protect off-shore interests and any future talks on legislation or legal court fights.

This is a bigger loose than letting the regulations go unchallenged in total. If the regualtors specifically include poker then even the WTO crap goes away as no one has a beef and even the off-shores have their opportunity for a new payment method that is even more expensive to utilize pops up or on-line poker dies. If poker is excluded then FT and PS reap the benifits of being existing players in the US market and everyone is playing catch up.

Here Mason and Bluffthis's worst fears come to pass.

Either way we pay more to an e-pisspoorservice in a tax of our poker money even less regualted under the table further off shore, or the barrier to new market entry is tougher without a regulated level playing field.


D$D

[JPFisher55]

If a bank mistakenly blocks an online poker transaction, who can you sue in federal court. The regs specifically protect the bank from liability. If you file an Action for Declaratory Judgment against the AG etc., they may claim that no case in controversy exists because you are not under threat of prosecution.
But if a regulation making online poker a UIG, then you at least have a case in controversy. I am not stating that the above problem cannot be solved, but I would rather not have it if litigation is necessary.
Anyway I previously posted a comment with a proposed definition of UIG which I submitted. I do not mention poker in the definition or my suggested examples. I posted it in a previous thread about comments to the regs. If anyone wants I can repost it.
I doubt that it will matter. I don't think that the Agencies drafting the proposed regs will change them.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
If a bank mistakenly blocks an online poker transaction, who can you sue in federal court. The regs specifically protect the bank from liability. If you file an Action for Declaratory Judgment against the AG etc., they may claim that no case in controversy exists because you are not under threat of prosecution.
But if a regulation making online poker a UIG, then you at least have a case in controversy. I am not stating that the above problem cannot be solved, but I would rather not have it if litigation is necessary.
Anyway I previously posted a comment with a proposed definition of UIG which I submitted. I do not mention poker in the definition or my suggested examples. I posted it in a previous thread about comments to the regs. If anyone wants I can repost it.
I doubt that it will matter. I don't think that the Agencies drafting the proposed regs will change them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im with JP. I guess Im agitating for all out war. Define whats illegal gambling, and hope to God Pat Robertson miseducated the bastard writing the regs. The regulations are not a solution or really an end. They HAVE the tools/laws to indict and waterboard a guilty plea from whomever is stupid enough to enter the US. They aren't coming after any of us, unless its the IRS. Lobby for weak regs if you want, but Id rather see a fight with a defined enemy.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that the Agencies drafting the proposed regs will change them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should they. Having been on the inside of one of these things I can tell you that usually they have looked at most of the angles and have lined up support from most of the players.

This is a $365 Billion dollar game or more. This isn't the USDA writing a regualtion to see where the cut is on farm size or crops planted to see who gets part of the latest Congressional give away program.

If the Banks don't have a problem with this we learn live with it and push for a Wexler type bill.

We either make the banks uneasy or figure out how to limit the damage or how much more we are going to have to pay in fees to deposit in the mean time.

Good luck with cashing a withdraw check, without having to go offshore to spend it........


D$D

[omgwtf]

Dear Regulators:

It has come to our attention that UIGEA has some flaws that might allow poker sites to operate and continue to accept US players. Additionally, the proposed regulations are ambiguous as to whether transactions to and from poker sites are prohibited.

Please see the enclosed recommendations, where we have conveniently outlined how to make absolutely certain that online poker is completely and unambiguously prohibited, and that US financial institutions will block all transactions between US players and online poker sites.

Sincerely,

The Poker Players Alliance

[ubercuber]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me to my kids: "Maybe."
Kids: "Does that mean yes?"
Me: "It means I don't know yet."
Kids: "But it doesn't mean no right?"
Me: "I can give you an answer right now, but you might not like it..."
Kids: "Maybe works."

[omgwtf]

[ QUOTE ]
Me to my kids: "Maybe."
Kids: "Does that mean yes?"
Me: "It means I don't know yet."
Kids: "But it doesn't mean no right?"
Me: "I can give you an answer right now, but you might not like it..."
Kids: "Maybe works."

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA: "But we have to know RIGHT NOW!"
Regulators: "Then the answer is NO, and that's final."

It's nothing short of insanity to think that the regulators won't go for the broadest (safest) definition of which forms of online gambling are unlawful.

The PPA might just succeed in getting the rest of the poker sites cut off from the US. Good job, guys.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has now gone past 'terrible idea' and is well on its way to 'one of the worst ideas I've ever heard'.

[Skallagrim]

Was my post to long to get the point across? The folks who write these regs have realized what I have been saying all along: applying various state laws written mostly in the early 1900's which may or may not apply to poker, the internet, bridge, backgammon, and all the other gray things, is an intellectual and legal nightmare.

To placate the anti-gambling folks the current regs basically encourage banks to do what Frist and the DOJ could not achieve through legislation: ban transactions to all for-money games.

If we are going to stop this we have to get them to realize how much otherwise perfectlty legal US businesses will suffer. We must also emphasize that the banks who care about having such businesses as customers will be driven crazy trying to comply.

Hence the way out is not to force them to make the defintion they refuse to make, but to have the regs say explicitly that the required bank practices/policies ALSO DONT HAVE TO MAKE THAT DEFINITION. The regs should say that the banks need only have a policy to prevent transactions to sportsbooks (and maybe online casinos) unless they are banks in Louisianna, Illinois, Washington, and the few other states that have very specific laws regarding internet play - those banks have to comply with those laws too.

To require the banks to do anything else will either harm legal US businesses or require the banks to do some seriously costly work. Seriously costly work is - per the UIGEA statute - good grounds to not require it.

Skallagrim

PS - much as I, as an attorney, would look forward to litigation (and understand the opportunity - and danger - that litigation brings), I, as an online poker player, would much rather see regs that dont stop me from playing until a lawyer gets a court to say I can.

[JPFisher55]

Skall, if you remember my proposed definition, it did exactly what you stated. It defined UIG as sportsbetting, except horse racing and fantasy sports, and any other online gambling that is expressly banned by state statute.
I doubt that the regulators will accept any definition because they want overblocking. I think that US banks will find that overblocking will cost them lots of customers, problems with correspondent foreign banks and money. They may just decide to ignore the regs because they are pretty toothless.
However, if WTO doesn't force the hand of the DEMS in Congress, the iMEGA loses and Kaplan loses, then litigation will result. I think that you have a year to prepare.

[2easy]

[ QUOTE ]
I am in the minority on the definition issue. If the regulators did define online poker to be UIG, then an Action for Declaratory Judgment would be easier to bring because standing and ripeness issues would not exist. In addition, this definition is contrary to established federal case law....

[/ QUOTE ]


I think of it as "precedented" federal case law, as opposed to established, because while there have been some favorable rulings at the Circuit Courts of Appeals level, (the 5th being the most prominent, if memory serves me correctly,) one circuit's position does not necessarily affect another's.

As the Supreme Court has not weighed in by ruling or granting cert on this matter, I feel that using "established" to describe the status is possibly being a bit optimistic.

Not trying to nitpick, just think that it serves us better to keep this in mind if we are going to "hang our hats" on this.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put me in the Mason and Bluffthis camp until I get a decent reason to follow this lead.

All this seems to do is protect off-shore interests and any future talks on legislation or legal court fights.

This is a bigger loose than letting the regulations go unchallenged in total. If the regualtors specifically include poker then even the WTO crap goes away as no one has a beef and even the off-shores have their opportunity for a new payment method that is even more expensive to utilize pops up or on-line poker dies. If poker is excluded then FT and PS reap the benifits of being existing players in the US market and everyone is playing catch up.

Here Mason and Bluffthis's worst fears come to pass.

Either way we pay more to an e-pisspoorservice in a tax of our poker money even less regualted under the table further off shore, or the barrier to new market entry is tougher without a regulated level playing field.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

In what camp are BluffThis and Mason on the UIGEA talking points? I've seen nothing from them on this issue.

As for the definition of "unlawful Internet gambling", it seems the murky legality is what has allowed foreign operators in the market while keeping out American ones, so I don't follow how this is somehow based on what's best for FT or PS.

If poker is excluded, we're in dreamland. How is that anyone's worst fear?!?!?

"the barrier to new market entry is tougher without a regulated level playing field"

I'm not following. You think MGM and Harrah's will need government help to enter the U.S. market?

[sevencard2003]

my biggest fear is that my bank will close my account, and blacklist me from being able to reopen another bank acct if it catches me from cashing an online check, or using my bank card to fund my poker acct, (claiming im using my bank acct illegally.)naturally the regulations would have to take effect first, but i wish someone would write the letter i need to send and PM it to me, to make sure something like this doesnt ever happen in the future.

and on a side note, i dont see how it will work for me to fund paytru acct with my bank debit card after these regulations go into effect, cause then paytru will have to worry about being prosecuted if they dont stop all business with sites.

[Halstad]

[ QUOTE ]
If poker is excluded...

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously, does anyone think poker would be excluded?

[Skallagrim]

I am optimistic about poker ultimately getting recognized as legal - either Federally through a Wexler type bill, or in most states through a favorable court case.

I am pessimistic about the regulation writers ever giving us this gift.

I am also pessimistic about the banks giving us this gift.

But banks wont do what they dont have to - so regs that explicitly require only certain kinds of blocking policies which do not explicitly include poker is, IMHO, our best out.

My only difference with JP's comment is that JP wants the regulations to state that only certain things (not including poker) are "unlawful internet gambling." I want the regs to state that in blocking "UIG" transactions, bank policy must include only certain clear things. Thats a very subtle difference that only lawyers and bureaucrats will understand, but I think its a difference that these bureaucrats will respond to - banks remain free (theoretically) to block other transactions, and the possibility exists of amending the regulations in response to legislation or court decisions to include other things later. And no one has to do what no one really can do: explicitly define what is and is not "UIG" in each of the 50 states.

I believe if banks are told explicitly that their blocking policies only have to include the obvious, thats what most banks will do. If the regs continue to insist that banks must have policies to exclude everything that "is" UIG, they will exclude every conceivable thing.

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Put me in the Mason and Bluffthis camp until I get a decent reason to follow this lead.

All this seems to do is protect off-shore interests and any future talks on legislation or legal court fights.

This is a bigger loose than letting the regulations go unchallenged in total. If the regualtors specifically include poker then even the WTO crap goes away as no one has a beef and even the off-shores have their opportunity for a new payment method that is even more expensive to utilize pops up or on-line poker dies. If poker is excluded then FT and PS reap the benifits of being existing players in the US market and everyone is playing catch up.

Here Mason and Bluffthis's worst fears come to pass.

Either way we pay more to an e-pisspoorservice in a tax of our poker money even less regualted under the table further off shore, or the barrier to new market entry is tougher without a regulated level playing field.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

In what camp are BluffThis and Mason on the UIGEA talking points? I've seen nothing from them on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

This "decision" in my opinion questions if the PPA is fighting for all poker players rights or those with a select business model. Mason and BluffThis' board make up issue.

I am not convinced that because of this and a couple of other decisions since John came on board that there isn't at least a hint of a bias in the decision making of the board to take position that could be seen as favoring one segment of the poker world over that of others.

No the decision by John not to hire me yet, or to say that the decision to wait on filling the grassroots position is not a major part of this reaoning. Although I do question the commitment of the PPA to building a long term grassroots advocacy if they decide to not fill this position in the original time frame let alone in two or three times the original "interview" window.

Personally I've moved on to bigger and better things.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the definition of "unlawful Internet gambling", it seems the murky legality is what has allowed foreign operators in the market while keeping out American ones, so I don't follow how this is somehow based on what's best for FT or PS.


If poker is excluded, we're in dreamland. How is that anyone's worst fear?!?!?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because not one thing the PPA has said the Poker World would do to gain entry into the US market in the form or a regualtory mix will every come to pass.

Sure the market will open up and others who are in the wings or who let the market will try to re-enter, but who's position is the strongest? The major off-shore operators!

They "own" the current portion of the US market and to some degree will get to shape the future of on-line poker market for some time. Any inovation that they can live with in their business model they can implement quicker than anyone else and keep market share. Think M$ and Apple.

[ QUOTE ]
"the barrier to new market entry is tougher without a regulated level playing field"

I'm not following. You think MGM and Harrah's will need government help to enter the U.S. market?

[/ QUOTE ]

To some degree expect for direct tie ins to their live poker rooms and properties what can they offer than PS or FT can't match?

Any inovation US regualtion like even solid age verification will never come to be. There would nver be any Nevada type Federal Poker Commission to resolve disputes nor even bless a single RNG. Those are just two issues the PPA claims to be for we'll never see. There are others.

Then take the case of poker being included. Who has been harmed? PP? No they left the market. FT and PS go to court to "fight the good fight" the PPA raises the legal defense money from the membership or part of it, even with a complete donation drive failure; who won you the right to play on-line? Yep FT and PS.

Even if they loose, I'm sure they feel they will get an injunction to block and blocking during the court fight.

All in all, this is exactly the decision I would make if I owned a big piece of FT and or PS and could lead the PPA to get the membership to help my cause.

I hope I am wrong, but I haven't seen a single thing to show me the PPA wants anyting but a pre-UIGEA world or a US regulatory scheme that specifically does not exlude FT or PS from staying in the market. Which is exactly what PP and every other room feared when they left the US market about a year ago.


D$D

[JPFisher55]

Skall, I understand your position. Good idea, instead of defining the term UIG and expecting the banks to apply it, you just tell banks that the only transactions that you must worry about must involve sportsbetting, other than horse racing and fantasy league, and any other games expressly prohibited by state law.
However, I think that the regulators are even less likely to make this reg, then define the term UIG. They know if they tell banks that you only have to worry about x, then the banks will never block y. The problem is that the regulators really want x, y and z banned regardless of whether they are covered under the UIGEA.
So I proposed the same as a defintion of UIG for x only hoping to fool the regulators. I'll admit its a small hope.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
No the decision by John not to hire me yet ...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's awesome /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Grasshopp3r]

The UIGEA is going to be litigated, however the regs end up. That litigation is an opportunity and a risk, but it could potentially set some unintended precedents for e-commerce in general, which will gather more allies to our side.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
....you just tell banks that the only transactions that you must worry about must involve sportsbetting, other than horse racing and fantasy league, and any other games expressly prohibited by state law.
However, I think that the regulators are even less likely to make this reg, then define the term UIG. They know if they tell banks that you only have to worry about x, then the banks will never block y. The problem is that the regulators really want x, y and z banned regardless of whether they are covered under the UIGEA......

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be ascribing motives to the regulators that are not there. The regulators are charged with regulating their clients, the banks. They are probably quite happy to do this in any manner that lessens their burden and lessens the burden on the banks.

I think if we push really hard for a set of regs that say you must block this, this, and this, and only this, this, and this because these have been specifically ruled illegal, we probably are better off.

If we push them to do less work, and they see that that would result in a satisfactory outcome of their efforts, they may very well do less work. Let us help them in that direction.

Tuff

PS, it might behoove us to put that idea into the bankers heads too. Specific regulations regarding previously well defined gambling activities and no requirements to go looking for anything else.

T

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This "decision" in my opinion questions .....

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! It seems you find conspiracies everywhere. Don't like FT's response to bots...well, they must support bots. Affiliates make money on bots....well, they must support bots too, and they should be responsible for detecting them. Banks don't want credit card chargebacks for Internet gaming....well, they must be the secret force behind UIGEA. PPA doesn't jump at the chance to hire you, and PPA puts out UIGEA reg comment talking points that you dont agree with....well, they (and John Pappas, whom you've met) must be under control of PS and FT. Sorry, but your tendency to find conspiracies everywhere (and you tendency to state your theories as fact, despite any evidence) undermines your credibility.

Anyway, I communicate with John Pappas almost every day, and I've seen no evidence of bias towards any company or towards any specific sector of Internet poker.

Regarding your comments, offshore companies "own" the U.S. market only because there are no U.S. based companies offering services. I don't know how this proves anything about who'd have the upper hand in the future.

I don't understand what you want. Do you want PS and FT banned to help U.S-based companies? If so, you think PPA must be on the take if they don't agree with you? I think you'll find most of us want something like the Wexler bill. The PPA wholeheartedly supports that as well.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope I am wrong, but I haven't seen a single thing to show me the PPA wants anyting but a pre-UIGEA world or a US regulatory scheme that specifically does not exlude FT or PS from staying in the market. Which is exactly what PP and every other room feared when they left the US market about a year ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would they? Until your post, no one here had proposed anything but either returning to pre-UGIEA or to a U.S. regulatory scheme that does not specifically exclude FT or PS from staying in the market. It seems that's what the Internet poker community wants.

As for PP, [censored] them for leaving the U.S. market! I'll play if they come back, but I don't see why they should be rewarded for leaving.

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
Because not one thing the PPA has said the Poker World would do to gain entry into the US market in the form or a regualtory mix will every come to pass.

Sure the market will open up and others who are in the wings or who let the market will try to re-enter, but who's position is the strongest? The major off-shore operators!

They "own" the current portion of the US market and to some degree will get to shape the future of on-line poker market for some time. Any inovation that they can live with in their business model they can implement quicker than anyone else and keep market share. Think M$ and Apple.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense to me at all. A company like Apple didn't gain its market share by providing a service that a huge portion of its potential customer base stayed away from because they feared it was illegal.

I love PS. I played my first hand there, and haven't left except to whore during the Bonus Rush. With that said, if poker were exempted tomorrow and MGM Poker opened Friday, I'd be one of the first people to open an account there -- along with every Joe S. Pack who thinks online poker has been shut down since last October.

Expressly legal poker in the United States is not a bad thing. Even the aforementioned Apple could open its own site and compete quickly with monsters such as Party. The off-shore operators' market share is based on supply only.

This is somewhat analogous to saying marijuana dealers would still own the market share if a 20-pack of pre-rolled joints were available at Smoker Friendly for $15.

And, IMHO, the competitive market will make all of the fears about regulated poker (high rake, more fees) moot because sites will be willing to accept lower profit margins in order to construct their own legal cash cow.

Where am I wrong here?

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
No the decision by John not to hire me yet ...

[/ QUOTE ]

John is apparently a very wise man to this point in time.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because not one thing the PPA has said the Poker World would do to gain entry into the US market in the form or a regualtory mix will every come to pass.

Sure the market will open up and others who are in the wings or who let the market will try to re-enter, but who's position is the strongest? The major off-shore operators!

They "own" the current portion of the US market and to some degree will get to shape the future of on-line poker market for some time. Any inovation that they can live with in their business model they can implement quicker than anyone else and keep market share. Think M$ and Apple.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense to me at all. A company like Apple didn't gain its market share by providing a service that a huge portion of its potential customer base stayed away from because they feared it was illegal.

I love PS. I played my first hand there, and haven't left except to whore during the Bonus Rush. With that said, if poker were exempted tomorrow and MGM Poker opened Friday, I'd be one of the first people to open an account there -- along with every Joe S. Pack who thinks online poker has been shut down since last October.

Expressly legal poker in the United States is not a bad thing. Even the aforementioned Apple could open its own site and compete quickly with monsters such as Party. The off-shore operators' market share is based on supply only.

This is somewhat analogous to saying marijuana dealers would still own the market share if a 20-pack of pre-rolled joints were available at Smoker Friendly for $15.

And, IMHO, the competitive market will make all of the fears about regulated poker (high rake, more fees) moot because sites will be willing to accept lower profit margins in order to construct their own legal cash cow.

Where am I wrong here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This "decision" in my opinion questions .....

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! It seems you find conspiracies everywhere. Don't like FT's response to bots...well, they must support bots. Affiliates make money on bots....well, they must support bots too, and they should be responsible for detecting them. Banks don't want credit card chargebacks for Internet gaming....well, they must be the secret force behind UIGEA. PPA doesn't jump at the chance to hire you, and PPA puts out UIGEA reg comment talking points that you dont agree with....well, they (and John Pappas, whom you've met) must be under control of PS and FT. Sorry, but your tendency to find conspiracies everywhere (and you tendency to state your theories as fact, despite any evidence) undermines your credibility.

Anyway, I communicate with John Pappas almost every day, and I've seen no evidence of bias towards any company or towards any specific sector of Internet poker.

Regarding your comments, offshore companies "own" the U.S. market only because there are no U.S. based companies offering services. I don't know how this proves anything about who'd have the upper hand in the future.

I don't understand what you want. Do you want PS and FT banned to help U.S-based companies? If so, you think PPA must be on the take if they don't agree with you? I think you'll find most of us want something like the Wexler bill. The PPA wholeheartedly supports that as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice attack spin.

I suggested FT's response to the bot issue was half hearted at best. IMPO they should do more in the best interests of the future of on-line poker as a whole not simply what action was the least they had to do in the name of maximum short term profits.

The affiliates I suggested should show some concern as they help pay the bot farmers. As I've posted I found out after a reasonable discussion with them that they are interested in the longer term "best interests of the future of on-line poker." In addition I found out from a reasonable exchange of differing views initially that FT provides them all of the information they get and FT can reverse a payment even retroactively id cheating is even suspected.

Currently about 1/2 of self identified US poker player will not play on-line. I've spoken to quite a few who have played on-line and for various "sci-fi" fears will not play on-line again. I think it is in the best interests of the future of on-line poker for both the current players and the site operators to do more to address these issues.

You talk to John almost daily ask him if I didn't offer to help in any way needed, including volunteering my time. Also ask him if I haven't told him more than once that if he found a better candidate for the grassroots organizer then I would be quite pleased. I can make money plenty of other ways, I thought I could help, I thought it would be fun, and I was willing to work at or near the offered salary range which is a significant discount to what I've made in the past. I never asked John to create a well paid job for me to help out, there was an open offer for a job about the time I spoke to John. All I did was suggest I might be qualified. Given a brief discussion with John he asked me how much to put on a full on KY effort, that wasn't my idea.

Don't act like my questions were or are motivated by some sort of disgruntled interviewee who didn't get a second call back. To suggest such a thing given our personal conversations is an insult and a cheap shot.

If you don't understand that any time a number of companies have a significant market share in a semi-mature market and that gives them an upper hand then I can't explain that to you with out you counting the exact number of words in my response.

I didn't make up the idea that the primary reason for the law and its main beneficiary was the banking system, I merely quoted the Agencies statement to that very fact. Directly from their document and footnoted it as well.

Since you asked I want the PPA to allow me to play on-line poker without having to worry about a lot of idiotic hurdles; be it paying 5% to deposit, worrying about Foreign account disclosures, worrying about if my bank will cash my withdraw check with out closing my account or fining me, I'd like to see in the future someone other than Kawanee Game Commission which is located in Canada, I would love it if the PPA at some point was strong enough to attempt changing the tax treatment of poker winning.

Most of all I'd like the PPA to act like that it was at least if only for appearance sake alone responsive to suggestions from the membership.

No I am not a conspiracy nut; but when I see a number of decisions that line up and point to a direction by an organization that I am a member of to not be publicly and personally attacked by a newly appointed board member. I spend a lot of time in the message and image business that is simply not how it is done.

It is this "my way or the highway" don't question a direction from the board that causes these growing concerns if nothing else the manner and appearance shows a complete lack of desire to have the PPA be a true grassroots advocacy group that is lead by the collective voice of its members..

Every action I've taken even my most extreme have been done with one over ridding principal; looking into the possible futures for poker in general but on-line specifically will this or that decision lead to a better "on-line poker world" or a worse one.

Your position is we should be willing to use our abilities to question the actions of the whole Federal Government, but we should shut up and be good little kids and let the grown-ups tell us exactly how we should do the PPA Boards bidding.

You may not see it that way but that is the way you and the PPA are coming off here and in the past.

I took a lot of grief right here by suggesting the composition of the board didn’t matter and it was the actions that were more important to me specifically and in the name of all poker players in general. Furthermore I made it clear that if I saw “our” organization taking a position that I felt was contrary to its own Mission Statement I would be a loud voice questioning why it was so. Back then you supported this type of member action, but now you do not?

What has changed?

That’s right your membership was upgraded to Board Member……….



D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice attack spin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just replying to your comments.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't act like my questions were or are motivated by some sort of disgruntled interviewee who didn't get a second call back. To suggest such a thing given our personal conversations is an insult and a cheap shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't. Again, I was replying to your comment on the matter. Congrats on momving to bigger and better things.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't understand that any time a number of companies have a significant market share in a semi-mature market and that gives them an upper hand then I can't explain that to you with out you counting the exact number of words in my response.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the PS and FT have a head-start. So what? Let the other companies win our loyalty once things are explicitly legal. U.S.-based companies have a built-in advantage as well, as most poker players would prefer a domestic site.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of all I'd like the PPA to act like that it was at least if only for appearance sake alone responsive to suggestions from the membership.

No I am not a conspiracy nut; but when I see a number of decisions that line up and point to a direction by an organization that I am a member of to not be publicly and personally attacked by a newly appointed board member. I spend a lot of time in the message and image business that is simply not how it is done.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I was responding to your comments to me. I wasn't responding on behalf of PPA...it was my personal opinion. On that topic, I will not edit myself merely because I joined the PPA board. If I don't say I'm speaking for the PPA, I'm not. It's that simple.

[ QUOTE ]
Your position is we should be willing to use our abilities to question the actions of the whole Federal Government, but we should shut up and be good little kids and let the grown-ups tell us exactly how we should do the PPA Boards bidding.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I say that? Question all you want. I simply disagree with your conclusions. As for caring about the membership, I put up a poll on your concerns. I'll certainly respond to your concerns based on the desires of the 2p2 forum as reflected in the poll and in other comments.

[ QUOTE ]
I took a lot of grief right here by suggesting the composition of the board didn’t matter and it was the actions that were more important to me specifically and in the name of all poker players in general. Furthermore I made it clear that if I saw “our” organization taking a position that I felt was contrary to its own Mission Statement I would be a loud voice questioning why it was so. Back then you supported this type of member action, but now you do not?

What has changed?

That’s right your membership was upgraded to Board Member……….

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Nothing's changed with me at all. I support us questioning PPA, of course. I simply disagree with your assertion that the PPA isn't working to meet its mission statement. It also seems you have a tendency to trash everything and everyone who disagrees with you on anything.

[TheEngineer]

Back to the topic...

Here's my latest comment:


Jennifer J. Johnson
Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20551

Dear Secretary Johnson,

Following careful review the proposed regulations (Docket No. R-1298) implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), I agree with the authors of the regulations – the regulations as proposed do have several weaknesses. Most of the weaknesses, which include the inability of the regulations to define “unlawful Internet gambling” and the risk of overblocking transactions to legal businesses, are inherent in UIGEA itself. I urge the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to further clarify these regulations prior to implementation to ensure orderly and fair enforcement of these regulations.

The primary weakness in the regulations as proposed is the lack of a definition of “unlawful Internet gambling”. If the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve were unable to determine what constitutes illegal Internet gambling, how can banks and other financial institutions be expected to? Surely this is an unfair burden to place on our nation’s financial institutions. After all, they are in the business of providing financial services, not of enforcing ambiguous gambling bans.

Banks may choose to comply with these regulations by banning all gambling transactions. This overblocking could cause many problems for legitimate businesses, including the domestic horse racing industry, which was specifically excluded from the provisions of the Act. Additionally, banks could overblock offshore poker sites that are not in violation of any federal or state law. As the United States recently lost its trade dispute (and its final appeal) with Antigua and Barbuda with regards to providing of cross-border betting services, additional restrictions via overblocking resulting from these regulations could result in increased WTO penalties, especially as domestic financial transactions are largely excluded from these regulations.

These issues can largely be avoided by defining the term “illegal Internet gambling” in the regulations. I propose defining illegal Internet gambling as all Internet gambling that is clearly illegal under existing federal law, plus that which is unambiguously illegal under state laws. Federal law is relatively clear in this matter – per appeals court decisions in re MasterCard International Inc. and other cases, the Wire Act covers only sports betting. Additionally, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 covers interstate (and, in 46 states, intrastate) professional and amateur sports betting. That is all that is covered by federal law. Since federal case law holds that the Wire Act covers only sports betting, unlawful Internet gambling as defined by federal laws should include only interstate Internet sports betting and intrastate Internet sports betting in the 46 states covered by the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, excluding horse racing as defined under the Interstate Horse Racing Act.

As for state laws, very few states have outlawed Internet gambling. To keep from placing an unreasonable burden on our banks, the regulations should specify that state laws must be unambiguous in their application to the Internet and to the specific types of gambling banned by that state. Additionally, states wishing to have federal assistance in enforcing their Internet gambling restrictions should be required to request this assistance from the Secretary of the Treasury. This will enable our banks to have a clear understanding of what it required of them.

Our financial institutions deserve to know exactly what they are required to prevent. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[oldbookguy]

OK, I have pretty much stayed out of this debate though finding it quite interesting.

The PPA has suggested a line of comment, you are free to use that or develop your own; there is no need to fight about it; fold, call or raise.

Personally I will be commenting using number 2 (appropriate number since that is also my feeling on the regs!).

The inability, not the failure of the writers to actually define Unlawful Internet Gambling goes to the heart of the issue. The government cannot do this and is so stated with all the inherent problems with conflicting opinions on laws, court cases, individual location verse bank location and on and on.

They, with all the U S Government resources cannot do this but expect banks and e-wallets too know legal from unlawful gambling.

Simply absurd.

The best suggestion in my opinion is to scrape them and in the 2007 Report to Congress the Treasury and FRSB make is to tell congress it cannot be done and they, Congress, need to make clear what it is, Unlawful Internet Gambling. Scrape the whole UIGEA, 2006 and start all over.

NOTE: With this scheme we can have impact and is really a best hope, we can then lobby for Skill Games / Contests to specifically be exempt UNLESS specifically bared by state law. We will have the chance to even fight for a definition of Skill and Contests.

BTW, has ANYONE taken time to talk to your local bankers yet? Get them on board as opposing these regs?

obg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you asked I want the PPA to allow me to play on-line poker without having to worry about a lot of idiotic hurdles; be it paying 5% to deposit, worrying about Foreign account disclosures, worrying about if my bank will cash my withdraw check with out closing my account or fining me, I'd like to see in the future someone other than Kawanee Game Commission which is located in Canada, I would love it if the PPA at some point was strong enough to attempt changing the tax treatment of poker winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA wants the same thing as far as I can see. They've clearly advocated both the Wexler bill and IGREA, both of which eliminate the need for e-wallets and the rest. As for tax law, there is PPA action now on the recent changes on taxation of tournament winnings. We'll see where that leads.

[JPFisher55]

TE, I like your comment. The only basic difference between it and mine was that I urged that for state law only online gambling expressly prohibited by state statute by defined as UIG. Your term unambiguous is good, but sometimes parties disagree about what is unambiguous. Also, I left out the words online poker because I did not want the Agencies to know that my comment was from an online poker player. I hoped (small hope-2 outer) to fool them into adopting a definition of UIG favorable to online poker without realizing it. But your approach if just as good.
I really like your explanation about the whole problem. Now the Agencies have two comments proposing essentially the same definition for UIG. But I wish I could say that I was hopeful about any favorable change.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, I like your comment. The only basic difference between it and mine was that I urged that for state law only online gambling expressly prohibited by state statute by defined as UIG. Your term unambiguous is good, but sometimes parties disagree about what is unambiguous. Also, I left out the words online poker because I did not want the Agencies to know that my comment was from an online poker player. I hoped (small hope-2 outer) to fool them into adopting a definition of UIG favorable to online poker without realizing it. But your approach if just as good.
I really like your explanation about the whole problem. Now the Agencies have two comments proposing essentially the same definition for UIG. But I wish I could say that I was hopeful about any favorable change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I liked your earlier comment about the definition of UIG. I was going to use it, but then figured our goal is to send a lot of different letters, so I didn't use it so you could. After all, it's yours. I did use your phrase about federal case law, which has propagated through to the PPA comments (we all leverage each others' best ideas, as we should...that's why we post here).

I liked "unambiguous" because it may lead to the feds disregarding anything not clearly defined. Yours is similar, so you should write that as well. Let's post lots of comments generally focused in similar areas, but different enough to keep the feds busy replying.

[JPFisher55]

TE, I agree. If our comments are identical then the regulators will count them as one comment not many. Gee I just hope the feds read our comments, I'm not expecting any reply.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope I am wrong, but I haven't seen a single thing to show me the PPA wants anyting but a pre-UIGEA world or a US regulatory scheme that specifically does not exlude FT or PS from staying in the market. Which is exactly what PP and every other room feared when they left the US market about a year ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would they? Until your post, no one here had proposed anything but either returning to pre-UGIEA or to a U.S. regulatory scheme that does not specifically exclude FT or PS from staying in the market. It seems that's what the Internet poker community wants.

As for PP, [censored] them for leaving the U.S. market! I'll play if they come back, but I don't see why they should be rewarded for leaving.

[/ QUOTE ]

TheEngineer - you put up a poll with one of two choices being "D$D's Idea" - but none of us can tell what he's saying, because his writing is so confusing - with all the rambling, triple negatives, mixed tenses and basic grammar/spelling errors.

If you understand whatever it is that he is trying to say, could you post a short note explaining it?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TheEngineer - you put up a poll with one of two choices being "D$D's Idea" - but none of us can tell what he's saying, because his writing is so confusing - with all the rambling, triple negatives, mixed tenses and basic grammar/spelling errors.

If you understand whatever it is that he is trying to say, could you post a short note explaining it?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's actually why I called it "D$D's Idea".

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Me to my kids: "Maybe."
Kids: "Does that mean yes?"
Me: "It means I don't know yet."
Kids: "But it doesn't mean no right?"
Me: "I can give you an answer right now, but you might not like it..."
Kids: "Maybe works."

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA: "But we have to know RIGHT NOW!"
Regulators: "Then the answer is NO, and that's final."

It's nothing short of insanity to think that the regulators won't go for the broadest (safest) definition of which forms of online gambling are unlawful.

The PPA might just succeed in getting the rest of the poker sites cut off from the US. Good job, guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can tell you a lot of effort was put into generating the points. While it may seem wonderful to have UIG undefined, the regs put banks in the position of either overblocking or of having to prove allowed transactions are "lawful". Also, the reg authors admitted they were unable to define UIG. Given this admission, it seems we could gain by pushing them in this area. There are other pro-poker reasons to support a definition as well.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has now gone past 'terrible idea' and is well on its way to 'one of the worst ideas I've ever heard'.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? There are a lot of merits to trying to force these reg writers to try to do what they say can't be done. The regs as written practically force banks to overblock. I'd personally prefer to keep these regs in review for a while longer than to start getting overblocked without recourse.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TheEngineer - you put up a poll with one of two choices being "D$D's Idea" - but none of us can tell what he's saying, because his writing is so confusing - with all the rambling, triple negatives, mixed tenses and basic grammar/spelling errors.

If you understand whatever it is that he is trying to say, could you post a short note explaining it?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's actually why I called it "D$D's Idea".

[/ QUOTE ]

I've suggested a number of ways to put pressure on the Banks and comment that the regs are unworkable, poorly founded in regulation regulations and IMO quite likely unconsitutional.

You suggest that we help the Agiences do their job by helping them better design a system to block the flow of funds on the hope that by doing so they will exclude poker money?

You are better off simply suggesting that poker should be excluded and let the Agencies do their own job.


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, I like your comment. The only basic difference between it and mine was that I urged that for state law only online gambling expressly prohibited by state statute by defined as UIG. Your term unambiguous is good, but sometimes parties disagree about what is unambiguous. Also, I left out the words online poker because I did not want the Agencies to know that my comment was from an online poker player. I hoped (small hope-2 outer) to fool them into adopting a definition of UIG favorable to online poker without realizing it. But your approach if just as good.
I really like your explanation about the whole problem. Now the Agencies have two comments proposing essentially the same definition for UIG. But I wish I could say that I was hopeful about any favorable change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can the Federal Gov't tell the states that they have to have a uniform set of codes for gambling? Let alone the Agencies.

Seems about the only power that could do that would be Congress with a Wexler type bill. Well I guess if we had the right law suit the SC could declare poker a skills game.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because not one thing the PPA has said the Poker World would do to gain entry into the US market in the form or a regualtory mix will every come to pass.

Sure the market will open up and others who are in the wings or who let the market will try to re-enter, but who's position is the strongest? The major off-shore operators!

They "own" the current portion of the US market and to some degree will get to shape the future of on-line poker market for some time. Any inovation that they can live with in their business model they can implement quicker than anyone else and keep market share. Think M$ and Apple.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense to me at all. A company like Apple didn't gain its market share by providing a service that a huge portion of its potential customer base stayed away from because they feared it was illegal.

I love PS. I played my first hand there, and haven't left except to whore during the Bonus Rush. With that said, if poker were exempted tomorrow and MGM Poker opened Friday, I'd be one of the first people to open an account there -- along with every Joe S. Pack who thinks online poker has been shut down since last October.

Expressly legal poker in the United States is not a bad thing. Even the aforementioned Apple could open its own site and compete quickly with monsters such as Party. The off-shore operators' market share is based on supply only.

This is somewhat analogous to saying marijuana dealers would still own the market share if a 20-pack of pre-rolled joints were available at Smoker Friendly for $15.

And, IMHO, the competitive market will make all of the fears about regulated poker (high rake, more fees) moot because sites will be willing to accept lower profit margins in order to construct their own legal cash cow.

Where am I wrong here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well since we are in a virtual world where big money is at stake the powers involved have a little more forsight.

Think of what happened to Apples operating system. Most of the world thinks Bill Gates invented Windows or at least his company M$.

Any new entrant to the market can be quickly matched by those with existing market share. Since they already have a significant market share they can easily match any new marketing and or technical inovations.

The new entrant has to gain market share in some cases by reducing margins (profits) in this case with bonuses or reduced rake, but they can not afford to do this as easily as an established market leader or market share holder.

While some of these may end up being good things in a future poker world, most are likely to be loss leader ideas that die away once the new entrant can no longer afford to keep offering.


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Me to my kids: "Maybe."
Kids: "Does that mean yes?"
Me: "It means I don't know yet."
Kids: "But it doesn't mean no right?"
Me: "I can give you an answer right now, but you might not like it..."
Kids: "Maybe works."

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA: "But we have to know RIGHT NOW!"
Regulators: "Then the answer is NO, and that's final."

It's nothing short of insanity to think that the regulators won't go for the broadest (safest) definition of which forms of online gambling are unlawful.

The PPA might just succeed in getting the rest of the poker sites cut off from the US. Good job, guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can tell you a lot of effort was put into generating the points. While it may seem wonderful to have UIG undefined, the regs put banks in the position of either overblocking or of having to prove allowed transactions are "lawful". Also, the reg authors admitted they were unable to define UIG. Given this admission, it seems we could gain by pushing them in this area. There are other pro-poker reasons to support a definition as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reg writers also admitted they couldn't design a governmental system without worring about our pesky due process rights. Why not push there?

In the reg process the best you can hope for is a comment burried in the review portion that the Agencies don't write laws therefore they can not define for Congress or the Courts what is legal or illegal.

It is a waste of time IMO.


D$D

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TheEngineer - you put up a poll with one of two choices being "D$D's Idea" - but none of us can tell what he's saying, because his writing is so confusing - with all the rambling, triple negatives, mixed tenses and basic grammar/spelling errors.

If you understand whatever it is that he is trying to say, could you post a short note explaining it?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's actually why I called it "D$D's Idea".

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, has ANYONE taken time to talk to your local bankers yet? Get them on board as opposing these regs?

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Well a local regional bank here I spoke to I found in its terms of service that it will block all transactions it deems to be involved in gambling including horse racing.

The phamplet was last updated in 2005.

So it seems the banks don't like these transactions nor have they for sometime.


D$D

[JPFisher55]

D$D, you make a good point about the state laws on online gambling. IMO, Congress could pass a law with a firm set of laws governing online gambling and this law would supersede state laws. The UIGEA is not such a law and it does not exist.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
D$D, you make a good point about the state laws on online gambling. IMO, Congress could pass a law with a firm set of laws governing online gambling and this law would supersede state laws. The UIGEA is not such a law and it does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congress wouldn't even have to pass a law. A Federal Agency can just say we claim jurisdiction under Commerce Clause, Utah go [censored] yourself. Its over. This Supreme court won't roll back Commerce.

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where am I wrong here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well since we are in a virtual world where big money is at stake the powers involved have a little more forsight.

Think of what happened to Apples operating system. Most of the world thinks Bill Gates invented Windows or at least his company M$.

Any new entrant to the market can be quickly matched by those with existing market share. Since they already have a significant market share they can easily match any new marketing and or technical inovations.

The new entrant has to gain market share in some cases by reducing margins (profits) in this case with bonuses or reduced rake, but they can not afford to do this as easily as an established market leader or market share holder.

While some of these may end up being good things in a future poker world, most are likely to be loss leader ideas that die away once the new entrant can no longer afford to keep offering.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Putting the public's demand for software against the public's demand for online gambling is far from an apples-to-apples comparison. Expressly legal online gambling will be a brand new market. Nobody stayed away from Microsoft because they thought it was shady or downright illegal.

The market share MGM owns (or Yahoo! or Harrah's) is much more powerful than the market share Stars or Party owns. Do you really think the fish are going to sign up at Party Poker over Google Poker?

Also, the profit margins for an online poker room -- let alone an online slot parlor -- are much greater than the profit margins for eBay or iTunes. To put it simply, there won't be much loss in these loss-leader programs.

Sites U.S. players can trust to be regulated and lawful will dominate in no time at all.

Think bootleggers vs. liquor stores, and liquor stores vs. Wal-Mart.

I'm repeating myself here, but you are yet to acknowledge my points. In fact, your Gates-inventing-windows example supports my argument. If the door is opened to anyone, people in 20 years are going to think MGM.com invented online poker.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where am I wrong here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well since we are in a virtual world where big money is at stake the powers involved have a little more forsight.

Think of what happened to Apples operating system. Most of the world thinks Bill Gates invented Windows or at least his company M$.

Any new entrant to the market can be quickly matched by those with existing market share. Since they already have a significant market share they can easily match any new marketing and or technical inovations.

The new entrant has to gain market share in some cases by reducing margins (profits) in this case with bonuses or reduced rake, but they can not afford to do this as easily as an established market leader or market share holder.

While some of these may end up being good things in a future poker world, most are likely to be loss leader ideas that die away once the new entrant can no longer afford to keep offering.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Putting the public's demand for software against the public's demand for online gambling is far from an apples-to-apples comparison. Expressly legal online gambling will be a brand new market. Nobody stayed away from Microsoft because they thought it was shady or downright illegal.

The market share MGM owns (or Yahoo! or Harrah's) is much more powerful than the market share Stars or Party owns. Do you really think the fish are going to sign up at Party Poker over Google Poker?

Also, the profit margins for an online poker room -- let alone an online slot parlor -- are much greater than the profit margins for eBay or iTunes. To put it simply, there won't be much loss in these loss-leader programs.

Sites U.S. players can trust to be regulated and lawful will dominate in no time at all.

Think bootleggers vs. liquor stores, and liquor stores vs. Wal-Mart.

I'm repeating myself here, but you are yet to acknowledge my points. In fact, your Gates-inventing-windows example supports my argument. If the door is opened to anyone, people in 20 years are going to think MGM.com invented online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are talking a bit in circles but here is what I think.

If you were MGM who has stayed out of the US market until it was clear how to set up a fully legal US system with your only risk being your business risk in the market might not you say to Congress that PS and FT should be excluded? I could make a convincing argument that PP should be as well.

Some people seem to worry about a US regulated market and if it will be too much to bear. All regulation will do is remove enough risk from the market place to allow the big time players to enter the market.

You are right, 20 years from now no one may even remember FT. You might mention to someone 20 years from now FT and they might look at you the way my kids do when I ask them to "roll up the car window."

To suggest that FT or anyone else might use their position on the PPA to even think of possibly protecting their part of the pie and to be treated like a "on-line poker is rigged" poster is just wrong.


D$D

[TreyWilly]

I don't argue with the idea that MGM would want PS and FT excluded, although I'm not convinced it will matter.

All I'm saying is it will be hard for any current site, including Party, to exist if poker is free in America. If business risk is the only risk, these emerging monster companies can do enough through subsidization of their existing profits to drive any current site right off the map.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
You are right, 20 years from now no one may even remember FT. You might mention to someone 20 years from now FT and they might look at you the way my kids do when I ask them to "roll up the car window."

[/ QUOTE ]

FT may be the Compuserve, Netscape, or Prodigy of Internet poker. I have no idea how they'll compete with Google, Yahoo, or MGM, but they want the opportunity (beats a future Internet poker prohibition).

[ QUOTE ]
To suggest that FT or anyone else might use their position on the PPA to even think of possibly protecting their part of the pie and to be treated like a "on-line poker is rigged" poster is just wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I did was comment that you find conspiracies everywhere, then get bent out of shape and really offended when no one goes along with them. You seem to think people reject your ideas not because they're half-baked, but because there is some conspiracy against people hearing your "knowledge". I guarantee you FT and PS are not trying to keep PPA from sharing your ideas about banks with the world.

Anyway, there is no conspiracy. FoF and the NFL, along with support from Harrah's, got UIGEA passed. PPA is working to get poker explicitly legalized without special regard for FT or PS. John Pappas is not controlled by FT or PS. John isn't even "controlled" by the PPA board. And he doesn't ask us for permission for every little thing he does...he runs the show. We can fire him or restrict funds, but we certainly don't call daily meetings to micromanage his day-to-day activities.

Feel free to post your theories to the contrary, but don't be surprised when others disagree. And, do continue to post ideas of what you think is good for us but is bad for FT and PS. I've read your posts and I don't think you've done that yet, or at least not effectively.

[Legislurker]

I think it will be interesting to say the least. Gaming has never been competitive in the US. For God's sake its never been about value to the consumer. We're talking about Casinos
who think giving 1% cashback on sub90% payout slots is going to bankrupt them. Guys who spend seven figures a year lobbying to ban the lottery in places like Mississippi. They will want limited licenses in return for a garunteed amount of tax money. Its just how these guys bribe legislators. You're right it may not matter because FT and PS won't go away. I think you're also discounting their serious advantages in having great software they have long experience with, and in Stars case, great CS. And an existing base of customers. If theres a master conspiracy, I think its in jail with Abramoff or in retirement with Billy Frist.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it will be interesting to say the least. Gaming has never been competitive in the US. For God's sake its never been about value to the consumer. We're talking about Casinos
who think giving 1% cashback on sub90% payout slots is going to bankrupt them. Guys who spend seven figures a year lobbying to ban the lottery in places like Mississippi. They will want limited licenses in return for a garunteed amount of tax money. Its just how these guys bribe legislators. You're right it may not matter because FT and PS won't go away. I think you're also discounting their serious advantages in having great software they have long experience with, and in Stars case, great CS. And an existing base of customers. If theres a master conspiracy, I think its in jail with Abramoff or in retirement with Billy Frist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think our legislative efforts are aided by poker sites continuing to offer services in the U.S. The U.S. can't tolerate a system long-term where offshore sites offer these services in the U.S. while domestic companies cannot. Something will give. Either the banners will win or poker will be explicitly legalized with some degree of regulation (minimal, like the Wexler bill, or something like IGREA).

As for FT and PS, I hate trying to make points without data, as everyone here knows by now. I have no data on this and won't pretend to. Still, Google, Yahoo, and MGM do have much better name recognition than PS and FT. I do think they'll at least be able to be competitive fairly quickly if they choose to be. Time will tell, but I can't see a situation where these companies try to offer services, then shut down because they were unable to compete with FT and PS.

[omgwtf]

[ QUOTE ]
I can tell you a lot of effort was put into generating the points. While it may seem wonderful to have UIG undefined, the regs put banks in the position of either overblocking or of having to prove allowed transactions are "lawful". Also, the reg authors admitted they were unable to define UIG. Given this admission, it seems we could gain by pushing them in this area. There are other pro-poker reasons to support a definition as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you can explain the thinking behind these talking points. I can be persuaded.

On the face of it all, UIGEA is quite ambiguous and fails to define what transactions must be blocked. At this point, I can't see any outcome to the PPA strategy other than a regulatory interpretation of UIG that includes poker.

It seems that the two available strategies are:
1) Poker doesn't fit the UIGEA definition of UIG, so regulators should officially and explicitly declare poker to not be considered UIG. (Does anyone who can win at poker really think this has better than a runner-runner chance?)
2) Make the case that UIGEA is too ambiguous and not defined enough to form regulations that would block only UIG. The regulators were given the impossible task of writing guidelines to prohibit a category of transactions, but congress didn't adequately provide the criteria for determining whether a transaction should be prohibited. The inescapable result is that legal transaction will be blocked, prohibited transactions allowed, and the compliance burden on banks will be too high. The regulations can't be written until congress properly defines how to determine which transactions are prohibited. If this argument is successful and UIGEA goes back to congress, the whole process opens up again.

One other point: I've seen several people mention "state laws". I'm definitely not a banking expert, but it seems that federal regulations should be based on federal law, not state laws.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can tell you a lot of effort was put into generating the points. While it may seem wonderful to have UIG undefined, the regs put banks in the position of either overblocking or of having to prove allowed transactions are "lawful". Also, the reg authors admitted they were unable to define UIG. Given this admission, it seems we could gain by pushing them in this area. There are other pro-poker reasons to support a definition as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you can explain the thinking behind these talking points. I can be persuaded.

On the face of it all, UIGEA is quite ambiguous and fails to define what transactions must be blocked. At this point, I can't see any outcome to the PPA strategy other than a regulatory interpretation of UIG that includes poker.

It seems that the two available strategies are:
1) Poker doesn't fit the UIGEA definition of UIG, so regulators should officially and explicitly declare poker to not be considered UIG. (Does anyone who can win at poker really think this has better than a runner-runner chance?)
2) Make the case that UIGEA is too ambiguous and not defined enough to form regulations that would block only UIG. The regulators were given the impossible task of writing guidelines to prohibit a category of transactions, but congress didn't adequately provide the criteria for determining whether a transaction should be prohibited. The inescapable result is that legal transaction will be blocked, prohibited transactions allowed, and the compliance burden on banks will be too high. The regulations can't be written until congress properly defines how to determine which transactions are prohibited. If this argument is successful and UIGEA goes back to congress, the whole process opens up again.

One other point: I've seen several people mention "state laws". I'm definitely not a banking expert, but it seems that federal regulations should be based on federal law, not state laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now, banks will have the burden of proof that transactions they permit are lawful. The DoJ says interstate Internet poker violates the Wire Act. While this may not mean jack to FT and PS, it does to our banks. Combined with the fact that UIGEA shields banks for any penalties for overblocking, it seems that overblocking is a significant issue for us. Why should they spend millions to determine what's legal and what isn't when they can simply block all gaming transactions?

The authors of the regs pretty much admitted that they cannot define UIG. Seems we could get them stuck in the mud, so to speak, if we can get the right people with the right clout to try to force them to define this.

I think your item #1 is unlikely, as you said, but something we should ask for anyway. #2 is much more likely.

[Todd Terry]

Does anyone with a law degree or legislative/regulatory background believe that the Treasury Department has the right to define unlawful Internet gambling, presumably by analyzing the substantive federal (and state, which is part of the talking points) laws on gambling (which of course have nothing to do with banking), in implementing legislation (the UIGEA) which explicitly stated that its purpose was not to define unlawful Internet gambling? If so, who are they and can they point to an analogous situation where something remotely similar has ever occurred in the history of the United States? IMO it simply can't happen, setting aside the question of why we would want it to.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone with a law degree or legislative/regulatory background believe that the Treasury Department has the right to define unlawful Internet gambling, presumably by analyzing the substantive federal (and state, which is part of the talking points) laws on gambling (which of course have nothing to do with banking), in implementing legislation (the UIGEA) which explicitly stated that its purpose was not to define unlawful Internet gambling? If so, who are they and can they point to an analogous situation where something remotely similar has ever occurred in the history of the United States? IMO it simply can't happen, setting aside the question of why we would want it to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good comments. Thanks. I don't have the background you mentioned, but I'll share my thoughts. First of all, the UIGEA does not state that it does not define Internet gaming. Rather, it states that it does not change the legal status of any Internet gaming (i.e., what was legal still is, and what was illegal still is as well). Check out http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h4954_enr.xml (UIGEA is at the end).

As UIGEA is supposed to be enforced, it doesn't seem unreasonable for regs to specify what it is banks are supposed to enforce. The regs themselves state that UIG is too hard to define, not that they're prohibited from defining UIG. The PPA lawyers think they're permitted to.

I look forward to the lawyers here commenting on your questions as well.

[JPFisher55]

The UIGEA give the Treasury and DOJ the power to adopt regulations to enforce this law. I would argue that defining the term unlawful internet gambling is within the scope of this power. If the regulators adopted a definition that some party disputes, then that party can file litigation in federal court to resolve the matter. But with no definition and not being able to sue the bank applying the term without a definition, going to court is much more difficult. Not impossible, but much more difficult. Thus, the regulators realize that no definition is favorable to them.
The odds of them deciding to attempt a definition is about that of a 1 outer after the flop. I doubt that any adopted definition would mention poker. I think that it would define all online gambling to be unlawful or only sports betting on the federal level and expressly banned games by each state statute. The latter definition would be great and the former would start litigation that online poker would be more likely to win than lose.

[Todd Terry]

Additionally, the proposed regs say that one of the reasons they are not taking a position on what constitutes unlawful Internet gambling is that it can depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, including the location of the site. This is correct and unassailable IMO. For example, the answer to the question "Is PokerStars operating illegally under federal law?" would require answers to many questions, such as where are they located, what games are available, what states are they operating in, and dozens of other questions, etc.

Explicitly stating in legislation that the legislation is not altering the legality/illegality of Internet gambling practices is the same thing as not defining unlawful Internet gambling, as least as to the "unlawful" part, which is what we are talking about.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, the proposed regs say that one of the reasons they are not taking a position on what constitutes unlawful Internet gambling is that it can depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, including the location of the site. This is correct and unassailable IMO. For example, the answer to the question "Is PokerStars operating illegally under federal law?" would require answers to many questions, such as where are they located, what games are available, what states are they operating in, and dozens of other questions, etc.

Explicitly stating in legislation that the legislation is not altering the legality/illegality of Internet gambling practices is the same thing as not defining unlawful Internet gambling, as least as to the "unlawful" part, which is what we are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't preclude the regs from defining unlawful Internet gambling. If they have to put together a 1,000 page guide, so be it. If it's so hard, the banks won't be able to do it either, so they'll overblock it. It seems this is precisely our point. This is an unfunded mandate on our banks, and they shouldn't have to absorb the costs.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

Right now, banks will have the burden of proof that transactions they permit are lawful.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is where you are wrong.

Read the proposed regulation again.

Even the Agencies there tell the banks they can either block for business risk reasons or use the OFAC list.

The banks have had these methods in hand for years.

One of my banks Chevy Chase Bank has had these policies in place since May of 2005.

All the UIGEA did was give the Banks the ability to use a new cover and a liability free pass to block. IMO this is a high stakes game between international bankers and whole countries. We are really just railbirds.

Congress isn't really ready for debating on-line poker and gaming until '09. The UIGEA and the proposed rule are just stop gaps until then.

D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
If it's so hard, the banks won't be able to do it either, so they'll overblock it. It seems this is precisely our point. This is an unfunded mandate on our banks, and they shouldn't have to absorb the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Agencies know the banks ALREADY know how to over-block. They are ALREADY blocking on business risk reasons.

Can you deposit directly to an on-line poker site???

There is no unwanted mandate. As a matter of fact if any of us had been smart enough we would have found a way to sue the banks for thier over blocking.

The banks are one step a head of us and gaining.....

D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Right now, banks will have the burden of proof that transactions they permit are lawful.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is where you are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure? If a bank permits unlawful Internet gambling without reasonable procedures to comply with UIGEA, they'll be in violation of the UIGEA regs.

[ QUOTE ]

Read the proposed regulation again.

Even the Agencies there tell the banks they can either block for business risk reasons or use the OFAC list.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the proposed regulation again. The OFAC list is just a proposal for disucssion concerning the feasibility of lists:

[ QUOTE ]
6. List of Unlawful Internet Gambling Businesses
The Act does not mention the creation of a list of unlawful
Internet gambling businesses. However, the Agencies are aware that
there is some interest in exploring this idea. The Agencies considered
including in the proposed rule's examples of reasonably designed
policies and procedures, examination of a list that would be
established by the U.S. Government of businesses known to be engaged in
the business of unlawful Internet gambling. Some have suggested that
the obligation of financial institutions with respect to such a list
might be similar in effect to their obligations under certain other
U.S. laws, such as those administered by the Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC), albeit in a different context.\20\ Some have also
suggested that the list could be either available publicly in its
entirety, so that financial transaction providers could check
transactions against the list themselves, or maintained confidentially
at a central location, so that financial transaction providers could
submit transactions to the entity operating the central database, which
would inform the financial transaction providers whether the
transaction involved an unlawful Internet gambling business on its
list. Proponents of the list suggest that under either of these
approaches, certain restricted transactions directed to unlawful
Internet gambling accounts could be blocked.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The banks have had these methods in hand for years.

One of my banks Chevy Chase Bank has had these policies in place since May of 2005.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with anything? I said UIGEA could cause overblocking. I didn't say transactions are not blocked now.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it's so hard, the banks won't be able to do it either, so they'll overblock it. It seems this is precisely our point. This is an unfunded mandate on our banks, and they shouldn't have to absorb the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Agencies know the banks ALREADY know how to over-block. They are ALREADY blocking on business risk reasons.

Can you deposit directly to an on-line poker site???

There is no unwanted mandate. As a matter of fact if any of us had been smart enough we would have found a way to sue the banks for thier over blocking.

The banks are one step a head of us and gaining.....

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I know banks are overblocking now. How many times do we have to repeat this. They don't want to get stiffed. They want to get paid. Why is this such a shocker? Why do you think this means banks WANT UIGEA? Why? Just because you think so?

Keep spamming us with your conspiracy theories. Seems you're just here to argue and tell us how you know it all and how you've done it all. Go on without me....the rest of us will be fighting for online poker.

[Todd Terry]

[ QUOTE ]

This doesn't preclude the regs from defining unlawful Internet gambling. If they have to put together a 1,000 page guide, so be it. If it's so hard, the banks won't be able to do it either, so they'll overblock it. It seems this is precisely our point. This is an unfunded mandate on our banks, and they shouldn't have to absorb the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no such thing as an "unfunded mandate" on private entities, the concept only applies to governmental units, like States. Legislatures pass laws governing private entities/citizens, the cost of complying with those laws is borne by those affected by the laws, period.

If your point is overblocking will occur, then why not make that point directly rather than inferentially via asking Treasury to do something that is probably unconstitutional and at least unprecedented, that is, taking a position regarding the interpretation of federal criminal laws and state laws not relating to banking?

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TheEngineer - you put up a poll with one of two choices being "D$D's Idea" - but none of us can tell what he's saying, because his writing is so confusing - with all the rambling, triple negatives, mixed tenses and basic grammar/spelling errors.

If you understand whatever it is that he is trying to say, could you post a short note explaining it?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's actually why I called it "D$D's Idea".

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! /images/graemlins/grin.gif I understand, man!

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This doesn't preclude the regs from defining unlawful Internet gambling. If they have to put together a 1,000 page guide, so be it. If it's so hard, the banks won't be able to do it either, so they'll overblock it. It seems this is precisely our point. This is an unfunded mandate on our banks, and they shouldn't have to absorb the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no such thing as an "unfunded mandate" on private entities, the concept only applies to governmental units, like States. Legislatures pass laws governing private entities/citizens, the cost of complying with those laws is borne by those affected by the laws, period.

If your point is overblocking will occur, then why not make that point directly rather than inferentially via asking Treasury to do something that is probably unconstitutional and at least unprecedented, that is, taking a position regarding the interpretation of federal criminal laws and state laws not relating to banking?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I thought I did.

Everyone: There really is no "wrong" comment. I hope folks here won't read this thread and refuse to comment out of fear of hurting something by making the wrong comment. Just make a pro-poker statement using the PPA talking points or your own judgement. It will be fine. We need a lot of comments on the regs so please don't hesitate. You have a right to comment, so please do so. You can be sure our opponents will. Thanks.

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it will be interesting to say the least. Gaming has never been competitive in the US. For God's sake its never been about value to the consumer. We're talking about Casinos who think giving 1% cashback on sub90% payout slots is going to bankrupt them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is valid for poker rooms. But even if it is, you're forgetting that the competition expressly legal poker would create has never been seen before. It's one thing to rip someone off in a riverboat in Mississippi, where there are no other options, or in a resort in Vegas, where everyone is on vacation.

It's an altogether different thing to rip somebody off when you can find a substantially better deal without having to lift an ass cheek.


[ QUOTE ]
FT and PS won't go away. I think you're also discounting their serious advantages in having great software they have long experience with, and in Stars case, great CS. And an existing base of customers.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are we talking about here? We're talking about practice, man. We're talking about customer service and software. We're not talking about rocket science.

If Yahoo! isn't smart enough to have a fully operational poker site up and running that's backed by a trained staff of customer service agents within a week of the green light, then peeing your pants is cool.

This isn't the atomic bomb.

Also, what's to keep a guy like Mark Cuban from simply paying cash for a site like UB and have them servicing U.S. customers within a matter of hours?

When it comes down to it, we're all just playing a computer game. Software and customer service? Please.

[Skallagrim]

I have thought a lot about this, and am still not sure which is the absolute best tactic. I am thinking I will go with my original idea for my comment, while most PPA members can follow the talking points. Maybe in tandem that will have the best result.

Regulators cannot write or decide law. In this case that means they cannot decide what is UIG and what is not - they could "report" the answer though, if that were actually an answerable question, and they could put that report in the regulations. But it is not an answerable question, not with any degree of certainty anyway. I am a lawyer, and take my word for it, exactly what is UIG and what isnt can be narrowed down, but cannot be defined with any real specificity - eventually you get to guesses. The regulation writers realized this. And probably at DOJ prodding (by the FOF followers in the DOJ) they came up with the solution of encouraging bank over-blocking.

Over-blocking is the danger to us. But it is not only a danger to us, many legitimate businesses will be hurt by overblocking, not just poker.

Somehow we have to get them to realize and respond to this...either by getting them to agree to do the impossible (specifically define what games are UIG and what are not, and yes this varies depending on the geography) or by getting them to agree openly that this cant be done by anyone. Then to stop this evil overblocking they should write regulations that give banks protection if they dont overblock - specifically, regulations that say blocking only the clearly illegal things (sportsbetting, primarily) is sufficient compliance to avoid bank liability.

These regulators care nothing about constitutionality or the WTO or, for that matter, internet poker and gambling. They care about at least looking like they have done the job Congress asked them to do... and they care about protecting the banks (who lobby them with big money).

It is an open question which tactic will work best...but I remain convinced that getting them to attempt a job they have already concluded is impossible (because it is) is the more difficult road.

Even if I am wrong though, getting them to somehow respond to the danger of blocking transactions to obviously legal sites is the key to getting them to rethink the regulations as written. Perhaps if we persuade them that one way or another they cannot avoid responding to this headache, they will delay action long enough for a legislative correction (Wexler bill).

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This doesn't preclude the regs from defining unlawful Internet gambling. If they have to put together a 1,000 page guide, so be it. If it's so hard, the banks won't be able to do it either, so they'll overblock it. It seems this is precisely our point. This is an unfunded mandate on our banks, and they shouldn't have to absorb the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no such thing as an "unfunded mandate" on private entities, the concept only applies to governmental units, like States. Legislatures pass laws governing private entities/citizens, the cost of complying with those laws is borne by those affected by the laws, period.

If your point is overblocking will occur, then why not make that point directly rather than inferentially via asking Treasury to do something that is probably unconstitutional and at least unprecedented, that is, taking a position regarding the interpretation of federal criminal laws and state laws not relating to banking?

[/ QUOTE ]

My "unfunded mandate" statement was just a post on this board....it wasn't part of my comment. Besides, I think you know what I meant, so why bother correcting me? Seems unproductive to me.

I disagree that my comment is unconstitutional. Neither you nor I are experts in Constitutional law, so I'm not sure how you made this determination. Perhaps a lawyer here can review my comment.

To be honest, it doesn't really matter. It would be good for us if they adopted it, so we should ask for it and let them consider it. UIGEA itself is unconstitutional and unprecedented, but that didn't stop Congress from passing it. Anyway, we need a lot of comments. I'll be making a lot myself, and I hope you and everyone else will, too.

Thanks.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
If your point is overblocking will occur, then why not make that point directly rather than inferentially via asking Treasury to do something that is probably unconstitutional and at least unprecedented, that is, taking a position regarding the interpretation of federal criminal laws and state laws not relating to banking?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you post an example?

[Todd Terry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This doesn't preclude the regs from defining unlawful Internet gambling. If they have to put together a 1,000 page guide, so be it. If it's so hard, the banks won't be able to do it either, so they'll overblock it. It seems this is precisely our point. This is an unfunded mandate on our banks, and they shouldn't have to absorb the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no such thing as an "unfunded mandate" on private entities, the concept only applies to governmental units, like States. Legislatures pass laws governing private entities/citizens, the cost of complying with those laws is borne by those affected by the laws, period.

If your point is overblocking will occur, then why not make that point directly rather than inferentially via asking Treasury to do something that is probably unconstitutional and at least unprecedented, that is, taking a position regarding the interpretation of federal criminal laws and state laws not relating to banking?

[/ QUOTE ]

My "unfunded mandate" statement was just a post on this board....it wasn't part of my comment. Besides, I think you know what I meant, so why bother correcting me? Seems unproductive to me.

I disagree that my comment is unconstitutional. You're not an expert in Constitutional law, so I'm not sure how you made this determination. Perhaps a lawyer here can review my comment.

To be honest, it doesn't really matter. It would be good for us if they adopted it, so we should ask for it and let them consider it. UIGEA itself is unconstitutional and unprecedented, but that didn't stop Congress from passing it. Anyway, we need a lot of comments. I'll be making a lot myself, and I hope you and everyone else will, too.

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am an expert in many areas of constitutional law, the bounds of regulatory rule making authority is not one of those areas, but I know enough about it to know that I think they'd be treading on very shaky ground by defining unlawful Internet gambling as defined by federal law, even more so as defined by state law. I'm really not familiar with the argument that the UIGEA is unconstitutional, what are the basic parameters?

And most people on this board also vehemently disagree with the PPA's assertion that letting Treasury define unlawful Internet gambling would be good for us.

Edit: More significantly, why is the PPA purporting to attempt to get a regulatory agency, who cannot do so, to determine the legality of online poker while refraining from attempting to get a Federal District Judge, who has the power to do so, from doing it?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I am an expert in many areas of constitutional law,...

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. My bad. I thought you said you weren't. I guess you were referring to the part about not being an expert on this specific aspect of the law.

[ QUOTE ]
... the bounds of regulatory rule making authority is not one of those areas, but I know enough about it to know that I think they'd be treading on very shaky ground by defining unlawful Internet gambling as defined by federal law, even more so as defined by state law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm really not familiar with the argument that the UIGEA is unconstitutional, what are the basic parameters?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a personal belief that the Interstate Commerce Clause applies to regulating commerce, not prohibiting it. I realize the country has moved toward giving a lot of power to the feds, so I don't have much hope that the courts would actually rule against it.

[ QUOTE ]
And most people on this board also vehemently disagree with the PPA's assertion that letting Treasury define unlawful Internet gambling would be good for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if "most" do. Some do, no doubt. Some do not. I guess folks who don't think we want Treasury to define UIG should comment on some other aspect. Folks who do should request it if they care to.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
More significantly, why is the PPA purporting to attempt to get a regulatory agency, who cannot do so, to determine the legality of online poker while refraining from attempting to get a Federal District Judge, who has the power to do so, from doing it?

[/ QUOTE ]

We're commenting on the regs because we can. This is our chance to get on record. Let's show the difficulty banks will have in defining UIG and see if we can delay the regs a bit.

I don't see how we can get a Federal District Judge to make a judgment now, as we don't have an Internet poker case pending anywhere. If you can tell me how to do that, I'll relay it to the PPA.

[JPFisher55]

Todd, normally I would agree with you. But the UIGEA has specific provisions requiring the Agencies to adopt regulations for banks to enforce this stupid law. I can argue that defining UIG is within the scope of that authority and requirement. I have three reasons for submitting a comment with a proposed definition of UIG. One, my definition (I posted it in a previous thread) favors online poker. Two, we need to counter the FOF who will propose a definition that includes all online gambling. Three, any proposed definition might cause the banks or the regulators to realize how difficult and costly implementing these regulations will become. This might lead to a further watering down of the regulations by exempting more transactions. For this last reason, I submitted a comment that regulating cross-border transactions is not feasible because foreign banks will not cooperate.
If you want some info about the arguments on the constitutionality of UIGEA, you can go to iMEGA's website and read their filings in their case. The first amendment is one parameter.

[Todd Terry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More significantly, why is the PPA purporting to attempt to get a regulatory agency, who cannot do so, to determine the legality of online poker while refraining from attempting to get a Federal District Judge, who has the power to do so, from doing it?

[/ QUOTE ]

We're commenting on the regs because we can. This is our chance to get on record. Let's show the difficulty banks will have in defining UIG and see if we can delay the regs a bit.

I don't see how we can get a Federal District Judge to make a judgment now, as we don't have an Internet poker case pending anywhere. If you can tell me how to do that, I'll relay it to the PPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously if a case is not pending a case would have to be filed. It would make the most sense for one of the sites to file it, but I'm sure an individual player or group of players would have standing. This could have been done as soon as the UIGEA passed (obviously it could have been done sooner, but the UIGEA created an incentive for them to do it because it threatened to turn off the money spigot). I actually thought about doing it myself, but felt that it really wasn't my place because those with more at stake than me should make the decision whether to bring the issue to a head. Obviously there are reasons it hasn't already been done. My point was simply that if the PPA actually wanted a clear decision on the legality of online poker, they could have already obtained, and still could obtain one.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More significantly, why is the PPA purporting to attempt to get a regulatory agency, who cannot do so, to determine the legality of online poker while refraining from attempting to get a Federal District Judge, who has the power to do so, from doing it?

[/ QUOTE ]

We're commenting on the regs because we can. This is our chance to get on record. Let's show the difficulty banks will have in defining UIG and see if we can delay the regs a bit.

I don't see how we can get a Federal District Judge to make a judgment now, as we don't have an Internet poker case pending anywhere. If you can tell me how to do that, I'll relay it to the PPA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously if a case is not pending a case would have to be filed. It would make the most sense for one of the sites to file it, but I'm sure an individual player or group of players would have standing. This could have been done as soon as the UIGEA passed (obviously it could have been done sooner, but the UIGEA created an incentive for them to do it because it threatened to turn off the money spigot). I actually thought about doing it myself, but felt that it really wasn't my place because those with more at stake than me should make the decision whether to bring the issue to a head. Obviously there are reasons it hasn't already been done. My point was simply that if the PPA actually wanted a clear decision on the legality of online poker, they could have already obtained, and still could obtain one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. iMEGA has brought suit against UIGEA. I'll discuss the poker-specific aspects of various court actions with John Pappas next time we talk.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This doesn't preclude the regs from defining unlawful Internet gambling. If they have to put together a 1,000 page guide, so be it. If it's so hard, the banks won't be able to do it either, so they'll overblock it. It seems this is precisely our point. This is an unfunded mandate on our banks, and they shouldn't have to absorb the costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no such thing as an "unfunded mandate" on private entities, the concept only applies to governmental units, like States. Legislatures pass laws governing private entities/citizens, the cost of complying with those laws is borne by those affected by the laws, period.

If your point is overblocking will occur, then why not make that point directly rather than inferentially via asking Treasury to do something that is probably unconstitutional and at least unprecedented, that is, taking a position regarding the interpretation of federal criminal laws and state laws not relating to banking?

[/ QUOTE ]

My "unfunded mandate" statement was just a post on this board....it wasn't part of my comment. Besides, I think you know what I meant, so why bother correcting me? Seems unproductive to me.

I disagree that my comment is unconstitutional. You're not an expert in Constitutional law, so I'm not sure how you made this determination. Perhaps a lawyer here can review my comment.

To be honest, it doesn't really matter. It would be good for us if they adopted it, so we should ask for it and let them consider it. UIGEA itself is unconstitutional and unprecedented, but that didn't stop Congress from passing it. Anyway, we need a lot of comments. I'll be making a lot myself, and I hope you and everyone else will, too.

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am an expert in many areas of constitutional law, the bounds of regulatory rule making authority is not one of those areas, but I know enough about it to know that I think they'd be treading on very shaky ground by defining unlawful Internet gambling as defined by federal law, even more so as defined by state law. I'm really not familiar with the argument that the UIGEA is unconstitutional, what are the basic parameters?

And most people on this board also vehemently disagree with the PPA's assertion that letting Treasury define unlawful Internet gambling would be good for us.

Edit: More significantly, why is the PPA purporting to attempt to get a regulatory agency, who cannot do so, to determine the legality of online poker while refraining from attempting to get a Federal District Judge, who has the power to do so, from doing it?

[/ QUOTE ]


I am NOT an expert in constitutional law but I did sleep in a Hilton bed recently, or more to the point stayed awake in Civics class. I also have some experience as a Federal Appointee.

I feel the UIGEA is unconstitutional for a number of reasons.

First off there is the fact that the legislative branch of government told the executive branch to attempt to determine the legality of the funds being transferred in the US banking system. I thought that while the executive can enforce laws only the judicial branch could actually determine if something was legal or not.

I will not attempt to delve into the various problems the Federal Government faces in it's jurisdictional nightmare concerning the conflict between state laws on gambling and the federal government's attempt the override states rights that alone is a whole other issue let along discipline of constitutionality.

Lets keep it simple for now and realize that the determination in the basis of gambling law the crux of the determination of the legality of a wager comes down to where you are sitting when the wager is made.

For example, you can sit in AC and do one thing and it is legal. You drive into NYC and do the same thing and you have broken quite a few laws.

The internet causes a number of problems the Wire Act did not face. The Wire Act said it does not matter if it is legal for the wager at either end we do not want you to use Ma Bell to facilitate the wager.

Enter a few lazy politicians in the dead of night motivated by who knows god what. I suggest a tin foil hat theory that since the US banking system was not getting a big enough piece of the 1/3 of a Trillion dollars gambled on-line, that they whispered into a few ears and we got the UIGEA. Why and how we go the UIGEA is important in only making sure we fight the right foe, beyond that it is meaningless. I've seen enough evidence to for me to conclude whose fingerprints are on this but to some degree it really doesn't matter.

So the first question would be does the Legislative have the power to tell the Executive to write a regulation that is possibly a judicial function?

Given that, the Executive in its proposed document the Agencies admits the "problems" it would face taking on the challenges of developing a system. They are at least required to try to give it their best shot. It seems clear to any reader with any knowledge of these daily Executive Legislative dilemmas that they considered telling Congress they faced an impossible job and might have come close to saying so. I have no first hand information or evidence of this except what I read on the pages and the personal knowledge that Agencies face this task every time Congress writes most anything. The between lines statement that the Executive is telling the Legislative we cannot do this, "uniquely governmental function." page 25 1 full paragraph in part.

Even if I am completely wrong this constitutional challenge on a separation of constitutional duties basis there is another constitution issue. The Agencies of the Executive admit that if they attempt to implement the UIGEA as an agency of the Federal Government as a purely governmental solution they would face a very expensive task that and their attempt would be further complicated by their duty in any such governmental implementation by their duty to protect US citizen's peaky "due process rights." page 24 last paragraph.

Further more the Agencies in attempting to make lemonade out of congressional lemons by actually try to claim that giving this job to private sector the banks, they we doing their job to save US taxpayers money!

They attempt to re-enforce this cost savings idea based on the Banking system getting a liability free pass in the UIGEA as the Banking system would not face any legal costs from the private sector doing this uniquely governmental function. Are they really trying to say that since the private sector is not burdened with any duties to protect US citizens, in the for of our Constitution rights some how the Executive is doing us citizens a favor? In this proposed regulation and law, Congress offered to bribe to the banks to get them to due a job the Federal Government admits they do not know how to do and specifically allow them to trample on our "due process rights". To suggest openly that the Government is so worried about our rights and then come up with this scheme to pas the buck to the private sector disguised as a cost savings measure in an insult.

Their solution in the form of a long over due proposed regulation demanded by the Legislative of the Executive is really a thinly disguised solution to the banking systems business problems related to on-line gaming IMO is clear, let alone completely against every thing, all of us should have learned in civics class.

Please forgive any spelling and grammar issues in this reply to your offer to apply your expertise to this issue. I learned English at the same time I did two other languages, and I am a little lazy when it comes to communication especially when it comes to the internet. I have been participating on these various forms since before Al Gore invented it. I has always been my understanding that the unwritten rule was due to the fact that many people from all over the globe, many of whom face similar communications issues similar to mine, that to ignore a persons ideas and to attack their sentence structure was the last ditch response to anyone completely out of original ideas themselves.

I will be happy to share with you my notes on my multiple reviews of the proposed regulation and some information on some of it's history as well as some of the history both legislative and politically that IMO have relevance to the issue at hand.

I do have some limited experience in regulatory rule making, as I have been involved in a few proposed rule fights from both sides.

Further, since I live in the D.C. area I will be happy to see what I can develop from reviewing any comments already submitted, although the value of which IMO is not worth the effort. The only value of a late response is to incorporate as many valid and semi-valid comments in your comment to show that yours is reasonable and you have addressed all of the major points.

In my opinion, there is little chance that the Agencies would attempt to define UIG, let alone write one that exempts poker to the chagrin of the powers that pushed for and got everything they wanted. After all the Banking Industry, happen to be the main "customers" of the Agencies. I may be wrong that it was the banking industry that pushed fro and got this legislation passes, but the fact remains the banking industry has the most to gain and as stands currently have the least to loose. I suggest we take a completely different approach in this portion of the battle to better prepare out selves to win the war.

Even organizing a virtual protest that would make a record of our numbers has a better chance than participating in this rigged commenting on the proposed rule game. Such a virtual protest might just show the Banking Industry the sheer number of their customers that are upset about this naked attempt to impede our ability to use the banking system as adults how to spend OUR money in their Banks as we choose. The Banking system got everything they wanted in this legislation, and currently might think they are home free. It would not take much to pick deposit methods that we all know will be blocked and spend some time clogging up their system. I understand this might cause a few problems for the on-line poker site operators, as unless they are warned we just might melt a few of their blade servers, but do not they have more to loose than we all do? I am not sure of the ultimate legal value of this action in that I do not claim to know all the details of establishing standing in some future court action, not being a lawyer with expertise in these matters. However, anyone who gets their deposit attempts blocked and who does have to pay additional fees to deposit has not broken any laws. Even the most extreme interpretation of gaming laws do not make it a crime anywhere that I know of to deposit to a site where you might gamble in the future. Perhaps we could re-enforce this claim by having the sites give something away similar to what the old banks did with toasters or calendars.

The main weakness over all based on the jurisdictional quilt work of state laws with actually govern the legality or illegality of a wager are depended on your location when the actual wager takes place. Just because you are a resident of a state the expressly forbids you to gamble on-line, or even bank in such a state does not mean a thing in the law. I could both live and bank in WA where I believe they have the strictest laws pertaining to on-line gambling. The law is meaningless and unenforceable because no one from the local authorities all the way up to the Federal Reserve can prove I intend to break any law by the mean act of depositing on-line. Even if they make the argument that the deposit shows intent to play poker, I could be planning in a trip to Canada. This is exactly the as to me wiring money to AC to LV to my favorite casino in anticipation of a planned poker vacation. The banking system would never dream of asking Congress for a law to prevent me from doing exactly that!

I an not suggesting that anyone should not spend as much time commenting on the proposed rule, I have more than once said I do not have that right nor would I even suggest that anyone do what I suggest. IMO this is an open forum to share ideas. I have no trouble defending any of my ideas or suggestions, even the half-baked ones. As one poster recently pointed out 2+2 quite possibly through its forums alone in a very open and democratic method has done more to shape the course of on-line poker in a very positive manner. However, there is a certain demonstrated lack of respect shown to new posters that has the effect of barring entry for new ideas in this democratic process. Even worse is the attempt by some long-term members for whatever reason to attempt the ridicule others who disagree with them or their ideas. We are all prone to want to advocate for ideas especially those we feel some ownership in them. I faced this when I ceased my lurking period and started posting the very unpopular opinion that the PPA was worth a second look.

Perhaps if the PPA’s forum was not a morgue these discussions on membership issues could be quietly and quickly settled there amoung its members. But I am disappointed that my role in this open democratic discussion of strategies on how best to fight for poker, which is the intent of the 2+2 forums has be complicated because of the dual nature of these issues. Too often the important discussions and been tainted by issues like the make-up of the PPA board, discussions about the effectiveness of membership suggestions, PPA Board members, even officers, and the merits of prospective hires for much needed employees.

I consider myself a member of both groups. It is very counter productive to our all goals of getting the best possible future for on-line poker to have personal issues and personality issues intermixed in these discussions. I have perhaps over reacted a number of times, in both my initial support for John Pappas and in my recent requests for a sound reson to follow the talking points on this proposed rule. First I was lambasted for my impression of the value of the new direction I felt he was taking in attempting to reform the PPA organization. Then the overreaction of my personal feelings about how to built and run a effective grassroots advocacy group that should have a lasting impact on poker in the United States. To now having all of that “history” complicate a simple request for some justification for the proposed talking points on the proposed regulation. I do not expect every suggestion I make to be acted upon with out question, nor do I think anyone else’s suggestions should receive the same treatment. Either we are a democratic member driven organization or we are not. We are talking about ideas here. Not every idea is fully formed nor should it have to be to spark an open discussion.

IMO we should attempt to get the Agencies to tell Congress to try again by starting over or leave sleeping dogs lie. Perhaps this can be accomplished through some sort of concerted comment strategy alone, perhaps not. I am not sure that even if Alan Ginsberg wrote in with an impeccable brief on the unconstitutional nature of this proposed regulation given the task given the Agencies if would accomplish our goals. The process is not over on December 12th. The Agencies face a process that includes; compiling all the comments, many official meetings, powerful lobbyist meetings, conferences with the Hill on any strategies they may come up with, and submitting a final regulation for further comment. All of this will take place in a time when the Agencies in an election year have to consider the review process will be looked upon by a new Congress, President, and likely a bunch of new appointees. Given the political timing and the usual desire of a new administration to at least look at old issues with fresh eyes let alone looking for a chance to deep six any previous administration's let alone one of a different party for most any reason is IMO out best chance to win not only this battle but the war.


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More significantly, why is the PPA purporting to attempt to get a regulatory agency, who cannot do so, to determine the legality of online poker while refraining from attempting to get a Federal District Judge, who has the power to do so, from doing it?

[/ QUOTE ]

We're commenting on the regs because we can. This is our chance to get on record. Let's show the difficulty banks will have in defining UIG and see if we can delay the regs a bit.

I don't see how we can get a Federal District Judge to make a judgment now, as we don't have an Internet poker case pending anywhere. If you can tell me how to do that, I'll relay it to the PPA.

[/ QUOTE ]



Please, if we can not agree on anything else please consider the possibility that the banks do not see any problem operating under these regulations. The published reports from Banking officals that they don't see any problem with the proposed regualtions should be proof enough of that idea.

The simple use of merchant coding can easily block any class of transaction they please. They do not need the UIGEA or a perfect definition of UIG to do this. As it is any single bank can refuse to accept any custmer it chooses for any reason or none at all.

As I've tried to point out many banks already block any form of electronic transaction asscoiated with gambling, even ones expressily exempted in the UIGEA. Anyone who wants to can check the T&C of their own bank. If I can find an electronic version of the printed pamphlet I will post a url for one of my banks, Chevy Chase Bank in the D.C area. They have had this policy in effect long before the UIGEA.

In the proposed regulation the Agencies make it clear to the Indusrty that they do not have to wait for a final regualtion to start implementing these procedures. They even tell the banks how to do so for those who are not already doing so.

IMO all the UIGEA did was try to get the entire system to follow lockstep so that there are no holes in the system. By giving the banking system the liability clause they protected the Banking system from any back lash from on-line site operators as well as individual action.

This liability clause IMO is the real proof of the intention of the law. All individual banks could refuse the business of any individual customer for any or no reason. But when the entire system codifies a system wide rule there is a chance of individual action, but more so a potential class action claim in part based on a restraint of trade claim.

I know you firmly beleive that the Congress passed this law to appease the FoF anti-gambling people, and quite likely that influenced the politicans decisions. If for no other reason than to go back to them and say, "see I am with you."

But like in criminal cases and more so in politics it is more often realistic to "follow the money."

Maybe it was the B&M's attempt to shut down the growth of on-line poker, perhaps the banks weren't getting paid, perhaps the government was truly worried about money laundering and US citizens getting their first taste of the fun of off-shore unmonitored accounts, perhaps even the honest desire of some politicans to create some form of nanny state to protect us dumb citizens from ourselves, and even a very well organized FoF anti-gambling group desire to force their morals on the whole country.

To a large degree it really doesn't matter how we got to where we are today.

The question in politics is how to best apply your limited resources in a manner where it has the most impact and the best chance of sucess.

Also in all battles you want to make sure your efforts do not impede your efforts in other battles nor eliminate potential options let alone make future battles harder.

Politics is like all other forms of warfare, a good general thinks in multi-demensional terms, uses asymetrical warfare, and avoids battles on his enemies turf or terms.

Yes we comment on the proposed regualtions because we can. IMO I don't think we will or can change the ultimate result. You and possibly the crack team of lawyers advising the PPA and a few of us here disagree. I don't know if the effectiveness of the strategy might be compromised by explaining it to us or even if you know, but there does seem to be some concern about the ultimate benifit for all poker players.

Since a number of us will be meeting "live" in a few days perhaps we should spend a few minutes then to attempt to at least try to get more comfortable with any apporach. As we have all agreed there is no added points for the first comments, as well as the fact that identical comments only value is the number and possible weight assigned to them in the up comming review of them in the preperation for the published proposed final regualtion.

In that respect, I think there is some value to commenting on every section where the Agencies specifically request comment on each individual section, rather than a single over all comment, in the end you have a better chance of scoring a knock out hit in one of these efforts and even a decision based on total effective punches.

I am looking forward to the up comming meeting here in D.C. Perhaps some of you will see I am not the nut some of you think I am.

Perhaps not....


D$D

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest a tin foil hat theory that since the US banking system was not getting a big enough piece of the 1/3 of a Trillion dollars gambled on-line, that they whispered into a few ears and we got the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you continue to suggest this? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]

Why do you continue to suggest this? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


There's no use discouraging him, he wont go away.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I suggest a tin foil hat theory that since the US banking system was not getting a big enough piece of the 1/3 of a Trillion dollars gambled on-line, that they whispered into a few ears and we got the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you continue to suggest this? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

A bit of sarcasm. I firmly believe it but the notion as been equated to the level of a "tin foil hat" consparicy.

I suggest that there is plenty of evidence in the proposed rule alone to support the assertion, but I have been challenged that as well as my other "evidence" is some how lacking......


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This liability clause IMO is the real proof of the intention of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? The anti-gaming folks finally got their legislation through, and the bank lobbyists said something like, "whoa guys...the only way we can do that is if we're exempted from overblocking". None of us see WHY banks would want UIGEA. Are they trying to pass laws like UIGEA in Great Britain? Spain? On Internet horse racing? They only care that they don't get stiffed, as far as I can see. The T&C on your account don't prove they "hate gambling" or that there's some master conspiracy against us. Rather, it shows that they want to get paid, at least IMO.

You're entitled to your opinion, put the way you try to force it and everything else you think on everyone is getting old. Please relax and try to work with us. Thanks.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why do you continue to suggest this? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


There's no use discouraging him, he wont go away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, I would have to agree. His tripe has become a detriment to a serious discussion, in my opinion.

[JPFisher55]

TE, I'm curious. Has the PPA considered filing an Action for Declaratory Judgment requesting that online poker be declared not to violate the Wire Act when the regulations are final. I think that such litigation would be premature until that time. Also, the WTO and other court cases may solve the matter. But in the event that the regulations remain the same or get worse for online poker and other events do not resolve the matter, is the PPA prepared to lead or iniate litigation over the legality of online poker under federal law?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, I'm curious. Has the PPA considered filing an Action for Declaratory Judgment requesting that online poker be declared not to violate the Wire Act when the regulations are final. I think that such litigation would be premature until that time. Also, the WTO and other court cases may solve the matter. But in the event that the regulations remain the same or get worse for online poker and other events do not resolve the matter, is the PPA prepared to lead or iniate litigation over the legality of online poker under federal law?

[/ QUOTE ]

I sent your post to John Pappas. I'll post the reply.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This liability clause IMO is the real proof of the intention of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? The anti-gaming folks finally got their legislation through, and the bank lobbyists said something like, "whoa guys...the only way we can do that is if we're exempted from overblocking". None of us see WHY banks would want UIGEA. Are they trying to pass laws like UIGEA in Great Britain? Spain? On Internet horse racing? They only care that they don't get stiffed, as far as I can see. The T&C on your account don't prove they "hate gambling" or that there's some master conspiracy against us. Rather, it shows that they want to get paid, at least IMO.

You're entitled to your opinion, put the way you try to force it and everything else you think on everyone is getting old. Please relax and try to work with us. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The banks on debit card and check transactions get "paid" they even get paid on e-wallet transactions. As a business they can refuse to do business with any one they choose. There is no right to bank.

So other than on credit cards how are the not getting paid? Even then the amount of transactions vs the few they have to settle on they are making money.

Again and again I have aked for and not recieved a single reason for the basis of the reasoning for this hopeful comment strategy of the PPA's you keep pushing.

Even the constitution lawyer suggested that the Agencies as Executive branch could not do what you want them to do. That action requires Legislative branch action.

I have gone on to further suggest that since the banks are happy as evidenced by the Banking Industry spokeman in the Reuters article, no matter who was behind the UIGEA, that the Agencies chance of writing a definition favorable to poker is pretty slim.

You have run a popularity poll menaingless in an exchange of ideas, attempted to attacked my credibility, criquited my spelling and grammar, and shown no understanding of logic in attempting to respond to my ideas.

I have some experience in D.C. in politics and in regulatory matters, we have even spoken on the phone about my qualifications and John has my refrences. So it is not like I am a completely unknown quantity, as is so often the case on the internet.

All I have asked is some reasonable foundation upon which to judge the possible sucess of the course of action you claim is the best in dealing with this proposed regulation for the ultimate good of poker.

Your repeated methods in my opinion to seemingly avoid the real question does you more harm than good.

Is your best answer to date really "we comment on the propose regulation because we can"?


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This liability clause IMO is the real proof of the intention of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? The anti-gaming folks finally got their legislation through, and the bank lobbyists said something like, "whoa guys...the only way we can do that is if we're exempted from overblocking". None of us see WHY banks would want UIGEA. Are they trying to pass laws like UIGEA in Great Britain? Spain? On Internet horse racing? They only care that they don't get stiffed, as far as I can see. The T&C on your account don't prove they "hate gambling" or that there's some master conspiracy against us. Rather, it shows that they want to get paid, at least IMO.

You're entitled to your opinion, put the way you try to force it and everything else you think on everyone is getting old. Please relax and try to work with us. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The banks on debit card and check transactions get "paid" they even get paid on e-wallet transactions. As a business they can refuse to do business with any one they choose. There is no right to bank.

So other than on credit cards how are the not getting paid? Even then the amount of transactions vs the few they have to settle on they are making money.

Again and again I have aked for and not recieved a single reason for the basis of the reasoning for this hopeful comment strategy of the PPA's you keep pushing.

Even the constitution lawyer suggested that the Agencies as Executive branch could not do what you want them to do. That action requires Legislative branch action.

I have gone on to further suggest that since the banks are happy as evidenced by the Banking Industry spokeman in the Reuters article, no matter who was behind the UIGEA, that the Agencies chance of writing a definition favorable to poker is pretty slim.

You have run a popularity poll menaingless in an exchange of ideas, attempted to attacked my credibility, criquited my spelling and grammar, and shown no understanding of logic in attempting to respond to my ideas.

I have some experience in D.C. in politics and in regulatory matters, we have even spoken on the phone about my qualifications and John has my refrences. So it is not like I am a completely unknown quantity, as is so often the case on the internet.

All I have asked is some reasonable foundation upon which to judge the possible sucess of the course of action you claim is the best in dealing with this proposed regulation for the ultimate good of poker.

Your repeated methods in my opinion to seemingly avoid the real question does you more harm than good.

Is your best answer to date really "we comment on the propose regulation because we can"?


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. I'm done with your posts.

You have John Pappas' email address and phone number. If you have questions about the PPA I suggest you bring your concerns to his attention.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, the proposed regs say that one of the reasons they are not taking a position on what constitutes unlawful Internet gambling is that it can depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, including the location of the site. This is correct and unassailable IMO. For example, the answer to the question "Is PokerStars operating illegally under federal law?" would require answers to many questions, such as where are they located, what games are available, what states are they operating in, and dozens of other questions, etc.

Explicitly stating in legislation that the legislation is not altering the legality/illegality of Internet gambling practices is the same thing as not defining unlawful Internet gambling, as least as to the "unlawful" part, which is what we are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA is recommending requesting a defininition of the term "unlawful Internet gambling" because that's what's best for poker. There's little risk in the regs defining UIG to include Internet poker. First of all, it isn't unlawful. Secondly (and most importantly), if they could have done that, they would have in the first place. After all, Treasury is part of the Executive branch, under President Bush.

An additional benefit to this is that creating the definition would take months if not years (especially if horse racing fights back with us), delaying implementation of the regs. The regs themselves state the difficulty of defining this. We benefit both in terms of the administration change and in getting extra time to pass pro-poker legislation. We can post 1,000 different ways to do it, or tell them to just do it, but they'll have to respond to all of them. Let's just be clear that we want poker excluded. They may or may not do this, but they won't do it if no one asks, so let's all get to writing. Thanks.

Edited by Berge per TE

[TheEngineer]

So, please post comments to the regs. The bottom line is that we don't have to worry about hurting anything. There are no "wrong" comments so long as they advocate for our right to play poker. Either follow the PPA talking points or post your own, based on your reading of the regs. We need quality, but we also need quantity. Thanks everyone! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, the proposed regs say that one of the reasons they are not taking a position on what constitutes unlawful Internet gambling is that it can depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, including the location of the site. This is correct and unassailable IMO. For example, the answer to the question "Is PokerStars operating illegally under federal law?" would require answers to many questions, such as where are they located, what games are available, what states are they operating in, and dozens of other questions, etc.

Explicitly stating in legislation that the legislation is not altering the legality/illegality of Internet gambling practices is the same thing as not defining unlawful Internet gambling, as least as to the "unlawful" part, which is what we are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA is recommending requesting a defininition of the term "unlawful Internet gambling" because creating the definition would take months if not years (especially if horse racing fights back with us), delaying implementation of the regs. The regs themselves state the difficulty of defining this. We benefit both in terms of the administration change and in getting extra time to pass pro-poker legislation. We can post 1,000 different ways to do it, or tell them to just do it, but they'll have to respond to all of them. Let's just be clear that we want poker excluded. They may or may not do this, but they won't do it if no one asks, so let's all get to writing. Thanks.

There's little risk in the regs defining UIG to include Internet poker. First of all, it isn't. Secondly (and most importantly), if they could have done that, they would have in the first place. After all, Treasury is part of the Executive branch, under President Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you this was all I asked for from the begining.



D$D

[TheEngineer]

I posted it as soon as I had concurrence from PPA to share it.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I posted it as soon as I had concurrence from PPA to share it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize for any disruption my not understanding that you were not able to post more information sooner or hard feelings that my strident posts may have caused in the interum.


D$D

[Robin Foolz]

view submitted public comments at the fed web site. so far, 17 ppl have commented through the fed.
linky (http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/index.cfm?doc_id=R%2D1298&doc_ver=1)

[JPFisher55]

I can't find the comments, but I know that list is not complete. I have submitted three comments and am not listed.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't find the comments, but I know that list is not complete. I have submitted three comments and am not listed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they take a while to get posted.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
view submitted public comments at the fed web site. so far, 17 ppl have commented through the fed.
linky (http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/index.cfm?doc_id=R%2D1298&doc_ver=1)

[/ QUOTE ]

There are now 21 comments available for viewing. 20 are pro-gaming (most are specifically pro-poker).

Let's keep writing.

[Robin Foolz]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't find the comments, but I know that list is not complete. I have submitted three comments and am not listed.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree it's prolly not complete and, like engineer said, i think it takes a while to update. btw, just click on the names to view their comments. you will need acrobat reader as the comments are encoded in .pdf format.