So worst case scenario with banks still no biggie?

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
There are perfectly legal ways around the financial blocks even if banks can successfully and completely shutdown transfers to sites/neteller and, for that matter, there are ways around the ISP blocks. There are two issues here though:

1. The sites might not take business from US customers. I THINK that the bigger sites would probably ignore this/find a way to get by, but the distinct possibility remains, as Lawman would tell you, that the sites won't accept American business at all.

2. If anything passes and there is even a perception that online poker is illegal, the fish population will decrease severely. Providing that its still possible for us to play, the games will not be as profitable. This is the major issue in my view.

Cliffnotes - ANY anti gambling legislation passing = very, very bad

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true, Dude. Just some comments,

1)I doubt they'd shut out US customers if there are workarounds due to the money involved. Sites get a few billion a year from the US? They'll look for a workaround and get the word out, billions beats possible jail time for CEO's almost every time.

2) I agree the fish pop wil decrease somewhat but...
a)some good players will also quit due to fear of the US gov.
b)Some fish won't care. They enjoy poker or they think they're winners.
c)DLing music and movies is also illegal and individual DLers have been sued for DLing. Hasn't been stopped.

[dibbs]

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed this is very scary. At the same time there are SO many Americans playing its hard to imagine internet poker just vanishing in the U.S. Although I am worried, luckily i have a fiance who is from Costa Rica and we will move their if i cant play in the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

I imagine the issue isnt that if you really want to you cant play online poker anywhere in the US, where theres a will theres a way and the grinders will still probably be there, thing is the games will die because the shark/fish ratio will be way off and it will just become unprofitable. That was my understanding of the situation anyways, I dont know what the new language of the current threat is though.

[cognito20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are perfectly legal ways around the financial blocks even if banks can successfully and completely shutdown transfers to sites/neteller and, for that matter, there are ways around the ISP blocks. There are two issues here though:

1. The sites might not take business from US customers. I THINK that the bigger sites would probably ignore this/find a way to get by, but the distinct possibility remains, as Lawman would tell you, that the sites won't accept American business at all.

2. If anything passes and there is even a perception that online poker is illegal, the fish population will decrease severely. Providing that its still possible for us to play, the games will not be as profitable. This is the major issue in my view.

Cliffnotes - ANY anti gambling legislation passing = very, very bad

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true, Dude. Just some comments,

1)I doubt they'd shut out US customers if there are workarounds due to the money involved. Sites get a few billion a year from the US? They'll look for a workaround and get the word out, billions beats possible jail time for CEO's almost every time.

2) I agree the fish pop wil decrease somewhat but...
a)some good players will also quit due to fear of the US gov.
b)Some fish won't care. They enjoy poker or they think they're winners.
c)DLing music and movies is also illegal and individual DLers have been sued for DLing. Hasn't been stopped.

[/ QUOTE ]

d) Not all fish are American. Still plenty of fishies out there to catch for those of us in the US with access to proxy servers and bank accounts we opened in the Turks and Caicos the last time we visited our in-laws' family in Nassau. :-P

This proposed "ban" will not stop me from playing, for those reasons. The games will become a bit less profitable, but there are still going to be plenty of bad European/Asian/Australian players out there for the good players to feast on. Eventually, the poker sites will figure out a way around any legislation Congress might pass, and I plan on ignoring it in any event. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

--Scott

[Lost_My_Stink]

Please everyone note that Lawman007 is up to his old tricks again. He is a domesayer that has never offered anything other than reactionary foolishness. It almost seems as if he'd like the ban to go though soo he could say I told you so to everyone.

For anyone who is interested in the best analysis of the current situation, I suggest you refer to posts from Mr K and NatethaGreat and ignore the speculative garbage (either end of the spectrum) that occupies most of these legislation strings.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
He is a domesayer

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that anything like a doomsayer, Einstein? LOL

[ginko]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem isn't that we couldn't play poker.



[/ QUOTE ]


Uhhh actually this is a problem.

There will always be fish. Europeans, asians, canadians, hard core americans.

Remember, a fish is the weakest player on the table. So at a table full of big name pros like phil ivey etc, you become the fish.

Who says online poker isnt going to remain profitable for me and others? You cant make that judgement, so please just stick to answering the question that was asked.

"the fish will be gone", ive heard 10000000001 times, and its getting really old.

[DuderinoAB]

No the fish won't be gone, but I'd rather someone else be the fish and not me...get the idea?

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
No the fish won't be gone, but I'd rather someone else be the fish and not me...get the idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL nh, sir

[scorer]

If player base decreases how would poker sites get players to sign up and play more, bonuses and higher rakeback. These sites make a ton and can still give back alot more then they do and still be rich.

[ShakeZula06]

Can someone change Lawman's title to "Biggest troll on 2+2"?