What is your definition of Regulation?

[SNOWBALL]

I think regulations could potentially be very very bad. They might make the highest limit available 5/10 LHE or 100NL. They might tax it so badly that the rake goes up really high. They might place waiting periods on sign-ups. The more I think about it the more sick I get.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
We already pay taxes.The real crush of regulation would be on the sites.Those are the ones who are not paying taxes,not the players.Although,this taxing of poker sites could effect us as well,by companies who try to pass their new burden to players through higher rake.Free market would hopefully control this to an extent.At least this would seem logical.How exactly does it work in other countries where it is regulated and sites are taxed???If someone who lives somewhere like this could chime in and explain the actual effects that would be great.It is a very interesting question,and id like to hear from someone who is living it,what the reality of playing online poker under government regulation is.

[/ QUOTE ]

The situation in the UK is like this. The betting shops (William Hill, Ladbrokes etc) pay a 15% levy of their take to the taxman, this is on top of their normal corporation tax etc. This replaced a 9% tax on all bets (you could pay it placing a bet or lose it from your winnings, this was the only UK tax on gambling winnings). The bookies agreed to this deal a few years back and have since concentrated on upping their revenues via electronic terminals in shops etc so that both the bookies and the taxman get more - as a result of an increase in gambling. The punters are happy as they feel 9% better off and given the competition of betting exchanges the bookies have not been able to fix the book by anything like 9%.

In Gibraltar/Antigua etc it is a bit less clear as they don't talk about it but the scuttle but is that taxes are about 1% of revenues. The UK gov is yet to outline what tax regime they would have for dedicated online operations, they would like 15% as this way it matches the B&M operations but it's unlikely anyone would come onshore at this rate. The problem for the UK is if they set a lower rate the local firms will go "Oi, what about us" and the treasury wants the money. It's likely they will need an online/B&M difference but this would make all the bookies try and push all the punters online.

Anyway the conference was not just about regulation it was also about taxation. They will not admit it but the 32 governments were trying to get a cartel where they all agreed a minimum tax take. Gib/Antigua may not be keen to lose their competitive advantage but today's press with gov ministers putting pressure on the Treasury by talking about nobody coming onshore suggests they made progress but not near 15%.

My guess 5% and an agreement to work on joint regulation so that a licence in 1 country can be ported to another for a fee and a cut of the 5% on revenues from that market. This is just a guess though, the negotiations will be long.

In short though the tax on the companies should not really hit the rake or the punter much, it is likely to hit the house margin in a competitive market. We all know they are making superprofits today, the market will push the rake down and because only authorised sites will be allowed to advertise the real market will be of regulated sites.

[5thStreetHog]

Thanks for the reply.

[AAAA]

representative kasper from ND indicated he thought the state could get the IRS to accept a Net win/loss for the year instead of each session. IMO it would be better for the government to run the room rather than try to tax it. there is an extra level of expense if the companies try to run the rooms.

perhaps in its infancy, this would have been a bad idea, but now that things have pretty much settled down with changes in software and such...i think it is a reasonable thing for a government to do.

years ago i read a book where there were no taxes at all except for a voluntary gambling game that people enjoyed playing! perhaps the time has come!

[pig4bill]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gambling is legalized and regulated at the state level.

[/ QUOTE ]
Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. They could easily pass a law with respect to internet gambling that preempts state laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the 535 people sent BY THE 50 STATES to congress are going to pass a law that throws out gambling laws in those 50 STATES?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not saying they will, he's saying they can.

[/ QUOTE ]

They will? They can?

They did.

Most of you are dreaming. The intent of the law they passed was not to regulate or tax internet gambling, it was to ban it.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gambling is legalized and regulated at the state level.

[/ QUOTE ]
Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. They could easily pass a law with respect to internet gambling that preempts state laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the 535 people sent BY THE 50 STATES to congress are going to pass a law that throws out gambling laws in those 50 STATES?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not saying they will, he's saying they can.

[/ QUOTE ]

They will? They can?

They did.

Most of you are dreaming. The intent of the law they passed was not to regulate or tax internet gambling, it was to ban it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's look at reality. The new law


1. does not "ban" internet gambling or have any affect unless an old Federal or State law already "banned" it, then perhaps we can agree it "bans it more" if you insist

2. helps enforce old laws, making them more effective, does not throw them out at all

3. adds more possible penalties for existing lawbreakers

4. does not apply to current and future lawful internet gambling if a State has that

5. might lead to "disabling of access" to websites

6. does not change whether your play is illegal or legal

7. prohibits a site from accepting funds in relation to previously "banned" gambling

and more.

Nothing about what Congress did changes anti-gambling laws that have been in place for years; gambling was "banned" by these and some has been legalized. The only way I see a blanket change of State law is a Federal Constitutional amendment.

[jackaaron]

I do not want, and never have wanted regulation. I've said in other posts that it would be worse than what we have even right now. Two quick points...

First, I don't think fish are going to stop coming to play with us. New fish will not come for a while, however. I CERTAINLY haven't seen a drop off of bad players that I've been playing against recently. Fish like to play, and they don't know they're fish. Some of them come to this site, for that matter.

Second, if we were to regulate, ONLY the good players would be harmed. The fish lose money, so I don't consider them being harmed any more than they already were. We lose money because I would have to imagine we would pay higher rake in some way. Or, in more general terms, with regulation, we will pay more money to play.

As has been stated before, nothing really changes for us in terms of playing. Depositing will be "different" but I don't think it will be harder for fish. They're fish, but that just means they can't play poker well. It doesn't mean they can't find ways to get their money on sites. I do not want our government to regulate online poker.

[Doom_Switch]

I couldn't disagree with you more. There are so many benefits to US regulation:

1. Would bring legitimacy to sites
2. Legitimacy would spawn a huge influx of new US players
3. Would bring English speaking support and likely phone support to the sites
4. Help US government generate additional revenue from taxes. ND is proposing legalization and regulation to lower property taxes. Sweden Svenka is a good example of a government run site that has already generated millions.
5. Eliminate delayed cashouts from sites
6. Additional deposit methods (credit card, etc..) would create huge influx of deposits
7. Would create huge influx of international players
8. Would put a stop to most "poker is rigged" discussions
9. Would end valuable politicians' time in banning poker so they can concentrate their efforts on more meaningful issues
10. Would help me avoid shady underground cardrooms
11. Would help me save gas on driving to nearest casino an hour north of me
12. Would end all doom switches
13. It would mean more competition which in turn would probably significantly lower rake
14. More competition would probably create better bonuses
15. Help prevent any offshore mafia run operations
16. Create new job opportunities for software programmers, audit consultants in US
17. Prevent Neteller cashout delays
18. Licensing would prevent shady characters such as Ruth Parasoul and Carlos Ayre from running billion dollar businesses

[Ace upmy Slv]

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't disagree with you more. There are so many benefits to US regulation:

1. Would bring legitimacy to sites
2. Legitimacy would spawn a huge influx of new US players
3. Would bring English speaking support and likely phone support to the sites
4. Help US government generate additional revenue from taxes. ND is proposing legalization and regulation to lower property taxes. Sweden Svenka is a good example of a government run site that has already generated millions.
5. Eliminate delayed cashouts from sites
6. Additional deposit methods (credit card, etc..) would create huge influx of deposits
7. Would create huge influx of international players
8. Would put a stop to most "poker is rigged" discussions
9. Would end valuable politicians' time in banning poker so they can concentrate their efforts on more meaningful issues
10. Would help me avoid shady underground cardrooms
11. Would help me save gas on driving to nearest casino an hour north of me
12. Would end all doom switches
13. It would mean more competition which in turn would probably significantly lower rake
14. More competition would probably create better bonuses
15. Help prevent any offshore mafia run operations
16. Create new job opportunities for software programmers, audit consultants in US
17. Prevent Neteller cashout delays
18. Licensing would prevent shady characters such as Ruth Parasoul and Carlos Ayre from running billion dollar businesses

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with most of these points. Look at it this way. Was poker(especially Holdem) better off in back rooms, shady settings and smoke filled basements before it was a popular Casino game? Or, is it better off at the casinos now, with 100 tables per casino and fish everywhere? Although it's not quite the same, I think regulation would have a similiar effect to online poker.

P.S. Doom, can you please leave at least 1 or 2 5/10 games at FT open for me? Lol. 8 tables, 5 sharks per table and 1 little itty bitty fish swimming around all those tanks. What the hell happened! Guess it's omaha for a while where people sometimes can't help themselves....