![]() |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Actually, IMO if a federal law giving poker this exemption is passed, then, under a line of cases referred to as the dormant commerce clause cases, that exemption would preempt state laws on online gambling. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly. I ask again, why would PPA then need to promote regulation of something that has just been made perfectly legal? [/ QUOTE ] It would not appeal to a libertarian but regulation can be used to help problem gamblers, ordinary players and help promote the game to a wider audience. In Sept 2007 any UK based site will have to do quite a few "good" things because of the regulations. Ok things a site could choose to do anyway but under the regs they must... Hold players money in a segregated account Pay out promptly Clearly and accurately show the odds (casino etc not poker really) Ensure the games are fair and have them tested/audited Make users set deposit limits per week/month Show users what their total loss/win is Show users how long they have been playing that session Ensure all registered players are over 18 Allow players to self exclude Link to gambling help sites/groups Have a responsible gambling policy Seek to identify and help problem gamblers Pay towards gambling research and gambling welfare services Be "fit and proper" people - no crims. Monitor for and report potential money laundering activities. After all this they get official sanction which makes the site more attractive to the casual player. (More Fish) |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|