[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The T&C's we accepted when joining the various sites,without reading in most cases, give them this right.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect as a matter of law. See my earlier posts in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

sethypooh21: This statement is correct only if you also presume a jurisdiction that would bring higher legal principles to bear upon the site TOS. I live in the U.S. and as much as I might like to believe that the power of America reaches everywhere - the facts are that it does not both physically and legally - and so if we're talking about the 3rd world jurisdiction of Wallaboomba then the risk to the player will be according to the practices there regardless of what the major national jurisdictions would want otherwise.

I agree with your statement completely in the context of major jurisdictions and I think there are more than a few instances of site TOS wording that would be struck down due to higher legal precepts.

However, even if we allow a context of say the state of Nevada and a major LV strip casino online site, there are still major problems involving policeability where the online game is concerned. The online game as it exists right now is NOT policeable in any real way above and beyond a "he said she said" level (as in the recent 2+2 threads). Real policeability means that the gaming authority has the ability to know what is true and what is not true such that they can sort through complaints and accusations from any entity involved - site, player, other, etc.

Here is a short list of complaints that are impossible to police at present:

1) Player complains that the site is skewing the shuffle.

A site can know they are shuffling honestly but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party. To really clue in here, just pause for a moment and compare what is possible with a live b&m shuffle and what is possible with a software shuffle where that software runs on a secure sever entirely under the control of the operator.

2) Player complains that the site is hinting house players.

A site can know they are properly containing all sensitive game information (i.e. all card info) but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party. To really clue in here, just pause for a moment and compare what is possible with a live b&m game and what is possible with a client/server setup where the client/server software and the internet connection between them is entirely within the control of the site operator.

3) Player complains that another player is using restricted software help (bots, trackers, calculators)

The other player can know they are playing according to the site TOS but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party.

4) Player complains that other players are colluding.

The other players can know they are playing according to the site TOS but they cannot prove it to a 3rd party.

Note that citing motive is not a reasonable defense against these accusations (i.e. the typical "The house has zero motive to cheat" argument posed many times here in 2+2 threads)

Items 3&4 can be resolved by striking all TOS wording that forbids those actions in the first place thus rendering the complaints as meaningless (popular? probably not. doable? yes very easily). The gaming authority doesn't have to lift a finger in these cases; problem solved.

Items 1&2 are much more serious and cannot be resolved with changes to the TOS because they have to do with that actual game mechanics themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

As to points one and two, I assume that there would be no actual evidence of skewing the deal or hinting house players so said cases would be summarily dismissed on motion. If there was indeed evidence of skewing or hinting, let the sun shine down on it for everyone to review.

B&M have operated in this environment for years--heavy regulation, and must be able to demostrate that they are above reproach. And they are making billions.

I believe that Stars and probably Party would welcome regulation, if it came hand in hand with credit card acceptance, easy cashouts, etc.

These are not insurmountable obstacles. Every industry that operates globally faces them. In fact, online poker is easier to regulate that most industries because the product --a fair game -- is forever recorded in the hand histories.

As for bots and the like, I think tthat everyone is in agreement that they shouldn't be used.

Try getting that kind of data or that kind of consensus on an issue on like say, the acceptable level of greenhouse gas emissions by automobiles.