[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, if you want a precise definition of unlawful internet gambling along the lines of the UIGEA that is most favorable to us without court challenge to the few state laws expressly prohibiting one or more forms of Internet gambling, then how about the following.

Unlawful internet gambling is defined to mean placing, receiving or otherwise knowingly transmitting a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager (1) involves, or is related to, a sporting event or sporting contest; except for horse racing, (2) involves, or is related to, a game of chance, contest, card game or other event that a statute of the state in which the bank resides expressly prohibits the use of the Internet to place, receive or otherwise transmit such bet or wager or (3) involves, or is related to, a game of chance, contest, card game or other event, and the state in which the bank resides expressly prohibits, by statute, all Internet gambling.

Since I have written lots of contract, I am pretty handy with these types of terms and definitions. I won't pretend to be the foremost expert, but usually lawyers who have reviewed my contracts had few complaints.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this in on the right track, but maybe focusing on the state the bank is domiciled in is incorrect? If it's legal for me to bet in Nevada but I bank on-line with a bank in Delaware, whose law should the bank apply? Seems to me my transaction is legal and the Delaware bank should let it go through.

Also, why specify card games? Why not say a game "predominantly determined by chance" which leaves us wiggle room for the standard "poker is a game of skill argument"?