[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to see the Wexler bill pass. However, I wonder if it would help us transfer money between online poker sites and our bank accounts. Currently, we have one ewallet Epassporte open to the US and it serves a minority of poker sites open to US.
So if online poker is exempted from UIGEA and the Wire Act, would online gambling sites separate their poker sites from the rest of their gambling services so that Epassporte would service them. How many ewallets would service only online poker sites? I fear that to get back a Neteller type company that serves all online poker sites, we need legalization of all online gambling.
Also, Skall, I think that Jay is right about the WTO stance on gambling. I do not think that the WTO will accept separation of poker from gambling. I suspect that they would include betting on backgammon, bridge and chess, which the DOJ strangely (given Ms. Hanaway's testimony) does not prosecute, as gambling under the WTO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think we'd need e-wallets with Wexler's bill, as poker would be explicitly legal. Seems we'd just move money into and out of poker-only sites just via standard methods (echecks, credit cards, etc).

As for the WTO, I guess we don't know what they'd do if the U.S. presented a plan that doesn't discriminate between foreign and domestic suppliers and claimed it settled the dispute. After all, the current U.S. strategy has been to tell the WTO that "we're doing what we're doing and screw off if you don't like it". I tend to agree with you and Jay here, but there is a potential that they could accept different non-discriminary options. This would have been more likely three or four years ago. The judgments against the U.S. since then have reduced this likelihood, of course.

I hope it all opens up via WTO pressure, of course. That would be ideal.