guesses on when partypoker becomes #1 again?

[[Phill]]

[ QUOTE ]
Look kids: The United States does not have juridiction outside its borders. Neteller was not set up on U.S. soil, it was based in the Isle of Man, floated on the London Stock exchange, regulated by the FSA and its servers were based outside the US. Therefore they have no jurisdiction. It's that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your so right, thanks for the info!

[iggymcfly]

[ QUOTE ]
edited to add: unless your implying the sites would drop US players voluntarily

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what I was implying. With both Pinnacle and Neteller dropping out of the market voluntarily before the US was even ready to enforce the legislation they passed, I think it make even more likely that the major poker sites will be leaving the market when said legislation does start to be implemented.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
Look kids: The United States does not have juridiction outside its borders.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Offense, but this is an extremely inaccurate description of U.S. and international law. Even if this statement were accurate, we're not talking about 'alleged' crimes that are occurring outside of the U.S.'s borders.

[PocketAces]

[ QUOTE ]

Look kids: The United States does not have juridiction outside its borders. Pokersites are not set up on U.S. soil. Therefore they have no jurisdiction. It's that simple.



[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, you're not a lawyer. A better answer is, if a person (even a foreign one) does business in our country, it's subject to our courts. Poker sites in general have gone to great lengths to establish their domicile in foreign countries, but the fact is many of them rely on American players for much of their revenue. Thus, they are subject to our laws and our legal system, notwithstanding their self-serving comments. Just because they strongly believe that's not the case doesn't make it so.

[jaminbird]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look kids: The United States does not have juridiction outside its borders.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Offense, but this is an extremely inaccurate description of U.S. and international law. Even if this statement were accurate, we're not talking about 'alleged' crimes that are occurring outside of the U.S.'s borders.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but in the international context a country's jurisdiction is defined as the territory over which authority is exercised. The U.S. simply cannot walk into Gibraltar and start arresting people. Why? Because they don't have jurisdiction. There certainly are many ways for the U.S. to put pressure on companies, by doing things like arresting their employees when they touch u.s. soil or forcing U.S. banks to stop working with them. However, since there is so much money to be made I am confident that some companies will be able to withstand these pressures (unlike party and neteller) in which case there is nothing the U.S. can do about it.

[jaminbird]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Look kids: The United States does not have juridiction outside its borders. Pokersites are not set up on U.S. soil. Therefore they have no jurisdiction. It's that simple.



[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, you're not a lawyer. A better answer is, if a person (even a foreign one) does business in our country, it's subject to our courts. Poker sites in general have gone to great lengths to establish their domicile in foreign countries, but the fact is many of them rely on American players for much of their revenue. Thus, they are subject to our laws and our legal system, notwithstanding their self-serving comments. Just because they strongly believe that's not the case doesn't make it so.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is true that the companies by doing business with u.s. citizens have established continuous and systematic contacts sufficient to give the U.S. courts jurisdiction over them. However, all extradition treaties require that the act be a crime in both countries. So while a U.S. court would have the jurisdiction to indict the head of a company, if they can't get the host country to extradite, how are they supposed to actually stop them?

[JayA]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Look kids: The United States does not have juridiction outside its borders. Pokersites are not set up on U.S. soil. Therefore they have no jurisdiction. It's that simple.



[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, you're not a lawyer. A better answer is, if a person (even a foreign one) does business in our country, it's subject to our courts. Poker sites in general have gone to great lengths to establish their domicile in foreign countries, but the fact is many of them rely on American players for much of their revenue. Thus, they are subject to our laws and our legal system, notwithstanding their self-serving comments. Just because they strongly believe that's not the case doesn't make it so.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is true that the companies by doing business with u.s. citizens have established continuous and systematic contacts sufficient to give the U.S. courts jurisdiction over them. However, all extradition treaties require that the act be a crime in both countries. So while a U.S. court would have the jurisdiction to indict the head of a company, if they can't get the host country to extradite, how are they supposed to actually stop them?

[/ QUOTE ]

So do you think Party and Neteller are just being too precautious or overthinking this act?

[jaminbird]

I think since they are publicly traded companies they have a duty to their shareholders to not put their company at unnecessary risk.

On the other hand a closely held company like WSEX for example, does not have this duty and can assume the risks if they want. I've heard that the WSEX people are already under indictment, but so what? The U.S. governemnet can't go there and arrest them and their host country won't extradite them.

[JayA]

Makes sense. Do you think that other sites such as Click2Pay, epassporte, etc. and other poker sites such as Full Tilt and Stars will follow that same path or what?

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I think since they are publicly traded companies they have a duty to their shareholders to not put their company at unnecessary risk.

On the other hand a closely held company like WSEX for example, does not have this duty and can assume the risks if they want. I've heard that the WSEX people are already under indictment, but so what? The U.S. governemnet can't go there and arrest them and their host country won't extradite them.

[/ QUOTE ]



Additionally, it would seem the U.S. legislation which allows horse-racing, lottery and other stuff online but expressly prohibits banks from allowing transactions to foreign online-gambling entities is completely contradictory to the WTO decision last year.

The U.S. is not complying.

They can set up their own laws in their country and thumb their nose at the WTO and it probably won't be a big deal (my understanding anyway).
But there is an international court in place here. And it has already ruled against the U.S. on this on their 'moral grounds' argument because it runs so contradictory to all the other gambling that is allowed in the U.S.


This means that later on down the road, if it were to come to it, places like Gibraltar should feel even less compelled to comply with any U.S. pressure on such stuff.


I do think that Party, Neteller and Pinnacle are being overly cautious here.
But the public-ownership aspect of Party and Neteller appear to be a big driving force with them.


I'm a little concerned about Stars and FT following suit.
It certainly COULD happen. Wouldn't exactly shock me or anything.

But I think that's a far cry from saying that they DEFINITELY aren't going to be around in 6 months as so many seem to think.

I'm more confident that Bodog and WSEX will continue to find ways to stay in the U.S. market.
Slightly less confident about FT and Stars.


But it's hardly a guarantee that Stars and many other sites are going to bite the dust.

This isn't unwarranted optimism. It's just a more practical mindset than thinking the U.S. govt is going to shut them down.


I am slightly concerned about the long-term health of the games themselves though.
I have no problem waiting for a few weeks for a cash-out check from Stars. No biggie.

But we won't be seeing 100k+ players on Stars every night if it isn't convenient for American players to place their deposits.

Again though, I don't think this is going to be a huge deal either.
Even if I had to play just a single-table on 5 different sites that had 20 players each I believe it would still be better than getting a regular job.

Lots of people seem to be extremely concerned about losing all the fish and never being able to make a profit ever again.
One rememdy to that issue of the VP-90 players potentially vanishing is to actually get better at poker.