|
|
#31
09-30-2006, 02:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Are players at risk?
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you are lucky enough to have won a trip and an entry into an upcoming EPT Event, where you will be wearing the Poker Site's gear during the tournament? Would there be any risk there? Any danger coming back through Customs? [/ QUOTE ] WTF?!?! "Sorry sir. Your shirt has a PokerStars logo on it so we can't let you into our country." This is one of the sillyest Q's of the day. And we've seen a LOT of silly Q's. 
|
|
#32
09-30-2006, 02:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Are players at risk?
no
|
|
#33
09-30-2006, 02:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Are players at risk?
Are players at risk? I am afraid they are. Section 5363 states: "No person egaged in the business of betting or wagering may accept ...." If you play poker, you are in the business of betting. THis clearly can be construed to include the player.
|
|
#34
09-30-2006, 02:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very good breakdown of the bill
Harrah's is regulated by the Nevada Gaming Control Board (I believe that's the name). The NGCB allowed Harrah's in 2006 to have wink-wink agreements with the .net sites, because they weren't illegal online gambling. They allowed the sites to buy-in directly for their players.
Do you honestly believe that the Nevada gaming regulatory authorities will allow a licensed casino to have dealings with an entity that's illegal? Nevada gaming authorities already tightened their rules in August (remember how players couldn't wear ".com" logowear)? Accepting advertising for an illegal entity is generally illegal.
|
|
#35
09-30-2006, 02:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Are players at risk?
[ QUOTE ]
Any danger coming back through Customs? [/ QUOTE ] Just hire a coyote and cross the border from Mexico.
|
|
#36
09-30-2006, 02:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very good breakdown of the bill
No logic to that one, chief.
|
|
#37
09-30-2006, 02:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very good breakdown of the bill
Guess we need that too.
|
|
#38
09-30-2006, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very good breakdown of the bill
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Unlawful Internet Gambling that starts on line 13 of page 221 and runs through line 2 of page 228. 7 pages are devoted to spelling out this definition. This is where it says that betting on poker or sports is different than betting in a casino or horse racing. Very long, but pretty straight forward. [/ QUOTE ] Can someone please logically explain why Online Casino's and Horse Racing are legal? [/ QUOTE ] Didn't the AG in his response to Antigua's WTO challenge say that online betting on horseracing would not be permitted? [/ QUOTE ] Because they have lots of money, lots of US Voters playing and because some in the Senate have received donations from them. Need more be said?
|
|
#39
09-30-2006, 02:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A very good breakdown of the bill
[ QUOTE ]
Limitation relating to Interactive Computer Services. Line 1 page 239. This is a key section and it all comes down to the definition of “interactive computer services”. In subparagraph A, line 6 page 239, it states that disabling access and removing links to online sites is necessary THAT RESIDE ON A COMPUTER SERVER THAT SUCH SERVICE CONTROLS AND OPERATES. From what I understand, this means hosting services, not ISP’s. So if a US company is hosting Pinnacle, they have to stop and not provide access. This is yet to be clarified and I am not ruling out that this includes ISP’s, but it is my opinion right now that it does not include ISP’s. [/ QUOTE ] Sooo... does this mean that affiliates and other web sites (like 2+2) hosted in the US have to remove links (read that as Ads) directly linking to poker sites???... effective the date the bill is signed...
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
