My micros suggestion

[Bilgefisher]

[ QUOTE ]
Tex,

In the interest of fairness of argument, would you post the last PM I sent you on this subject as to why I don't think this is the case. Unfortunately, I forgot to check the box to save it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very curious on your thoughts as well wookie.

My take, I think its easy to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon. To be honest though, I think the american casinos would have had an easier time legalizing online gaming and opening their own sites, then trying to block poker and start anew. IMO within a year they would dominate the american market. All those people who fear the "online is rigged" would be far more willing to play if it were under the name of MGM, Harrah's, or some other big name. Hell, I would even feel safer with my money at an american site.

[MrWookie]

Done! And there's no way it'd take a year for an American company or two to conquer online poker. I'd set the o/u at a month, and I'd still take the under. The only thing that would stop them would be shooting themselves in the foot with completely uncompetitive rake, software, or bonus programs, and I'm sure they'd have enough $ to hire a chimp who's smart enough to just copy all the other sites wrt #1 and #3. Number 2 is harder, but knowing how much they'll have invested in success, they will be able to do it.

[detruncate]

[ QUOTE ]

There will be no shame in dropping levels because the games are going to be harder. I'll have to look at the games to figure out what level I want to play at, but I'm willing to drop back down to .50/1 and work my way back up again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. Game selection will get harder for sure... we'll have to see about the rest. The worst part of all this is that we're likely to retain the serious US players and lose the gamb000000l crowd. So yeah... probably. But it depends some on how many US players pack it in + how good the sites that ban US players end up being.

[Bilgefisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There will be no shame in dropping levels because the games are going to be harder. I'll have to look at the games to figure out what level I want to play at, but I'm willing to drop back down to .50/1 and work my way back up again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. Game selection will get harder for sure... we'll have to see about the rest. The worst part of all this is that we're likely to retain the serious US players and lose the gamb000000l crowd. So yeah... probably. But it depends some on how many US players pack it in + how good the sites that ban US players end up being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ive been thinking about this a little bit. Truth is, its hard to say what will happen to the fish pond. Yes many may go, but many that were on party poker and paradise may start flooding other sites. I for one would love to see more fish at tougher sites like AP. Can you imagine juicy games plus rakeback and bonuses. Happy days. Like I said though, time will tell.

[KingOtter]

I didn't mean to open up a big conversation concerning the bill and further ramifications, since that's being discussed quite a bit elsewhere.

I don't subscribe to the idea that it's a conspiracy. I didn't mean to give that impression. Just some players that might have been able to fight it, or change it, may not have because they might see this as an opportunity.

For instance, the banking lobby was able to get in and change the language in the bill (I think they got in and changed it so they couldn't be held liable). So a big enough lobby could have affected this outcome.

Wookie's saying the impression was the bill would pass the Senate. I could have sworn I read that it wasn't likely to pass the Senate. The mysterious 'hold' could have just been jockeying and using it as a political tool... 'you vote yes on xx bill and I'll vote no on yy bill'. Who knows in what favor it could have been (maybe someone who wanted it defeated was offering their vote for other things to get it there).

I also think the Republicans feel this is important to pass because Abramoff was tied to the first one, and they want to wipe his taint from their hands. So the reason it passed with such a majority in the House was because the representatives were showing they had no loyalty to Abramoff.

I'm just a spectator, taking it all in, so I'm probably 85% wrong. I just feel you can't take things at face value. 'Party's closing their doors to US players because they're scared.' No, I don't think so. A company with that much vested in it isn't scared. They have an idea.

Who knows...we're probably all 85% wrong.

Edit: looked up some news articles from the time the HR bill passed and it seems the consensus was it was such a low priority that the Senate probably wouldn't get to it. So maybe I confused 'low priority' with 'low chance of passage'.

[stormy455]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing the act clearly defines is that illegal gambling operations cannot receive funds for the purposes of bets or wagers from the US.... not making the bets themselves.


[/ QUOTE ] FYP
This may be key. If online poker is not illegal, then it would not be illegal for an online poker site to accept funds for playing poker. As you pointed out the act does not say what is illegal. It relies on existing state and federal laws to define that. For instance, despite what the department of justice thinks, the wire act only makes sports betting illegal. State laws vary, but from what I've seen very few make online poker explicitly illegal. I suspect that there will be litigation over this, and the courts will weigh in on what's legal and what's not.

FWIW, I'm not a lawyer and I don't hold out too much hope, but some hope is better than none.