TruePoker will continue to welcome U.S players

[Quacker]

TP, any chances of PokerTracker compatability down the road?

[fnord_too]

I see true poker has an affiliate program. You should let people just get rakeback if they don't sign up through an affiliate, cut out the middle man if someone already knows about the site.

Edit - I just found that section of the web site, it was hidden.

[Chump Change]

TP ceo,

Do you spread any form of omaha? I assume so even if it's low traffic. I'm on board.

Anyone,
Point me towards or PM me about rakeback if you'd be so kind.

[okterrific]

[ QUOTE ]


Anyone,
Point me towards or PM me about rakeback if you'd be so kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

[BluffBlank]

http://www.truepoker.com/Rakebackpage.html

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently, there is some shifting in the interpetation of the Act by one expert.

In today's LA Times, Nelson Rose is quoted as follows:

That's a major weakness" of the new measure, said I. Nelson Rose, an expert in gambling law at Whittier Law School.

"It left out expanding the reach of the Wire Act, so poker sites can say, 'We're not covered by that.' "

This failure to amend the Wire Act to include poker is the first step of two positive analytic threads:

First thread: Playing online poker is itself not "unlawful Internet Gambling" under Federal Law (leaving aside State law for now), so deposits for online poker are not in connection with "unlawful Internet gambling".

1. The UIGE Act only related to deposits in connection with "unlawful Internet gambling".

2. Poker is not unlawful Internet gambling (under the Wire Act, leaving aside State laws for this discussion.)

3. Therefore, deposits in connection with online poker are not retricted by the UIGE Act.

The second thread, which was my initial thought,:

1. Even assuming that online poker were construed to be "unlawful Internet gambling", the UIGE Act only applies to acceptance of deposits by persons "engaged in the business of betting or wagering".

2. Poker site business models do not involve any risk of the site dependent upon the outcome of play; poker sites do not "bet or wager".

3. The poker-only business model is not a person covered by the restrictions of the UIGE Act.

4. (Where poker is regulated as "gambling" in State laws, it is specifically named ???)

TruePoker CEO

[/ QUOTE ]

TPCEO...has Tony Cabot weighed in on the bill yet?

[TruePoker CEO]

We are actively promoting Pot Limit Omaha this month.

We are also running some freeroll or $.01 entry PLO torunaments every weekday in October.

[FeliciaLee]

I hate to be jumping on the bandwagon with everyone else (not my style), but I have to agree with the masses that when this all pans out, I won't forget True.

Honestly, I had forgotten the site even existed (no slight to you, TPCEO, I just never really got into online play). When I do play, I tend to go to Stars, because it is easy and I've always liked their software.

I am appalled at so many sites caving before anyone even says boo, and just tossing us to the wind with barely a wimper. I won't forget who refused to back down, for whatever reason (greed, nothing to lose or otherwise).

And when I do log on, no matter how rarely, it will be on sites that stood up to this absurdity. Never again to Party or Pacific. Never.

Felicia [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Wolf359]

I too am cashing COMPLETELY out of Party, and creating a TruePoker account. I'm a VIP at Party, they sent me to the WSOP, and I've made my sole living there for two years. But no more. My business is going to other sites that refuse to jump ship so absurdly soon. TruePoker is definitely worth a look, given the determined attitude displayed here.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently, there is some shifting in the interpetation of the Act by one expert.

In today's LA Times, Nelson Rose is quoted as follows:

That's a major weakness" of the new measure, said I. Nelson Rose, an expert in gambling law at Whittier Law School.

"It left out expanding the reach of the Wire Act, so poker sites can say, 'We're not covered by that.' "

This failure to amend the Wire Act to include poker is the first step of two positive analytic threads:

First thread: Playing online poker is itself not "unlawful Internet Gambling" under Federal Law (leaving aside State law for now), so deposits for online poker are not in connection with "unlawful Internet gambling".

1. The UIGE Act only related to deposits in connection with "unlawful Internet gambling".

2. Poker is not unlawful Internet gambling (under the Wire Act, leaving aside State laws for this discussion.)

3. Therefore, deposits in connection with online poker are not retricted by the UIGE Act.

The second thread, which was my initial thought,:

1. Even assuming that online poker were construed to be "unlawful Internet gambling", the UIGE Act only applies to acceptance of deposits by persons "engaged in the business of betting or wagering".

2. Poker site business models do not involve any risk of the site dependent upon the outcome of play; poker sites do not "bet or wager".

3. The poker-only business model is not a person covered by the restrictions of the UIGE Act.

4. (Where poker is regulated as "gambling" in State laws, it is specifically named ???)

TruePoker CEO

[/ QUOTE ]


CEO,

I think that indeed is a positive development in Prof. Rose's ongoing analysis of the new law. Also I would like to point out to those naysaying your interpretation that regardless of what Congress intended or didn't, the simple fact is that they have to word any law correctly for that intention to be translated into legal practice.

Attorneys screw up and sometimes don't get the wording of legal documents right, which is what we have the courts to decide. They had a very simple manner in which to clearly illegalize online poker, which is the manner many states use to avoid a loophole by which a cardroom operator claims to have a private club that is not covered. They word their laws as making it illegal to derive a profit from such operations, instead of trying to define and make illegal the acceptance of a bet or wager or having a stake in an outcome. This means that the only way to slide, if that, is to have a private club like a country club, where the players deal themselves, and no one is paid a fee or wage for running the game or dealing.

So the bottom line is that the attorneys who drew up this new legislation weren't necessarily the sharpest knives in the drawer.