Poker.com Statement - no change in operations - Page 2

Poker.com · #11 10-02-2006, 07:25 AM

Some of our Operations are based in Australia, but our license is in Canada and servers are in Canada/UK. So we are not regulated by the Australian government with regard to gaming operations, just company law etc for any operations based here.

Australia regulates sports betting, horse racing and lotteries online that are available to Australians and a wider range of online gaming that is not available to Australians. For example Australians can place sports bets at somewhere like Betfair, but not play poker there. But there is nothing stopping Aussies from playing at somewhere like Party. (which brings up another point - why does party risk $1million in fines by allowing Australians to play, but is scared of the current US law? Maybe they are just clueless about the Aus situation?)

There was legislation introduced under similar circumstances to the current US situation in 2001. It was lobbied by lottery and horse racing groups who were scared of the threat of online games. It does not prevent Australians from playing as there are no penalties against players, but instead attempts to prevent the marketing of 'games of chance' to Australians and prohibits any Australian company from offering 'games of chance' to Australians.

However it's not policed and there has never been charges laid. The government has recently realised they messed up and the laws will most likely be changed soon and gaming regulated to ensure tax dollars stay in the country. One of the biggest companies with an interest in future online gaming is owned by PBL and James Packer (infamous whale, Kerry Packer's son and heir), who also own the Crown Casino (Aussie Millions venue) and Casinos elsewhere. With their support there's not much doubt the law will be gone within a few years and the industry regulated here.

Australia is a close ally to the USA, but when it comes to law, as a nation we are always much more likely to follow the UK's stance on these sort of issues as we are a part of the Commonwealth and our legislative process is very similar.

Gregg777 · #12 10-02-2006, 07:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks of the statement. Keep in mind that this bill passed unanimously in the Senate and nearly unanimously in the House so there were plenty of Democrats who voted for it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly true.

The bill did not pass the senate on it's own merit.

ESKiMO-SiCKNE5S · #13 10-02-2006, 07:30 AM

i will be signing up at your site within the next week to show my support.

Ron Burgundy · #14 10-02-2006, 07:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very quickly, as far as we are concerned our operations are 100% legal under international law and we follow all laws of the jurisdictions in which our operations reside. There will still be plenty of places to play poker and the industry will adapt, evolve and survive.

I'd like to say something about the US legislative process and the integrity of these Republicans, but my mother always said if you can't say anything nice....

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks of the statement. Keep in mind that this bill passed unanimously in the Senate and nearly unanimously in the House so there were plenty of Democrats who voted for it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're really missing the point. The Port Security bill was far more important than the IG bill. Voting against it would be political suicide for either party. That's why Frist put it on a bill that he knew would pass, because then the IG bill would never have to be debated or voted on it's own merits.

oreopimp · #15 10-02-2006, 07:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
what's poker.com?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably the next party poker.

adios · #16 10-02-2006, 07:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very quickly, as far as we are concerned our operations are 100% legal under international law and we follow all laws of the jurisdictions in which our operations reside. There will still be plenty of places to play poker and the industry will adapt, evolve and survive.

I'd like to say something about the US legislative process and the integrity of these Republicans, but my mother always said if you can't say anything nice....

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks of the statement. Keep in mind that this bill passed unanimously in the Senate and nearly unanimously in the House so there were plenty of Democrats who voted for it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're really missing the point. The Port Security bill was far more important than the IG bill. Voting against it would be political suicide for either party. That's why Frist put it on a bill that he knew would pass, because then the IG bill would never have to be debated or voted on it's own merits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point well taken but plenty of Democrats really have no problem with "it" either. Elections are in the fall and for arguments sake let's say the Democrats get control of Congress. Do you really think anyone will take up the cause to get this changed somehow? Very doubtful in my mind.

Looks to me like the statements from the WSEX executive are the best shot of mitigating this in that they violate WTO agreements. We'll see what happens.

ESKiMO-SiCKNE5S · #17 10-02-2006, 07:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Point well taken but plenty of Democrats really have no problem with "it" either. Elections are in the fall and for arguments sake let's say the Democrats get control of Congress. Do you really think anyone will take up the cause to get this changed somehow? Very doubtful in my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is just it.

if they see the people are angry at these laws and realise they could gain votes by taking the other side, then yes i believe they would take up the cause.

linuxrocks · #18 10-02-2006, 08:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Some of our Operations are based in Australia, but our license is in Canada and servers are in Canada/UK. So we are not regulated by the Australian government with regard to gaming operations, just company law etc for any operations based here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't get it. How is it legal for Poker.com to accept money from US players when it is illegal for another off-shore company (PP, PS etc.) ? Are you just saying that you have the balls to go against this or Is it legal really ?

Tardi · #19 10-02-2006, 01:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some of our Operations are based in Australia, but our license is in Canada and servers are in Canada/UK. So we are not regulated by the Australian government with regard to gaming operations, just company law etc for any operations based here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't get it. How is it legal for Poker.com to accept money from US players when it is illegal for another off-shore company (PP, PS etc.) ? Are you just saying that you have the balls to go against this or Is it legal really ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would a company that doesn't have anything to do with US be afraid of breaking US law? And it's not illegal for them to receive money from US players either.

MicroBob · #20 10-02-2006, 03:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what's poker.com?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a small site where I ended 3rd in 20k freeroll and took 1.5K where my BR was 1.1K. Thank you Poker.com!

[/ QUOTE ]

HaHa.
I took 1st in a 20k freeroll there back in January for $5k!!

Sorry to 1-up you.

Software wasn't working great on my computer at the time and obviously they aren't P-Tracker compatible.

But I wouldn't be opposed to playing there more again and had already been thinking about it.

IIRC, didn't Poker.com foot the bill for some other WSOP seat-winners from some other small-site who were going to get screwed?

They seem to be a really classy group.