TruePoker will continue to welcome U.S players - Page 2

Borknagar · #11 10-02-2006, 09:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of our customer base is from outside the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

if this is true, then your decision in this matter seems needlessly risky.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can it be risky? What do they have to lose? the US government can't sue them, they're not based in the US. This is great marketing towards US players. The True Poker CEO is a good communicator.

opportunity

[/ QUOTE ]

Kneel B4 Zod · #12 10-02-2006, 09:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of our customer base is from outside the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

if this is true, then your decision in this matter seems needlessly risky.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can it be risky? What do they have to lose? the US government can't sue them, they're not based in the US. This is great marketing towards US players. The True Poker CEO is a good communicator.

opportunity

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

True has posted before that he lives in Vegas, I believe.

and even if he wasn't: extradition

and if he lives in CR, and ever wants to return to the US, he does so as a felon.

I understand that he thinks he's not breaking the law, but his interpretation of this bill is not nearly as important as the DOJ's.

TruePoker CEO · #13 10-02-2006, 10:08 AM

Don't paint me as a felon. We were operating legally before this Act passed and the Act says nothing about operating games and paying cashouts.

We have no intention of breaking any law in the US. We are discussing this with counsel, but do not see any reason to restrict US players from playing. (More than half our business is outside the US, and we do not carry sports or casino baggage like Party or 888.com).

The UIGE Act does not criminalize anything new that has to do with playing poker, it affects acceptance and transmitting of deposits only.

You might want to load up with a deposit before the Bill becomes law if you are concerned about whether we would be breaking the law .... We still offer a 100% FTD Bonus.

Kneel B4 Zod · #14 10-02-2006, 10:18 AM

well, I wish you luck. Stars is in the same position as you (poker only). Will be interesting to see what they do.

APerfect10 · #15 10-02-2006, 10:20 AM

TruePoker CEO,

I commend your firm stance on this issue. I will most definitely be checking TruePoker out as a future poker possibility within the coming days/weeks. Thanks once again; it is greatly appreciated.

Best regards,

APerfect10

teddyFBI · #16 10-02-2006, 10:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Congress passed the UIGE Act of 2006, which covers deposits made by US players to certain types of sites. Our read is that Act covers only sites which offer Sports Betting or Casino type games where you bet against the Site itself.

We are not going to be breaking any laws, we believe this Act does not apply to sites not in "the business of betting or wagering", which we are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting, albeit dubious reading of the language...doubt the DOJ will agree.
Poker sites are pretty clearly in the "business of betting or wagering", irrespective of whether they have a stake in the outcome. That's like a sportsbook saying they're not in the biz of betting or wagering, b/c their job is to get equal action on either side of the line, and just take a rip from the overall amount bet, so they have "no stake in the outcome of the game."

I'm certainly rooting for you, though.

YoureToast · #17 10-02-2006, 10:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Congress passed the UIGE Act of 2006, which covers deposits made by US players to certain types of sites. Our read is that Act covers only sites which offer Sports Betting or Casino type games where you bet against the Site itself.

We are not going to be breaking any laws, we believe this Act does not apply to sites not in "the business of betting or wagering", which we are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting, albeit dubious reading of the language...doubt the DOJ will agree.
Poker sites are pretty clearly in the "business of betting or wagering", irrespective of whether they have a stake in the outcome. That's like a sportsbook saying they're not in the biz of betting or wagering, b/c their job is to get equal action on either side of the line, and just take a rip from the overall amount bet, so they have "no stake in the outcome of the game."

I'm certainly rooting for you, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Teddy, sportsbook's job is not to get on equal sides. Just ask the experts in the SB forum. They do have a stake in the outcome, unlike poker sites. It is apples and oranges. I agree that True has a very interesting argument here.

ericicecream · #18 10-02-2006, 11:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
That's like a sportsbook saying they're not in the biz of betting or wagering, b/c their job is to get equal action on either side of the line, and just take a rip from the overall amount bet, so they have "no stake in the outcome of the game."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's far different from a sportsbook which takes your wager as the house, betting against you directly. The fact that they set the line a certain way where they expect to get a 50/50 split is just the nature of their business.

A few matchmaking sites do this in a diferent way, you make an offer on the Bears and wait for another customer to accept the opposite side and then they take a cut from the winner. These are vastly different from sportsbooks in that regard.