888.com possible change of heart? - Page 2

Tofu_boy · #1 10-05-2006, 10:06 PM

I think we are safe.
all the good news come now.
could we follow Italy lead earlier this year???
I hope

Coy_Roy · #2 10-05-2006, 10:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I wonder if their legal team has found a way around this, or they are hoping for maybe some wto action to stop this insane illegal US protectionism, or I don't know exactly what...

But here is the text: http://www.888.com/more_info.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

More likely they have something like THIS planned.

Nate tha\\\' Great · #3 10-05-2006, 11:24 PM

I'm surprised this isn't generating more discussion. Even if they come up with some fairly obnoxious alternative like Duplicate Poker, the mere fact that 888 is actively looking for workaround to the bill when they were sticking their head in the sand a couple of days ago strikes me as pretty big news.

oscark · #4 10-05-2006, 11:29 PM

Isn´t it very similar to what Party is saying?

Oscar

Nate tha\\\' Great · #5 10-05-2006, 11:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Isn´t it very similar to what Party is saying?

Oscar

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really ...

888.com is now saying that they are specifically planning to develop real money games that will be "legal" for US players.

All Party is saying is that their decision is "subject to clarification".

beachbum · #6 10-06-2006, 12:05 AM

Even if Party and Pacific do another 180 and accept U.S. players in the intermediate term future, they will definitely increase their customer base again but will lose their industry position and credibility with a lot of their shareholders.

I think this about face is probably due to some influential poker sites saying business will continue as usual. It's like when you were a kid and went whining to your dad when he told you you couldn't do something and your siblings were allowed to: "Daaaaad, but Billy is doing iiiiiit"

StellarWind · #7 10-05-2006, 11:42 PM

This policy statement does not actually say that existing U.S. acounts cannot continue to play at Pacific after the law is signed. It just says they can't make more deposits.

That would satisfy the letter of the new law.

Just some sloppy writing? Or should U.S. account holders rush to put some more money in?