PPA Statement

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, IMO if a federal law giving poker this exemption is passed, then, under a line of cases referred to as the dormant commerce clause cases, that exemption would preempt state laws on online gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I ask again, why would PPA then need to promote regulation of something that has just been made perfectly legal?

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, IMO if a federal law giving poker this exemption is passed, then, under a line of cases referred to as the dormant commerce clause cases, that exemption would preempt state laws on online gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I ask again, why would PPA then need to promote regulation of something that has just been made perfectly legal?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would not appeal to a libertarian but regulation can be used to help problem gamblers, ordinary players and help promote the game to a wider audience.

In Sept 2007 any UK based site will have to do quite a few "good" things because of the regulations. Ok things a site could choose to do anyway but under the regs they must...

Hold players money in a segregated account
Pay out promptly
Clearly and accurately show the odds (casino etc not poker really)
Ensure the games are fair and have them tested/audited
Make users set deposit limits per week/month
Show users what their total loss/win is
Show users how long they have been playing that session
Ensure all registered players are over 18
Allow players to self exclude
Link to gambling help sites/groups
Have a responsible gambling policy
Seek to identify and help problem gamblers
Pay towards gambling research and gambling welfare services
Be "fit and proper" people - no crims.
Monitor for and report potential money laundering activities.

After all this they get official sanction which makes the site more attractive to the casual player. (More Fish)

[AssFrister]

[ QUOTE ]

In any case, right now the DoJ position is that all forms of gambling violate the Wire Act

[/ QUOTE ]

The lottery is a skill game, man. If anyone here sucks at predicting random numbers that's their problem. Oh let me guess, lottery is rigged right? LOL. Yeah OK. Maybe you bunch o' fish should work on your games?

[yeahright]

more public information...

http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/m_opr_vie...E&CLIQUAL==

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, IMO if a federal law giving poker this exemption is passed, then, under a line of cases referred to as the dormant commerce clause cases, that exemption would preempt state laws on online gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I ask again, why would PPA then need to promote regulation of something that has just been made perfectly legal?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would not appeal to a libertarian but regulation can be used to help problem gamblers, ordinary players and help promote the game to a wider audience.

In Sept 2007 any UK based site will have to do quite a few "good" things because of the regulations. Ok things a site could choose to do anyway but under the regs they must...

Hold players money in a segregated account
Pay out promptly
Clearly and accurately show the odds (casino etc not poker really)
Ensure the games are fair and have them tested/audited
Make users set deposit limits per week/month
Show users what their total loss/win is
Show users how long they have been playing that session
Ensure all registered players are over 18
Allow players to self exclude
Link to gambling help sites/groups
Have a responsible gambling policy
Seek to identify and help problem gamblers
Pay towards gambling research and gambling welfare services
Be "fit and proper" people - no crims.
Monitor for and report potential money laundering activities.

After all this they get official sanction which makes the site more attractive to the casual player. (More Fish)

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying you can't have an exemption or carveout without also having regulations for that exemption? That doesn't seem to be the PPA (and others) stance.

[yeahright]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, IMO if a federal law giving poker this exemption is passed, then, under a line of cases referred to as the dormant commerce clause cases, that exemption would preempt state laws on online gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I ask again, why would PPA then need to promote regulation of something that has just been made perfectly legal?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would not appeal to a libertarian but regulation can be used to help problem gamblers, ordinary players and help promote the game to a wider audience.

In Sept 2007 any UK based site will have to do quite a few "good" things because of the regulations. Ok things a site could choose to do anyway but under the regs they must...

Hold players money in a segregated account
Pay out promptly
Clearly and accurately show the odds (casino etc not poker really)
Ensure the games are fair and have them tested/audited
Make users set deposit limits per week/month
Show users what their total loss/win is
Show users how long they have been playing that session
Ensure all registered players are over 18
Allow players to self exclude
Link to gambling help sites/groups
Have a responsible gambling policy
Seek to identify and help problem gamblers
Pay towards gambling research and gambling welfare services
Be "fit and proper" people - no crims.
Monitor for and report potential money laundering activities.

After all this they get official sanction which makes the site more attractive to the casual player. (More Fish)

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying you can't have an exemption or carveout without also having regulations for that exemption? That doesn't seem to be the PPA (and others) stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there regulations for online horse betting? Are banks pulling out on online horse betting sites?

No...so don't worry about the other garbage people post on this forum.

If poker gets an exemption like horse betting, we're fine.

[ekdikeo]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely that was sarcasm....2+2 has made it very clear that have no plans to help the effort to save online poker. Here's Mason's quote from a couple days ago.

"Two Plus Two is not making any effort to form a player's group. But there are some posters here who are discussing this option and it is their perogative to do so."

Has anyone ever gotten an answer on why 2+2 will not support anything? Do they have some kind of vested interest in online poker being banned?

It just seems strange.

[/ QUOTE ]

You not only post every message as if you are a shill for another organization, but you also appear to have a reading comprehension problem, or you are a news writer for FOX News.

Not forming a player's group doesn't have anything to do with not supporting anything, or having a vested interest in getting online poker banned.

How many other forums are setting up their own player's group? Let's seeeeeee here..... NONE.

I admit I've only been on this forum for about a week now, but I'm already sick of reading your messages, and am hoping that someone will install an "Ignore user" function.

[ekdikeo]

By the way, "regulation" would generally imply licensed, inspected, and on the up-and-up.

I just read through the Michigan law that authorized casinos outside of Native American lands, as I was editing it to fit on a web-page (35 or so pages of absolutely mindnumbing repetitiveness).. and I learned a lot about how casinos operate. They have a lot of requirements. The state also gives a huge responsibility for making sure that they are all running within their parameters to the Gaming Board, as well. Some requirements similar to what Richas stated, as well as others.

They are also pretty heavily taxed - 8 to 18% here in Michigan, which I know if I were taxed 18% of my gross income when I was running a business in this state, I would've been out of business in no time flat. Fortunatly, the casinos have no physical product that they are selling (however, I bet maintenance of their facilities and equipment isn't too far off from Cost of Goods for a retail business, but I don't have THAT much insight after reading that bill)

People will have more confidence in a regulated industry, although that will automatically limit the number of entrants that you have in the business.

The Michigan casino law basically requires a drop of somewhere around $10.5M to get a license and up and running, in addition to whatever facilities would be required, which basically automatically precludes anyone not already in the casino business, or who is severely wealthy to begin with. I'd imagine that there would be similar legislation to deal with online gaming, especially if the existing casino lobby were involved in getting that legislation going.

The government isn't going to have any interest whatsoever in keeping the status quo, aside from perhaps not pissing off a few million citizens, which they generally don't give a crap about anyway.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
If poker gets an exemption like horse betting, we're fine.


[/ QUOTE ]


Horse racing is legal in and regulated by several States (and has some Federal rules to follow). Since it is legal, the UIGEA never applied. There is no exemption.

Online poker is not lawful and regulated in any State. The exemption would have to say "UIGEA covers all unlawful Internet gambling except unlawful Internet poker". Or would it say the US government declares poker to be lawful?

I need to hear more about this poker exemption that somehow will be an "exemption like horse betting". Explain to me how it will work and what it will say, so I see the light.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
It would not appeal to a libertarian but regulation can be used to help problem gamblers, ordinary players and help promote the game to a wider audience.

In Sept 2007 any UK based...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So you are saying you can't have an exemption or carveout without also having regulations for that exemption? That doesn't seem to be the PPA (and others) stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I am saying that regulation can potentially benefit poker players, problem gamblers and poker overall. I'd also suggest that it is easier to convince a majority to allow regulated poker than to allow completely unregulated poker.