Banks ordered to turn over records to DOJ

[MiltonFriedman]

That is a market pricing issue .... would you prefer FullTilt offering a $50 +$29 SNG to accomodate the current risk they face ?

What about a monthly US player fee of say $100, for access.

[joeker]

THis is the only hope....a carve-out for poker. There's not way they will ever allow online sports betting to be legal in the U.S.



[ QUOTE ]
The US can allow lawful internet gaming, consistent with the WTO, with a regulated barrier of entry, such as NO sports betting, capital adequacy requirements and submission of operator corporate information to ensure taxability of winnings.

The game is definitely NOT over.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Tuff_Fish]

Micro Bob,

You are a voice of reason in a babble of denial.

Tuff

[Losing all]

I think it could just as easily go the other way (heavy competition, rake/bonus wars, etc.) I'm stuck in negative mode at the moment though.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is not that there aren't fishes, but that the shark-to-fish ratio gets thrown off.

[/ QUOTE ]

The shark-to-fish ratio is a fundamental aspect of the game. It's not going to change dramatically. Nearly everyone will have to reevaluate their place in the food chain, though. People who aren't prepared to do that will probably be the first ones eaten.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll I'm saying is that those of you who are from the US, and have no material source of income apart from online poker, would be spending your time more wisely if you investigated other job opportunities rather than play in games that are already rapidly deteriorating in quality and that are more likely to get worse than better, at least in the medium-term.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi jman220,

Maybe you can answer something I've been wondering about: given that the federal courts courts have ruled on the Wire Act in such a way that it does not apply to online gambling (or at least not to sports-betting online gambling, not sure exactly) and that the DOJ lost in court about that: why does not the DOJ have to go by that precedent?[/bold]

[/ QUOTE ]

As I see it two reasons:

1. In Re Mastercard Intl Internet Gambling Litigation (the case you refer to) was not a supreme court decision, it was only appellate level, so it arguably doesn't apply everywhere; and
2. Neteller was used to fund sports gambling websites, which, even under the liberal ruling in In Re Mastercard, still violates the Wire Act. I don't personally agree with this logical leap (that neteller is guilty of conspiracy as a result), but that is the logic.

[ QUOTE ]
And secondly, even if the DOJ does not have to go by that precedent, why doesn't it still accept that precedent and act accordingly?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. See Above.

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the DOJ get to say: OK, we lost in court about it, but the federal court is wrong, not the DOJ; and we're going to act as if the court ruling doesn't exist, and continue to prosecute as if the ruling doesn't exist. What gives here?

[/ QUOTE ]
See Above.


[ QUOTE ]
I.Nelson Rose and others have written columns specifically about these matters, and while I do not precisely recall all the details of the law and court ruling, I do recall clearly that the columns state that the DOJ has persistently taken a position contrary to the court's ruling and continued to act as if the Wire Act makes online gaming illegal, when according to the court's decision, it does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, see above, Sports Gambling is unquestionably illegal via the wire act, the only question is if other forms are of online gambling are. And the Justice Dept. relies largely on People v. Cohen, which came out of a different jurisdiction than In Re Mastercard.

[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't a federal legal body have to respect precedent, especially a precedent that is directly applicable? I thought only the U.S. Supreme Court (and American juries) were not bound by precedent. Heck the DOJ should at least respect precedent, shouldn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Courts are bound by precedent, and if there really was binding precedent, on point, against the DOJ's case, then it could be dismissed in court. However, as stated above, there is not.

[ QUOTE ]
The federal court told the DOJ it is wrong, period, regarding its interpretation of the Wire Act (and I think that's the basis on which the DOJ claims online gaming is illegal). So why doesn't that settle it? The courts decide the law, not the DOJ, so why doesn't the DOJ have to abide by the ruling and interpretation of the federal court?

[/ QUOTE ]
Once Again, see above.
[ QUOTE ]

If you could help explain this it would be appreciated; it's something I've been wondering about for a long time. Thanks.

P.S. yes, I think you are pretty much right, that U.S. online poker is pretty close to being over.

[/ QUOTE ]


Its important to note that in all the recenty publicized prosecutions, the DOJ has NOT yet gone after anyone who wasn't involved in sports gambling. This is why Pokerstars thinks they can stay in the market without getting in trouble. Whether or not this remains the case is yet to be seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent answers, jman, and thanks. Now it makes at least some sense to me.

[adanthar]

Nate,

The online games have been deteriorating since Party 15/30. That was 2+ years ago, VPIP everywhere probably dropped 25%, and yet, most old time 2+2'ers now win more than they did then (largely because we've all moved up stakes and found the same amount of fish everywhere, even if we have to adjust to them). This game is still easy. If every last US fish moved out of the market tomorrow, it would still be easy, as long as you weren't playing on sites where the average player is better than you. Sites where the average player is bad at poker include, well, basically all of the ones that don't support PT, all of the ones that have sportsbooks attached, and all of the ones that are ranked from 5-a billion on pokersitescout.

I have little doubt that, excluding the giant tourney win I had last year, I'll win more this year than last, and I am optimistic about winning more *including* that win.

[lacky]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll I'm saying is that those of you who are from the US, and have no material source of income apart from online poker, would be spending your time more wisely if you investigated other job opportunities rather than play in games that are already rapidly deteriorating in quality and that are more likely to get worse than better, at least in the medium-term.


[/ QUOTE ]

the flaw in this is assuming everyone has comperable other jobs waiting for them. If I have to go find another job, I will. But as that other job, depending on what i find, at least for a while, will represent a decrease in income of over 50-60%, I have no reason to give up on this one till I have too.

Every pro that is thinking, hey, this was fun, but I can make just as much doing xyz, please go do that [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]


I don't see how the U.S. could allow a domestic internet gambling site, while simultaneously banning all foreign ones, and not be in significant breach of its obligations under WTO treaties.

[/ QUOTE ]


I believe they are in significant breach of the WTO ruling because they are basing their opposition to these online-gambling sites on moral grounds.
Yet they have carve-outs for other forms of online gambling like horse-racing and lotteries.