Myths about UIGEA from "semi-pro"

[Billman]

Well in the all-too-quick googling I did on the subject it does appear that state AG's were the ones to act first on the perscription drugs. The FDA stepped in and gave them federal clout only after the states acted on their own. That would lead me to believe that the Canadian companies had broken state laws as well as federal laws.

But I spent no more than 5 minutes looking into this so take it for what it's worth.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
I can call my friend in LV and ask him to put the bet on 32 red, cant I?

[/ QUOTE ]

If your friend takes a bet from you over the phone, the Feds aren't going to get their panties in a wad (how would they even know?)

But if your friend sets up a 1-800 number and starts taking bets from all over the US, the Feds are going to get interested. Which is exactly what's happened with internet gambling.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying 100% of the people are going to quit playing but you don't need 100%. This entire business is built on acquiring new players. If you can't acquire new players at a rate greater than the rate at which you're losing players (due to a variety of factors ranging from disinterest in the game, busto, etc) then you're going to slowly bleed to death.

And let's face it, if you're not playing online poker by now, it's gona take something pretty big to motivate you to suddenly have an interest and be willing to jump through all the hoops it's going to take to get money on these sites. You mention these pre-paid debit cards? Read what I wrote previously about what financial network they operate over. They're a temporary solution. The issuers have little fraud exposure because of the type of product they are so they've been lax in implementing any sort of controls. When the Treasury's regs get posted it won't be an option to comply or not. Visa and Mastercard will do the enforcement for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see no place to attack this depressing argument. If this much damage is done with little or no use of UIGEA and no use of the promised regulations, well...it will get uglier.

What do we do? There is a lot of discussion about doing something at the Federal level(repealing some laws, or exempting poker, or a Court ruling, or a miracle)and those are not viable in the current and forseeable climate, IMHO.

Gambling (lawful and unlawful) is foremost what a State says it is. It won't be easy to change State laws, but at least possible. I have said it before and still think we could steal ideas from the horseracing business. Change some State laws, then talk to the Feds.

[LinusKS]

If you change state laws, you don't need to talk to the Feds. As long as it's legal in the state, the Feds don't have a problem with it.

[ozziepat]

Somewhat off-topic, but perhaps thought provoking.

Wine:

There are two broad categories, imported and domestic. Imported first have to cross the border between the US and the rest of the planet. At the border transition point, various federal laws apply that involve Customs, ATF and the FDA.

Once the wine clears Customs, it is on state soil and subject to state law. That law might or might not permit wine to be shipped to other states, and carriers (UPS...) might or might not move it.

There are 50 different sets of state alcoholic beverage control laws and associated tax considerations (where applicable) in addition to federal laws. Some states have reciprocity agreements, i.e., consumers living in state B can buy A's wine direct and vice versa. (Wine is produced in every state.)

In some states, if a consumer brings wine in or has wine shipped in, it's a felony. In others, it's a misdemeanor, in still others it's legal.

In some states the state is the distributor/retailer. In some, the state is the wholesaler. In some, all wine is brought in and sold to retailers by independent distributors.

This nonsense has been going on since the federal repeal of prohibition in 1933, so don't casually expect a simplifying nationwide solution for internet poker any time soon. Federal "regulation," should it ever come about, may just enable chaos.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
If you change state laws, you don't need to talk to the Feds. As long as it's legal in the state, the Feds don't have a problem with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect the Feds would take an interest if two states had legal online regulated poker and then decided to combine the two player pools into one. That is what I was getting at.

Yes, keep it to intrastate, the Feds don't care. And that is the place to start, one state at a time. Is it as sexy as lobbying US Congress for a miracle river? Nope, but better EV, IMHO.

[LinusKS]

I don't think the Feds would care if states combined player pools, as long as it was legal in both states. They already do that kind of thing in horse racing, if I remember right.

But some state somewhere has to license/authorize commercial internet poker, first.