Tell someone doesn't know something

[Ron-Mexico]

"PartyGaming Up for Sale: Looking for Vegas Suitors The number two online poker room, PartyGaming and its marquee PartyPoker site, is up for sale."

I believe this was predicted several times. Ban, lower the price of party poker, buy party poker, regulate.

http://www.gambling911.com/PartyGami...le-101007.html

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
"PartyGaming Up for Sale: Looking for Vegas Suitors The number two online poker room, PartyGaming and its marquee PartyPoker site, is up for sale."

I believe this was predicted several times. Ban, lower the price of party poker, buy party poker, regulate.

http://www.gambling911.com/PartyGami...le-101007.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Finaly big time confirmation that someone reads the proposed rule as I do; A complete death blow to on-line poker and on-line gaming!

If 1/2 this regulatory suggestion comes to pass six months after it comes into place, not even affiliates will get paid.

Six months after that is the Gov't has it's way they will be closing down personal accounts, and possibly attempting to fine you becuause you once got a check from an Unlawful Internet Gambling coded merchant!

Six months after that the IRS will have gotten access to all the stored banking databases to start audits on evenyone who ever had a deposit from such a coded account. The IRS will get this becuase of the $100 Billion or so in uncollected on-line gambling taxes.

Mark my words the only thing stopping this from happening is the posters and lurkers here and what impact we might have on Pappas as the controler of that 800,000 list of e-mail addresses.

What we do between now and Dec 12th, will determine how long and hard we have to fight for a Wexler bill or in court to overturn this mess.


D$D<--fluent in reading handwriting on a wall!

[Jussurreal]

DD I disagree with you about it being a death blow. From what I've heard, these are very weak regulations. Even if iMEGA loses and the Frank bill fails, these regulations aren't going to keep players from playing. Very weak regulations from all "in the know people" I've heard from.

By the way the OP believes regulation is right around the corner, and so do I to tell you the truth.

[sup_bro]

DSD...i dont see anything negative in this article at all...and what the OP stated was BAN (which has already been done in his opinion) lower party stock price (which clearly has happened), buy party poker (it is not up on the block), and then REGULATE, where in this DeadMOneyDad is there anything NEGATIVE at this point with regards to online poker???

[Skallagrim]

The regulations themselves are pretty weak.

What the banks do in response to the regulations is the open question. The regs and law basically give the banks a free hand to block any transaction they dont like if they "feel" it relates to unlawful internet gambling.

Will the banks begin wholesale blocking of transactions to poker sites? Probably. Will the banks begin wholesale blocking of transactions to offshore 3rd parties that then might make a transfer to a poker site? Hard to say, and that is the $1,000,000,000 question, literally.

Skallagrim

[joeker]

Skallagrim hit the nail on the head, it's what the banks do that matters.

I think this article is a big positive, if a major Vegas casino buys PP, then the push for explicitly legalizing online poker will only be helped.

[justaPlayer]

Hello all, Engineer, Skallagrim, etc., denizens of the Legislation Forum. I rarely comment, mainly because I am not a corporate professional nor a lawyer, but I read this forum often to keep up to date on this very important issue.

I have to say, I disagree with the negativity expressed by Dead Money Dad on this development of the Las Vegas majors expressing interest in buying Party. I see this as an encouraging sign that something behind the scenes is taking place not to SNUFF OUT online poker, but to more or less OWN IT from the United States. I think (and I'm sure most of my fellow cynics here on this forum would agree) that people in power universally, and particularly those who trumpet "values," "morality," etc. the loudest are in actuality the most venal. The money that was made from online poker from 2003 to 2006 has to be a staggering figure. I don't have any hard numbers, maybe somebody else does, but it would not surprise me if Pokerstars continues to make >$5million a day even now. At least a million. Multiply that by 10 spread across the major sites at the height of the boom, and it just doesn't make sense that the powers that be are doing this just because they don't like it on the basis of "morality." No, they want those revenues for themselves, in their jurisdiction. Things are beginning to make sense to me now. I think the regs were vague deliberately, and did not mention poker deliberately. At any rate, with legions of devoted players and professionals who are more or less unemployable elsewhere (such as myself), it's not going anywhere no matter what laws get passed. I have already contemplated moving abroad and I'm sure many other players have too. No trill playa gonna let em just take away his living. That's all. But they don't wanna take it away. They wanna OWN IT. And they will.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Hello all, Engineer, Skallagrim, etc., denizens of the Legislation Forum. I rarely comment, mainly because I am not a corporate professional nor a lawyer, but I read this forum often to keep up to date on this very important issue.

I have to say, I disagree with the negativity expressed by Dead Money Dad on this development of the Las Vegas majors expressing interest ...

[/ QUOTE ]

D$D == troll

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Hello all, Engineer, Skallagrim, etc., denizens of the Legislation Forum. I rarely comment, mainly because I am not a corporate professional nor a lawyer, but I read this forum often to keep up to date on this very important issue.

I have to say, I disagree with the negativity expressed by Dead Money Dad on this development of the Las Vegas majors expressing interest in buying Party. I see this as an encouraging sign that something behind the scenes is taking place not to SNUFF OUT online poker, but to more or less OWN IT from the United States. I think (and I'm sure most of my fellow cynics here on this forum would agree) that people in power universally, and particularly those who trumpet "values," "morality," etc. the loudest are in actuality the most venal. The money that was made from online poker from 2003 to 2006 has to be a staggering figure. I don't have any hard numbers, maybe somebody else does, but it would not surprise me if Pokerstars continues to make >$5million a day even now. At least a million. Multiply that by 10 spread across the major sites at the height of the boom, and it just doesn't make sense that the powers that be are doing this just because they don't like it on the basis of "morality." No, they want those revenues for themselves, in their jurisdiction. Things are beginning to make sense to me now. I think the regs were vague deliberately, and did not mention poker deliberately. At any rate, with legions of devoted players and professionals who are more or less unemployable elsewhere (such as myself), it's not going anywhere no matter what laws get passed. I have already contemplated moving abroad and I'm sure many other players have too. No trill playa gonna let em just take away his living. That's all. But they don't wanna take it away. They wanna OWN IT. And they will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is eaxctly the point I was making to Skall in a PM and what I have been saying all along as the banks being the key to this whole deal at least in the short term.

I'll admit I didn't read the article in the first place so I didn't know who party was selling to nor the fact that the rumor was a NV concern.

But my point is and was to a few regulars in PM's was all you really need to defeat this rule and point out the absolute unworkability of the UIGEA is a mid-sized bank on the system. I doesn't have to be a major and a small wouldn't work either. All you need is the right banker's ear, well the Chairman of the bank's ear. I'll be called a troll or worse for saying this but that is what I was working on these past few days.

Money talks and BS walks.

I should have read the article as it makes perfect sense to me. If I had Vegas money to work with and a not too risk adverse Vegas bank I'd buy Party myself and open it up under new management myself. Their old real money account list of US players is their only worth to me they could keep their ongoing concern issues and rights IMO.

But given the regulation specifically stating that it was the banking system and their concern for disruptions of the credit system in the regulation that makes me think the UIGEA was pushed by big money banks not right-wing religious nuts. The banks meerly used the nuts for cover and leverage.

IMO people misread the proposed rule. The smart poker money seems to read pages and pages of the word "exemptions" and "exempt" transaction and think everything is cool. What they miss IMO are the money flow choke points. Go back and read the thing again as a banker or someone on the system tired of getting calls from the idiot who's boyfriend gambled out of her joint account. Now maginify that by some number. You're guess is as good as mine. Then read the outline for future action in adding non-gambling into account opening policies, the thought of closing accounts long after an UIG transaction took place, to even talk of fining merchants or account holders even suspected of UIG money flows.

If you don' think there is a possible death blow there then you are going to be screaming about a rigged RNG when you get your badbeat in the future.

The banks don't care one bit about poker, gamblers, or even right-wing religious nuts. They don't care how many e-pass' are created to keep the money flowing. They don't want anyone having standing to sue if they mess up and are directly involved in a transfer of money to a poker site. They want to keep the money flowing but have NO LIABILITY!

All the regualtions do is make it even more expensive to deposit and withdraw. Under the regulations you would have to fly to Antigua get cash and fly back to cash in any decent sized winnings, or pay someone north of the existing soing rate of +%5 to do so on-line. I don't know what TruePokerCEO's cost to courier +1k deposits and withdraws is but it will get more expensive than that.

Then if you get the wrong AG or god forbid President who gets into office with the right-wing nut jobs help in narrowly defeating Witchillary under the current regs the choke points will be come Federal insurmountable obsticals.

You get an anti-gambling Chairman of the Fed and no regs we're all on the OFAC list and would never have a chance to say a word about it.

So I am both glad and sad that a Vegas concern reads the regs as I do. They see PP's conservative "protect a bankroll" take our poker winnings and sell our seat in the tourney for a discount as an opportunity to pick up a bargin cheaply chicken$hit poker play for exactly what it has been all along. What has PP done that doesn't show their true colors? I don't know why one person cares if they every gain re-entry to any future US market.

I've quoted my opinion of the old real estate adage before; "when their is blood on the streets buy property!" This is just a smart investor doing the same thing with the real estate being on-line poker property.

A few regulars will tell you I've been investigating opening a US site to purposely challenge the holes in the UIGEA law, let alone the messed up regs. Seems some smart money in Vegas just raised my bet!

So as a poker lover I hope they do it right and win. As a potential ground floor investor in my version of a well run US poker site I hope PP knows the value of their US accounts and makes the Vegas investor pay through the nose!

Well that is if they got the idea from reading my posts....



D$D<--doesn't live under a bridge.

[JPFisher55]

Hey D$D, if you really open an online poker website based in the US to test the Wire Act and UIGEA, then open it in Missouri. You would have a really good argument that you are not violating its laws.