PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
....you just tell banks that the only transactions that you must worry about must involve sportsbetting, other than horse racing and fantasy league, and any other games expressly prohibited by state law.
However, I think that the regulators are even less likely to make this reg, then define the term UIG. They know if they tell banks that you only have to worry about x, then the banks will never block y. The problem is that the regulators really want x, y and z banned regardless of whether they are covered under the UIGEA......

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be ascribing motives to the regulators that are not there. The regulators are charged with regulating their clients, the banks. They are probably quite happy to do this in any manner that lessens their burden and lessens the burden on the banks.

I think if we push really hard for a set of regs that say you must block this, this, and this, and only this, this, and this because these have been specifically ruled illegal, we probably are better off.

If we push them to do less work, and they see that that would result in a satisfactory outcome of their efforts, they may very well do less work. Let us help them in that direction.

Tuff

PS, it might behoove us to put that idea into the bankers heads too. Specific regulations regarding previously well defined gambling activities and no requirements to go looking for anything else.

T

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This "decision" in my opinion questions .....

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! It seems you find conspiracies everywhere. Don't like FT's response to bots...well, they must support bots. Affiliates make money on bots....well, they must support bots too, and they should be responsible for detecting them. Banks don't want credit card chargebacks for Internet gaming....well, they must be the secret force behind UIGEA. PPA doesn't jump at the chance to hire you, and PPA puts out UIGEA reg comment talking points that you dont agree with....well, they (and John Pappas, whom you've met) must be under control of PS and FT. Sorry, but your tendency to find conspiracies everywhere (and you tendency to state your theories as fact, despite any evidence) undermines your credibility.

Anyway, I communicate with John Pappas almost every day, and I've seen no evidence of bias towards any company or towards any specific sector of Internet poker.

Regarding your comments, offshore companies "own" the U.S. market only because there are no U.S. based companies offering services. I don't know how this proves anything about who'd have the upper hand in the future.

I don't understand what you want. Do you want PS and FT banned to help U.S-based companies? If so, you think PPA must be on the take if they don't agree with you? I think you'll find most of us want something like the Wexler bill. The PPA wholeheartedly supports that as well.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope I am wrong, but I haven't seen a single thing to show me the PPA wants anyting but a pre-UIGEA world or a US regulatory scheme that specifically does not exlude FT or PS from staying in the market. Which is exactly what PP and every other room feared when they left the US market about a year ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would they? Until your post, no one here had proposed anything but either returning to pre-UGIEA or to a U.S. regulatory scheme that does not specifically exclude FT or PS from staying in the market. It seems that's what the Internet poker community wants.

As for PP, [censored] them for leaving the U.S. market! I'll play if they come back, but I don't see why they should be rewarded for leaving.

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
Because not one thing the PPA has said the Poker World would do to gain entry into the US market in the form or a regualtory mix will every come to pass.

Sure the market will open up and others who are in the wings or who let the market will try to re-enter, but who's position is the strongest? The major off-shore operators!

They "own" the current portion of the US market and to some degree will get to shape the future of on-line poker market for some time. Any inovation that they can live with in their business model they can implement quicker than anyone else and keep market share. Think M$ and Apple.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense to me at all. A company like Apple didn't gain its market share by providing a service that a huge portion of its potential customer base stayed away from because they feared it was illegal.

I love PS. I played my first hand there, and haven't left except to whore during the Bonus Rush. With that said, if poker were exempted tomorrow and MGM Poker opened Friday, I'd be one of the first people to open an account there -- along with every Joe S. Pack who thinks online poker has been shut down since last October.

Expressly legal poker in the United States is not a bad thing. Even the aforementioned Apple could open its own site and compete quickly with monsters such as Party. The off-shore operators' market share is based on supply only.

This is somewhat analogous to saying marijuana dealers would still own the market share if a 20-pack of pre-rolled joints were available at Smoker Friendly for $15.

And, IMHO, the competitive market will make all of the fears about regulated poker (high rake, more fees) moot because sites will be willing to accept lower profit margins in order to construct their own legal cash cow.

Where am I wrong here?

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
No the decision by John not to hire me yet ...

[/ QUOTE ]

John is apparently a very wise man to this point in time.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because not one thing the PPA has said the Poker World would do to gain entry into the US market in the form or a regualtory mix will every come to pass.

Sure the market will open up and others who are in the wings or who let the market will try to re-enter, but who's position is the strongest? The major off-shore operators!

They "own" the current portion of the US market and to some degree will get to shape the future of on-line poker market for some time. Any inovation that they can live with in their business model they can implement quicker than anyone else and keep market share. Think M$ and Apple.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense to me at all. A company like Apple didn't gain its market share by providing a service that a huge portion of its potential customer base stayed away from because they feared it was illegal.

I love PS. I played my first hand there, and haven't left except to whore during the Bonus Rush. With that said, if poker were exempted tomorrow and MGM Poker opened Friday, I'd be one of the first people to open an account there -- along with every Joe S. Pack who thinks online poker has been shut down since last October.

Expressly legal poker in the United States is not a bad thing. Even the aforementioned Apple could open its own site and compete quickly with monsters such as Party. The off-shore operators' market share is based on supply only.

This is somewhat analogous to saying marijuana dealers would still own the market share if a 20-pack of pre-rolled joints were available at Smoker Friendly for $15.

And, IMHO, the competitive market will make all of the fears about regulated poker (high rake, more fees) moot because sites will be willing to accept lower profit margins in order to construct their own legal cash cow.

Where am I wrong here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This "decision" in my opinion questions .....

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow! It seems you find conspiracies everywhere. Don't like FT's response to bots...well, they must support bots. Affiliates make money on bots....well, they must support bots too, and they should be responsible for detecting them. Banks don't want credit card chargebacks for Internet gaming....well, they must be the secret force behind UIGEA. PPA doesn't jump at the chance to hire you, and PPA puts out UIGEA reg comment talking points that you dont agree with....well, they (and John Pappas, whom you've met) must be under control of PS and FT. Sorry, but your tendency to find conspiracies everywhere (and you tendency to state your theories as fact, despite any evidence) undermines your credibility.

Anyway, I communicate with John Pappas almost every day, and I've seen no evidence of bias towards any company or towards any specific sector of Internet poker.

Regarding your comments, offshore companies "own" the U.S. market only because there are no U.S. based companies offering services. I don't know how this proves anything about who'd have the upper hand in the future.

I don't understand what you want. Do you want PS and FT banned to help U.S-based companies? If so, you think PPA must be on the take if they don't agree with you? I think you'll find most of us want something like the Wexler bill. The PPA wholeheartedly supports that as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice attack spin.

I suggested FT's response to the bot issue was half hearted at best. IMPO they should do more in the best interests of the future of on-line poker as a whole not simply what action was the least they had to do in the name of maximum short term profits.

The affiliates I suggested should show some concern as they help pay the bot farmers. As I've posted I found out after a reasonable discussion with them that they are interested in the longer term "best interests of the future of on-line poker." In addition I found out from a reasonable exchange of differing views initially that FT provides them all of the information they get and FT can reverse a payment even retroactively id cheating is even suspected.

Currently about 1/2 of self identified US poker player will not play on-line. I've spoken to quite a few who have played on-line and for various "sci-fi" fears will not play on-line again. I think it is in the best interests of the future of on-line poker for both the current players and the site operators to do more to address these issues.

You talk to John almost daily ask him if I didn't offer to help in any way needed, including volunteering my time. Also ask him if I haven't told him more than once that if he found a better candidate for the grassroots organizer then I would be quite pleased. I can make money plenty of other ways, I thought I could help, I thought it would be fun, and I was willing to work at or near the offered salary range which is a significant discount to what I've made in the past. I never asked John to create a well paid job for me to help out, there was an open offer for a job about the time I spoke to John. All I did was suggest I might be qualified. Given a brief discussion with John he asked me how much to put on a full on KY effort, that wasn't my idea.

Don't act like my questions were or are motivated by some sort of disgruntled interviewee who didn't get a second call back. To suggest such a thing given our personal conversations is an insult and a cheap shot.

If you don't understand that any time a number of companies have a significant market share in a semi-mature market and that gives them an upper hand then I can't explain that to you with out you counting the exact number of words in my response.

I didn't make up the idea that the primary reason for the law and its main beneficiary was the banking system, I merely quoted the Agencies statement to that very fact. Directly from their document and footnoted it as well.

Since you asked I want the PPA to allow me to play on-line poker without having to worry about a lot of idiotic hurdles; be it paying 5% to deposit, worrying about Foreign account disclosures, worrying about if my bank will cash my withdraw check with out closing my account or fining me, I'd like to see in the future someone other than Kawanee Game Commission which is located in Canada, I would love it if the PPA at some point was strong enough to attempt changing the tax treatment of poker winning.

Most of all I'd like the PPA to act like that it was at least if only for appearance sake alone responsive to suggestions from the membership.

No I am not a conspiracy nut; but when I see a number of decisions that line up and point to a direction by an organization that I am a member of to not be publicly and personally attacked by a newly appointed board member. I spend a lot of time in the message and image business that is simply not how it is done.

It is this "my way or the highway" don't question a direction from the board that causes these growing concerns if nothing else the manner and appearance shows a complete lack of desire to have the PPA be a true grassroots advocacy group that is lead by the collective voice of its members..

Every action I've taken even my most extreme have been done with one over ridding principal; looking into the possible futures for poker in general but on-line specifically will this or that decision lead to a better "on-line poker world" or a worse one.

Your position is we should be willing to use our abilities to question the actions of the whole Federal Government, but we should shut up and be good little kids and let the grown-ups tell us exactly how we should do the PPA Boards bidding.

You may not see it that way but that is the way you and the PPA are coming off here and in the past.

I took a lot of grief right here by suggesting the composition of the board didn’t matter and it was the actions that were more important to me specifically and in the name of all poker players in general. Furthermore I made it clear that if I saw “our” organization taking a position that I felt was contrary to its own Mission Statement I would be a loud voice questioning why it was so. Back then you supported this type of member action, but now you do not?

What has changed?

That’s right your membership was upgraded to Board Member……….



D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice attack spin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just replying to your comments.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't act like my questions were or are motivated by some sort of disgruntled interviewee who didn't get a second call back. To suggest such a thing given our personal conversations is an insult and a cheap shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't. Again, I was replying to your comment on the matter. Congrats on momving to bigger and better things.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't understand that any time a number of companies have a significant market share in a semi-mature market and that gives them an upper hand then I can't explain that to you with out you counting the exact number of words in my response.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the PS and FT have a head-start. So what? Let the other companies win our loyalty once things are explicitly legal. U.S.-based companies have a built-in advantage as well, as most poker players would prefer a domestic site.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of all I'd like the PPA to act like that it was at least if only for appearance sake alone responsive to suggestions from the membership.

No I am not a conspiracy nut; but when I see a number of decisions that line up and point to a direction by an organization that I am a member of to not be publicly and personally attacked by a newly appointed board member. I spend a lot of time in the message and image business that is simply not how it is done.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I was responding to your comments to me. I wasn't responding on behalf of PPA...it was my personal opinion. On that topic, I will not edit myself merely because I joined the PPA board. If I don't say I'm speaking for the PPA, I'm not. It's that simple.

[ QUOTE ]
Your position is we should be willing to use our abilities to question the actions of the whole Federal Government, but we should shut up and be good little kids and let the grown-ups tell us exactly how we should do the PPA Boards bidding.

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I say that? Question all you want. I simply disagree with your conclusions. As for caring about the membership, I put up a poll on your concerns. I'll certainly respond to your concerns based on the desires of the 2p2 forum as reflected in the poll and in other comments.

[ QUOTE ]
I took a lot of grief right here by suggesting the composition of the board didn’t matter and it was the actions that were more important to me specifically and in the name of all poker players in general. Furthermore I made it clear that if I saw “our” organization taking a position that I felt was contrary to its own Mission Statement I would be a loud voice questioning why it was so. Back then you supported this type of member action, but now you do not?

What has changed?

That’s right your membership was upgraded to Board Member……….

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Nothing's changed with me at all. I support us questioning PPA, of course. I simply disagree with your assertion that the PPA isn't working to meet its mission statement. It also seems you have a tendency to trash everything and everyone who disagrees with you on anything.

[TheEngineer]

Back to the topic...

Here's my latest comment:


Jennifer J. Johnson
Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20551

Dear Secretary Johnson,

Following careful review the proposed regulations (Docket No. R-1298) implementing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), I agree with the authors of the regulations – the regulations as proposed do have several weaknesses. Most of the weaknesses, which include the inability of the regulations to define “unlawful Internet gambling” and the risk of overblocking transactions to legal businesses, are inherent in UIGEA itself. I urge the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to further clarify these regulations prior to implementation to ensure orderly and fair enforcement of these regulations.

The primary weakness in the regulations as proposed is the lack of a definition of “unlawful Internet gambling”. If the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve were unable to determine what constitutes illegal Internet gambling, how can banks and other financial institutions be expected to? Surely this is an unfair burden to place on our nation’s financial institutions. After all, they are in the business of providing financial services, not of enforcing ambiguous gambling bans.

Banks may choose to comply with these regulations by banning all gambling transactions. This overblocking could cause many problems for legitimate businesses, including the domestic horse racing industry, which was specifically excluded from the provisions of the Act. Additionally, banks could overblock offshore poker sites that are not in violation of any federal or state law. As the United States recently lost its trade dispute (and its final appeal) with Antigua and Barbuda with regards to providing of cross-border betting services, additional restrictions via overblocking resulting from these regulations could result in increased WTO penalties, especially as domestic financial transactions are largely excluded from these regulations.

These issues can largely be avoided by defining the term “illegal Internet gambling” in the regulations. I propose defining illegal Internet gambling as all Internet gambling that is clearly illegal under existing federal law, plus that which is unambiguously illegal under state laws. Federal law is relatively clear in this matter – per appeals court decisions in re MasterCard International Inc. and other cases, the Wire Act covers only sports betting. Additionally, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 covers interstate (and, in 46 states, intrastate) professional and amateur sports betting. That is all that is covered by federal law. Since federal case law holds that the Wire Act covers only sports betting, unlawful Internet gambling as defined by federal laws should include only interstate Internet sports betting and intrastate Internet sports betting in the 46 states covered by the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, excluding horse racing as defined under the Interstate Horse Racing Act.

As for state laws, very few states have outlawed Internet gambling. To keep from placing an unreasonable burden on our banks, the regulations should specify that state laws must be unambiguous in their application to the Internet and to the specific types of gambling banned by that state. Additionally, states wishing to have federal assistance in enforcing their Internet gambling restrictions should be required to request this assistance from the Secretary of the Treasury. This will enable our banks to have a clear understanding of what it required of them.

Our financial institutions deserve to know exactly what they are required to prevent. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

TheEngineer

[oldbookguy]

OK, I have pretty much stayed out of this debate though finding it quite interesting.

The PPA has suggested a line of comment, you are free to use that or develop your own; there is no need to fight about it; fold, call or raise.

Personally I will be commenting using number 2 (appropriate number since that is also my feeling on the regs!).

The inability, not the failure of the writers to actually define Unlawful Internet Gambling goes to the heart of the issue. The government cannot do this and is so stated with all the inherent problems with conflicting opinions on laws, court cases, individual location verse bank location and on and on.

They, with all the U S Government resources cannot do this but expect banks and e-wallets too know legal from unlawful gambling.

Simply absurd.

The best suggestion in my opinion is to scrape them and in the 2007 Report to Congress the Treasury and FRSB make is to tell congress it cannot be done and they, Congress, need to make clear what it is, Unlawful Internet Gambling. Scrape the whole UIGEA, 2006 and start all over.

NOTE: With this scheme we can have impact and is really a best hope, we can then lobby for Skill Games / Contests to specifically be exempt UNLESS specifically bared by state law. We will have the chance to even fight for a definition of Skill and Contests.

BTW, has ANYONE taken time to talk to your local bankers yet? Get them on board as opposing these regs?

obg