Beyond UIGEA, regs, Kyl et al., etc.

[Grasshopp3r]

I foresee a time when e-bullion is the currency of choice for online gaming and international trade. That type of currency has an immediate appeal to the third world as they would have a stable reserve currency that is not subject to the whims of the dollar.

[MiltonFriedman]

"I am therefore one of a large group of people in the industry who think the publication of the regulations will be the end of poker (as it currently exists)."

Counthomer is very accurate regarding payment options and efforts to facilitate US players' business. I would add that as US Banks acquire smaller foreign banks, additional doors have closed over the last couple of years ... add in HSBC, RBS and Barclays to the exiting Banks and you get a better picture of the squeeze on handling US players' transactions.

However, I am one of an apparently smaller group of people who agree with everything counthomer says, EXCEPT that I believe the publication of the Regs will NOT be the end of poker (as it currently exists). I happen to think that the Regs will have a couple of exemptions which will be exploitable. Also there are poker operators who will not abandon the US market, as the poker industry is NOT outlawed under Federal law.

I do think that one or more of the big 3 poker operators in the US market WILL exit, but definitely not all 3.

I also think you WILL see US Brand Name operators handling poker by early 2009.

[justaPlayer]

I'd like to thank everybody so far who has replied in this thread. I guess everybody's predictions are about what I expected.

Now I'll attempt to segue into a few related topics, as this issue is actually becoming more and more concerning to me.

The first is, and please everybody forgive me if this answer is common knowledge (I am not at all politically savvy/connected/informed, nor do I care to be, really), but, WHAT IS THE REAL REASON THIS LEGISLATION IS BEING ATTEMPTED IN THE FIRST PLACE? The root cause? I find it very hard to believe that this is simply a moralistic crusade by some zealots. I mean, the industry has made such staggering sums of money, and we all know how venal at the core those types actually are, so I'm having trouble even piecing together the real motivation for this. I'd love to hear some opinions, and I think the discussion will turn interesting.

Second, I saw another post sort of buried in another thread that I don't think got enough treatment, where somebody suggested some strategic alliances. He mentioned a homosexual group. I have to say, I think this is a brilliant idea. Not necessarily with the group he mentioned, I think he just put it out there as an example, but what about with some sort of unionized organizations? Could that be explored? I am thinking that this could be a subtle way of even gaining broad Republican beneficence, or at least in some key districts. Again, I am not politically savvy at all, so I don't know, but the idea could be worth exploring.

Third, if the climate toward online poker is truly trending as negatively as a few of the later posters indicate, does anybody have any idea the best place to move? Is there technology that would allow me to continue playing from within the U.S. even if it is completely outlawed? Just need some takes.

Thanks again everybody.

[MiltonFriedman]

1. The legislation is not "being attempted", it passed it IS the law. We are playing the next hand now.

2. I'll take it your point is not a veiled reference to Barney Frank, but his support would be more like a principled recognition of common interests in personal freedoms. Forget about a formal alliance, what would the other party gain ? That is politics, both sides would need to see something concrete to gain, now or in the future.

3. Costa Rica is really nice. McDonalds there will deliver to your door.

[Hock_]

I haven't read the whole thread, but one thing that counthomer seems to ignore is the safe harbor provision in the UIGEA. That provision states that banks cannot be held liable so long as they are in compliance with the regs. This means that if banks block transactions beyond the scope of the regs, or block them in a way not proscribed by the regs, then they can be held liable. [E.g., if they block a legitimate, non-illegal internet gambling transaction, and damages flow from that action]. Therefore, the conservative, risk-averse, approach of any financial institution would be to comply with the regs to the letter, but not the slightest bit more. If I were a banks' lawyer, that's certainly what I would advise it to do.

[DrWily]

Look for big names in brick and mortars to rise by the end of 2008, (Harrahs.com, Wynn.com, MGM) with MASSIVE marketing campaigns that will draw in an endless amount of casual players. Look for a record year, income wise, for the pros come 2009.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[TruePoker CEO]

Quite possibly.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]

I'd really like to compliment some of the forum's regulars like Skallagrim, OldBookGuy, a few others, and particularly The Engineer not only for their intrepid work in advocating for the cause, but also simply for their continuous thought-provoking posts and ideas. It is to these individuals primarily that I am addressing this post, and to the others who have read, used, and enjoyed this forum as sort of a "safe haven" from the rapidly increasing retardation and pettiness which most 2p2 forums are beginning to typify. Thank you all again for your presence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I second all this and add thanks to 2+2 and the mods.

[ QUOTE ]

I guess the best way to begin is by saying that I am a poker player and not much else, and I am proud of that. As such, I am not planning to stop playing, at any cost, no matter what law is passed or what politician [read: whore] is in office. I know a lot of other players who feel exactly the same as I do.

It is obvious to me that what is being attempted in this country is simply thinly-veiled fascism. To say that I am disgusted by it is an understatement of the highest order. The main difference between myself and the posters I referenced in my introductory paragraph I guess is that I do not believe it can be stopped or counteracted in any way. I am very deeply ashamed of what this country is becoming, not to mention the world at large, and I have determined simply to live my life as I see fit, subtly, quietly, "off the radar". It sickens me that the assumption implicit in all spheres of American life nowadays is that we are subjects of the state.


[/ QUOTE ]

My take is less cynical. Those trying to stop unlawful gambling businesses aren't fascists. States can use their police power and have been for longer than you’ve been around; that includes stopping unlawful gambling. This is not some new insidious attempt by fringe groups.

No doubt you can still play lawful or unlawful poker, you aren’t the focus of their attempts. But soon, you won’t have unlawful internet sites to play at, IMHO.

If the state making unlicensed gambling businesses unlawful bothers you that much, work to change the longstanding laws. If an unlawful poker room opened in the house next door, you wouldn’t be surprised to see them get shut down whether you liked the law or not. Nothing makes the unlawful internet poker site exempt from being shut down.

[ QUOTE ]
I am wondering what, as of right now, you guys think is going to happen. I am not going to stop playing poker. Lawmakers are no longer even relevant to me. I just want you guys to tell me what I can expect. Will there always be a way to cash out? To move money between sites? Or is it these utilities that they are actually targeting? I'm looking for some reasonable future projections. I'd like to get several takes and envision several scenarios. Thank you all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Until we get some new state laws allowing internet poker, the trend shows the situation will worsen. Lawmakers need to be relevant to you; the courts saving us is unlikely. Or as mentioned elsewhere --- Costa Rica.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]

So, if poker was not illegal before (unless specifically stated by a state) then it is not now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must ask again, where are these states where online poker businesses are legal?

[ QUOTE ]

A few years ago in a MasterCard Casino gaming suit the 5th circuit and the 5th circuit appeals ruled the 1961 Wire Act does NOT cover Casinos games.

Now, the DoJ / Kyl and others claim that Internet Poker is illegal.

We are now left with the question, WHO is right?

Since the UIGEA does NOT define illegal gambling, only referencing it in general the only conclusion SHOULD be the courts have ruled and until otherwise they SHOULD be the correct authority.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]No, the correct authority is your state anti-gambling law.

[MiltonFriedman]

"But soon, you won’t have unlawful internet sites to play at, IMHO.

..... Nothing makes the unlawful internet poker site exempt from being shut down."

Permafrost, you are the absolute King of Tautology. You consistently try to prove your claims by tacking the word "unlawful" to "internet poker site" to bootstrap ytour own propositions.

There is NO federal statute making operation of an internet poker site "unlawful".

If you want to throw around the word "unlawful" even at the State level, you need to have a statutory basis for doing so. There is NO criminal common law in the United States, at any jurisdictional level. If it is not expressly forbidden by Statute, it is not illegal, period.

UIGE Act expressly did not change either federal or State law as to what is "unlawful" internet gambling versus lawful internet gambling.

Put another way, Internet Gambling is lawful, unless there is an express statutory prohibiton in a relevant jurisdiction. I would love to see express authorization of internet poker, but the absence of express authorization does NOT make it "unlawful".