My Photo
Name:
Location: United States

Too much about me to list here...read my blog...you'll get to know me quite well.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Online Gambling Ban

As we've all heard by now, good old Frist has been able to get an online gambling ban piggybacked onto a Port Security/Safety bill and was passed by Congress. Bush still needs to sign it into law (DARE we HOPE he vetoes it???) but then once he does, what does it mean??

This is what it means to me:

1. The online sites that stop serving US based customers will take a huge hit while other sites will gain those players, as US players (for the majority) will not quit playing online poker, IMO.

2. The only way I stop playing online poker is if I have no way to deposit or withdraw my money safely. I am going to watch carefully how Neteller handles this bill, and how my bank handles it. If I win money on a site, and get the money transferred to Neteller, but then can't get the money transferred from Neteller to my banking account, what's the point of winning money?

3. From what I've read I feel this law will not punish online players individually, but rather online site owners, representatives, employees, etc.

4. This law will affect the outcome of future live events, in terms of number of players showing up to play. Let's face it, it would be quite possible to get a sting operation going at next year's WSOP and have the US Marshalls come in and do a sweeping arrest of every player that publicly won their seat on an online site. THIS worries me. May not happen, but it's POSSIBLE, IMO.

5. The fact that this bill even passed saddens me. To think that our representatives, our government is now going to protect me from me, is just not right and it's not fair. The idea that they can tell me what I can or cannot do with my income, in my house, is just downright scary. What's next?? Big Brother, Big Brother.

That's pretty much all I have to say about this. It's been talked about to death on the online poker forums, but one point of view I would like to share is Nolan Dalla's. http://www.pocketfives.com/89BA2E32-D8BA-42D0-AC82-29D6226B40B6.aspx

9 Comments:

Blogger DuggleBogey said...

Math Problem:

"this law will not punish online players individually"

+

"it would be quite possible to get a sting operation going at next year's WSOP and have the US Marshalls come in and do a sweeping arrest of every player that publicly won their seat on an online site."

= ??

11:10 AM  
Blogger "MissT74" said...

I do NOT see them punishing/prosecuting people at home while playing online = 1 person arrest

I CAN see them setting up a sting at WSOP = 2,500 people arrested.

Sorry, it's been a long week. ; )

12:39 PM  
Blogger EC said...

I can see your points, and I completely agree. I think it is completely unbelievable that they passed the bill in the first place, but hopefully we can overcome this somehow... I just don't know how.

As far as Neteller, you can still withdraw through the card right? It just may take awhile depending on how much you win, lol.

3:54 PM  
Blogger Torch said...

I can agree with you on every point except #5. The anti-gambling trailer is in no way sufficient reason to vote against the Port Security bill.

Your anger should not be in how this bill got passed, but in how we allow trailers in our system.

8:17 PM  
Blogger Omaholic said...

I do NOT see them punishing/prosecuting people at home while playing online = 1 person arrest

I CAN see them setting up a sting at WSOP = 2,500 people arrested.

----

I don't see anywhere in the bill that would give them the authority to do this.

The only activity that is outlawed and subject to criminal penalty that set forth in section 5363 - the *acceptance* of a financial instrument for unlawful wagering.

The section states "No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept...credit...an electronic funds transfer...any check..." etc.

While the DOJ *could* make an argument that a poker player is engaged in the business of betting or wagering, and is accepting credit by accepting the payment of their entry into a tournament, this is unlikely to fly for several reasons. First, from the context of the bill, it is clear that the "business" of wagering means accepting wagers -- that is, hosting a casino. In addition, it is far from clear that poker fits within the definition of "unlawful wagering" as defined by the statute. While sports betting clearly is within the purview of the regulation (since it has been held to fall within the Wire Act), poker remains unaddressed. Third, if they do decide to enforce these regulations, the DOJ would pick a more open-and-shut case by going after an operation or a financial clearing house rather than a player, since there would be so many more hurdles involved. If the DOJ really cares about this legislation, they would not want to start off with a tougher case and risk making bad law.

3:26 PM  
Blogger pokerchimp said...

Get a neteller ATM card. You won't have a problem witdrawing,

7:30 AM  
Blogger pokerchimp said...

Gat a neteller ATM card. This will solve your problems of cashing out.

7:31 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Martis Gras themed party? Does that mean the girls showed their breasts in an attempt to get the most beads from the guys?(that's actually the cleanest activity I've seen at Martis Gras) If so why do I never get invites to your parties?!

1:32 AM  
Blogger "MissT74" said...

Duh...nooooooooo, they're only 14, they got their beads for free. Of course, the guys refused to wear the purple ones. LOL

T

9:50 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home