For EVERYONE Who Thinks that iPoker is Safe From the U.S. Gov.

[jrbick]

I challenge you to read the sections of this report at http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ngisc/reports/fullrpt.html
that are specific to Internet Gambling.

We need to organize and be PRO-ACTIVE if we are to believe that iPoker will continue in America.

Please do not dismiss this post as another "chicken-little-type-post." That attitude will ultimately leave iPoker in the dust. Since (as far as we know) the sites that we play at (and pay generously) have done little to be pro-active in winning over the U.S. Gov., we as players ought to step up to the plate.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ngisc/reports/fullrpt.html

[Cubswin]

Ive already read this document more then a couple of times. The final draft was published in 1999. A lot of progress has been made since then... eh? Kyl's bill has been around for even longer... 1995 to be exact. Has it even come close to passing? Lots of paranoia on this board the last few days.

cubs

[MicroBob]

Thanks for the clarification Cubs.

I'm not sure whether I've read the linked stuff or not because I didn't bother checking it.
But I think I get the general gist of what's in it.


Yes...I think it's safe to say that we've made 'just a little' bit of progress since 1999.

Since 2003 online-poker in the U.S. has become quite main-stream. Strangers I meet who learn that I do it professionally mostly mention that they like the play-money tables at Yahoo or that they play also or have a friend who likes to play also and would love to meet me.


There are so many people who have heard of Chris Moneymaker...and many of those do understand that he is a nobody who bought-in for $40 online and won his seat to the WSOP that way.
Most of the people who know about this have no moral qualms with it.


I think things are actually going in the opposite direction of what the poster is concerned about.
North Dakota is trying to officially legalize it.
Great Britain has the IPO for Party forthcoming on the LSX (and already has other online-poker and gamling companies being publicly traded such as crypto and paradise/sporting-bet).
No...it's not America...but if it's tolerated and accepted in Great Britain then I think that actually DOES help the cause in the U.S.

And then there's the whole bit about WPT Enterprises...and Doyle trying to buy it out and WPTE starting their online-poker games...etc etc.

On top of that...there are just fewer and fewer stories about the 'evils of online-gambling'.
and there are more and more positive stories about 1100+ players qualifying via WSOP...people 'accidentally' entering a WSOP qualifier and making it...and virtually all of these stories are written in such a way that it seems completely acceptable to play poker on the internet (there is ZERO reference of the grey-area of legality).

On top of that...we've got all the online-sites advertising on TV again via the dot-net method (or just wearing a logo for the site without any dot-net or dot-com attached to it).


seems to me like it's becoming more and more acceptable and mainstream every day.

[jrbick]

I agree that it is currently healthy (understatement of the year), MicroBob. It would be ridiculous for me or anyone to doubt this fact /images/graemlins/wink.gif . The growth rate of iPoker is astronomical! And seriously, I'm not trying to cause hysteria among the community either.

However, we have ONE state (ND) attempting to channel the industry into state income VERSUS how many states that have ALREADY specifically prohibited iGambling (iPoker)? WPTE is indeed launching new software for online play, but read it's T/C's -- NO U.S. CITIZEN IS ALLOWED TO PLAY FOR MONEY ON IT. My hope is that Doyle's attempt to purchase it will somehow turn into some sort of political process.

And really, though the report is 1999, you know how political process works -- a year means very little in political terms.

I would rather see a pro-active response from players rather than one that is passive. A passive response does nothing in terms of preserving our game. Just thinking in terms of "best possible" here. Why would we sit and do nothing? Wouldn't one think that the bigger this industry gets, the higher up it will land on the Federal priority list?

Any ideas aside from the usual "they won't prosecute" and "there's too many of us" and/or "the industry's too big now?"

[ds914]

[ QUOTE ]
Any ideas aside from the usual "they won't prosecute" and "there's too many of us" and/or "the industry's too big now?"

[/ QUOTE ]

You also have to realize that no one is going to take the threat too seriously until there's a real threat of enforcement and even prosecution. I know that if the US starts to crack down on internet poker, there's absolutely no way I'm going to jail for my past play. If it gets serious, I'll just quit playing. I think that's why most people aren't so concerned -- at least those of us who derive most of our income from a nonpoker job.

At this point, I'd rather players not take a pro-active response. Why bring even more light to it? Why fuel a legal battle that's luckily not yet developed?

[Cubswin]

At this point, I'd rather players not take a pro-active response. Why bring even more light to it? Why fuel a legal battle that's luckily not yet developed?

i agree 110%

You also have to realize that no one is going to take the threat too seriously until there's a real threat of enforcement and even prosecution

to further your point, the US fed govt has very little power to enforce a ban on internet poker under current statute. there is no US federal statute that makes internet poker illegal. the courts have held that the wire act, the one piece of legislation that the feds might point to in stating that internet poker is illegal, only applies to sports betting.

enforcement is unlikely to come at the state level either as they wouldnt have the first clue on how to go about it...plus most states are broke and dont have the budgets to do so.

cubs

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

At this point, I'd rather players not take a pro-active response. Why bring even more light to it? Why fuel a legal battle that's luckily not yet developed?

[/ QUOTE ]


Exactly.
If everyone starts screaming, "Make it legal!!" then we will have a bunch of casual-players suddenly realize, "huh?? This isn't legal??" and will stop playing.
Additionally....it might bring more do-gooders to the battle to try to 'save us all' from this hoorible evil.

If we just continue to get publicity about it like we are now...that is that this a completely common and acceptable part of our culture...then it won't occur to as many people to even CONSIDER that they actually might think it is unacceptable.


Mass acceptance with ZERO reference to the legal grey-area is exactly what we want.

[Luv2DriveTT]

Step one: US cracks down

Step two: Foreign nations appeal to the WTO for a ruling on behalf of their companies

Step three: WTO rules that the US's restriction of gambling using foreign companies is against fair trade rules since the US has casinos. US has 1 to 5 years to rectify or be sanctioned

Step four: Us (as usual) sends out a defiant press release, and then backs down just before the sanctions hit. Case in point, the steel industry.

Worse case scenario - we get shut down for a few years.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any ideas aside from the usual "they won't prosecute" and "there's too many of us" and/or "the industry's too big now?"

[/ QUOTE ]

You also have to realize that no one is going to take the threat too seriously until there's a real threat of enforcement and even prosecution. I know that if the US starts to crack down on internet poker, there's absolutely no way I'm going to jail for my past play. If it gets serious, I'll just quit playing. I think that's why most people aren't so concerned -- at least those of us who derive most of our income from a nonpoker job.

At this point, I'd rather players not take a pro-active response. Why bring even more light to it? Why fuel a legal battle that's luckily not yet developed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose, then, that this topic wouldn't apply to someone such as yourself. Your observations are mostly correct, however. I just disagree that "hiding" would be effective. That'd be like an elephant trying to hide behind a lamp-post: it just ain't happenin'.

So, I aim this (naturally) towards those whom it should concern: professional and semi-professional (working to be professional) players.

Just trying to think long-term +EV for iPoker.

Thanks.

[Cubswin]

Step one: US cracks down

let's not get ahead of ourselves

[jrbick]

I'm not claiming that we cry "legalize it" because the Feds haven't made it illegal... yet. I'm more concerned about the "yet."

You have a point, though, about mass acceptance (which really, we already have it).

What say you, then, about the handfull of states that have already prohibited iGambling specifically?

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
Step one: US cracks down

let's not get ahead of ourselves

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible, of course I hope it never happens. My email was a worse case scenario. Luckilly as I show there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]
Step one: US cracks down

Step two: Foreign nations appeal to the WTO for a ruling on behalf of their companies

Step three: WTO rules that the US's restriction of gambling using foreign companies is against fair trade rules since the US has casinos. US has 1 to 5 years to rectify or be sanctioned

Step four: Us (as usual) sends out a defiant press release, and then backs down just before the sanctions hit. Case in point, the steel industry.

Worse case scenario - we get shut down for a few years.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You've touched on another VERY important point in our favor. This already happened (sort of) with Antigua Vs. U.S. Not to mention that prohibiting this would ultimately violate other bills that have been put in place such as free-trade over the iNet (mentioned in the report) as well as others (mentioned in the report).

Here's what stood out to me -- though the commission points out how utterly difficult/impossible/expensive it would be to police this if it were prohibited, they still reccomend that it be prohibited. Maybe this point would have neutralized the commission.

I'd like to see correlating statistics between U.S. Casnios and iPoker (revenue specifically).

So, where does that leave my initial cause? Well, I want to see poker classified differently than other casino games - yes, it's still "chance," but MUCH less than other games, no ? If everyone in America that decides to play poker has the ability to do so optimally, then it ought to receive a different classification.

[Cancer Merchant]

[ QUOTE ]
Step one: US cracks down

Step two: Foreign nations appeal to the WTO for a ruling on behalf of their companies

Step three: WTO rules that the US's restriction of gambling using foreign companies is against fair trade rules since the US has casinos. US has 1 to 5 years to rectify or be sanctioned

Step four: Us (as usual) sends out a defiant press release, and then backs down just before the sanctions hit. Case in point, the steel industry.

Worse case scenario - we get shut down for a few years.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Step two has happened, with the WTO ruling that the US can indeed regulate Internet gambling "to maintain 'public morals' and 'public order.'" News (http://washingtontimes.com/business/20050407-105139-1545r.htm) Legal Analysis (http://www.asil.org/insights/2005/04/insights050412.html)

This is, of course, for general Internet gambling, not poker per se. Whether step one is imminent remains to be seen.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
Step two has happened, with the WTO ruling that the US can indeed regulate Internet gambling "to maintain 'public morals' and 'public order.'" News (http://washingtontimes.com/business/20050407-105139-1545r.htm) Legal Analysis (http://www.asil.org/insights/2005/04/insights050412.html)

This is, of course, for general Internet gambling, not poker per se. Whether step one is imminent remains to be seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course that was the US's PR spin. In reality the ruling stated differently.

"Antigua and Barbuda, the tiny Caribbean nation that filed the case, interpreted the ruling differently, saying it would compel the United States to make some accommodation for Antiguan gaming operators.
The United States either has to outlaw all gambling or "they will have to provide Antiguan online gaming companies fair access to the U.S. market," said Mark Mendel, Antigua's lead legal counsel in the case."

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[b0000000000m]

Hey iDood,

iPoker is not a word.

Good day,
b0...m

[Cancer Merchant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Step two has happened, with the WTO ruling that the US can indeed regulate Internet gambling "to maintain 'public morals' and 'public order.'" News (http://washingtontimes.com/business/20050407-105139-1545r.htm) Legal Analysis (http://www.asil.org/insights/2005/04/insights050412.html)

This is, of course, for general Internet gambling, not poker per se. Whether step one is imminent remains to be seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course that was the US's PR spin. In reality the ruling stated differently.

"Antigua and Barbuda, the tiny Caribbean nation that filed the case, interpreted the ruling differently, saying it would compel the United States to make some accommodation for Antiguan gaming operators.
The United States either has to outlaw all gambling or "they will have to provide Antiguan online gaming companies fair access to the U.S. market," said Mark Mendel, Antigua's lead legal counsel in the case."

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure we haven't heard the last of this case from either side, of course. The "public morals" exception looks like the type of hole countries can drive a truck through, providing the type of leverage the US didn't have when pushing steel tariffs.

[jrbick]

Additional reasons for pro-active effort:

http://bachus.house.gov/HoR/AL06/Issues/Internet+Gambling/Issues+-+Internet+gambling.htm

www.freejaycohen.com (http://www.freejaycohen.com) -- good source for recent WTO Antigua Vs. U.S. hearings.

There are more, I'm sure. My point with these links and previous points: The U.S. is majorly concerned w/ sports betting and organized, criminal activity (i.e. money laundering). They label this collectively as "gambling." They make exception for the most ridiculous gambling there is (imho) -- horse and dog racing. WTF is that? So let's work to get poker off the list. All I'm sayin'. Our sites make effort against laundering and do all they can to keep it fair (i.e. the PokerEdge incident).

[Cubswin]

Well, I want to see poker classified differently than other casino games - yes,

In terms of egaming, I wouldnt be too concerned if poker is grouped together with other casino games.... be more concerned if it is grouped together with sportsbetting.

cubs

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I want to see poker classified differently than other casino games - yes,

In terms of egaming, I wouldnt be too concerned if poker is grouped together with other casino games.... be more concerned if it is grouped together with sportsbetting.

cubs

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you provide a resource that makes these definitions? How certain can we be that most of these politicians make distinction (i.e. the Senate who overwhelmingly passed a bill to ban iGambling)?

[memphis57]

[ QUOTE ]

At this point, I'd rather players not take a pro-active response. Why bring even more light to it? Why fuel a legal battle that's luckily not yet developed?


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. I think we want the issue to come to a head now or in the next few years, precisely because of all the positive things MicroBob and others mentioned. We can win the battle now, and the opposition knows it and that's why they're taking the quiet road of non-enforcement - to appease us and let us make hay while the sun shines, while still keeping it technically illegal.

It's what they did with marijuana. We could have legalized home-grown, private use marijuana in the 70s if we had pushed. But we let the chance pass.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

[ QUOTE ]
Step one: US cracks down

Step two: Foreign nations appeal to the WTO for a ruling on behalf of their companies

Step three: WTO rules that the US's restriction of gambling using foreign companies is against fair trade rules since the US has casinos. US has 1 to 5 years to rectify or be sanctioned

Step four: Us (as usual) sends out a defiant press release, and then backs down just before the sanctions hit. Case in point, the steel industry.

Worse case scenario - we get shut down for a few years.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect this is precisely what will happen. During Step One, I will stop playing online, along with many, many other players. This loss of US revenue from many casual (and some pro) players will cause a bit of a consolidation as some sites will go under. Eventually, poker online will be legal, and the fish will swim back to the surviving sites, creating a Second Poker Boom.

Question is, when will Step One begin?

[Cubswin]

HR2143... the bill mentioned on bachus' webpage... is a variant of Kyl's bill. The same bill that has died everytime it has appeared in the congres since 1995. i think the bill has come up more then 10 times.

The U.S. is majorly concerned w/ sports betting and organized, criminal activity (i.e. money laundering). They label this collectively as "gambling."

The feds are concerned with sportsbetting because there is statute with which to prosecute. There is no federal statute that governs individuals playing ecasinos or epoker. Epoker is already differentiated from sportsbetting at the federal level... it is already off 'the list'.

cubs

[Cubswin]

We can win the battle now, and the opposition knows it and that's why they're taking the quiet road of non-enforcement - to appease us and let us make hay while the sun shines, while still keeping it technically illegal.

Why go to war when you dont have to?

The feds are taking the 'quiet road' because they have nothing to prosecute individuals with... nothing, nada, zilch.

If we wanted to get proactive what would you suggest doing? Attempt to pass legislation on the federal level legalizing epoker? HA... not likely with this congress and president.... or any congress or president for that matter.

[Cubswin]

Can you provide a resource that makes these definitions?

read the document you originally site.

on both the state and federal level there are clear distinctions between differnt types of gambling. sportsbetting is fair and away the most restricted form of gambling, followed by casinos, horseracing, and lotteries

[Cubswin]

the Senate who overwhelmingly passed a bill to ban iGambling

the seante passed this bill because the egaming rider was added as an amendment to a large appropriations bill as is often done. it was chopped out of the final version of the appropriations bills which came as a surprise to few. this practice is common on the hill. this was back in 1999 i believe... and since this time kyl has change the language of his bills. he is no longer attempting to prohibit egaming but rather to he is trying to put a stop to funding mechanisms.

cubs

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]
HR2143... the bill mentioned on bachus' webpage... is a variant of Kyl's bill. The same bill that has died everytime it has appeared in the congres since 1995. i think the bill has come up more then 10 times.

The U.S. is majorly concerned w/ sports betting and organized, criminal activity (i.e. money laundering). They label this collectively as "gambling."

The feds are concerned with sportsbetting because there is statute with which to prosecute. There is no federal statute that governs individuals playing ecasinos or epoker. Epoker is already differentiated from sportsbetting at the federal level... it is already off 'the list'.

cubs

[/ QUOTE ]

If what you say is true, why has the USDOJ been so unkind towards PartGaming? Why has the state of Louisiana requested that PartyGaming cease from offering it's services to its citizens? Why have states made laws against Internet Gambling, yet have made no exception clauses allowing poker but instead have defined "illegal gambling" as "the placing of bets or wagers?"

Cubs, I'm not trying to one-up you or anything. These are just the facts. Even though most of the above information is gleaned from press-releases, it still exposes the attitude of the Federal Gov.

I'm pretty certain that the attention has already been drawn to the industry thanks to ESPN and WPTE. Think about how things will be after WSOP 2005 airs -- 50% of the players qualified on the internet! Full Tilt is already running qualifiers for next year's WSOP.

I post topics like this because I'm pretty sure I see how things are adding up. I admit that I could be delusional and/or DEAD WRONG. But I am seeing some support FWIW.

We have resources, we our talking points that heavily favor the Feds. Is there any reason to remain passively complacent? I give it 50/50 at best (Gov. does nothing vs. Gov. bans ePoker) but think it's more like 40/60 or even less.

I don't say "legalize it." I say "re-categorize it." That should be quiet enough and not that much to ask.

[solucky]

Money makes the world...........its not only Partypoker that earn the $$$$. What is the WSOP without IPoker, i am sure without IPoker its down to a few hundred players. How many players spend there IPoker winnings in Vegas. TV -stations get a new blockbuster with poker...commercials...I doubt they will bann it...........think more that they will try to make " a few rules " like minimum 18 years old.

Wolfgang

[Cubswin]

If what you say is true, why has the USDOJ been so unkind towards PartGaming?

The DoJ has no jurisdiction to go after e-gaming sites. What the DoJ has attempted to do is go after media outlets that accept advertising from e-gaming sites on the grounds that ADVERTISING these site is illegal. There is a strong first amendment case against the DoJ on this matter... but rather then fight the fed the media outlets are now adding the .net to the end of the urls. Some media outlets must think they have a pretty damn good case for accepting egaming advertising because there are still some commercials that are using .com

Let's look at what is happening with egaming advertising. Have the number of e-gaming commericials gone up or down since the fed attempted to seize Discovery's ad revenue from Paradise? What does this tell us?

Why has the state of Louisiana requested that PartyGaming cease from offering it's services to its citizens?

Because gaming is a state issue and a few states have implimented anti-egaming legislation. This should be expected. Some states are more tolerant on gaming (and with regards to differenet types of gaming) then others.. this is the way it always has been and always will be. Last time i checked there were only 7 states that specifically made e-gaming illegal. Only one indivdual has ever been charged for placing a wager over the internet and that was a sportsbet.

The example of LA illustrates how, even when there is statute on the books, the states can not effectively enforce their own penal code. LA's best attempt to curb e-gaming is writting threatening letters to a company which it has zero jurisdiction over? How affective will that be?

Why have states made laws against Internet Gambling, yet have made no exception clauses allowing poker but instead have defined "illegal gambling" as "the placing of bets or wagers?"

Which states are you referring to? It is really hard to answer this question without looking at the nuances of each state's gaming statute.

48 states in this country have some sort of lottery... a good chunk of the states have some sort of land based casino... even more have horseracing. In drawing up statute do you think that all these forms of wagering are all chunked into the same category? The civil servants who draft laws are quite aware of the differences in the types of wagering and statute will reflect this.

I just dont foresee any changes on the federal level which will effect egaming (aside from sportsbetting... which is already on the books... though some contend that the wire act doens not apply to internet sportsbetting) in the near future. legislation that will effect egaming (and define the legality of different types of egaming) comes from the states and it is really not worthwhile to organize until an indivdual state takes action. even then, it might be a lost cause as it might be too hard to organize an effective campaign to influnce policy and no one would even care to organize as they know damn well the states would be unable to enforce their own laws.

cubs

PS.. i dont mean to sound like an ass... just really tired at the moment /images/graemlins/smile.gif