[MicroBob]

to be fair - Raymer specifically talks about learning the general structure of the game (the blinds, the button, who bets when) in one of the spots.


Pokerstars, Party, Paradise, UB, Full-tilt, Pacific and Absolute all have dot-net ads for 'play-money' sites I believe. And I think they all say 'not a gambling site'. Or something like that.


My assumption was that after you set up your account on the dot-net site they start hitting you with e-mails to try the real-money tables on the dot-com side. Something like that.


and, of course, the obvious fact that many players will type in dot-com anyway just out of habit. It is my opinion that if advertising for the real-money sites is not legal (and this is jsut what the DOJ has decided on their own) then the dot-net ads are equally illegal.
Just like cigarette ads are illegal on TV in the U.S.....so Camel Cigarettes would not be allowed to get away with making a Camel Candy-Cigarette product and splashing their logo all over TV. Camel could argue 'But we aren't really advertising tobacco cigarettes. We specifically say in the ad that this is just a candy product.'
The problem is that the logo is obviously the same so it has the same effect as advertising for their tobacco-products too.
I think there is a very obvious parallel with what the online-sites are trying to do with the dot-net ads.

The only differences here are that the real-money sites' ads have not OFFICIALLY been made illegal. The DOJ just doesn't like them.

Of course, I'm all in favor of the networks suddenly being comfortable airing these dot-net ads. The more advertising that they allow the better.
Hell, they are even allowing the ads on ESPN now.

but I truly believe that these dot-net ads are no more or less illegal than the dot-com ads. It's just that the networks can run them and can then say 'but we thought they were okay' so their arses are more effectively covered.

Something like that anyway.