They are banning the use of credit cards, not bank accounts.
Collecting; Mark Mulder rookies Chipper Jones rookies Orlando Cabrera rookies Lawrence Taylor Sam Huff Lavar Arrington NY Giants NY Yankees NJ Nets NJ Devils 1950s-1960s Topps NY Giants Team cards
<< <i>Got this message from sportsbook.com today....
Lots of noise in the news about online gambling this past weekend, but don’t believe the hype. It’s business as usual at Sportsbook.com.
You can still deposit via your credit card, Neteller, Firepay or E-check, you have fast access to your winnings (and now even in cash - see below), your transactions are always safe, secure and private 24/7, and, of course, you get better odds than anywhere else.
The real news this weekend, aside from Saturday’s clashes between Texas and Oklahoma and LSU vs. Florida, is that T.O. is almost certain to play Sunday back “home” in Philly. The Cowboys/Eagles games have always been colorful so this should be an ugly Sunday. Philly’s getting all the action so far—as is the under—it’s going to be a tight game.
And when you’re cashing in your V-chips, select the Debit1 option. Instead of a check, we’ll send you a cool ATM card you can use for cash at the supermarket, gas station, liquor store—anywhere you can pay with an ATM card. Now that’s news you can use. And your next withdrawal is even faster as we just credit your account online and the cash is there for you. No checks, no FedEx or DHL, no waiting—choose the Debit1 option on your next withdrawal.
Have another great winning weekend.
Regards,
The Sportsbook.com Team >>
ATM's are operated by the banks aren't they? So how is an ATM going to now work for a gambling website? Simply isn't going to happen. Of course to the best of my knowledge the legislation doesn't "officially" take effect for about nine months, so I guess possibly this ATM card will work until then.
These gambling stocks and gambling transaction stocks, didn't lose about half their value in one day because it's going to be "easy" to get around these laws. That just doesn't make sense.
Frankly, these gambling websites have no risk as far as your money is concerned. If your money gets deposited, that's fine with them. If for some reason in the future you can't withdraw the money, why should they care?
But I'm just looking for the facts on this whole situation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
- >>
I was just about to post the email
That was my original question. How is the US going to regulate cash though a 3rd party, who conducts business outside of the US and with no official affiliations with gambling sites? The sites could, in theory, not accept American transactions but why would they?
No, please, do not give us your money.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>They are banning the use of credit cards, not bank accounts. >>
Not according to the first post on this thread.
It says banks and credit cards, and everything else I've read on the subject indicates the same.
shawn >>
Well, I'm going by what I've heard about the bill and what I've heard through Full Tilt.
Collecting; Mark Mulder rookies Chipper Jones rookies Orlando Cabrera rookies Lawrence Taylor Sam Huff Lavar Arrington NY Giants NY Yankees NJ Nets NJ Devils 1950s-1960s Topps NY Giants Team cards
Sportingbet (Sportsbook.com) since July, has seen its stock price fall from 400 to 68. For sure that had to of greatly harmed or ruined a number of their employees who own the stock. Perhaps the "Sportsbook.com Team" is in a bit of a state of denial about this whole thing. I don't know - I guess we'll have to see how it all plays out.
<< <i>My 2 cents - I'll be amazed if the multi-billion dollar online poker gaming industry doesnt find a way for US customer to safely deposit $$$... Guess we'll see in about 2 weeks and 9 months... >>
I can't see why online sites can't just take a money order and send back a check or something. Keep it all paper and not electronic.
Anyways, for anyone wondering, my Party Poker balance came through my bank account today so I guess they're not going to stiff everyone.
<< <i>My 2 cents - I'll be amazed if the multi-billion dollar online poker gaming industry doesnt find a way for US customer to safely deposit $$$... Guess we'll see in about 2 weeks and 9 months... >>
I can't see why online sites can't just take a money order and send back a check or something. Keep it all paper and not electronic.
Anyways, for anyone wondering, my Party Poker balance came through my bank account today so I guess they're not going to stiff everyone. >>
Yes, basically I don't believe it would be possible or would even be attempted to stop checks from anywhere.
I had bought two items on ebay, both mailable items, one from the UK and one from France, and I was surprised how fast the items arrived in Pennsylvania. It was like only two or three days delivery time from the foreign postmark.
Don't forget though, with check fraud and counterfeit money orders out there, these gambling websites probably wouldn't allow use of the funds for at least two weeks after deposit, probably longer especially from foreign banks. This of course all adds to the cost of their gambling operations will could be reflected in an increased percentage rate in the rake for online poker. Sports bet vigs I imagine though would remain the same.
October 6, 2006 - It was announced today that President George W. Bush will sign the Port Security Bill into law next Friday, October 13.
The SAFE port act (the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act) was one of Congress' final actions before breaking for the November mid-term elections.
The legislation, part of an election-year focus on national security issues, is designed to keep nuclear, chemical or biological weapons out of shipping containers on their way to the U.S and was passed by both the House and Senate in the midnite hours last Friday.
The Act also includes language that makes it a federal crime for banking institutions to allow illegal gambling financial transactions. The new bill does not change any laws pertaining to the Wire Act which only says that sports betting is illegal.
SUBJECT: New FirePay policy for US account holders
On September 30, 2006, the United States Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.
Once President Bush approves the Act. FirePay (www.firepay.com) will no longer allow US consumer payments for online gambling merchants.
Beginning the day President Bush signs the Act, FirePay will decline any purchase transactions from US FirePay account holders at any gambling merchant site. Ten days after President Bush signs the Act, FirePay will decline any transfer attempt made by any online gambling merchant to a US FirePay account. All US FirePay accounts holders will continue to be able to make purchases and receive payments from non-gambling, online merchants, as well as “Deposit From” and “Withdraw To” their US bank account.
Click here for the latest news and opportunities for FirePay account holders.
** Please note:
This new policy will not affect FirePay account holders from outside of the United States
For any questions regarding these deadlines or policy, please email info@firepay.com
Good News: The Tide is Turning And It Looks Like PokerStars Is Going to Stay
Card Player has a staff of people busily contacting everyone in the poker industry in order to provide our readers with up-to-date information. Today we have more good news to report.
Online Gaming Sites: Who’s In and Who’s Out?
In the past few days, we have received definitive confirmation that the following companies are not pulling out of the United States: Full Tilt, Bodog, Full Contact Poker, Doyle’s Room and the Doyle Brunson Network, and Absolute Poker are all in! We also have good authority that Ultimate Bet's intention is to accept U.S. customers. As a matter of fact, many of these sites have rewarded US players by offering specials for their customers. Please visit this page to examine and cash in on the bonuses.
Card Player has learned moments ago that PokerStars has made a decision to continue accepting U.S. customers even if the President signs the current legislation. Bravo for PokerStars!
We have strong reason to believe that this afternoon, PokerStars customers will receive answers to their e-mails stating that Poker Stars will remain doing business in the United States.
Card Player applauds PokerStars and all the other online sites for their informed decision to continue offering poker games to United States citizens.
As a poker community, let’s begin right now, before the bill is signed, by supporting the companies that have not abandoned U.S. players.
Financial Processors: Who’s In and Who’s Out?
NETeller’s decision to stay in the US has been confirmed. In case any of our readers missed it, the decision was reported in the Wall Street Journal:
A NETeller PLC executive said the British company, which handles payments for online gambling companies and others, will continue to operate in the U.S., despite the recent passage of antigambling legislation.
"We are staying in the U.S.," said Bruce Elliott, Neteller's executive vice president, marketing and sales, told a online gambling conference in Barcelona. "I don't think we have a very big problem."
At about the same time NETeller made its decision to continue accepting US business, FirePay sent a letter to all their customers saying that the moment President Bush signs the bill, FirePay will decline purchase transactions with online gaming sites. Here is an excerpt of that FirePay letter:
Once President Bush approves the Act. FirePay will no longer allow US consumer payments for online gambling merchants. Beginning the day President Bush signs the Act, FirePay will decline any purchase transactions from US FirePay account holders at any gambling merchant site.
Ten days after President Bush signs the Act, FirePay will decline any transfer attempt made by any online gambling merchant to a US FirePay account.
I think it is important that as consumers, we show our support right now for all the companies that will not be bullied or intimidated by our government.
To visit CardPlayer.com’s archive of online legislation articles, click here. To claim site bonuses through CardPlayer.com, click on the site of your choice: UltimateBet, Bodog, Absolute, and Full Tilt.
<<< To visit CardPlayer.com’s archive of online legislation articles, click here. To claim site bonuses through CardPlayer.com, click on the site of your choice: UltimateBet, Bodog, Absolute, and Full Tilt. >>>
The filthy rich get filthy richer, while gamblers get poorer.
<< <i>Rpublicans used to stand for less intrusions into personal freedoms.
That's all over with now and has been for some time. As a former lifetime Republican ... hello my new fellow Democrats ... >>
God, is that ever the truth. I'd still be a democrat anyway, because I believe in fiscal policy. But it does seem like the Republicans are losing their focus as more and more of their more thoughtful congressmen and senators (George Mitchell, etc.) retire.
<< <i>Rpublicans used to stand for less intrusions into personal freedoms.
That's all over with now and has been for some time. As a former lifetime Republican ... hello my new fellow Democrats ... >>
God, is that ever the truth. I'd still be a democrat anyway, because I believe in fiscal policy. But it does seem like the Republicans are losing their focus as more and more of their more thoughtful congressmen and senators (George Mitchell, etc.) retire. >>
Maybe I misunderstood the way you worded this Boo, but George Mitchell was a member of the Democratic Party.
I do agree with your comment about the Republicans losing focus. As crazy as this may sound, this is actually the sign of a healthy democracy. The Republicans have had power now for a number of years and silmilar to most situations of those in power, they lose their focus, become complacent, etc. Some governments become more tyranical depending on the type of government - and of course the nice thing is about a democracy is the leaders can be voted out. Unfortunately, people in some countries are stuck with a dictatorship like the maniac Kim Jong II of North Korea until he dies.
Unless something changes dramatically in the next 30 days, there is no doubt in my mind that the Republicans are going to get trounced in this mid-term election...and possibly trounced badly. I have selectively voted for Democrats in the past, but I am a registered Republican and I really don't like the direction our country is headed, especially with the ever increasing deficits that Clinton was at least trying to do something about, but Bush has basically done very little. Plus this Iraq war needs to be taken care of, and we are in need of an exit strategy to get out.
The good news? I firmly believe the United States is the greatest country in the world...but I would like to see it even better. I will definitely consider voting for a good Democrat in 2008. As long as the Democratic primary voters aren't dumb enough to nominate Hillary, who in my opinion is absolutely unelectable for president.
<< <i>Rpublicans used to stand for less intrusions into personal freedoms.
That's all over with now and has been for some time. As a former lifetime Republican ... hello my new fellow Democrats ... >>
God, is that ever the truth. I'd still be a democrat anyway, because I believe in fiscal policy. But it does seem like the Republicans are losing their focus as more and more of their more thoughtful congressmen and senators (George Mitchell, etc.) retire. >>
Maybe I misunderstood the way you worded this Boo, but George Mitchell was a member of the Democratic Party.
I do agree with your comment about the Republicans losing focus. As crazy as this may sound, this is actually the sign of a healthy democracy. The Republicans have had power now for a number of years and silmilar to most situations of those in power, they lose their focus, become complacent, etc. Some governments become more tyranical depending on the type of government - and of course the nice thing is about a democracy is the leaders can be voted out. Unfortunately, people in some countries are stuck with a dictatorship like the maniac Kim Jong II of North Korea until he dies.
Unless something changes dramatically in the next 30 days, there is no doubt in my mind that the Republicans are going to get trounced in this mid-term election...and possibly trounced badly. I have selectively voted for Democrats in the past, but I am a registered Republican and I really don't like the direction our country is headed, especially with the ever increasing deficits that Clinton was at least trying to do something about, but Bush has basically done very little. Plus this Iraq war needs to be taken care of, and we are in need of an exit strategy to get out.
The good news? I firmly believe the United States is the greatest country in the world...but I would like to see it even better. I will definitely consider voting for a good Democrat in 2008. As long as the Democratic primary voters aren't dumb enough to nominate Hillary, who in my opinion is absolutely unelectable for president.
Steve >>
Wow. Very nice, thoughtful post, steve. And you're right, of course- Mitchell was a democrat. I was thinking of Cohen (I get them mixed up).
The problem the Republicans have is that they don't really believe in fiscal policy. So when they get elected they're in a bind, since on the one hand they have to serve as bag men for their districts, but on the other hand they aren't predisposed towards offering crazy handouts to the totally undeserving. Democrats, as we know, aren't so encumbered.
Hillary is totally unelectable, as is Obama. Hell, Kerry for that matter was unelectable as well, but that didn't stop idiot Democrats from voting for him in the primaries when it was clear to even the blind that the only man who had a shot in 2000 was Edwards. Given this, who knows? Maybe they will nominate Hillary. Gingrich has done everything short of endorse her, and if that isn't a sign that she can't get elected (Gingrich, for all his faults, is no moron) then I don't know what is.
Democrats, IMO, are still paying for two things: Busing in the 1970's, and the civil rights/women's movements. If they can ever convince America that they are no longer the party that shipped urban blacks into suburban schools they might get the House of Rep. back. The republican's did one thing very well since 1994,and that is to successful trim the welfare roles, but I do think it's time for a change-- although I'm deeply concerned that the Democrats that get elected won't be, in the aggregate, one hell of a lot better. Although if a Democratic majority in the House and Senate at least gets us away from these silly 'morals' debates, and moves the national dialogue towards more substantive issues (the myriad failures of our educational system springs to mind) then I guess it will be a positive step forward.
Good points Boo. Busing was possibly one of the most idiotic attempted "solutions" to the problem of unequal education that mankind could have possibly invented. We all here went to high school - I can't even imagine how upset I would have been if I was being bussed to some school, for an hour or more each day, where I didn't know anybody and most if not all of my friends from my neighborhood school weren't there.
The solution was and is simple - stop wasting money and do whatever is necessary to bring urban schools up to suburban school standards. Tough? Sure it's tough. Necessary? Dam right it's necessary...we're all Americans and we all need to be given basically the same opportunities for education and advancement in our society.
The other point I want to make is I remember someone, I forget who, but it was a respectable gentleman close to Reagan, that Reagan personally told him the reason that Reagan wanted to run up deficits was so the Democrats couldn't spend the money the way they wanted to, so that Reagan could spend the money the way he wanted to. This gentleman repeated these words from Reagan in a public interview. There is no doubt in my mind that our current president subscribes to this same way of thinking as Reagan, although of course Bush would never admit it.
I liked Reagan and thought he was a very good president, but this type of thinking about a "competition" to spend the taxpayers money was absolutely abhorrent to me. Reagan and Republicans always say "it's your money" when talking to taxpayers...then dammit don't waste it like they've been wasting it - I'm sick & tired of it! Politicians blow money left and right on wasteful spending but we don't seem to have enough money to spend on those suffering from Hurricane Katrina - that is simply unacceptable.
<< <i>Good points Boo. Busing was possibly one of the most idiotic attempted "solutions" to the problem of unequal education that mankind could have possibly invented. We all here went to high school - I can't even imagine how upset I would have been if I was being bussed to some school, for an hour or more each day, where I didn't know anybody and most if not all of my friends from my neighborhood school weren't there.
The solution was and is simple - stop wasting money and do whatever is necessary to bring urban schools up to suburban school standards. Tough? Sure it's tough. Necessary? Dam right it's necessary...we're all Americans and we all need to be given basically the same opportunities for education and advancement in our society.
The other point I want to make is I remember someone, I forget who, but it was a respectable gentleman close to Reagan, that Reagan personally told him the reason that Reagan wanted to run up deficits was so the Democrats couldn't spend the money the way they wanted to, so that Reagan could spend the money the way he wanted to. This gentleman repeated these words from Reagan in a public interview. There is no doubt in my mind that our current president subscribes to this same way of thinking as Reagan, although of course Bush would never admit it.
I liked Reagan and thought he was a very good president, but this type of thinking about a "competition" to spend the taxpayers money was absolutely abhorrent to me. Reagan and Republicans always say "it's your money" when talking to taxpayers...then dammit don't waste it like they've been wasting it - I'm sick & tired of it! Politicians blow money left and right on wasteful spending but we don't seem to have enough money to spend on those suffering from Hurricane Katrina - that is simply unacceptable.
Steve >>
Man, I don't know if there is an answer to the problems facing urban schools. I hate to be that way, but I've labored over this for years and I can't think of an acceptable solution. For one thing, most learning goes on in the home (IMO). School supplements that learning, but it can't work as a substitute. If you're parents don't value education then there's a 99% chance you won't either, and I don't think all the money in the world can change that.
Second, I think a large part of urban African American culture is so utterly corrosive, and runs so totally contrary to the set of standard American values that we all more or less adhere to (I'm talking basic stuff here, like 'education is important', and 'if you work hard you'll get ahead'), that if there isn't an apprciative cultural shift then most educational efforts are for naught.
The problem is so multi faceted that it almost seems to defy a solution. Maybe I'm just being shortsighted-- in fact, I hope that's it-- but every time I ponder this issue I become more and more confounded. But the one thing that CAN change is the abominable education that middle and upper-middle class kids are receiving. That just needs to stop now. As we move towards a global economy, and as our manufacturing base erodes, the one thing we will be able to export is creativity and knowledge. If, however, we continue to let kids who come from homes with $70,000 combined incomes graduate from high school (or, God forbid, college) without the ability to solve a system of equations we're in deep, deep doo doo.
It amazes me that any industrialized country can be as mathematically illiterate as we are. The fact that most Americans can't think there way out of a wet paper bag also gives me pause, but I take solace in the fact that most people are just naturally not very bright, and you can't expect them to learn how to think critically. Despite this significant handicap the world still moves onward. But even a frickin' chimpanzee can learn to add and subtract, and the fact that we don't place the appropriate value on basic math skills should deeply trouble everyone who's proud to call this country home.
Article...with info on Neteller - appears that them transferring money for gambling websites isn't etched in stone quite yet
Reuters Barclays and RBS warn gaming clients on U.S.: source Thursday October 12, 5:28 am ET
LONDON (Reuters) - Barclays (London:BARC.L - News) and Royal Bank of Scotland (London:RBS.L - News) will shortly advise corporate customers to avoid taking Internet bets from the United States, banking and gambling sources said on Thursday.
"The two banks will be telling corporate clients they're not prepared to do business with companies that take online bets from the United States," said the source. "Then they'll look at ways of stopping retail customers from online gambling."
An RBS spokeswoman said: "The Royal Bank of Scotland Group will take the necessary steps to ensure that we are fully compliant with this legislation." Barclays declined to comment.
Gambling companies were left in shock last week after the U.S. Congress unexpectedly passed a bill making it illegal to accept wagers over the Internet, or for banks or credit card companies to process payments to online gaming firms.
The measure has been passed to President George W. Bush to sign into law, which the industry expects to happen on Friday.
Banking and gambling sources said the two banks had written to corporate customers asking them to confirm they are complying with U.S. gaming legislation.
British online money transfer firm Neteller Plc (London:NLR.L - News), which does a lot of gambling business, says it is reviewing the situation.
RBS owns Citizens Financial Group, which is the eighth biggest commercial bank in the United States in terms of deposits. It has more than 1,600 branches operating across 13 states, and has non-branch retail and commercial offices in about 40 states.
<< <i>Article...with info on Neteller - appears that them transferring money for gambling websites isn't etched in stone quite yet
Reuters Barclays and RBS warn gaming clients on U.S.: source Thursday October 12, 5:28 am ET
LONDON (Reuters) - Barclays (London:BARC.L - News) and Royal Bank of Scotland (London:RBS.L - News) will shortly advise corporate customers to avoid taking Internet bets from the United States, banking and gambling sources said on Thursday.
"The two banks will be telling corporate clients they're not prepared to do business with companies that take online bets from the United States," said the source. "Then they'll look at ways of stopping retail customers from online gambling."
An RBS spokeswoman said: "The Royal Bank of Scotland Group will take the necessary steps to ensure that we are fully compliant with this legislation." Barclays declined to comment.
Gambling companies were left in shock last week after the U.S. Congress unexpectedly passed a bill making it illegal to accept wagers over the Internet, or for banks or credit card companies to process payments to online gaming firms.
The measure has been passed to President George W. Bush to sign into law, which the industry expects to happen on Friday.
Banking and gambling sources said the two banks had written to corporate customers asking them to confirm they are complying with U.S. gaming legislation.
British online money transfer firm Neteller Plc (London:NLR.L - News), which does a lot of gambling business, says it is reviewing the situation.
RBS owns Citizens Financial Group, which is the eighth biggest commercial bank in the United States in terms of deposits. It has more than 1,600 branches operating across 13 states, and has non-branch retail and commercial offices in about 40 states.
(Reporting by Pete Harrison and Steve Slater) >>
Just my opinion at this point that it's getting close to "drawing dead" for online poker in the United States. I'm now back to my original prediction of online poker in the United States will be less than 1% of what it was after all this settles. Sports betting could be a different story as addicts not in recovery may do anything to make a bet, so they may send cash certified back and forth to say Bodog in some manner, and Bodog would have to send them cash back or some sort of untraceable certified payment. Bodog though may not want to operate this way for various reasons and because probably the incident of theft of their letters would be very high. Unless something changes, I think in the United States it's basically over for online poker - stick a fork in it.
Online gaming firm Sportingbet has sold most of its US business for $1 (53p) hours before a law was passed outlawing internet gambling across the country.
Rival Leisure & Gaming has followed suit, selling its US operation to a new firm set up by its chief executive.
But the firm said the deal may breach market rules and the London Stock Exchange has launched an investigation.
On Friday, President Bush was signing into law an act making it a crime to accept proceeds from online gaming.
Sale frenzy
The imminent passage of the legislation has led to some dramatic corporate manoeuvring as affected firms seek to limit their US liabilities before the new laws came into force.
World Gaming called in the administrators on Friday after agreeing to cease its US operations and most of its directors have resigned.
This may constitute a technical breach of Alternative Investment Market rules
Leisure & Gaming statement
Sportingbet has sold its US sports betting and casino businesses to Jazette Enterprises for the nominal sum.
Leisure & Gaming, meanwhile, has hastily agreed to sell its US business to a newly formed company headed by chief executive Alistair Assheton, who has resigned from the business.
The AIM-listed firm said it had sanctioned the sale without prior shareholder approval since it would avoid about $6m in liquidation costs and it believed this was in investors' interests.
But it admitted the transaction - which it said would enable the firm to continue operating and would be put to a shareholder vote in due course - may "constitute a technical breach" of stock market rules.
The firm's shares were suspended after its nominated financial advisor, Altium Capital, resigned.
The London Stock Exchange said it would investigate the circumstances surrounding the sale.
"We will fully investigate any apparent rule breaches and I can confirm we are looking at this case," a spokesman said.
Several gaming firms, including Partygaming and 888 Holdings, had already said that they would stop accepting bets from US residents once the act becomes law.
'Fantastic business'
Sportingbet had been reviewing its US business since its former chairman Peter Dicks was arrested in September.
Though Mr Dicks has since been released, the arrest was part of a series of moves made by US authorities trying to discourage online gambling operators.
We are saddened to have to dispose of such a fantastic business as a result of political actions in the US Congress
State officials in Louisiana had issued a warrant accusing him of "gambling by computer" but a New York court refused to sanction Mr Dicks' extradition to Louisiana.
"We are saddened to have to dispose of such a fantastic business as a result of political actions in the US Congress," said Andrew McIver, the firm's chief executive.
"The sale, however, prevents significant closure costs which would have been both expensive and time consuming."
Sportingbet said it would now focus on developing its business in Europe and Australia.
It will retain its Paradise Poker site, but will stop accepting US cash later on Friday.
Legal clarity
US lawmakers took the gambling industry by surprise when they agreed sweeping measures criminalising the transfer and handling of proceeds from online gambling earlier this month.
President Bush's signature will alter the dynamic for gaming firms
Gambling on sports events was already illegal in most US jurisdictions.
But the scope of existing law governing the gambling industry was considered to be unclear and gaming firms promoted their businesses there on the expectation that their operations would be left alone.
US lawmakers are concerned that internet gambling has been fuelling social problems, such as debt and addiction, and could act as a magnet for criminal activity.
New Law Cripples Internet Gambling Banks Are Barred From Handling Transactions By Frank Ahrens Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, October 14, 2006; A01
Placing bets over the Internet was effectively criminalized by the federal government yesterday, as lawmakers work to eliminate an activity enjoyed by as many as 23 million Americans who wagered an estimated $6 billion last year.
Attached to a port-security bill signed by President Bush yesterday was the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which prohibits online gamblers from using credit cards, checks and electronic fund transfers to place and settle bets. The law puts enforcement on the shoulders of banks and other U.S. financial institutions, some of which fought the legislation.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), said he opposes all gambling, citing its "ill effects on society," but particularly Internet gambling, which led him to draft the legislation in the summer. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) attached Goodlatte's bill to the port-security measure to ensure its passage and Bush's signature.
While proponents decried the effects of gambling on society, opponents pointed to the enormous popularity of Internet gambling and compared the new law to the Prohibition amendment of 1919, which led to the rise of illegal speak-easies and organized crime.
"We're going to have Prohibition, and what happened then?" said champion poker player Annie Duke, a former University of Pennsylvania doctoral candidate who began playing professionally in 1994. "We had people running around with tommy guns and drinking moonshine because they weren't given a safe product."
The new law is potentially crippling to a worldwide industry whose biggest customer has been the United States. Already, several online wagering businesses have pulled their operations out of the United States and some have collapsed, including publicly traded companies in Britain, where online betting is legal and regulated. International online gambling businesses have been watching closely as U.S. regulatory and law enforcement officials stepped up their campaign against online wagering in recent months.
Gambling, along with pornography, was one of the earliest businesses on the Internet, and one of the few profitable ones. The first Internet gambling site appeared in 1995, according to the American Gaming Association, the trade group of big casinos. Over the past decade, online gambling has caught fire, especially among men in their 20s, and crossed into the mainstream to include poker and fantasy sports leagues.
Nevertheless, online gambling has been a legally gray area, equally populated by legitimate, publicly traded overseas corporations and fly-by-night predators who, like music pirates, can shut down and move their computer servers overnight to stay ahead of the law.
In the United States, the Justice Department and federal courts are unable to agree on whether Internet gambling is illegal. The Justice Department maintains that the 1961 Wire Act, written to prohibit betting transactions via telephone, applies to the Internet. Courts have disagreed, saying that betting on sports teams over the Internet is illegal, but wagering on casino games, such as poker, is not. And though the Justice Department thinks that off-track and online wagering on horse races is illegal, it has never prosecuted a case.
Internet gamblers typically set up accounts at offshore businesses, and place and settle bets using credit cards and checks that are converted in electronic currency, much as eBay users buy and sell items using the PayPal system.
Instead of targeting specific games, such as criminalizing blackjack but not fantasy sports leagues, the new law seeks to block the financial transactions that fuel them.
The Poker Players Alliance, a lobbying group that opposes the new law, said it would ask Congress to exempt poker from the statute. The group considers poker a game of skill, not chance.
The new law is shaking up the worldwide Internet gambling industry, with some comparing it to Congress banning the sale of Toyotas, BMWs and all other foreign vehicles here. Britain's Sportingbet PLC, for example, said 62 percent of winning bets on its site came from the United States.
A major offshore e-currency company, FirePay of Britain, said it no longer will accept payments from U.S. customers. Sportingbet sold its U.S. online operations to an Antiguan company yesterday for $1, five weeks after former company chairman Peter Dicks was arrested in New York when customs officials found he was wanted in Louisiana on charges of illegal online gambling. New York Gov. George E. Pataki (R) refused to extradite Dicks to Louisiana, and a federal judge cleared his return to England.
Former BetOnSports PLC chief executive David Carruthers was arrested in the Dallas airport in July. BetOnSports founder Gary Stephen Kaplan, also wanted by U.S. authorities, is a fugitive. BetOnSports said yesterday it would pull out of the United States and repay balances to customers here.
Most online wagering and e-currency Web sites posted releases yesterday commenting on the law and its impact on customers.
"After taking extensive legal advice, the board of PartyGaming PLC has concluded that the new legislation . . . will make it practically impossible to provide U.S. residents with access to its real money poker and other real money gaming sites," the company said.
The World Trade Organization even has a stake in the game. The organization has ruled that the United States violates trade treaties by outlawing offshore online gambling while tolerating some forms of U.S.-based online gambling, citing the horse-racing ambiguity.
The major casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City and on Indian reservations did not take a position on the new law, said Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., president of the American Gaming Association. The group's reasoning: Less casino revenue comes from gambling, as entertainment, retail and other non-wagering spending now makes up 55 percent of the cash streaming into resorts such as Harrah's and Bellagio.
"The guy who comes home and goes to his den and cracks open a can of beer and bets on the Internet is not really our customer," Fahrenkopf said. "We never viewed the Internet as being competitive."
The association wants Congress to authorize an independent study of whether a legalized, nationwide, taxed and regulated online gambling system would work in the United States, as it does in Britain.
"Would we like to get into that business?" Fahrenkopf said. "Yeah, some of our guys would."
Goodlatte said he would press to update the Wire Act to conclusively extend its authority to the Internet. That part of his bill was dropped in the Senate.
"All the problems that manifest themselves with gambling, even in heavily regulated states, are even worse on the Internet," Goodlatte said yesterday. "There are family problems, bankruptcy problems, gambling addiction, gambling by minors, using gambling to launder money for criminal and terrorist organizations and organized crime. It does not help our society."
For poker advocates such as Duke, the new law is the wrong way to cure social problems.
"We've proven in history that trying to protect the minority and punish the majority never works," Duke said. "The fact is, there is a certain percentage of people who have addictive personalities [and gamble online]. Are you going to pass a law outlawing online shopping? Or day trading?"
Just applied this morning for a transfer from my bodog account to my bank account. Will update on how this goes.
Am only playing with their money at this point and only bet on NFL games for a little added excitement every week to go along with fantasy football and rooting for my Chargers.
That makes me a sick, degenerate gambler? Bull-Puckie! It's fun, I can afford it, and the government needs to get out of my freaking face!
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: October 24, 2006 Filed at 10:08 p.m. ET
NEW YORK (AP) -- Gamblers may look over their shoulder now, but experts say a new Internet gambling ban won't keep bettors from ponying up, just turn them on to overseas payment services out of the law's reach.
''It has put a terrible scare into people,'' said I. Nelson Rose, who teaches gambling law at Whittier Law School. ''But it won't by any means wipe out Internet gambling.''
The fright swept through the $12 billion industry on the heels of the recent arrests of two gambling company executives and a new law President Bush signed Oct. 13 that seeks to ban most online gambling and criminalizes funds transfers.
The law has wiped out billions of dollars in shareholder value of British companies, leaving the industry's future in doubt as U.S. lawmakers initially trumpeted they had found a way to halt bets coming from America. But serious questions remain about whether the legislation can be effective in stopping U.S. residents from playing poker or betting on sports.
The ''Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act'' goes after the money, not the millions of players, which would be nearly impossible to enforce. It will essentially try to choke off the way Americans fund their gambling habits, hoping to prevent the transfer of dollars to the popular Internet sites.
It's also widely understood that the law has online poker in its gun sights, identifying it as a game of chance -- something the poker companies dispute. They believe poker is a game of skill and therefore not subject to the new rules.
But they're fearful nonetheless.
''Their mission is to kill the funding of online poker, and that's what this law does,'' said Mike Sexton, who hosts the popular World Poker Tour and has won millions as a professional player.
The new law comes amid an explosion in online gambling, fueled by the Texas Hold 'em craze and widespread access to the Internet. In addition, dozens of Web sites have sprouted up that allow any gambler with a credit card to bet on any sport they choose, for any amount of money they want.
Industry experts say there are an estimated 2,000 Internet sites that take bets for sports and poker. American players have fueled Internet gambling, supplying $6 billion of the $12 billion in revenues generated annually.
''The time has been one of rapid growth,'' said Sebastian Sinclair, president of Christiansen Capital Advisors, a gambling consultant. ''This industry was well on its way to becoming mainstream in a great part of the world. Capital was tripping over itself to fund these companies.''
The new law gives the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve, along with the Attorney General, 270 days to establish policies and procedures.
''The regulations are clearly going to prevent banks from doing electronic fund transfers to gambling sites, but that is no big deal,'' Rose said.
Clamping down on the banks won't serve as a panacea, Rose said. In some cases, banks simply move the money to payment processors, known as e-wallets. Non-U.S. payment processors such as the widely used Neteller then transfer the money to the Internet gambling sites.
The U.S. government has no authority over processors like Neteller that are operating legally.
Anthony Cabot, a well-known gambling lawyer in Las Vegas, thinks language used in the bill provides a loophole for the payment processors and the U.S. banks that want to be free to do business with them.
''Unless you have some fairly Draconian measures ... the likelihood of stopping payment to them is small,'' Cabot said.
Much damage has already been done to the offshore sports betting industry without the looming regulations.
British BetOnSports PLC folded after its chief executive was arrested in July by U.S. authorities. David Carruthers faces 22 counts of fraud and racketeering charges and remains under house arrest in the St. Louis area.
London-based Sportingbet's chairman was detained last month in New York on a state fugitive warrant charging him with illegal online gambling. He was eventually freed.
Both arrests sounded serious alarm bells for those running sports wagering sites that take American bets.
The new legislation has already had a dramatic effect. It supposedly clarifies the 1961 Wire Act, explicitly outlawing Internet gambling, including online poker.
It creates new criminal penalties, which have rattled investors and executives -- although Rose said it doesn't expand the act, and there's no indication the Justice Department is about to launch a huge campaign to enforce the law.
Still, the biggest publicly traded names in Internet gambling on the London Stock Exchange and AIM, the exchange's global market for growing companies, could not afford to flout American law. When news broke earlier this month that Congress has passed the bill, Internet gambling companies traded on those exchanges lost a combined $7 billion in market capitalization.
PartyGaming PLC, once the envy of online gambling with its more than $8 billion IPO in 2005, is now trying to figure out how to save its business model. It runs what was once the world's biggest poker site, PartyPoker, and has said it will no longer take payments from the U.S., eliminating nearly 80 percent of its revenue and sending its stock plunging.
Another poker company, 888 Holdings PLC, also said it would stop taking U.S. bets, ensuring its profits will fall dramatically.
Sportingbet and Leisure & Gaming both sold their U.S. operations for a dollar. Sportingbet said its exit from the U.S. market cost it nearly $400 million.
The bleeding didn't stop there. Neteller and FireOne, which owns e-wallet FirePay, also saw their stock price plummet. On Oct. 2, FirePay announced it had stopped doing business with sites that might take U.S. bets, including PokerStars. The decision forced PokerStars, now the biggest poker site in the world and a registered business in Costa Rica, to rely on Neteller to take money for bets headed to its site.
''There are privately owned operators that will continue to take play as long as they have payment processors that will work with them,'' said Sue Schneider, publisher of the online gaming magazine Interactive Gaming News. ''I think the big question is whether the volume remains the same. But I don't think any of this means there will be less people playing on the Internet.''
Neteller has said it is evaluating the law. If Neteller abandons PokerStars and other sites, their bottom lines, no doubt, will be hit hard.
But so far, Neteller's decision to work with PokerStars has amounted to good news for sites not afraid of scorning U.S. law.
Experts say while the new law has forced the public companies out of U.S. market, it has left poker players and bettors gravitating toward private companies.
Both PokerStars and FullTilt have already seen traffic on their Web sites surge, taking advantage of any short-term gain now that some of the competition has been sidelined. On its Web site recently, FullTilt boasted: ''We're Here to Stay!'' and offered bonuses to sign up.
This isn't the first time the industry has faced a serious setback. In 2001, Visa and MasterCard and other merchant banks stopped allowing money to be sent to Internet gambling sites.
Like then, Sinclair thinks Internet gambling will recover again. It's simply too lucrative.
''There will be a big hit to the industry,'' Sinclair said. ''A big hit. But it's not going to be long term, it's transitory until somebody finds a solution to whatever roadblocks are put in their way. There's too much money for it to go away.''
-------- Associated Press Writer Jane Wardell in London contributed to this report.
<< <i>Just applied this morning for a transfer from my bodog account to my bank account. Will update on how this goes.
Am only playing with their money at this point and only bet on NFL games for a little added excitement every week to go along with fantasy football and rooting for my Chargers.
That makes me a sick, degenerate gambler? Bull-Puckie! It's fun, I can afford it, and the government needs to get out of my freaking face! >>
Aaaaack! DON'T play at Bodog- PLEASE! Here's two good reasons not to.
1) They deal dual lines. Let's say you've historically bet more dogs than faves. In this case even tough the line that shows up on the odds feed may be someting like Pitt +7, when YOU log in to bet it will read PIT +6.5. Meanwhile, if another logs in who bets lots of faves he'll get PIT +7.5. Bowman's does this too.
2) They deal at -110. NO reason to pay full juice in this day and age. The best online sports book--- and it's not even close-- is www.pinnaclesports.com, which deals sides at -104. Check 'em out!
U.S. Law Causing Turmoil in Online Gambling Industry
By HEATHER TIMMONS and ERIC PFANNER Published: November 1, 2006
LONDON, Oct. 31 — The online gambling industry is undergoing a seismic shift just weeks after a new law cut off much of the business in the United States.
Big public companies have lost billions of dollars in market value and millions of customers as they shut their United States Web sites for sports betting, poker and other games. Those companies are anxiously searching for acquisition partners and new customers. But business is booming at some smaller private companies, which have continued to operate in the United States despite the ban.
Britain, meanwhile, is trying to drum up international support for regulation of the industry outside the United States. As the first large Western government to explicitly allow businesses to set up shop on its soil, Britain has stood to benefit enormously from taxing Internet gambling companies that moved here.
Most of the public online gambling companies trade on the London Stock Exchange. More than £4 billion ($7.6 billion) has been wiped off the market value of publicly traded online gambling stocks since Congress passed the bill in early October, analysts in London estimate. The bill makes it illegal for a bank to transfer money to a Web site that offers gambling.
The British government has been sharply critical of the United States law. United States lawmakers said they passed the ban out of concern that the sites would increase gambling addiction and social problems.
“The industry has been very hard hit by the U.S. ban,” said Tessa Jowell, Britain’s culture minister, during a news conference on Tuesday at the Ascot Racecourse, where she met with delegates from 30 other countries to discuss the subject. The United States was invited but did not send a representative.
“The Internet is a global marketplace, and that’s why we need action at the global level,” Ms. Jowell said.
Many of the largest public online sites, like PartyGaming and Sportingbet, got the majority of their revenue from the United States. PartyGaming suspended its United States business after President Bush signed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act on Oct. 13. Bankers, analysts and Internet executives say online gambling companies are now discussing merging with each other. Meanwhile, private equity companies, which are flush with cash, have been wondering whether they can assemble a few of these companies into one, slash their costs and reap the profit.
Traditional casino companies in the United States and Asia are also considering buying up the sites as a way to enter Europe. And British betting-shop chains like Ladbrokes and William Hill are thinking about deals with the online gambling companies, bankers and analysts say.
So far, none of these conversations have resulted in any firm agreements. On Monday, one online gambling company, 888 Holdings, said it was in “various preliminary discussions with third parties,” after articles in the British press linked the company with PartyGaming. Any such talks are at an early stage, several people in the industry said, and 888 is considering several options.
Despite its intentions, the Internet bill has not eliminated online gambling in the United States, say analysts and players. Instead, small, privately held companies are thriving. PokerStars.com, for example, had more than 52,000 players participating in games on Tuesday afternoon. It is unclear how many of those were Americans, but analysts generally estimate that they make up at least half of any online gambling market.
In a statement on its Web site, PokerStars said that after receiving “extensive expert advice” it had concluded that the recently passed provision related to Internet gambling “does not prohibit you from playing online poker” in the United States. The company is based in San José, Costa Rica, and processes credit card transactions through a subsidiary in the Isle of Man.
Many online gambling executives, however, were alarmed by the arrests of two of their peers, and expressed concerns they would be arrested by United States prosecutors. So far, that has not been the case.
Peter Dicks, a former nonexecutive chairman of Sportingbet, was arrested in September as he flew into the United States. He returned to Britain in October, after a New York judge dismissed his arrest warrant, citing a lack of evidence. David Carruthers, the BetOnSports chief executive, was arrested this summer and is still facing charges in St. Louis. He has pleaded not guilty.
While lobbying for regulation rather than prohibition of the industry, British officials said on Tuesday that they would not stand in the way of United States calls to extradite British citizens or residents. A draft communiqué from the conference said online gambling should not be allowed to become a source of crime or be used to finance criminality, that it should be fair to consumers and that children and problem gamblers should be protected.
I've been pretty pissed about this too. I really needed a fix a few weeks back so I went to check out you.bet (internet horse racing) and found out that it was illegal in my state and wouldn't allow me to place bets. Ughhh. I'm now forced to drive over 30 minutes to the boats where I can inhale second hand smoke and have to wait for games to open up.
The only good thing that's come of all this is I've lost $0 gambling online since the ban.
After careful consideration, Pinnacle sports have chosen to voluntarily exit the
U.S. market. Accordingly, wagers will no longer be accepted from clients within
the U.S. as of Thursday, January 11, 2007. Those clients who are affected will
be required to withdraw their balances using the Cashier of your account.
We assure all our clients your balances are available and Pinnacle will continue providing our international clients our same great value.
Please note that any wagers currently pending in your account will be honored
by Pinnacle Sports. As your wagers are graded, you may use the Cashier of
your account to request any balance due.
You may, of course, use your Cashier now to request a withdrawal for your current balance.
Regards,
Customer Service Department
Pinnacle Sports
You can't overstate the impact Pinnacle closing to US bettors will have on the offshore industry. The ripple effect will eventually leave Tsunami-like damage on the industry and set it back 10-15 years.
The answer to the question I haven't seen yet is why do these gambling websites pull out of the US market despite the fact that the legislation doesn't take effect for about another six months? I would think that they'd want to fleece every last nickel they could out of the US until the last minute. And a sports book like Pinnacle pulling out right before the Super Bowl?
KARACHI, Pakistan, Feb. 27, 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (AP) Police are seeking 10 men, including several tribal elders, accused of pressuring a Pakistani woman to hand over her teenage daughter as payment for a 16-year-old poker debt, officials said Tuesday.
In the latest case highlighting how conservative customs threaten women's rights in Pakistan, Nooran Umrani alleges that, despite paying off her late husband's debt of 10,000 Pakistani rupees ($165), she was threatened with harm if she failed to hand over her daughter, Rasheeda.
The 17-year-old was to be surrendered as a bride for the son of Lal Haider, the man who won the card game years before, Umrani told reporters on Monday in Hyderabad, 100 miles northeast of Karachi.
Police said Tuesday that the mother and daughter were in their protection and that an investigation was opened against Haider, his son and eight others.
"We are investigating the matter and vigorously searching" for the men, Hyderabad Police Chief Irfan Bhutto said.
Nooran said her husband was a gambler who ran up the debt at a poker game when Rasheeda was 1 year old. He promised Haider that he would get Rasheeda in lieu of payment when she grew up, Nooran said.
Koral Shah, another Hyderabad police officer, said both families belong to the Umrani tribe of Pakistan's impoverished Baluchistan province.
He said a group of elders from the tribe had come to Hyderabad in January to investigate the case and had ruled that, under tribal custom, the girl should be married to Haider's 23-year-old son Abdul Ghani.
Police want to arrest the elders, he said.
President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has vowed to give women more rights, in line with his policy to project Pakistan as a moderate, progressive Islamic nation.
In December, Musharraf signed into law a bill that makes it easier to prosecute rape cases in the courts, and the country's ruling party recently introduced a bill to outlaw forced marriages, including under tribal custom in which women are married off in order to settle disputes.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Poker Player Risks His Wife - Loses Her January 31, 2007
A Russian man lost his wife in a game of cards after putting her up as a stake instead of cash.
Andrei Karpov, from Murmansk, had run out of money in a game of poker and offered his opponent his wife instead of cash to stay in the game.
When he lost the game and his opponent Sergey Brodov turned up to claim his winnings his wife Tatiana was so angry she decided to divorce her husband and started a relationship with Brodov.
She has since married Brodov, and said she does not regret leaving her first husband. She said: "It was humiliating and I was utterly ashamed. But as soon as my ex-husband did that I knew I had to leave him.
"Sergey was a very handsome, charming man and I am very happy with him, even if he did 'win' me in a poker game."
Comments
Mark Mulder rookies
Chipper Jones rookies
Orlando Cabrera rookies
Lawrence Taylor
Sam Huff
Lavar Arrington
NY Giants
NY Yankees
NJ Nets
NJ Devils
1950s-1960s Topps NY Giants Team cards
Looking for Topps rookies as well.
References:
GregM13
VintageJeff
<< <i>They are banning the use of credit cards, not bank accounts. >>
Not according to the first post on this thread.
It says banks and credit cards, and everything else I've read on the subject indicates the same.
shawn
<< <i>
<< <i>Got this message from sportsbook.com today....
Lots of noise in the news about online gambling this past weekend, but don’t believe the hype. It’s business as usual at Sportsbook.com.
You can still deposit via your credit card, Neteller, Firepay or E-check, you have fast access to your winnings (and now even in cash - see below), your transactions are always safe, secure and private 24/7, and, of course, you get better odds than anywhere else.
The real news this weekend, aside from Saturday’s clashes between Texas and Oklahoma and LSU vs. Florida, is that T.O. is almost certain to play Sunday back “home” in Philly. The Cowboys/Eagles games have always been colorful so this should be an ugly Sunday. Philly’s getting all the action so far—as is the under—it’s going to be a tight game.
And when you’re cashing in your V-chips, select the Debit1 option. Instead of a check, we’ll send you a cool ATM card you can use for cash at the supermarket, gas station, liquor store—anywhere you can pay with an ATM card. Now that’s news you can use. And your next withdrawal is even faster as we just credit your account online and the cash is there for you. No checks, no FedEx or DHL, no waiting—choose the Debit1 option on your next withdrawal.
Have another great winning weekend.
Regards,
The Sportsbook.com Team >>
ATM's are operated by the banks aren't they? So how is an ATM going to now work for a gambling website? Simply isn't going to happen. Of course to the best of my knowledge the legislation doesn't "officially" take effect for about nine months, so I guess possibly this ATM card will work until then.
These gambling stocks and gambling transaction stocks, didn't lose about half their value in one day because it's going to be "easy" to get around these laws. That just doesn't make sense.
Frankly, these gambling websites have no risk as far as your money is concerned. If your money gets deposited, that's fine with them. If for some reason in the future you can't withdraw the money, why should they care?
But I'm just looking for the facts on this whole situation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
- >>
I was just about to post the email
That was my original question. How is the US going to regulate cash though a 3rd party, who conducts business outside of the US and with no official affiliations with gambling sites? The sites could, in theory, not accept American transactions but why would they?
No, please, do not give us your money.
<< <i>
<< <i>They are banning the use of credit cards, not bank accounts. >>
Not according to the first post on this thread.
It says banks and credit cards, and everything else I've read on the subject indicates the same.
shawn >>
Well, I'm going by what I've heard about the bill and what I've heard through Full Tilt.
Mark Mulder rookies
Chipper Jones rookies
Orlando Cabrera rookies
Lawrence Taylor
Sam Huff
Lavar Arrington
NY Giants
NY Yankees
NJ Nets
NJ Devils
1950s-1960s Topps NY Giants Team cards
Looking for Topps rookies as well.
References:
GregM13
VintageJeff
Link to Sportingbet stock price
<< <i>My 2 cents - I'll be amazed if the multi-billion dollar online poker gaming industry doesnt find a way for US customer to safely deposit $$$... Guess we'll see in about 2 weeks and 9 months... >>
I can't see why online sites can't just take a money order and send back a check or something. Keep it all paper and not electronic.
Anyways, for anyone wondering, my Party Poker balance came through my bank account today so I guess they're not going to stiff everyone.
<< <i>
<< <i>My 2 cents - I'll be amazed if the multi-billion dollar online poker gaming industry doesnt find a way for US customer to safely deposit $$$... Guess we'll see in about 2 weeks and 9 months... >>
I can't see why online sites can't just take a money order and send back a check or something. Keep it all paper and not electronic.
Anyways, for anyone wondering, my Party Poker balance came through my bank account today so I guess they're not going to stiff everyone. >>
Yes, basically I don't believe it would be possible or would even be attempted to stop checks from anywhere.
I had bought two items on ebay, both mailable items, one from the UK and one from France, and I was surprised how fast the items arrived in Pennsylvania. It was like only two or three days delivery time from the foreign postmark.
Don't forget though, with check fraud and counterfeit money orders out there, these gambling websites probably wouldn't allow use of the funds for at least two weeks after deposit, probably longer especially from foreign banks. This of course all adds to the cost of their gambling operations will could be reflected in an increased percentage rate in the rake for online poker. Sports bet vigs I imagine though would remain the same.
-
The SAFE port act (the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act) was one of Congress' final actions before breaking for the November mid-term elections.
The legislation, part of an election-year focus on national security issues, is designed to keep nuclear, chemical or biological weapons out of shipping containers on their way to the U.S and was passed by both the House and Senate in the midnite hours last Friday.
The Act also includes language that makes it a federal crime for banking institutions to allow illegal gambling financial transactions. The new bill does not change any laws pertaining to the Wire Act which only says that sports betting is illegal.
-
Rpublicans used to stand for less intrusions into personal freedoms.
That's all over with now and has been for some time.
As a former lifetime Republican ... hello my new fellow Democrats ...
"How about a little fire Scarecrow ?"
SUBJECT: New FirePay policy for US account holders
On September 30, 2006, the United States Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.
Once President Bush approves the Act. FirePay (www.firepay.com) will no longer allow US consumer payments for online gambling merchants.
Beginning the day President Bush signs the Act, FirePay will decline any purchase transactions from US FirePay account holders at any gambling merchant site.
Ten days after President Bush signs the Act, FirePay will decline any transfer attempt made by any online gambling merchant to a US FirePay account.
All US FirePay accounts holders will continue to be able to make purchases and receive payments from non-gambling, online merchants, as well as “Deposit From” and “Withdraw To” their US bank account.
Click here for the latest news and opportunities for FirePay account holders.
** Please note:
This new policy will not affect FirePay account holders from outside of the United States
For any questions regarding these deadlines or policy, please email info@firepay.com
Sincerely,
FirePay
info@firepay.com
Good News: The Tide is Turning
And It Looks Like PokerStars Is Going to Stay
Card Player has a staff of people busily contacting everyone in the poker industry in order to provide our readers with up-to-date information. Today we have more good news to report.
Online Gaming Sites: Who’s In and Who’s Out?
In the past few days, we have received definitive confirmation that the following companies are not pulling out of the United States: Full Tilt, Bodog, Full Contact Poker, Doyle’s Room and the Doyle Brunson Network, and Absolute Poker are all in! We also have good authority that Ultimate Bet's intention is to accept U.S. customers. As a matter of fact, many of these sites have rewarded US players by offering specials for their customers. Please visit this page to examine and cash in on the bonuses.
Card Player has learned moments ago that PokerStars has made a decision to continue accepting U.S. customers even if the President signs the current legislation. Bravo for PokerStars!
We have strong reason to believe that this afternoon, PokerStars customers will receive answers to their e-mails stating that Poker Stars will remain doing business in the United States.
Card Player applauds PokerStars and all the other online sites for their informed decision to continue offering poker games to United States citizens.
As a poker community, let’s begin right now, before the bill is signed, by supporting the companies that have not abandoned U.S. players.
Financial Processors: Who’s In and Who’s Out?
NETeller’s decision to stay in the US has been confirmed. In case any of our readers missed it, the decision was reported in the Wall Street Journal:
A NETeller PLC executive said the British company, which handles payments for online gambling companies and others, will continue to operate in the U.S., despite the recent passage of antigambling legislation.
"We are staying in the U.S.," said Bruce Elliott, Neteller's executive vice president, marketing and sales, told a online gambling conference in Barcelona. "I don't think we have a very big problem."
At about the same time NETeller made its decision to continue accepting US business, FirePay sent a letter to all their customers saying that the moment President Bush signs the bill, FirePay will decline purchase transactions with online gaming sites. Here is an excerpt of that FirePay letter:
Once President Bush approves the Act. FirePay will no longer allow US consumer payments for online gambling merchants. Beginning the day President Bush signs the Act, FirePay will decline any purchase transactions from US FirePay account holders at any gambling merchant site.
Ten days after President Bush signs the Act, FirePay will decline any transfer attempt made by any online gambling merchant to a US FirePay account.
I think it is important that as consumers, we show our support right now for all the companies that will not be bullied or intimidated by our government.
To visit CardPlayer.com’s archive of online legislation articles, click here. To claim site bonuses through CardPlayer.com, click on the site of your choice: UltimateBet, Bodog, Absolute, and Full Tilt.
The filthy rich get filthy richer, while gamblers get poorer.
<< <i>Rpublicans used to stand for less intrusions into personal freedoms.
That's all over with now and has been for some time.
As a former lifetime Republican ... hello my new fellow Democrats ...
God, is that ever the truth. I'd still be a democrat anyway, because I believe in fiscal policy. But it does seem like the Republicans are losing their focus as more and more of their more thoughtful congressmen and senators (George Mitchell, etc.) retire.
<< <i>
<< <i>Rpublicans used to stand for less intrusions into personal freedoms.
That's all over with now and has been for some time.
As a former lifetime Republican ... hello my new fellow Democrats ...
God, is that ever the truth. I'd still be a democrat anyway, because I believe in fiscal policy. But it does seem like the Republicans are losing their focus as more and more of their more thoughtful congressmen and senators (George Mitchell, etc.) retire. >>
Maybe I misunderstood the way you worded this Boo, but George Mitchell was a member of the Democratic Party.
I do agree with your comment about the Republicans losing focus. As crazy as this may sound, this is actually the sign of a healthy democracy. The Republicans have had power now for a number of years and silmilar to most situations of those in power, they lose their focus, become complacent, etc. Some governments become more tyranical depending on the type of government - and of course the nice thing is about a democracy is the leaders can be voted out. Unfortunately, people in some countries are stuck with a dictatorship like the maniac Kim Jong II of North Korea until he dies.
Unless something changes dramatically in the next 30 days, there is no doubt in my mind that the Republicans are going to get trounced in this mid-term election...and possibly trounced badly. I have selectively voted for Democrats in the past, but I am a registered Republican and I really don't like the direction our country is headed, especially with the ever increasing deficits that Clinton was at least trying to do something about, but Bush has basically done very little. Plus this Iraq war needs to be taken care of, and we are in need of an exit strategy to get out.
The good news? I firmly believe the United States is the greatest country in the world...but I would like to see it even better. I will definitely consider voting for a good Democrat in 2008. As long as the Democratic primary voters aren't dumb enough to nominate Hillary, who in my opinion is absolutely unelectable for president.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Rpublicans used to stand for less intrusions into personal freedoms.
That's all over with now and has been for some time.
As a former lifetime Republican ... hello my new fellow Democrats ...
God, is that ever the truth. I'd still be a democrat anyway, because I believe in fiscal policy. But it does seem like the Republicans are losing their focus as more and more of their more thoughtful congressmen and senators (George Mitchell, etc.) retire. >>
Maybe I misunderstood the way you worded this Boo, but George Mitchell was a member of the Democratic Party.
I do agree with your comment about the Republicans losing focus. As crazy as this may sound, this is actually the sign of a healthy democracy. The Republicans have had power now for a number of years and silmilar to most situations of those in power, they lose their focus, become complacent, etc. Some governments become more tyranical depending on the type of government - and of course the nice thing is about a democracy is the leaders can be voted out. Unfortunately, people in some countries are stuck with a dictatorship like the maniac Kim Jong II of North Korea until he dies.
Unless something changes dramatically in the next 30 days, there is no doubt in my mind that the Republicans are going to get trounced in this mid-term election...and possibly trounced badly. I have selectively voted for Democrats in the past, but I am a registered Republican and I really don't like the direction our country is headed, especially with the ever increasing deficits that Clinton was at least trying to do something about, but Bush has basically done very little. Plus this Iraq war needs to be taken care of, and we are in need of an exit strategy to get out.
The good news? I firmly believe the United States is the greatest country in the world...but I would like to see it even better. I will definitely consider voting for a good Democrat in 2008. As long as the Democratic primary voters aren't dumb enough to nominate Hillary, who in my opinion is absolutely unelectable for president.
Steve >>
Wow. Very nice, thoughtful post, steve. And you're right, of course- Mitchell was a democrat. I was thinking of Cohen (I get them mixed up).
The problem the Republicans have is that they don't really believe in fiscal policy. So when they get elected they're in a bind, since on the one hand they have to serve as bag men for their districts, but on the other hand they aren't predisposed towards offering crazy handouts to the totally undeserving. Democrats, as we know, aren't so encumbered.
Hillary is totally unelectable, as is Obama. Hell, Kerry for that matter was unelectable as well, but that didn't stop idiot Democrats from voting for him in the primaries when it was clear to even the blind that the only man who had a shot in 2000 was Edwards. Given this, who knows? Maybe they will nominate Hillary. Gingrich has done everything short of endorse her, and if that isn't a sign that she can't get elected (Gingrich, for all his faults, is no moron) then I don't know what is.
Democrats, IMO, are still paying for two things: Busing in the 1970's, and the civil rights/women's movements. If they can ever convince America that they are no longer the party that shipped urban blacks into suburban schools they might get the House of Rep. back. The republican's did one thing very well since 1994,and that is to successful trim the welfare roles, but I do think it's time for a change-- although I'm deeply concerned that the Democrats that get elected won't be, in the aggregate, one hell of a lot better. Although if a Democratic majority in the House and Senate at least gets us away from these silly 'morals' debates, and moves the national dialogue towards more substantive issues (the myriad failures of our educational system springs to mind) then I guess it will be a positive step forward.
The solution was and is simple - stop wasting money and do whatever is necessary to bring urban schools up to suburban school standards. Tough? Sure it's tough. Necessary? Dam right it's necessary...we're all Americans and we all need to be given basically the same opportunities for education and advancement in our society.
The other point I want to make is I remember someone, I forget who, but it was a respectable gentleman close to Reagan, that Reagan personally told him the reason that Reagan wanted to run up deficits was so the Democrats couldn't spend the money the way they wanted to, so that Reagan could spend the money the way he wanted to. This gentleman repeated these words from Reagan in a public interview. There is no doubt in my mind that our current president subscribes to this same way of thinking as Reagan, although of course Bush would never admit it.
I liked Reagan and thought he was a very good president, but this type of thinking about a "competition" to spend the taxpayers money was absolutely abhorrent to me. Reagan and Republicans always say "it's your money" when talking to taxpayers...then dammit don't waste it like they've been wasting it - I'm sick & tired of it! Politicians blow money left and right on wasteful spending but we don't seem to have enough money to spend on those suffering from Hurricane Katrina - that is simply unacceptable.
Steve
<< <i>Good points Boo. Busing was possibly one of the most idiotic attempted "solutions" to the problem of unequal education that mankind could have possibly invented. We all here went to high school - I can't even imagine how upset I would have been if I was being bussed to some school, for an hour or more each day, where I didn't know anybody and most if not all of my friends from my neighborhood school weren't there.
The solution was and is simple - stop wasting money and do whatever is necessary to bring urban schools up to suburban school standards. Tough? Sure it's tough. Necessary? Dam right it's necessary...we're all Americans and we all need to be given basically the same opportunities for education and advancement in our society.
The other point I want to make is I remember someone, I forget who, but it was a respectable gentleman close to Reagan, that Reagan personally told him the reason that Reagan wanted to run up deficits was so the Democrats couldn't spend the money the way they wanted to, so that Reagan could spend the money the way he wanted to. This gentleman repeated these words from Reagan in a public interview. There is no doubt in my mind that our current president subscribes to this same way of thinking as Reagan, although of course Bush would never admit it.
I liked Reagan and thought he was a very good president, but this type of thinking about a "competition" to spend the taxpayers money was absolutely abhorrent to me. Reagan and Republicans always say "it's your money" when talking to taxpayers...then dammit don't waste it like they've been wasting it - I'm sick & tired of it! Politicians blow money left and right on wasteful spending but we don't seem to have enough money to spend on those suffering from Hurricane Katrina - that is simply unacceptable.
Steve >>
Man, I don't know if there is an answer to the problems facing urban schools. I hate to be that way, but I've labored over this for years and I can't think of an acceptable solution. For one thing, most learning goes on in the home (IMO). School supplements that learning, but it can't work as a substitute. If you're parents don't value education then there's a 99% chance you won't either, and I don't think all the money in the world can change that.
Second, I think a large part of urban African American culture is so utterly corrosive, and runs so totally contrary to the set of standard American values that we all more or less adhere to (I'm talking basic stuff here, like 'education is important', and 'if you work hard you'll get ahead'), that if there isn't an apprciative cultural shift then most educational efforts are for naught.
The problem is so multi faceted that it almost seems to defy a solution. Maybe I'm just being shortsighted-- in fact, I hope that's it-- but every time I ponder this issue I become more and more confounded. But the one thing that CAN change is the abominable education that middle and upper-middle class kids are receiving. That just needs to stop now. As we move towards a global economy, and as our manufacturing base erodes, the one thing we will be able to export is creativity and knowledge. If, however, we continue to let kids who come from homes with $70,000 combined incomes graduate from high school (or, God forbid, college) without the ability to solve a system of equations we're in deep, deep doo doo.
It amazes me that any industrialized country can be as mathematically illiterate as we are. The fact that most Americans can't think there way out of a wet paper bag also gives me pause, but I take solace in the fact that most people are just naturally not very bright, and you can't expect them to learn how to think critically. Despite this significant handicap the world still moves onward. But even a frickin' chimpanzee can learn to add and subtract, and the fact that we don't place the appropriate value on basic math skills should deeply trouble everyone who's proud to call this country home.
Reuters
Barclays and RBS warn gaming clients on U.S.: source
Thursday October 12, 5:28 am ET
LONDON (Reuters) - Barclays (London:BARC.L - News) and Royal Bank of
Scotland (London:RBS.L - News) will shortly advise corporate customers to
avoid taking Internet bets from the United States, banking and gambling
sources said on Thursday.
"The two banks will be telling corporate clients they're not prepared to
do business with companies that take online bets from the United States,"
said the source. "Then they'll look at ways of stopping retail customers
from online gambling."
An RBS spokeswoman said: "The Royal Bank of Scotland Group will take the
necessary steps to ensure that we are fully compliant with this
legislation." Barclays declined to comment.
Gambling companies were left in shock last week after the U.S. Congress
unexpectedly passed a bill making it illegal to accept wagers over the
Internet, or for banks or credit card companies to process payments to
online gaming firms.
The measure has been passed to President George W. Bush to sign into law,
which the industry expects to happen on Friday.
Banking and gambling sources said the two banks had written to corporate
customers asking them to confirm they are complying with U.S. gaming
legislation.
British online money transfer firm Neteller Plc (London:NLR.L - News),
which does a lot of gambling business, says it is reviewing the situation.
RBS owns Citizens Financial Group, which is the eighth biggest commercial
bank in the United States in terms of deposits. It has more than 1,600
branches operating across 13 states, and has non-branch retail and
commercial offices in about 40 states.
(Reporting by Pete Harrison and Steve Slater)
<< <i>Article...with info on Neteller - appears that them transferring money for gambling websites isn't etched in stone quite yet
Reuters
Barclays and RBS warn gaming clients on U.S.: source
Thursday October 12, 5:28 am ET
LONDON (Reuters) - Barclays (London:BARC.L - News) and Royal Bank of
Scotland (London:RBS.L - News) will shortly advise corporate customers to
avoid taking Internet bets from the United States, banking and gambling
sources said on Thursday.
"The two banks will be telling corporate clients they're not prepared to
do business with companies that take online bets from the United States,"
said the source. "Then they'll look at ways of stopping retail customers
from online gambling."
An RBS spokeswoman said: "The Royal Bank of Scotland Group will take the
necessary steps to ensure that we are fully compliant with this
legislation." Barclays declined to comment.
Gambling companies were left in shock last week after the U.S. Congress
unexpectedly passed a bill making it illegal to accept wagers over the
Internet, or for banks or credit card companies to process payments to
online gaming firms.
The measure has been passed to President George W. Bush to sign into law,
which the industry expects to happen on Friday.
Banking and gambling sources said the two banks had written to corporate
customers asking them to confirm they are complying with U.S. gaming
legislation.
British online money transfer firm Neteller Plc (London:NLR.L - News),
which does a lot of gambling business, says it is reviewing the situation.
RBS owns Citizens Financial Group, which is the eighth biggest commercial
bank in the United States in terms of deposits. It has more than 1,600
branches operating across 13 states, and has non-branch retail and
commercial offices in about 40 states.
(Reporting by Pete Harrison and Steve Slater) >>
Just my opinion at this point that it's getting close to "drawing dead" for online poker in the United States. I'm now back to my original prediction of online poker in the United States will be less than 1% of what it was after all this settles. Sports betting could be a different story as addicts not in recovery may do anything to make a bet, so they may send cash certified back and forth to say Bodog in some manner, and Bodog would have to send them cash back or some sort of untraceable certified payment. Bodog though may not want to operate this way for various reasons and because probably the incident of theft of their letters would be very high. Unless something changes, I think in the United States it's basically over for online poker - stick a fork in it.
Gaming firms exit US for just $2
Gaming firms are preparing for the US ban
Online gaming firm Sportingbet has sold most of its US business for $1 (53p) hours before a law was passed outlawing internet gambling across the country.
Rival Leisure & Gaming has followed suit, selling its US operation to a new firm set up by its chief executive.
But the firm said the deal may breach market rules and the London Stock Exchange has launched an investigation.
On Friday, President Bush was signing into law an act making it a crime to accept proceeds from online gaming.
Sale frenzy
The imminent passage of the legislation has led to some dramatic corporate manoeuvring as affected firms seek to limit their US liabilities before the new laws came into force.
World Gaming called in the administrators on Friday after agreeing to cease its US operations and most of its directors have resigned.
This may constitute a technical breach of Alternative Investment Market rules
Leisure & Gaming statement
Sportingbet has sold its US sports betting and casino businesses to Jazette Enterprises for the nominal sum.
Leisure & Gaming, meanwhile, has hastily agreed to sell its US business to a newly formed company headed by chief executive Alistair Assheton, who has resigned from the business.
The AIM-listed firm said it had sanctioned the sale without prior shareholder approval since it would avoid about $6m in liquidation costs and it believed this was in investors' interests.
But it admitted the transaction - which it said would enable the firm to continue operating and would be put to a shareholder vote in due course - may "constitute a technical breach" of stock market rules.
The firm's shares were suspended after its nominated financial advisor, Altium Capital, resigned.
The London Stock Exchange said it would investigate the circumstances surrounding the sale.
"We will fully investigate any apparent rule breaches and I can confirm we are looking at this case," a spokesman said.
Several gaming firms, including Partygaming and 888 Holdings, had already said that they would stop accepting bets from US residents once the act becomes law.
'Fantastic business'
Sportingbet had been reviewing its US business since its former chairman Peter Dicks was arrested in September.
Though Mr Dicks has since been released, the arrest was part of a series of moves made by US authorities trying to discourage online gambling operators.
We are saddened to have to dispose of such a fantastic business as a result of political actions in the US Congress
State officials in Louisiana had issued a warrant accusing him of "gambling by computer" but a New York court refused to sanction Mr Dicks' extradition to Louisiana.
"We are saddened to have to dispose of such a fantastic business as a result of political actions in the US Congress," said Andrew McIver, the firm's chief executive.
"The sale, however, prevents significant closure costs which would have been both expensive and time consuming."
Sportingbet said it would now focus on developing its business in Europe and Australia.
It will retain its Paradise Poker site, but will stop accepting US cash later on Friday.
Legal clarity
US lawmakers took the gambling industry by surprise when they agreed sweeping measures criminalising the transfer and handling of proceeds from online gambling earlier this month.
President Bush's signature will alter the dynamic for gaming firms
Gambling on sports events was already illegal in most US jurisdictions.
But the scope of existing law governing the gambling industry was considered to be unclear and gaming firms promoted their businesses there on the expectation that their operations would be left alone.
US lawmakers are concerned that internet gambling has been fuelling social problems, such as debt and addiction, and could act as a magnet for criminal activity.
New Law Cripples Internet Gambling
Banks Are Barred From Handling Transactions
By Frank Ahrens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 14, 2006; A01
Placing bets over the Internet was effectively criminalized by the federal government yesterday, as lawmakers work to eliminate an activity enjoyed by as many as 23 million Americans who wagered an estimated $6 billion last year.
Attached to a port-security bill signed by President Bush yesterday was the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which prohibits online gamblers from using credit cards, checks and electronic fund transfers to place and settle bets. The law puts enforcement on the shoulders of banks and other U.S. financial institutions, some of which fought the legislation.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), said he opposes all gambling, citing its "ill effects on society," but particularly Internet gambling, which led him to draft the legislation in the summer. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) attached Goodlatte's bill to the port-security measure to ensure its passage and Bush's signature.
While proponents decried the effects of gambling on society, opponents pointed to the enormous popularity of Internet gambling and compared the new law to the Prohibition amendment of 1919, which led to the rise of illegal speak-easies and organized crime.
"We're going to have Prohibition, and what happened then?" said champion poker player Annie Duke, a former University of Pennsylvania doctoral candidate who began playing professionally in 1994. "We had people running around with tommy guns and drinking moonshine because they weren't given a safe product."
The new law is potentially crippling to a worldwide industry whose biggest customer has been the United States. Already, several online wagering businesses have pulled their operations out of the United States and some have collapsed, including publicly traded companies in Britain, where online betting is legal and regulated. International online gambling businesses have been watching closely as U.S. regulatory and law enforcement officials stepped up their campaign against online wagering in recent months.
Gambling, along with pornography, was one of the earliest businesses on the Internet, and one of the few profitable ones. The first Internet gambling site appeared in 1995, according to the American Gaming Association, the trade group of big casinos. Over the past decade, online gambling has caught fire, especially among men in their 20s, and crossed into the mainstream to include poker and fantasy sports leagues.
Nevertheless, online gambling has been a legally gray area, equally populated by legitimate, publicly traded overseas corporations and fly-by-night predators who, like music pirates, can shut down and move their computer servers overnight to stay ahead of the law.
In the United States, the Justice Department and federal courts are unable to agree on whether Internet gambling is illegal. The Justice Department maintains that the 1961 Wire Act, written to prohibit betting transactions via telephone, applies to the Internet. Courts have disagreed, saying that betting on sports teams over the Internet is illegal, but wagering on casino games, such as poker, is not. And though the Justice Department thinks that off-track and online wagering on horse races is illegal, it has never prosecuted a case.
Internet gamblers typically set up accounts at offshore businesses, and place and settle bets using credit cards and checks that are converted in electronic currency, much as eBay users buy and sell items using the PayPal system.
Instead of targeting specific games, such as criminalizing blackjack but not fantasy sports leagues, the new law seeks to block the financial transactions that fuel them.
The Poker Players Alliance, a lobbying group that opposes the new law, said it would ask Congress to exempt poker from the statute. The group considers poker a game of skill, not chance.
The new law is shaking up the worldwide Internet gambling industry, with some comparing it to Congress banning the sale of Toyotas, BMWs and all other foreign vehicles here. Britain's Sportingbet PLC, for example, said 62 percent of winning bets on its site came from the United States.
A major offshore e-currency company, FirePay of Britain, said it no longer will accept payments from U.S. customers. Sportingbet sold its U.S. online operations to an Antiguan company yesterday for $1, five weeks after former company chairman Peter Dicks was arrested in New York when customs officials found he was wanted in Louisiana on charges of illegal online gambling. New York Gov. George E. Pataki (R) refused to extradite Dicks to Louisiana, and a federal judge cleared his return to England.
Former BetOnSports PLC chief executive David Carruthers was arrested in the Dallas airport in July. BetOnSports founder Gary Stephen Kaplan, also wanted by U.S. authorities, is a fugitive. BetOnSports said yesterday it would pull out of the United States and repay balances to customers here.
Most online wagering and e-currency Web sites posted releases yesterday commenting on the law and its impact on customers.
"After taking extensive legal advice, the board of PartyGaming PLC has concluded that the new legislation . . . will make it practically impossible to provide U.S. residents with access to its real money poker and other real money gaming sites," the company said.
The World Trade Organization even has a stake in the game. The organization has ruled that the United States violates trade treaties by outlawing offshore online gambling while tolerating some forms of U.S.-based online gambling, citing the horse-racing ambiguity.
The major casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City and on Indian reservations did not take a position on the new law, said Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., president of the American Gaming Association. The group's reasoning: Less casino revenue comes from gambling, as entertainment, retail and other non-wagering spending now makes up 55 percent of the cash streaming into resorts such as Harrah's and Bellagio.
"The guy who comes home and goes to his den and cracks open a can of beer and bets on the Internet is not really our customer," Fahrenkopf said. "We never viewed the Internet as being competitive."
The association wants Congress to authorize an independent study of whether a legalized, nationwide, taxed and regulated online gambling system would work in the United States, as it does in Britain.
"Would we like to get into that business?" Fahrenkopf said. "Yeah, some of our guys would."
Goodlatte said he would press to update the Wire Act to conclusively extend its authority to the Internet. That part of his bill was dropped in the Senate.
"All the problems that manifest themselves with gambling, even in heavily regulated states, are even worse on the Internet," Goodlatte said yesterday. "There are family problems, bankruptcy problems, gambling addiction, gambling by minors, using gambling to launder money for criminal and terrorist organizations and organized crime. It does not help our society."
For poker advocates such as Duke, the new law is the wrong way to cure social problems.
"We've proven in history that trying to protect the minority and punish the majority never works," Duke said. "The fact is, there is a certain percentage of people who have addictive personalities [and gamble online]. Are you going to pass a law outlawing online shopping? Or day trading?"
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Just applied this morning for a transfer
from my bodog account to my bank account. Will update on how this goes.
Am only playing with their money at this point and only bet on NFL games
for a little added excitement every week to go along with fantasy football and rooting for my Chargers.
That makes me a sick, degenerate gambler? Bull-Puckie!
It's fun, I can afford it, and the government needs to get out of my freaking face!
"How about a little fire Scarecrow ?"
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 24, 2006
Filed at 10:08 p.m. ET
NEW YORK (AP) -- Gamblers may look over their shoulder now, but experts say a new Internet gambling ban won't keep bettors from ponying up, just turn them on to overseas payment services out of the law's reach.
''It has put a terrible scare into people,'' said I. Nelson Rose, who teaches gambling law at Whittier Law School. ''But it won't by any means wipe out Internet gambling.''
The fright swept through the $12 billion industry on the heels of the recent arrests of two gambling company executives and a new law President Bush signed Oct. 13 that seeks to ban most online gambling and criminalizes funds transfers.
The law has wiped out billions of dollars in shareholder value of British companies, leaving the industry's future in doubt as U.S. lawmakers initially trumpeted they had found a way to halt bets coming from America. But serious questions remain about whether the legislation can be effective in stopping U.S. residents from playing poker or betting on sports.
The ''Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act'' goes after the money, not the millions of players, which would be nearly impossible to enforce. It will essentially try to choke off the way Americans fund their gambling habits, hoping to prevent the transfer of dollars to the popular Internet sites.
It's also widely understood that the law has online poker in its gun sights, identifying it as a game of chance -- something the poker companies dispute. They believe poker is a game of skill and therefore not subject to the new rules.
But they're fearful nonetheless.
''Their mission is to kill the funding of online poker, and that's what this law does,'' said Mike Sexton, who hosts the popular World Poker Tour and has won millions as a professional player.
The new law comes amid an explosion in online gambling, fueled by the Texas Hold 'em craze and widespread access to the Internet. In addition, dozens of Web sites have sprouted up that allow any gambler with a credit card to bet on any sport they choose, for any amount of money they want.
Industry experts say there are an estimated 2,000 Internet sites that take bets for sports and poker. American players have fueled Internet gambling, supplying $6 billion of the $12 billion in revenues generated annually.
''The time has been one of rapid growth,'' said Sebastian Sinclair, president of Christiansen Capital Advisors, a gambling consultant. ''This industry was well on its way to becoming mainstream in a great part of the world. Capital was tripping over itself to fund these companies.''
The new law gives the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve, along with the Attorney General, 270 days to establish policies and procedures.
''The regulations are clearly going to prevent banks from doing electronic fund transfers to gambling sites, but that is no big deal,'' Rose said.
Clamping down on the banks won't serve as a panacea, Rose said. In some cases, banks simply move the money to payment processors, known as e-wallets. Non-U.S. payment processors such as the widely used Neteller then transfer the money to the Internet gambling sites.
The U.S. government has no authority over processors like Neteller that are operating legally.
Anthony Cabot, a well-known gambling lawyer in Las Vegas, thinks language used in the bill provides a loophole for the payment processors and the U.S. banks that want to be free to do business with them.
''Unless you have some fairly Draconian measures ... the likelihood of stopping payment to them is small,'' Cabot said.
Much damage has already been done to the offshore sports betting industry without the looming regulations.
British BetOnSports PLC folded after its chief executive was arrested in July by U.S. authorities. David Carruthers faces 22 counts of fraud and racketeering charges and remains under house arrest in the St. Louis area.
London-based Sportingbet's chairman was detained last month in New York on a state fugitive warrant charging him with illegal online gambling. He was eventually freed.
Both arrests sounded serious alarm bells for those running sports wagering sites that take American bets.
The new legislation has already had a dramatic effect. It supposedly clarifies the 1961 Wire Act, explicitly outlawing Internet gambling, including online poker.
It creates new criminal penalties, which have rattled investors and executives -- although Rose said it doesn't expand the act, and there's no indication the Justice Department is about to launch a huge campaign to enforce the law.
Still, the biggest publicly traded names in Internet gambling on the London Stock Exchange and AIM, the exchange's global market for growing companies, could not afford to flout American law. When news broke earlier this month that Congress has passed the bill, Internet gambling companies traded on those exchanges lost a combined $7 billion in market capitalization.
PartyGaming PLC, once the envy of online gambling with its more than $8 billion IPO in 2005, is now trying to figure out how to save its business model. It runs what was once the world's biggest poker site, PartyPoker, and has said it will no longer take payments from the U.S., eliminating nearly 80 percent of its revenue and sending its stock plunging.
Another poker company, 888 Holdings PLC, also said it would stop taking U.S. bets, ensuring its profits will fall dramatically.
Sportingbet and Leisure & Gaming both sold their U.S. operations for a dollar. Sportingbet said its exit from the U.S. market cost it nearly $400 million.
The bleeding didn't stop there. Neteller and FireOne, which owns e-wallet FirePay, also saw their stock price plummet. On Oct. 2, FirePay announced it had stopped doing business with sites that might take U.S. bets, including PokerStars. The decision forced PokerStars, now the biggest poker site in the world and a registered business in Costa Rica, to rely on Neteller to take money for bets headed to its site.
''There are privately owned operators that will continue to take play as long as they have payment processors that will work with them,'' said Sue Schneider, publisher of the online gaming magazine Interactive Gaming News. ''I think the big question is whether the volume remains the same. But I don't think any of this means there will be less people playing on the Internet.''
Neteller has said it is evaluating the law. If Neteller abandons PokerStars and other sites, their bottom lines, no doubt, will be hit hard.
But so far, Neteller's decision to work with PokerStars has amounted to good news for sites not afraid of scorning U.S. law.
Experts say while the new law has forced the public companies out of U.S. market, it has left poker players and bettors gravitating toward private companies.
Both PokerStars and FullTilt have already seen traffic on their Web sites surge, taking advantage of any short-term gain now that some of the competition has been sidelined. On its Web site recently, FullTilt boasted: ''We're Here to Stay!'' and offered bonuses to sign up.
This isn't the first time the industry has faced a serious setback. In 2001, Visa and MasterCard and other merchant banks stopped allowing money to be sent to Internet gambling sites.
Like then, Sinclair thinks Internet gambling will recover again. It's simply too lucrative.
''There will be a big hit to the industry,'' Sinclair said. ''A big hit. But it's not going to be long term, it's transitory until somebody finds a solution to whatever roadblocks are put in their way. There's too much money for it to go away.''
--------
Associated Press Writer Jane Wardell in London contributed to this report.
<< <i>Just applied this morning for a transfer
from my bodog account to my bank account. Will update on how this goes.
Am only playing with their money at this point and only bet on NFL games
for a little added excitement every week to go along with fantasy football and rooting for my Chargers.
That makes me a sick, degenerate gambler? Bull-Puckie!
It's fun, I can afford it, and the government needs to get out of my freaking face!
Aaaaack! DON'T play at Bodog- PLEASE! Here's two good reasons not to.
1) They deal dual lines. Let's say you've historically bet more dogs than faves. In this case even tough the line that shows up on the odds feed may be someting like Pitt +7, when YOU log in to bet it will read PIT +6.5. Meanwhile, if another logs in who bets lots of faves he'll get PIT +7.5. Bowman's does this too.
2) They deal at -110. NO reason to pay full juice in this day and age. The best online sports book--- and it's not even close-- is www.pinnaclesports.com, which deals sides at -104. Check 'em out!
U.S. Law Causing Turmoil in Online Gambling Industry
By HEATHER TIMMONS and ERIC PFANNER
Published: November 1, 2006
LONDON, Oct. 31 — The online gambling industry is undergoing a seismic shift just weeks after a new law cut off much of the business in the United States.
Big public companies have lost billions of dollars in market value and millions of customers as they shut their United States Web sites for sports betting, poker and other games. Those companies are anxiously searching for acquisition partners and new customers. But business is booming at some smaller private companies, which have continued to operate in the United States despite the ban.
Britain, meanwhile, is trying to drum up international support for regulation of the industry outside the United States. As the first large Western government to explicitly allow businesses to set up shop on its soil, Britain has stood to benefit enormously from taxing Internet gambling companies that moved here.
Most of the public online gambling companies trade on the London Stock Exchange. More than £4 billion ($7.6 billion) has been wiped off the market value of publicly traded online gambling stocks since Congress passed the bill in early October, analysts in London estimate. The bill makes it illegal for a bank to transfer money to a Web site that offers gambling.
The British government has been sharply critical of the United States law. United States lawmakers said they passed the ban out of concern that the sites would increase gambling addiction and social problems.
“The industry has been very hard hit by the U.S. ban,” said Tessa Jowell, Britain’s culture minister, during a news conference on Tuesday at the Ascot Racecourse, where she met with delegates from 30 other countries to discuss the subject. The United States was invited but did not send a representative.
“The Internet is a global marketplace, and that’s why we need action at the global level,” Ms. Jowell said.
Many of the largest public online sites, like PartyGaming and Sportingbet, got the majority of their revenue from the United States. PartyGaming suspended its United States business after President Bush signed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act on Oct. 13. Bankers, analysts and Internet executives say online gambling companies are now discussing merging with each other. Meanwhile, private equity companies, which are flush with cash, have been wondering whether they can assemble a few of these companies into one, slash their costs and reap the profit.
Traditional casino companies in the United States and Asia are also considering buying up the sites as a way to enter Europe. And British betting-shop chains like Ladbrokes and William Hill are thinking about deals with the online gambling companies, bankers and analysts say.
So far, none of these conversations have resulted in any firm agreements. On Monday, one online gambling company, 888 Holdings, said it was in “various preliminary discussions with third parties,” after articles in the British press linked the company with PartyGaming. Any such talks are at an early stage, several people in the industry said, and 888 is considering several options.
Despite its intentions, the Internet bill has not eliminated online gambling in the United States, say analysts and players. Instead, small, privately held companies are thriving. PokerStars.com, for example, had more than 52,000 players participating in games on Tuesday afternoon. It is unclear how many of those were Americans, but analysts generally estimate that they make up at least half of any online gambling market.
In a statement on its Web site, PokerStars said that after receiving “extensive expert advice” it had concluded that the recently passed provision related to Internet gambling “does not prohibit you from playing online poker” in the United States. The company is based in San José, Costa Rica, and processes credit card transactions through a subsidiary in the Isle of Man.
Many online gambling executives, however, were alarmed by the arrests of two of their peers, and expressed concerns they would be arrested by United States prosecutors. So far, that has not been the case.
Peter Dicks, a former nonexecutive chairman of Sportingbet, was arrested in September as he flew into the United States. He returned to Britain in October, after a New York judge dismissed his arrest warrant, citing a lack of evidence. David Carruthers, the BetOnSports chief executive, was arrested this summer and is still facing charges in St. Louis. He has pleaded not guilty.
While lobbying for regulation rather than prohibition of the industry, British officials said on Tuesday that they would not stand in the way of United States calls to extradite British citizens or residents. A draft communiqué from the conference said online gambling should not be allowed to become a source of crime or be used to finance criminality, that it should be fair to consumers and that children and problem gamblers should be protected.
The only good thing that's come of all this is I've lost $0 gambling online since the ban.
<< <i>pinnacle
1/11/07 - "The day the music died"
Dear Pinnacle Sports' Client,
Effective Immediately….
After careful consideration, Pinnacle sports have chosen to voluntarily exit the
U.S. market. Accordingly, wagers will no longer be accepted from clients within
the U.S. as of Thursday, January 11, 2007. Those clients who are affected will
be required to withdraw their balances using the Cashier of your account.
We assure all our clients your balances are available and Pinnacle will continue providing our international clients our same great value.
Please note that any wagers currently pending in your account will be honored
by Pinnacle Sports. As your wagers are graded, you may use the Cashier of
your account to request any balance due.
You may, of course, use your Cashier now to request a withdrawal for your current balance.
Regards,
Customer Service Department
Pinnacle Sports
You can't overstate the impact Pinnacle closing to US bettors will have on the offshore industry. The ripple effect will eventually leave Tsunami-like damage on the industry and set it back 10-15 years.
Link
Daughter Demanded Over Pakistan Poker Debt
KARACHI, Pakistan, Feb. 27, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) Police are seeking 10 men, including several tribal elders, accused of pressuring a Pakistani woman to hand over her teenage daughter as payment for a 16-year-old poker debt, officials said Tuesday.
In the latest case highlighting how conservative customs threaten women's rights in Pakistan, Nooran Umrani alleges that, despite paying off her late husband's debt of 10,000 Pakistani rupees ($165), she was threatened with harm if she failed to hand over her daughter, Rasheeda.
The 17-year-old was to be surrendered as a bride for the son of Lal Haider, the man who won the card game years before, Umrani told reporters on Monday in Hyderabad, 100 miles northeast of Karachi.
Police said Tuesday that the mother and daughter were in their protection and that an investigation was opened against Haider, his son and eight others.
"We are investigating the matter and vigorously searching" for the men, Hyderabad Police Chief Irfan Bhutto said.
Nooran said her husband was a gambler who ran up the debt at a poker game when Rasheeda was 1 year old. He promised Haider that he would get Rasheeda in lieu of payment when she grew up, Nooran said.
Koral Shah, another Hyderabad police officer, said both families belong to the Umrani tribe of Pakistan's impoverished Baluchistan province.
He said a group of elders from the tribe had come to Hyderabad in January to investigate the case and had ruled that, under tribal custom, the girl should be married to Haider's 23-year-old son Abdul Ghani.
Police want to arrest the elders, he said.
President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has vowed to give women more rights, in line with his policy to project Pakistan as a moderate, progressive Islamic nation.
In December, Musharraf signed into law a bill that makes it easier to prosecute rape cases in the courts, and the country's ruling party recently introduced a bill to outlaw forced marriages, including under tribal custom in which women are married off in order to settle disputes.
A bet a pretty girl would fetch more money on the open market, no pun intended
January 31, 2007
A Russian man lost his wife in a game of cards after putting her up
as a stake instead of cash.
Andrei Karpov, from Murmansk, had run out of money in a game of poker and offered his opponent his wife instead of cash to stay in the game.
When he lost the game and his opponent Sergey Brodov turned up to claim his winnings his wife Tatiana was so angry she decided to
divorce her husband and started a relationship with Brodov.
She has since married Brodov, and said she does not regret leaving
her first husband. She said: "It was humiliating and I was utterly ashamed. But as soon as my ex-husband did that I knew I had to leave him.
"Sergey was a very handsome, charming man and I am very happy with him, even if he did 'win' me in a poker game."