pokerdan97 0 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Just wondering how it's gonna work of if he's going to ban US players from using FCP. I'm guessing the only other option is if you were to leave the US and keep running the site and never be able to come back but I'm assuming this isn't an option? Opinions or an answer from Dan the man himself ? Link to post Share on other sites
showstopper24 0 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 he'd still be able to write his blog and do the forums Link to post Share on other sites
umop-apisdn 0 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Did you stock up on duct tape when the government told you to? Link to post Share on other sites
dna4ever 2 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 DN sold FCP so can not be held accountable; he does not own or operate it Link to post Share on other sites
HangukMiguk 8 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 DN sold FCP so can not be held accountable; he does not own or operate itexactly, he's only a sponsored player for the site. Link to post Share on other sites
pokerdan97 0 Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share Posted October 2, 2006 What ??? When did he do this ?? I never heard anything about that ? And why would he do that anyways ? Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 What ??? When did he do this ?? I never heard anything about that ? And why would he do that anyways ?This is from the website.http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/about.phpIt explains what happened. Link to post Share on other sites
Matt_Damon 0 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Matt Damon Link to post Share on other sites
XX44466XX 0 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 +1Mmm, that felt good, haven't done that for a while. Link to post Share on other sites
jooka 0 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 DN sold FCP so can not be held accountable; he does not own or operate ithe will have to drop the sponsorship. recieving money to encourage bets from US players will be just as illegal as ownership.(if they continue to advertise to US players) expect to see most pros fall off the advertisement/sponsorship wagon shortly. Link to post Share on other sites
Billy 0 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Matt DamonLMAO Link to post Share on other sites
cu in 4years Dan 1 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Just wondering how it's gonna work of if he's going to ban US players from using FCP. I'm guessing the only other option is if you were to leave the US and keep running the site and never be able to come back but I'm assuming this isn't an option? Opinions or an answer from Dan the man himself ?why do people think that daniel has the skill to run and operate an online poker room, and a forum by himself, and then get shocked when they find out he doesnt?oh and i will promise you he will not be more likley to like you if you call him dan the man. Link to post Share on other sites
chrozzo 19 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Matt Damon :)16 User(s) are reading this topic (6 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)10 Members: chrozzo, murok, jooka, Stylin_Fish, DanielNegreanu, indianachris, checkymcfold, Pack149, Matt_Damon, Kman88p.s. hi DN! Link to post Share on other sites
jooka 0 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 oh and i will promise you he will not be more likley to like you if you call him dan the man.must really suck to have your forum name then doesnt it? Link to post Share on other sites
DanielNegreanu 141 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Guys, I woudn't sweat it, seriously. Clearly we are dealing with a bunch of bafoons (the gov't), but there is only so much they can do. They aren't going to put an end to online gaming. They simply don't have the resources to enforce a law like this. The only thing they may accomplish is putting some pressure on banks to not fund online poker accounts. Whoopy. They tried to crack down on credit card companies before this and it hasn't hurt online poker all that much thanks to Neteller and other such companies. If a new banking company, let's call it "Booga Booga" opens up in the U.K. and takes funds from U.S. customers they'd be doing nothing illegal since the U.S. doesn't have a say. The bank sending funds to Booga Booga wouldn't be doing anything illegal since they aren't funding online poker accounts- Booga Booga is. Lastly, I don't endorse www.fullcontactpoker.com on television. I endorse www.fullcontactpoker.NET on television which is a very different story. It's akin to be advertising for yahoo games since they can't legally prove that I'm endorsing any illegal activity. It's all more political blah, blah, blah, that's been thrown at us by a moronic and conservative administration that just needs to go. After this, I can't imagine I'd vote Republican regardless of who runs. This issue hits too close to home and I believe the Democrats would be more likely to legalize and tax online gaming. Link to post Share on other sites
jooka 0 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Lastly, I don't endorse www.fullcontactpoker.com on television. I endorse www.fullcontactpoker.NET on television which is a very different story. It's akin to be advertising for yahoo games since they can't legally prove that I'm endorsing any illegal activity.best talk to your lawyer some, as from what Ive read .net is included with this new law. I could be wrong but it definitely seem to imply as much. Link to post Share on other sites
scgolfer 0 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Check P5's and 2+2, Pacific is quitting US players and Party is expected to follow suit, them being publically traded. Not good.http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/...2384407,00.html Link to post Share on other sites
armen13 0 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 he will have to drop the sponsorship. recieving money to encourage bets from US players will be just as illegal as ownership.(if they continue to advertise to US players) expect to see most pros fall off the advertisement/sponsorship wagon shortly.Hadn't heard anything about this. As far as I have read, the ban has to do with depositing into sites and financial companies involved in the process. Has there been any language about advertising/sponsorship? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Guys, I woudn't sweat it, seriously. Clearly we are dealing with a bunch of balloons (the gov't), but there is only so much they can do. They aren't going to put an end to online gaming. They simply don't have the resources to enforce a law like this. It's all more political blah, blah, blah, that's been thrown at us by a moronic and conservative administration that just needs to go. After this, I can't imagine I'd vote Republican regardless of who runs.I get the subtle hit on me DN, I can take it though and I still like you.This issue hits too close to home and I believe the Democrats would be more likely to legalize and tax online gaming.Well you got part of it right.IMO once you tax it, the government will love online gambling.As Ronald Reagen said:The governement thinks like this:If it moves, tax it.If it keeps moving, regulate it.If it stops moving, subsidize it.And if DN does go to jail......DIBS on his bracelets Link to post Share on other sites
JEFFAZ 0 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 It's all more political blah, blah, blah, that's been thrown at us by a moronic and conservative administration that just needs to go. After this, I can't imagine I'd vote Republican regardless of who runs. This issue hits too close to home and I believe the Democrats would be more likely to legalize and tax online gaming.DN,I know that you are not happy with Conservatives lately and I respect your opinion. I disagree with the Rep. Party on this one, but the Admin. is not the ones pushing this. It is a few congressmen, and before you get too happy about the left retaking power just realize they will tax you until it really hurts. In the late 70's the top tax rate in the US was around 70%. I am not joking. Granted, there were a lot of write offs but 70% is obscene!! Reagan changed that and he had to bring a few Dems along kicking and screaming. Link to post Share on other sites
Stylin_Fish 0 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 "I SAY LOCK 'EM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEYS!!" "Get off the phone Eric!"What's this from, anyone? Link to post Share on other sites
doubleatrain 0 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 "I SAY LOCK 'EM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEYS!!" "Get off the phone Eric!"What's this from, anyone?I'm surprised I'm responding to this and feel bad for helping take this thread further off course, but...Boy Meets World? Link to post Share on other sites
Stylin_Fish 0 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 I'm surprised I'm responding to this and feel bad for helping take this thread further off course, but...Boy Meets World?DING DING DING, TELL HIM WHAT'S HE'S WON!"Well Johnny, while he did answer the question right, unfortunately he was just found guilty of playing poker online and seeming as how that is now worse the child molestation, he will be serving 7 consecutive life sentences" Link to post Share on other sites
KDawgCometh 2 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 It's all more political blah, blah, blah, that's been thrown at us by a moronic and conservative administration that just needs to go. After this, I can't imagine I'd vote Republican regardless of who runs. This issue hits too close to home and I believe the Democrats would be more likely to legalize and tax online gaming.DN,I know that you are not happy with Conservatives lately and I respect your opinion. I disagree with the Rep. Party on this one, but the Admin. is not the ones pushing this. It is a few congressmen, and before you get too happy about the left retaking power just realize they will tax you until it really hurts. In the late 70's the top tax rate in the US was around 70%. I am not joking. Granted, there were a lot of write offs but 70% is obscene!! Reagan changed that and he had to bring a few Dems along kicking and screaming.nice, trotting out old rhetoric to attempt to make a point. The people that were in the 70% tax bracket were so few that it rarely if ever came into play. There were a lot of parameters that hade to be made for you to get taxed like that. also, that bracket had been part of the US tax structure for almost as long as the income tax has been around(which was a republican amendmant by taft btw) Link to post Share on other sites
beans-n-icewater 18 Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 nice, trotting out old rhetoric to attempt to make a point. The people that were in the 70% tax bracket were so few that it rarely if ever came into play. There were a lot of parameters that hade to be made for you to get taxed like that. also, that bracket had been part of the US tax structure for almost as long as the income tax has been around(which was a republican amendmant by taft btw)Yeah, he should have said something about the sky-high interest ratesThat hit everyone... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now