Jump to content

Latest News On The Gambling Act


Recommended Posts

There are a couple of things happening with the gambling act... d'amato joins the ppa, barney frank speaks out, Jon Kyl urges the president to enforce the bill (announced after frank called it stupid) and two reps from nevada are writing legislation to commence a study of online gaming to see if it can be effectively regulated.

In recent news, Barney Frank (D-MA) called for the repeal of the UIGEA (link:article), calling it "stupid" and "preposterous." This news followed the announcement that former NY Senator Alfonse D'Amato joined the Poker Players Alliance as its new spokesperson (link:article) . Today, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) - who alongside Bill Frist pushed the UIGEA through on the Port Security Bill - has asked the President to enforce the act. At the same time, news has been released that two Nevada lawmakers are working on legislation for an 18 month study of online gambling to determine whether it can be effectively regulated in the United States instead of being banned outright.The timing of Kyl's plea to President Bush is deliberate; it's meant to undermine Barney Frank's suspicion of the bill. His letter that circulated around the Senate said "Any progress made over the last several months may evaporate if immediate action is not taken to ensure strong and effective implementing regulations." Kyl, who urges Bush to protect family values in implementing the regulations, made sure to exempt horse-racing, state lotteries, and fantasy sports from the bill. Because horse-racing is a game of skill. And so are lotteries. Politics is a dirty game.In the meantime, while Kyl is pressing his issues in the White House, two Nevada lawmakers with a brain are working on a solution to the problem. Shelley Berkley and John Porter are expected to reveal their legislation in the coming weeks, and given the controversial nature of the UIGEA, there's no reason Congress shouldn't pass an inquiry into the matter.The aim of the legislation is to determine whether or not gaming in the US can be effectively regulated. This would be a step in the right direction for online gaming, as similar steps are being taken in the UK. For now, we must play the waiting game and see what pans out.
Sourcekyl and frist are pretty pigheaded about this bill, but at least it looks like it's gaining momentum in our direction now
Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a couple of things happening with the gambling act... d'amato joins the ppa, barney frank speaks out, Jon Kyl urges the president to enforce the bill (announced after frank called it stupid) and two reps from nevada are writing legislation to commence a study of online gaming to see if it can be effectively regulated.Sourcekyl and frist are pretty pigheaded about this bill, but at least it looks like it's gaining momentum in our direction now
I'd call it more of a Draw at this point. Some momentum in each direction, but the anti-gamers have position because there is already an Act signed into Law.At the risk of a hijack, that site seems to be "pro-lawsuit" when it comes to the PPT...Lawsuit Against WPT Intensifies Thursday, 15 March 2007 Today, seven of the world's leading professional poker players filed a motion for summary judgment against WPT Enterprises, Inc. ("WPTE") in federal district court in Los Angeles. In their motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs Chris Ferguson, Andrew Bloch, Annie Duke, Phil Gordon, Joseph Hachem, Howard Lederer, and Greg Raymer have presented undisputed facts which establish that WPTE, which owns the World Poker Tour ("WPT"), has committed multiple violations of federal antitrust laws.
Link to post
Share on other sites

the last thing we need right now is people who should be advocating online oker, and made their bread and butter (raymer) plaing online poker.. to be annoying the US judicial system with nonsensical WPT lawsuits. Its just going to validate every negative stigma about poker. also its much in the tradition of the us government to pass laws before they do any studying into them. "studies to find out if it can be regulated" of course it can.. we regulate stock trades online, we regulate B&M casinos... its just another bob and weave by the higher ups. much like the marijuana laws, which have no foundation in anything other than moral standards, i predict we will not be gambling online in the near future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd call it more of a Draw at this point. Some momentum in each direction, but the anti-gamers have position because there is already an Act signed into Law.At the risk of a hijack, that site seems to be "pro-lawsuit" when it comes to the PPT...Lawsuit Against WPT Intensifies Thursday, 15 March 2007 Today, seven of the world's leading professional poker players filed a motion for summary judgment against WPT Enterprises, Inc. ("WPTE") in federal district court in Los Angeles. In their motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs Chris Ferguson, Andrew Bloch, Annie Duke, Phil Gordon, Joseph Hachem, Howard Lederer, and Greg Raymer have presented undisputed facts which establish that WPTE, which owns the World Poker Tour ("WPT"), has committed multiple violations of federal antitrust laws.
That's not an opinion of the website. In their motion for summary judgment, the facts which the players present have not been disputed by the WPT. I have no idea what facts they are, but they're undisputed facts, no less :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd call it more of a Draw at this point. Some momentum in each direction, but the anti-gamers have position because there is already an Act signed into Law.At the risk of a hijack, that site seems to be "pro-lawsuit" when it comes to the PPT...Lawsuit Against WPT Intensifies Thursday, 15 March 2007 Today, seven of the world's leading professional poker players filed a motion for summary judgment against WPT Enterprises, Inc. ("WPTE") in federal district court in Los Angeles. In their motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs Chris Ferguson, Andrew Bloch, Annie Duke, Phil Gordon, Joseph Hachem, Howard Lederer, and Greg Raymer have presented undisputed facts which establish that WPTE, which owns the World Poker Tour ("WPT"), has committed multiple violations of federal antitrust laws.
Didn't Joe Hachem win a WPT event? Didn't Howard Lederer and Phil Gordon as well? And these people are complaining!!!
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not an opinion of the website. In their motion for summary judgment, the facts which the players present have not been disputed by the WPT. I have no idea what facts they are, but they're undisputed facts, no less :club:
That's normal enough though, otherwise their wouldn't be a motion for summary judgment after all. It's pretty clear that the those players and the WPT differ in their view of the law not on their view of the facts, for the most part anyway.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's normal enough though, otherwise their wouldn't be a motion for summary judgment after all. It's pretty clear that the those players and the WPT differ in their view of the law not on their view of the facts, for the most part anyway.
If the facts are undisputed, summary judgment may be granted unless there's a question of law. I feel like this might go to trial since everything here is somewhat of a gray area? I wish I knew more
Link to post
Share on other sites
i predict we will not be gambling online in the near future.
I'll bet you $3 billion that I will be gambling online in the near future.Edit: I win. You can transfer me money on stars or tilt please.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll bet you $3 billion that I will be gambling online in the near future.Edit: I win. You can transfer me money on stars or tilt please.
Shipped. Want a Bagel, too?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't Joe Hachem win a WPT event? Didn't Howard Lederer and Phil Gordon as well? And these people are complaining!!!
Yep. Hachem just won the Five-Diamond event. Talking about biting the hand that feeds you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I wonder. What if the government decides to regulate online poker? Will they then setup a government sponsored online-poker site? Or will all poker sites be sanctioned on a case by case basis? If the government sets up their own site, will there be a higher rake? Will they still have tournaments? Will people have to be limited to one account? It just opens up a whole new set of questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have their panties in a bunch because they can't tax the online rooms. And the online rooms I take it aren't too pleased with the idea of paying the USA taxes on their rake. I know of a couple hundred legal poker rooms here in the Northeast, and they aren't on Indian land nor is gambling legal where they're located. And although I'm not a lawyer, the fact that they donate some of their profit to charity is probably how they got their "poker licenses". With all the bad blood in the online poker fiasco, I don't see much of a compromise any time soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's what I wonder. What if the government decides to regulate online poker? Will they then setup a government sponsored online-poker site? Or will all poker sites be sanctioned on a case by case basis? If the government sets up their own site, will there be a higher rake? Will they still have tournaments? Will people have to be limited to one account? It just opens up a whole new set of questions.
I don't think the government would be running the sites, instead they would just be handing out licenses. Most of the sites pay taxes in countries that regulate Internet gambling, so they would be happy to do the same in the US in return for explicit legal status and the peace of mind that comes with knowing you can travel the globe and not be arrested.I wonder if sites that ignored the UIGEA (Stars, Tilt, etc.) will get licenses if and when regulation happens, or if it will be limited to the Party Poker's and Pacific Pokers of the world, who abandoned the US once the UIGEA was signed.** Edit to fix my Stars/Party confusion
Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if sites that ignored the UIGEA (Party, Tilt, etc.) will get licenses if and when regulation happens, or if it will be limited to the Party Poker's and Pacific Pokers of the world, who abandoned the US once the UIGEA was signed.
You mean Stars and Tilt ignored the UIGEA.I suspect that's one of the reasons why Party left the US voluntarily. Hoping that it would eventually be made legal and they could re-enter while people who had stayed wouldn't be allowed licenses. Though I think that's pretty daft. If the US can't shutdown Stars and Party and others are paying taxes it would be stupid to not license Stars and take their tax money too.Far from wanting to avoid taxes and regulation I think the online sites would welcome it. If online poker were explicitly legal and they could market the hell out of it on TV they'd make far more in the long run. Besides they could very easily increase their rake to cover the additional costs if they needed to.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean Stars and Tilt ignored the UIGEA.I suspect that's one of the reasons why Party left the US voluntarily. Hoping that it would eventually be made legal and they could re-enter while people who had stayed wouldn't be allowed licenses. Though I think that's pretty daft. If the US can't shutdown Stars and Party and others are paying taxes it would be stupid to not license Stars and take their tax money too.Far from wanting to avoid taxes and regulation I think the online sites would welcome it. If online poker were explicitly legal and they could market the hell out of it on TV they'd make far more in the long run. Besides they could very easily increase their rake to cover the additional costs if they needed to.
Yes, I fixed my post to reflect the error. I agree, that's why Party left. If regulation happens, all gov't needs to do is go after a few players who play on "rogue" sites that are not licensed and the rest will flock to the sites that are regulated by the government. Prosecuting a few college kids who downloaded music illegally helped Napster make the switch. Granted, free file swapping still happens, but people are going to want to avoid the long arm of the law, and when site traffic and player liquidity go down, there is even less incentive to play at a "rogue" site.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean Stars and Tilt ignored the UIGEA.I suspect that's one of the reasons why Party left the US voluntarily. Hoping that it would eventually be made legal and they could re-enter while people who had stayed wouldn't be allowed licenses.
That would be pretty awesome. I'd trade my Stars and FTP accounts in a heartbeat to get my Party one back. Their advertising just attracts the exact type of player you want to play against. Anyone remember being able to pick your own seat in the SNGs? :D Ughhh Party 04 was so sweat, I wish I could go back and play 20 hours a day :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites

The end game has always been regulation and millions in tax revenue, imo. Prior to the bill, they had zero leverage with the sites ... now they got nothing but leverage. Obviously not sure how it all pans out, but I think there's little doubt as to why certain sites complied with the new legislation immediately versus waiting the hundreds of days they were "permitted" ... they're hoping to be first in line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...