G911 has an article about Ladbrokes that says that Ladbrokes is considering entering the US online poker market i.e. accepting US customers to its online poker site. Ladbrokes is a publically traded company.

Also, Majorwager has an article about the possibility of intrastate online poker in California that opines that California will likely fight, and win, the DOJ over the legality of online poker under federal law. The article then opines that such action will open the entire US to online poker.

IMO, unless the DOJ soon acts directly acts against some entity in the online poker industry and makes it stick, an uphill fight even for the DOJ, then soon firms, state governments and others are going to ignore the DOJ's proclamation that online poker violates federal law.

2009 is going to be interesting indeed. I would not be surprised if the next administration's DOJ acknowledges that online poker is not illegal under federal law and any regulations under the UIGEA define "unlawful Internet gambling" to mean online sports betting.

Can you comment more on this one piece? I understand the rest of your post, and whether I agree with it or not, its mostly opinion (that I personally agree with), but this comment is a statement of fact (that Ladbrokes is considering reentering the market).

How accurate is G911 usually when they make comments like this?

Also, would anyone like to opine on what this says about the emerging markets in the rest of the world? Have the profitability and potential of these other markets been overstated if Ladbrokes is considering taking a risk and coming back into the US market?

I also found an article on PokerScout that Ladbrokes may be merging with Microgaming and becoming part of its network. Microgaming permits its sites to accept US citizens from most states. So who knows the accuracy of this information. The G911 article did state that Ladbrokes profit had declined.

IMO the non-US online poker firms are finding out that the EU and other alleged emerging markets are not sufficient for all of them to make a profit in the long run. So some of them are going to decide to take the risk and reenter the US market.

I should give some props to the PPA. IMO its efforts have halted the tide against online poker and may have let time push the ball the other way.

That explains a lot.

Does anyone know how fishy ladbrokes was, how fish Microgaming currently is, and how big this could make the microgaming network? Ie. would this allow Microgaming to compete on a similar level as Stars or FTP in the US market?

Yes, and the various news reports and congressional actions are beginning to make sense.

First, the E.U, at the behest of the Remote Gambling Association (RGA) begins an inquiry with the U.S. back in March.

Then Mandelson and a delegation meet with U. s. representatives about the situation after being blown off by the USTR.

Four prominent republicans write the DoJ / DoT suggesting they define Unlawful Internet Gambling with a hint that Sports Betting be the primary and settled definition.
These same four took credit for stopping a flawed bill from passing out of the Financial Services Committee.

Next, Sessions introduces a bill (oddly opposed by the PPA) immunizing those who were into gambling other than sports (included more than poker alone) and directing the DoJ to center on sports betting, though not specifically allowing other games but the wink and nod is there.

Meanwhile the horse racing association is negotiating with offshore books to open the U. s. market to them. Though the Antigua / WTO ruling was more, the punishment centered on horse racing alone.

So, given the totality, can we see a deal to leave the WTO agreement in place, EXCEPT SPORTING; everyone has a happy and merry day?

obg

Nice to see some cause for optimism for a change. We can hope some or all of this comes to pass. But we also cant let our guard down.

Skallagrim

Correct, in-fact we need to be more vigilant than ever.

obg

No, we need to push even harder.

I've reregistered and now I'm in a new Congressional district.

Goodbye John Porter.

I play poker, and I vote.

Ladbrokes is joining the Microgaming Poker Network, but they'll keep their low-stakes cash games separate. They won't take US players. See their press release.

OBG, the Sessions bill contains some provisions that imply that the UIGEA prohibited online poker sites from accepting financial transactions from US citizens, so the PPA should oppose it.
The WTO award was dissappointing, but did not change the WTO decision which was not solely based on horseracing. However, given the failure of the Dohu round of talks, the WTO seems to be worthless. Which may be good for us because the EU seems to be upset about the DOJ prosecutions and investigations of EU companies. A Rep. Wexler and Rep. Cohen have reportedly asked the DOJ to back off before it starts a trade war with the EU.

Where in that press release does it say they won't accept US players? It doesn't say they will accept them, but it doesn't say it won't.

It doesn't say they won't accept US players, and I never said it did. I said they won't take US players. Try this.

Very interesting from a legal, cyber-jurisdiction point of view.
So Ladbrokes wont take US players (it would seem) as clients of Ladbrokes, but it will let its UK and other players play against US players who are clients of other sites on the same network. Is that fundamentally any different from letting US players play on Ladbrokes' site? When the US player and the UK player go heads up, legally where is the game taking place? WE know the DOJ believes that the answer is always "in the US at least and maybe elsewhere." But is allowing your non-US clients, accessing through your entirely non-US operation, to connect to a network that is connected to where US players are playing, gambling in the US?

I don't think I am even gonna try and figure that one out. But I bet some lawyer somewhere had to at least try. Good Luck, Ladbrokes.

Skallagrim

The CA bill calling for the writing of proposed online poker regs, passed the Senate Appr. Comm. today by an 8-7 vote, if I heard correctly. Getting closer. Hard to see how they could turn down the opportunity to control the business and make a buck doing it.

OBG,

I think JP is right on this. The Sessions' bill does nothing for us as players. In fact, Pappas, Skall and I were easily unanimous in the direction PPA ought to take on this bill when we had our conference call on it.