"Quoted For Truth"? What on earth are you talking about? The poster ( and apparently you, too ) are (falsely) claiming it is illegal to play poker at pokerstars.com if a user is logging in from the U.S.? I MUST be missing something here, because that's how I read it.

Also - the article still hasn't been corrected/updated so at this point I'm wondering if he changed his mind about doing that.
It got copied/sent to some other NBC affiliate type websites and I'm not sure the correction would make it over to those anyway. And those who were going to read the MSNBC article likely already have.
So it would have been nice if this misleading language hadn't been a part of the article in the first place instead of some delayed correction that only a minority will see (and still hasn't happened).

im starting to wonder y i still play on AP

I tried to warn you Mookman

Despite what you may think, my take is this. If they admitted you were cheated, YOU will eventually get a refund. Just makes too much sense. I predict eventually you will someday post, it wasn't enough of a refund. Going out on a limb there.

Good Luck and ENJOY!

Scott Clark

Gambling is illegal everywhere in the US, except where states have specifically carved out exceptions. The exceptions include state lotteries, state-licensed businesses, charity games, etc. In some states, like mine, no-rake home games are legal.

There's no state in which gambling is generally legal. There's no state that allows unregulated, unlicensed commercial gambling. There's no state that recognizes any license from Gibraltar, the Isle of Man, or Costa Rica.

It's true that law enforcement targets gambling businesses, not customers. Around here they let the punters walk, when they make a bust. The employees go to jail. At most, the customers might get a ticket, and have to pay a fine.

And it's true the sites are beyond the reach of the law. And it's true the chances of getting busted for gambling online, or in any private place, are virtually zero.

But it's wrong to say it's legal, despite how nice it would be if true.

If DJ Puffyfish correctly quoted the article when it first came out:

then the article has been updated. In the version I read on 2008-09-20 at 23:00-05:00, the reference to the Canadian government had been removed.

Keep in mind that the author probably does not own the content - his employer does - so the author may not be allowed to make a change even if he wanted to.

There are also significant differences between the first change that was made (U$85M to U$75M) and the change many of us would like to see. The former was a clear error of fact, simple to correct, not controversial, and without political implictions. It was changed very soon after publication. The latter seems to some to be a matter of opinion. I doubt that MSNBC would take the opinion of an obviously self-interested would-be on-line poker player as the basis for deciding what has been established as to the legality of playing poker online in the USA.

Furthemore the author, or his editor/manager, may have looked into the legal and political situations and reached the conclusion the the wording "are considered illegal by the U.S. government" is accurate. They may also consider that wording not to be misleading. They may also consider that the legal situation is not so clear-cut that they can easily explain it to the average reader. Finally it may be possible that NBC has an editorial policy that would lead them to avoid publicizing the notion that playing poker online is legal.

Bottom line: I think it is wrong to blame the author in this case. We can lament the choice of language, but condemning it may be going too far.

dothemath - the idea that it might not be fully up to him and/or they decided not to change it after further consideration is pretty much what I was thinking too.

Got an email from UB 2 days ago.

-Waiting for KGC aproval before issuing the refunds, should be hopefully within 4 weeks it says.

So apparently Ultimate Bet is willing to refund the money since July 28 2008 when it sent the request to KGC, but KGC has not acted yet.
Kahnawake Gaming Comission must be full of more important matters than this.

Come one, dont drain me out, just send what got stolen from me NOW!

CURITI

Gold. Pure gold. AND my Mom told me to quit downloading free music on the internet 'in the days' when I owned a Mobile DJ business, because she was concerned her handsome son would not fare very well in the penitentiary.

I am not a lawyer (but I did stay in a Holiday Inn) and I have sat on several negotiating committees:

There is a concept called "Accepted Practices" when it comes to criminal offenses. If a 'restrictive' Law on sits on the books for an extended period of time without ever being enforced; or worse yet allowing the restricted activity to become common place then the defendant has a viable defense. Because once an illegal activity (especially laws enforcing moral conduct) becomes common place and accepted the courts are forced to apply that community standard to the offense. For example 100 years ago Women could not drink in public, 50 years ago Marijuana sent you to prison, 20 years ago no Alcohol on Sunday, 2 years ago UIGEA..................... These laws are still on the books in lots of US States but no longer enforce and therefore considered "Stale" in the eyes of the court.

The longer a State or Federal agency takes to try to prosecute an individual online player for an openly advertised activity the harder the prosecution an greater the risk of the UIGEA, Wire Tap Act to come under Appealate review. They will not prosecute because the law is trash, ripe for review and will bring another concept I love called "Clean Hands" into play..............

State, local and fed anti-gambling laws are enforced fairly often, for players and operators. (and even if they weren't enforced, gambling activity outside of what is authorized would still be illegal, online or not)

To keep laws from getting "Stale" and to portray an image that the law is being enforced agencies will have an occassional "Crackdown". This gives the public the perception that the laws are being regularly enforced when in fact they are not. You always see the local arrests but never the dispositions in court because they are almost always pled down because a vigorous defense could jeopardize the "Community Standard" the laws stand on.

Think about: Hookers who get locked up right before the Super Bowl but ignored the rest of the year, Possession of weed is rarely an arrestable offense anymore unless the police need an arrest, Pasties on exotic dancers. Its all about keeping certain perceptions alive and preventing these convenient laws on the books from going stale.

The strength of a Federal case is not the law itself but the ability of the prosecution to drag you through years of expensive legislation, keep you incarcerated (ie, Neteller), seizure of assetts and then the IRS gets on you. Very rarely do cases go to trial in US District Courts. They just wear you down til you plead guilty or run out of money.

Notice how everyone treat this issue as someone elses problem. The Feds say its "illegal" because a political appointee at DOJ says it is? The States don't want to open the can of worms involved in securing and regulating online gaming. Localities could care less until they figure out a way to get a slice of the action or it hurts a local casino.

the scatterplot is based on faulty premises anyway. what the msnbc plot attempts to represent probably isn't any further from the truth than the original scatterplot.

Can we start a new section of the forum for players new to us that came through this article. Call it "Strategy for those new to 2plus2 through MSNBC"



And then fill it with gems like, "always call 3 bets cold and OOP with suited cards, they seem to hit a lot in online poker"