Start with an internet search or look in the phone book.

You can find the list at:

http://www.congressionalpoker.org/

FML, we just got a ballin condo in Fremont...if FTP takes the fall too, looks like we'll be going to Portland or CA

nvm guys i had a connectivity problem, not frozen out by stars

I'd hate to be on pace for SNE in Washington right now. I'd find some friend out of state quick and have him add you to the utility bill.

It has been a Class C Felony to play iPoker in WA since the law went into effect on June 7, 2006. No one has yet been charged or arrested. For more info, see this FAQ from the WA State Gambling Commission.

This is bad, will other states get screwed?

I dont live in Washington but Pokerstars says that if your registered address is in washington you cant play, What if someone that lives in washington uses someone like a family members information that does not live in Washington,, Would that work?

Only if they have or pass similar laws.

If history tells you anything about prohibition, its that it doesn't work. Take that however you will.

Only if they adopt laws like Wash. I am all the more grateful today the PPA stepped up in Mass. or we may be dealing with the same thing sooner or later. Still no guarentee, but at least the legis. Has shown a willingness to not include Igaming now

I just feel bad for the Washington people, People play online for a living and now that you take that away, what are they to do? Its only time untill the other sites follow PS. ( I hope they dont).

So to follow up with this sediment, I now find myself thinking that if we weren't pushing for legislation, PS wouldn't be banning residents based on their perceived chance of getting a license.

I mean, I hate to have to think like this but it doesn't help when it seems this issue is being paraded as a motivator to help support legislation when again, on the surface anyway, the result can be seen as being a direct cause of the push for legislation.

Anyway I'm obviously frustrated and don't understand why the sites would choose to change things over night when it was always supposed to be a threat of the feds that could change things over night.

I think its hard to tell if this would have happened without licensing, but its also possible without hope of licensing Stars would have left all states. Its foolish to think licensing is not a factor in these decisions, but the net effect is probably more positive than negative.

It's been illegal ever since they passed RCW 9.46.240 in 2006, but I can't find any indication that anyone has ever been arrested for playing online poker here. That's why the PS decision is so puzzling to me. If they were going to ban us, why not do it then?

As for my earlier call for a B&M boycott, I guess the big casinos like the Tulalip and the Muckleshoot might just blow us off, but there are lots of small cardrooms in the area (like the Hideaway in Shoreline or the Red Dragon in Mountlake Terrace) that are much more dependent on poker players. Furthermore, I think the resistance by casinos and card rooms to online poker is self-defeating. I think online poker benefits B&M poker rooms by getting people into the game. The big growth of poker here followed the growth of online poker.

What's more, as for the claim that B&M players won't support an online players' call for a boycott, on one level, I think you are right. Most of us poker players are pretty self-centered and care only about our own self-interest. Okay. But I would argue that the survival of online poker is in their self-interest because it helps bring new players into the game. If the online sites aren't available, many online players will probably migrate to B&M sites initially (others, especially the small-stakes players, may just quit). But I think the longer-term trend is that the death of the online game will make it much tougher for the B&M players to make money. The tough, smart, young internet players will be there for competition. The pool of new fish will be constantly decreasing without online poker giving them a gateway into the game. The weak players will eventually lose enough money to decide to quit playing, so over time the result will be a smaller pool of players with more highly skilled players and fewer fish,and the house rake will be as voracious as ever. Or at least that's my theory. We'll see, I guess.

What I would do: Do a google search for Washington state representatives. You should get a website that has all of them. Write your letter once, copy and paste it to all of the others.

I totally agree -- and I'm one of the fish (tho a winning fish). Until I got into online poker last year, I would never have considered going to a casino. Now, when I travel, I will go out of my way to stop near a casino to visit their poker room. If I no longer have access to real money online poker, I will never set foot in a B&M poker room again.

The US licensing aspect of this situation is the minor aspect. The major concern on Stars' part has always been legality and that will remain so. Stars is a worldwide company with licenses in 4 places already. They will not do something that they know is a clear violation of the law.

The key word is "clear." The issue in the Rousso case will not be fully settled in my mind until a Federal court speaks. But as a matter of the state law of WA, it is settled. And that is what Stars has reacted to.

Skallagrim

Like other have said a boycott might not work. But i wouldn't play in them out of spite and principal.

This is wrong. Stars probably has many reasons they are doing this. I suspect that wanting to maximize their success at getting a license is one of them. But they are also surely concerned about the possibility of UIGEA enforcement (because that is triggered by state law violation) and even possibly direct prosecution under the state law.

In any event, the flip side of this is without a push towards legislation, the federal government could very well move the status quo in directions that would be extremely unfavorable for ALL online poker players, whether in or out of the State of Washington. Whereas if legislation is eventually enacted, Washington state may well be persuaded to change its mind at some point.

Land of the free lol. So sick and tired of these politicians and their stupid laws. I feel for the players in WA state. I just wrote my legislators for the 100th time after reading these threads. People seriously need to stop sitting back and start doing something.

Please don't turn on Lee. The PPA could never have accepted online poker as a class C felony in any state without a legal challenge. They are after all the Poker Players Alliance and that alliance has to be of all poker players and must include WA. The PPA could never just sit back and accept this state law. Now the PPA is further along, it is clear that legislative not litigative action is needed in this area.

No one is turning on Lee I don't think. Its pretty clear the ruling was partly a catalyst for this move, but Lee had no reason to think that was the case. Its a pretty good example of the law of unintended consequences though.

Im just trying to understand how Stars could decide they were OK violating state law for four years, then one day decide they weren't. Its not like the law was stayed pending the Supreme Court ruling.

I disagree with Skall in the sense that the potential US licensing is clearly factoring into play here. Its hard to argue Stars was following a bright line test here given that A) the law was still in place while the appeal was ongoing and B) we never really thought we had a good chance of winning this case.

Its pretty clear that Stars is including other factors in its decision to offer service or not.

Doesn't Stars have new management now? They've been making some stupid decisions lately, which I've seen speculatively attributed to new management

When you hire a lawyer to advise you about compliance (i.e., not litigation, but trying to stay within the law so as to avoid having to litigate later), and the law is vague, the lawyer will often give you some variant on the following advice.

"We recommend that for maximum protection of the company, you need to do X [some extremely restrictive course of action that the management of the company doesn't want to do]. If you do not do X, the consequences may be severe if the courts rule against you:[list of dire consequences]. If you choose not to do X, your interests will be best protected by doing Y [slightly less restrictive course of action]. Doing Y will not fully protect you from [dire consequences]. However, if you do Y, you can at least contend that [some argument that might persuade a court to mitigate the dire consequences]. You could choose to do Z. However...." and on and on it goes. You get the idea.

Stars didn't decide to "violate" state law. They decided that they wanted to continue doing business in the US despite UIGEA (unlike some companies). Thus, they decided to take a risk (probably not a huge one, but some risk) that they might later on be ruled to have done something illegal. They also decided to take a risk that they might be frowned upon in a future licensing process.

However, they decided that it was important to draw lines so as to mitigate the risk. And one of the lines they drew is that while they would be willing to do business in a state with an online poker ban if the ban were being challenged in court, they would not be willing to take the risk of doing business in a state where a poker ban had been upheld. And you can see what risks were being mitigated here-- basically, once the ban has been upheld, if you continue doing business, you are opening yourself up to charges that you knowingly and deliberately violated the law, rather than operating while you maintained a good faith belief that the law was not applicable.

This is simply a lot different from "they were violating the law before, and they still are now". They decided to draw a line based on whether a state law had been upheld by the courts. It's the same distinction you or I might draw with respect to a ban on PLAYING poker-- you might decide that it is worth waiting out if someone was challenging the constitutionality of the ban, but if the ban were upheld, you might decide to stop playing rather than risk prosecution and being charged with knowingly violating the law.