[quote=Robin Foolz;5997880]u act like republicans are a monarchy and mccain will be the monarch. there are legislative hurdles such a ban has to go thru before becoming law--briefly, to house committee, quote]

The UIGEA is ALREADY law, all that are needed are regs unfavorable to us, river so to speak.

For instance, a definistion of illegal gambling that states it includes poker.

No NEW law is required.

obg

no, the UIGEA is still on the books and with McCain / Palin they control the FSRB / DoT who will be finishing the regs.

If the final prioduct say poker is defined as illegal gambling, game, set, crap - rivered by a one outer.

The DoJ will be all over every processor, no cashouts, who cares if you can deposit.

obg

OBG, if any regulation under UIGEA defines online poker as UIG, then the PPA can litigate it in court with good case law behind it. While a win is not assured, it is likely and would improve matters over the present status quo.

This is why the Bush administration refuses to define UIG; not doing so prefers the present status quo which is the best situation that FOF can really expect with a Democrat controlled Congress.

Robin Foolz expresses a view that I suspect is quite wide spread throughout twoplustwo.

They just want things to stay like they are. That is, no oversight (ie don't have to pay taxes, no policing of various electronic aids, it is them against the less than motivated sites as far as bending the rules, datamining, bots and near bots, etc)

Just witness the lack of any real support amongst the larger majority on 2 + 2. They like it just fine right now. Grinding on 12 tables has never been better since they can basically get the computer to play the tables for them.

I believe that it would be better for online poker in the long run to have the DOJ put a total clamp on online poker. (and they can if they so choose)

Then the online players would feel motivated to help do something legislatively, and we would probably get a crack at challenging the ban in court.

And the Engineer and others on here who are working their hearts out wouldn't feel so lonely.

Just my 2 cents

Tuff

^ probably a salient point. Long-term view, I think I'd probably rather see the DOJ attempt some sort of strong-arm tactic in the vein of absolute prohibition, because then it is likely they'd be judicially challenged and lose. Those so passionately arguing for their respective 'emissaries of Christ' in either of the two Presidential candidates are seriously deluded and amusing.

what hoops? i just don't see how it can be any easier to deposit nowadays. fullt tilt and pstars has checking transfers straight out of your bank account for deposits.

about the status quo--my stance is that i dont see things will get worse under mccain nor any better under obama. basically things will stay the same in the near term.

i think jpfisher did a good job analyzing and i mostly agree with his post on where we at now and where we will be in the near term.

[QUOTE=oldbookguy;6000370] i was talking about a ban on online poker. uigea doesn't ban anything that wasn't already banned before.

i don't see any reason why the fed and treasury would want to publicly and legally make an arse out of themselves by saying uiega covers online poker. there is simply no evidence that they will.

One piece of evidence is that the DOJ has said just that. Another is that the draft UIGEA regulations would have led to overblocking.

You already know my opinion on this overall issue (fighting back vs. assuming the government cannot stop this), so I'll spare you the rehash. I will share a couple of thoughts:

• If all is good, why are the sites funding the efforts to clearly legalize and regulate the industry?
• U.S. companies cannot participate in this market. Not just gaming companies, but banks, venture capitalists, advertisers, and other business. This extends to companies doing business in the U.S.
• Sites cannot plan for the long-term. This, plus the lack of competition brought on by the positions of our government on this, can lead to scandals like the ones we just saw.
• The DOJ will likely continue their harassment. They can cause a lot of problems with cease-and-desist letters and other threats.
• Poker depends on other players. Are fish going to jump through hoops to play at fly-by-night sites?
• If poker is made clearly unlawful, I believe Full Tilt, PokerStars, and some other companies will leave the market. They are here now not because the government cannot block them, but because they take the position that they're offering a legal service. Where are we without reputable companies?
• The status quo isn't great now.
• Our opponents really do want to prohibit this. Too many poker players don't understand how strongly and vociferously the RRR hates gaming, and to what extent they'll go to stop this. Sun Tzu wrote, "know your enemy". It's sound advice today.

The bottom line is that we lost HR 4411 317-93, so we know doing nothing is just not an option. At that hearing, many of our opponents spoke openly about their belief that this legislation would prohibit online poker, and they advocated just that. Given all of this, it seems we all have to make sure Congress knows that we want our rights. You don't have to support regulation to do that. You just have to support freedom. So, I hope you and anyone else who thinks the status quo is fine will continue to actively advocate for our right to play.

Exactly. The APCW did a video on this and is really good.

Take 3-4 minutes and watch, yes, there are issues large our government faces but there are regular one too that matter to people.

http://www.apcwinteractive.org/video...%3AVideo%3A306

obg

TE, I agree that the status quo is not good. Its uncertainty is the major reason why I play 4 tables of NL100 rather than 4 tables of NL400. I do want to risk that much money in any online poker site or ewallet under present conditions.

Thus, I would not mind if some regulation was adopted defining online poker to be UIG, the DOJ finally prosecuted some entity for offering online poker or serving as an ewallet to an online poker site or even Congress passing a law prohibiting online poker. At least, then the poker sites, PPA and other organizations would have standing and motive to litigate either the legality of online poker under present law or, in the last case, whether the US Constitution really permits Congress to prohibit online poker. The outcome of such litigation might take some time, but at least it would provide a clear answer. In addition, any such action might provoke EU action in the WTO which might lead to some clear conclusion.

IMO, the PPA can prevent the last option. However, I doubt that it can obtain legislation legalizing online poker in the near future, 2-3 years. Not enough Democrats really favor such legislation. The best legislation that might pass would be something like the bill that tied in committee.

Litigation is needed to resolve the legality of online poker. However, until one of the above events occurs who has standing to start the litigation in federal court?

Tuff you are so clueless as to how multitabling/hud actually works. Of course HUDs provides an advantage, but if 'basically get the computer to play the tables for them' was actually correct, online poker would already be dead. Funny how many people are still asking questions about what to do in 100nl on the strat forums -- I just got cr'd by a 23/19 player, what do I do? Shouldn't the computer tell them Tuff?

As to your constant ranting about multitabling, you do realize that hardly anyone, even fish who probably play 2-4 tables, would support regulation if it meant only one table, right? If that happened, you are either going to have people playing 8 sites at once, or not playing at all. If you really want regulation, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

At the moment I believe this is true and it was true when I last deposited 2 or 3 years ago. But in between multiple ewallets have come and gone, deposit directly from your checking account has gone and come back. To say nothing of the periodic difficulties in withdrawing and the constantly changing methods to do so. Maybe this isn't jumping thru hoops to you, but the point made by the post you disagreed with is valid.

te,

we didn't lose anything. your statement that we lost uiega is clearly disingenuous. i think you know this because you're a smart dude yet you inexplicably say it. online poker is clearly legal regardless of the opinions (assertions with no legal basis) and bullying by the doj. what matters is what the law says and not what people or web sites spout.

i doubt the doj's legal position mirrors their public one--that the uiega covers poker. i think this because they haven't gone after a single online poker player nor after a poker site that offers only poker. also note that they were charged by congress with providing legal consultation to the fed and the treasury in writing the regs. but neither the fed nor the treasury have said publicly or to congress when asked that uiega covers poker. what about the doj? we know what they tell the public and the media, but what they did they tell congress when they were asked about unlawful internet gambling? not a thing about uiega covering online poker.

i have no worries at least for the next 4 years because i see neither the candidates nor the congress giving a hoopla about online poker. to me that's good because things will stay the way they are--legal without the greedy and bureaucratic imbeciles in govt. raising the rake and killing or diminishing the fish more quickly with irs information returns.

banks, payment processors and poker sites being harassed are not my concern. it's not my problem that they rather tuck their tail and run rather than stay and fight for their business rights. that has nothing to do with me.
it does become my problem when my rights are being directly attacked, but my rights are not being attacked at the moment. the doj is not going after me. and the congress in my radar is not anywhere near touching online poker in the near term. when i see enough evidence that they are, then i'll give it some thought. otherwise, i'm not going to pay any meaningful attention to people's (including those in govt) opinion on what they think the law says or should say, only on what the law actually says.

there are different options to deposit and cashout. the sites recognize that people have favorites. and yes these options change--some new ones become available and some others for a variety of reasons cease. the fact that there have always been options is indisputable. the fact that at one point or another options changed i think is irrelevant. people always have had the opportunity and a way to deposit or to withdraw from the big 3 (ptars, fulltilt and party).

lol cmon.

if you can play and beat nl400 u should do it. if u think there's a sizable risk in an ewallet or poker site losing ure money then u really ought to not be playing with any of ure money.

Yeah, but I miss Neteller or Epassporte. Try withdrawing from Bodog right now. The status quo is not sustainable. Either the DOJ continues its campaign in the next administration which will force the online poker sites like PS and FTP to litigate the legality of online poker to survive or the DOJ ceases its campaign which IMO will bring more online poker rooms and more ewallets back to the US market.

so the doj is getting away with threatening and harrasing without having to fight in court. it's not a question of legality since online poker is legal. it's a question of no one standing up to the bully. the law is on our side (admittedly the judges hired and paid by the govt may not be) so who shall/will stand up? will be interesting.

Sure things change and they would to some degree in a regulated environment. But those changes would be happening in response to legitimate business reasons. Not due to cat and mouse games with the DOJ. The replacement method/processor/etc would be in place and tested before the other one went away (assuming decent business practices are followed).

In a recent post addressed to TE in this thread you accuse him of being disingenous. Aren't you doing the same? You pretend that the churning of methods, processors, etc don't matter to you ("banks, payment processors and poker sites being harassed are not my concern"). Unless you never deposit or withdraw money from sites this statement is really living up to your name. The only way I can see this as possible is if you don't play online (in which case your opinion doesn't matter) you're breakeven (and plan to stay that way forever without ever having a good or bad run) or you could care less how long withdrawls take you (or even if they ever come).

The DOJ has been very good at its campaign of harassment and selective indictments. They scared most online poker rooms away and most ewallets with one questionable indictment which was quickly settled and one maybe subpoena. I wish that the rest of the government was 10% as efficient and effective. So far they know better than to directly take on online poker, but eventually they will have to do so to remain credible.

for the record i didn't accuse te of being disingenuous. i said his statement about the "we lost uiega" was. there is a discernible difference.

i'm starting to suspect that their harassment campaign and the scare tactics used are because they don't have a legal foot to stand on. it's unfortunate that litigating in federal court is grossly expensive, so i don't totally blame some of the doj targets for opting instead for a economical solution rather than fighting it out and in the process wasting a ton of money just to call the doj's bluff and just to get a judge in the end that is not competent.

still, eventually someone out there with poker only business/personal interests has to stand up to them and drag their arse in court. we have a court system and a bit of case precedent that should be used.

whether that will be a bank, payment processor, poker site or individual i dunno. but it will probably have to eventually happen if the doj gets more bold and starts going after poker-only entities.

the flipside is that the doj may change their direction away from gaming after november and this will all calm down a bit.

Calling me disingenuous isn't cool, nor is it accurate. I said we lost HR 4411, which we did. We lost in the House 317-93. HR 4411 did target online poker. Read the legislation and (especially) the testimony. They fully believed they were banning online poker, and they passed it overwhelmingly. It was watered down prior to becoming UIGEA.

I get that you think this is all wonderful and just fine. You're entitled to your opinion.

Depositing is easy.

Withdrawal is hard.

then if u care please clarify what u meant by "we lost." i took it at face value. maybe u intended it to be taken otherwise. i took it as "we lost the right to play internet poker with the passage of x." if this is not what u meant then what it is that we as poker players lost? btw i assume by "we" u mean poker players, right.

it's my understanding that hr 4411 basically said that internet bets/wagers or the facilitating of such is illegal under applicable federal and state laws. that's all it said. it basically made sure existing federal and state laws dealing with above-metioned bets/wagers would apply to and be enforced on the internet.

because the majority of states have nothing on their books in re: online poker and because likewise there is nothing at the federal level that deals with online poker (no law prohibiting x = x being legal), i'm now very curious as to what u meant with "we lost hr 4411."

please run for something so i can vote for you JP
besides Obama is going to TAX TAX TAX and kill our economy
forget the fishies and richies with discretionary funds because Obama will redistribute their fun money to people not paying taxes anyways and all you ballers wont be getting any of it because Obama will get it first to pay for his trillion dollar social programs IN THE DEMOCRAT PLATFORM I pray for the status quo