Wow, I'm speechless. Where's the form letter to let these media outlets and their sponsorers know we don't appreciate the lies?

Joe, I'd also like to add my thanks to you and your team for your efforts.

So, the states that have licensed gambling but prohibit other gambling (with the noted exception) are only 6 in number? I do not agree with this at all. That's the number of states where internet gambling is prohibited.

It's clear that there should be more concentrated effort at the level of each state to render UIGEA ineffective.

Joe first off I want to thank you for your effort and your posts. My only question is do you think this ruling may change the stance of any of the sports books that do not take action from U.S. players? Access to Pinnacle, Betfair and Neteller are the only freedoms I'm concerned in getting back.

C'mon this is like saying because America elected Obama, it implies there's no more racism in the country. Everyone knows this is not relevant. Gov't could outright ban poker and say we'll be arrested to the fullest extent of the law for playing poker online (or gamble in the broader sense) and people will still play. Hell, I would, provided I could still eke out a profit worth the time.

To which I respond in a FYP version:

This quote is also why the first quote in this post isn't the important issue.

The war isn't won until non-players and gamblers view us as non-criminals (in the civil sense, i don't care for religious fanatics, they're like dining room tables to me).

Until banks openly process our deposit/withdrawals without their finger on the trigger to close our accounts.

Until FT, PS, and whatever casinos and/or sportsbooks you may represent don't have to veil their checks and transfer memos as vaguely-named transactions at best, laundered money at worst.

And probably the last thing that gets done, if ever the first few ever do, the tax code gets updated so 99% of us don't feel like an audit can still screw us even if we follow Russ Fox or any professional's advice to the letter. We still debate and disagree over things like constructive receipt, what a session counts as, and still agree that the code is immensely unfair in general. Maybe it will never be fair, but it should at least be reasonable. It would probably increase tax revenue for the IRS anyway.

And thank you as always, your efforts are greatly appreciated no matter what the outcomes of the battles.

Psht, I want PayPal back! You could've kept most of your bankroll in a money market earning interest (although the rate is currently negligible), with instant access via ATM card which gave you 1.5% back on all purchases! Such a beat sometimes living in America...

For now, I don't think it would be prudent for a sports book like Pinnacle to test the waters. I think that a poker site would have a better argument for re-entering the US market.

Joe@iMEGA

TeflonDawg,

I think you may be setting the bar too high when you define victory to necessarily include changing attitudes about online poker players and punters as "non-criminals". Those people you mention don't think of you as criminals. They think you're much worse: immoral, a slave to addiction, a sinner.

(Personally, I respect the view of people who have a moral objection to all forms of gambling. I don't agree with it, but I respect that they believe it as part of their own faith.)

And I agree with you that players and operators alike can't really normalize the industry in the US until processing problems are solved.

You can forget not getting screwed by the tax code, though. Death and taxes, baby.

My original quote, though, points to something practical: you, and everyone else, can play a money game online tonight if you want. There are some inconveniences at times regarding processing, but for an industry that's been under the gun for a few years now, that's been singled out by career-minded attorneys at the SDNY, and that just lost an appeal on UIGEA...we're doing OK.

Why? Because you, and millions like you, want to play. And there will always be a site that can give you a place to play.

After things went against us yesterday, I was surprised that I wasn't upset. At all. It helps that we've had a string of victories this year (KY, MN, the SDNY access challenge we supported), and that we're involved in other efforts (our federal challenge to PASPA, working on intra-state i-gaming). iMEGA has grown a lot in a few years, a staying busy always helps you get over the setbacks.

But the real reason I didn't get upset is that all of this is just growing pains -- for the Internet, the industry and government -- and I think we're on the right side of history on this one. This will all get worked out, it's just a question of when and how, not if. A lot of this is generational in government, and as people turn over at the state and federal level, that will help, too.

What I'm trying to say is, keep your passion, but don't despair. Just keep playing. We're eventually going to win.

Joe@iMEGA

To everyone who has expressed their thanks to us, let me say that it's our pleasure, and we appreciate your support.

On to the next fight...

Joe@iMEGA

Joe, we are in complete agreement on this post. This is the accurate positive spin from the decision in the UIGEA case. Despite the efforts of the DOJ to eliminate online sports betting through the Wire Act and the courts blanket acceptance of this view (the Jay Cohen case shows what is wrong with our legal system), many online sports betting sites serve US citizens who annually place millions in such bets. Despite the intimidation tactics by the DOJ against online poker and one seizure of its funds, according to PokerScout, online poker continues to annually grow by about 25% even in steep recession.

This is why I disagree with all the doomsayers that predict that the UIGEA regulations or even a court ruling that online poker violates some federal law or the UIGEA that online poker will disappear from the US. In fact, depositing and withdrawing funds from either an online sports betting site, an online poker site or even an online casino is about the same process. The idiots in DC have not killed this industry in the US and cannot; unless they can censure the Internet in which case it's time to secede.

I'm no lawyer or even knowledgeable about interpreting laws. But logically I think one conclusion from this ruling is that if home poker games are illegal in your state then the UIG will apply. Confirm?

Also I have to add this in: do not pretend as though this UIG is the result of liberals or liberalism. Conservatives trying shove their values and preferences down peoples throats is the source of ALL this BS.

I am pretty liberal and I can tell you that liberal's aren't necessarily our friends. In general many liberals would like to protect vulnerable people from themselves. I personally wouldn't agree with that but let's be clear, we have a lot of people to convince on both sides.

Absofreakinlutely. Never forget - it was the Kennedys who gave us the Wire Act in the first place.

+1

I consider myself a liberal as well. On these issues the difference between a liberal politician and a conservative one is often very slim. One thinks he knows what's best for you, the other does too (but blames God).

Its true. I live in CA and both senators have responded negatively to my emails regarding regulation of online gambling. Furthermore, 2 of the states expressly forbidding it are Washington and Oregon. I was very surprised when I looked it up this morning.


Off topic: what does this mean for all the poker players living in Nevada who play online? Are they really in danger of having to move to another state come December???

As far as UIGEA regulations go it isn't going to matter what state you live in come December. Banks are going to implement what ever policies they see fit to comply with UIGEA. Even if a state passed a law making online poker legal almost all banks would still block or try to block online gaming transactions.

They will over block to cover their butts, as they would have no-way of knowing where you were when you made the bet or what location (state) you plan on being in while playing (after making a deposit) . The banks are allowed to over block under UIGEA and I don't see them trying to nit pick and go checking every law in every state to see if they don't have to block online poker transactions. While the policies may be different from bank to bank on how they go about enforcing UIGEA for all practical purposes is wont matter what state your banking in.

Just wanna say here that I unequivocally respect all views of all people. The dining tables I refer to are the fanatics who are not only influenced by their religion, but act in a way that is contradictory to their own, and also in a way that completely disrepects my beliefs. I don't tell anyone how to live their life, don't tell me how to live mine.

I have no problem with one believing I'm a sinner, immoral, etc. It's their prerogative. At that point, however, the only right they have in action towards me is prayer, not judgement, and definitely not legislation imposing upon my free will, pun intended. The UIGEA was clearly a law that takes a society striving to be healthy a step in the wrong direction. It also completely ignored the fact that there is more than one religion in this country.

My post was speaking in ideal terms, and I should've been more clear about that and that I don't expect them to happen 100%. I just hope for the best possible progress towards it of course.

lol, sad but true. Still, "hope" was the last thing to come out of Pandora's Box.

I hope you're right. We'll never stop playing, that's for sure. I just wish the industry could continue to grow uninhibited as opposed to the way it is now with a boulder on its back treading uphill.

I completely agree that banks arent checking the laws from state to state. I think we could get skill rulings or legalization in 25 states after and banks arent going to rush to put the time and effort in to make sure that they process transactions since the DOJ will still declare them illegal.

I do want to remind people what the UIGEA regulations DONT require, and that is trying to block individual customer transactions. If banks are going to block those, you can throw the UIGEA out on December 2nd and it aint really going to matter. The UIGEA isnt requiring them to do that as is and it expressly excludes withdrawals.

I think we're going to lose e-checks. Id be surprised if foreign checks and bank wires change much. What that does to the games and the sites desire to serve the US customer base is an open question.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...gaming-576318/

check this out, this guy's bank is profiling him because he used the ATM at casinos So his other transactions are likely to be "online poker" related

It's not required, but some banks will. After all, one way to keep prohibited transaction out of the banking system altogether is not to do business with customers of sites that offer "unlawful Internet gambling."

Why don't we file a class action law suit against a(or several) small bank(s) with really ****ty lawyers, structure the case to hinge on overblocking transactions to a skill game. I mean I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure I could picture a carpenter suing a bank for damages if the bank starts to block all transactions going to him. So why don't we take the angle of a legal skill game, act like carpenters, and apply it to lawyers we can overpower so we plop a ****ton of precedence on our side?

I mean we're all poker players. Hunt the donks. If you threaten enough small regional banks and they stop regulating it you've basically overturned the law, no?

The problem is we can't threaten the banks. Under UIGEA they are exempt from any legal action for over blocking. They are allowed to over block.

Novahunterpa has it right. Here's the text:

There are two answers to this

A) No, its actually pretty unlikely they will successfully. That was their whole point during the regulatory period "we cant do this, it costs a ton of money and we'll fail at it". They arent going to stop paper checks from foreign countries. They probably arent stopping bank wires. E-checks, they'll probably be able to make that go away by blocking the processor from opening a US account.

B) To the extent that banks DO TRY and block whatever transactions they can find, delaying or overturning the UIGEA will not be enough. Banks that are just making that blanket decision to block are doing so regardless of the UIGEA. We'd need explicit Federal regulation with a critical mass of states to opt-in to solve the problem.

Okay; that law only exists because they think the only people getting hurt are degenerate gamblers or just gamblers. The way to making overblocking matter is by overblocking legitimate businesses. As far as I know it's okay for E-checks to open a company named "Safewayy Co." in Britain/antigua/isle of man/somalia. It's also probably okay for the company to be named "General Motors X Inc." I mean you can name a company whatever the hell you want. Now these companies get "screened" by some lackadaisical not giving a **** employee, and he either thinks they are gambling and potentially starts overblocking legitimate companies or he thinks they are kosher.

The whole point of this is that it's pretty clear the congressional battle is a pain in the ass. The legal battle is a pain in the ass. Why are we on the defensive here? Examine the vulnerable and exploit. The only pain in the ass for them is enforcement. The banks have to regulate, and we can induce them to regulate the wrong people. If you do it well enough against an opponent(bank guy) that doesn't really care the law becomes unenforceable.

My point is more concisely: this seems pretty easy to fumble. State lotteries have been in the news for being blocked incorrectly. Why don't we drag the rest of the world into our misery? We know enforcement will be hard. Why don't we use it to cause some collateral damage? Hire a consultant who understands how the bank might go about doing it, and then find the holes to cause everyone pain. Make it MAD.

And this is just one idea. In the giant jumble of bull**** predatory enforcement there has to be plenty of ways to get other people pissed. Maybe the banks wont be liable but they sure will have to piss off more than just a niche section of easily persecuted sinners. We might even catch some "Americans."

PPA has been warning of potential overblocking for the past two years. Banks testified to Congress that there would be some issues. So far, some lotteries have been blocked. If others start getting blocked, you can be sure PPA will publicize it.