Am I the only one concerned that lock is making itself available to states that strongly forbid online poker? Washington (felony), Kentucky
, new York, Maryland, etc...

Mentioned this in other threads but seems to be ignored. I think this is a valid concern. Especially in the fragile state that online poker is today. I am not trying to be a kill joy or anything, but what is the rationale? I mean even bodog who use to thumb its nose at everyone eventually even said no mas.

Would love to hear a reasonable rationale why lock feels like this is a smart move? I love playing at lock, even with the changes and all. Just don't like that lock may be taking a risk that puts lock in the line of fire...

I agree with u. Not sure what to do about it though.

The DOJ doesn't care what states they are serving you from. Do you think if Lock only offered Poker in Nevada, you would be any safer? You think Merge is safer? The logic ITT shows a slight sense of denial, feeling safer when not actually. The problem is processors for different states, NOT whether they allow them to play.

PS, not ONE arrest has been made re the felony thing, the FELONY language is geared more towards actual processing and the room itself (offering casino games). Perhaps you should read the bill.

IT is a major concern and yes it makes a huge difference allowing states that are very agressive against online poker like Maryland ,Washington, and now Utah and Hawaii its a stupid move and i think Lock poker will eventually regret this move as heat is on them allready from the Doj from what i read ,Futureinsight probably works for lock poker is something cause we all know Maryland which merge does not allow and lock does will eventually catch up to lock and the revolution network or New York and the list goes on

I would disagree with you. After the wire act was deemed not applicable to online poker, it is legal to play by US players unless they live in a State that makes it illegal. There is a Federal Statute that states it is illegal under Federal Law if it is illegal under the State law.

Seems to me that a state like Nevada, on the verge of offering their own games, would carry the most risk.

Lets see anyone with any common sense would know that a usa poker network that banned aggressive states like merge is alot safer then a usa network which gives the finger to agressive states like lock revolution network its common sense noone can argue that fact but i am sure a few bonehead lock affiliates will disagree and post complete bullcrap on here

I agree with your logic (I know, surprised?) but you've already shown your true colors under this screenname on 2p2.

Yeah, I always worry when a gimmick account posts. PS, look at my other posts begging for info from Shane, etc., is the gimmick account so screwed in the head to REALLY think I'm an employee or affiliate? I'm not even up to depositing yet. If y'all so scared, just cash out.

The only sense of denial seems to be from you future... It is clearly stated that online gaming is a felony in washington. Even pokerstars before black Friday acknowledged this. The the uiega act (probably wrong abbr.) is against processors. Good point about the wire act as it did point out that online poker isn't illegal except in states that strictly forbid it. All law aside ... I have no problem parading around naked in my house but I sure as hell would not parade around naked in someone else's home. Probably a terrible analogy but my point is why do something or offer something where it is completely forbidden or where there has been action clearly taking a stance against online poker.

And sorry no pics provided on the analogy... Lol

Obvious answer is obvious:
Lock is more concerned with picking up market share right now.

The clarification on the wire act does NOT make it legal for offshore sites to provide games to all the states except the banned ones. If that were the case, we'd all be playing on Stars right now.

It might be slightly safer for Lock to ban certain states, but the fact remains that any US facing site could be targeted and shut down at any time. That is just the way it is, for now.

^^^^This

Its what I meant when if you didn't realize, denial. Current state in ALL of US.

I kinda see what you are saying drifter and future but still do not think it is wise given the current state is US.

Maybe not, time will tell, I suppose.

But, in my opinion, Lock is a lot safer having split away from Merge. They are a smaller target now, and can call their own shots.

It does not have to make legal. If it is not illegal by law than its legal. Pretty hard right now for DOJ to go after sites that do not take banned states. The only federal law now is against financial institutions transfering funds for "illegal" online gambling. That statute does not say what is legal or illegal. That is left up to the states since January 2012 when the DOJ said that wire act did not apply to online poker.
So bottom line, what Lock is doing now is not legal, with regards to banned states, and that is clear. If they are not segregating funds, then all funds are in jeopardy, even from states not banned. So it was safer with Lock before they left merge and decided to go after players from the clearly illegal states.

There is still the UIEGA. And to be clear, the DOJ opinion was in response to the state of Illinois request for clarification on whether or not they could sell lottery tickets online, across state lines. They never once mentioned online poker.

Also, if you recall, Black Friday was when the DOJ office in New York went after the 3 largest sites who were processing payments from a bank in California, a state where poker is clearly legal.

There's a reason why Merge doesn't allow ppl from these states to play on their network.

That was before the January 2012 opinion that from the DOJ that stated the wire act did not apply for online poker. Show me in the UIEGA where it states that online poker is illegal? It's not there. They need another statute to make it illegal and there is none at the federal level at the moment.
And for those that say if this is so why does Stars not offer to states not banned, the answer is because they signed an settlement agreement with DOJ stating that they would not, so it is contractual, not legal vs. illegal

But they said that the wired act only applied to off track betting. So there is no current federal law that makes online poker illegal, unless it is with a state that makes it illegal. If there is, let's point out here.

Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but I disagree.

Could you provide a link to that January 2012 opinion? I have read the December 2011 opinion, and I like to think that I stay well informed on these matters. But I have not even heard of this Jan. 2012 opinion.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanva...rnet-gambling/
In a letter sent on Friday to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich said: “in states that ban various forms of gambling–including Internet poker–the Department will be able to investigate and prosecute those gambling businesses under the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and other sections of the criminal code.”

http://casinoconnectionac.com/issue/...poker-is-legal

On April 15, 2011, in U. S. v. Scheinberg et al. (10 Cr. 336), three online poker companies were indicted for violating U.S. laws that prohibit the acceptance of any financial instrument in connection with unlawful Internet gambling,[29][30] that is, Internet gambling that involves a "bet or wager" that is illegal under the laws of the state where the bet is made.[31]

If was from WA St, I would be the most concerned

I know lock poker is trying to build a player base but in my opinion they are putting other poker players at risk with their greed by allowing aggressive states against online poker

Lock has offered casino games for a long time now (ever since I joined). That is illegal in EVERY state.

Not sure why they even banned Utah.

Definitely a concern. Most likely Lock will leave it open for a month or two and then close the door again. Seems like they want people from the Merge banned states to get on and signed up to build the player base.