I could, but it isn't worth it. I gave you the link to the statute explaining banks exposure on the UIGEA and in minutes to burped out something proving you didn't even look for it. It would have taken you 20 minutes to even find it in the statute.

You have already determined the tidbits you understand to be all encompassing. You argue against every shred of logic with no regard to how ridiculous you come across. Like I stated above, it is comedy to think a random members of an online form knows more than legal teams. The fact that you don't understand the laws and the huge difference in the case you linked does not interfere in any assertions you make.

There are clear reasons why ClubWPT is not in a State such as Montana and Global is. Since you wasted none of your time looking at the actual statute, I shall waste none of mine providing another link as proof that you are wrong.

Go ahead and alert Ms. Pentland to the error of her ways. I'm sure she will appreciate it. You have her direct email, type away.....

Unfortunately, she is very aware of the case of BuzzKill_McGee vs common sense.

You provided a link about federal law. Its not a fed law issue. I provided you the law in Michigan. Global is in violation of that law. I also provided you with a case from Alabama. The defendants in that case were running the exact same type of sweepstakes.

Global is in violation of many state sweepstakes laws. This is not a federal issue and PayPal has nothing to do with it. End of story. You cannot and have not even tried to logically disprove anything I have said about state law.

Stop trying to win an argument on the internet and take the matters into your own hands and contact all the relevant people who are waiting to hear from you, BuzzKill_McGee, about this topic to change the online landscape as we know it. You matter that much.

You are certain that you are right about this, so how long will you need for that to result in some change? Would by the end of the month be enough time?

All the best.

I gave the example of Montana, fairly sure that is a State discussion. The fact that you repeat yourself over and over does not make it any truer. You can go learn the sweepstakes parameters and then read why the internet cafes in Michigan are dramatically different than Global Poker is.

Sorry, and no sarcasm at all, but I'm not going to explain it all to you when you don't listen to the simple stuff. It's pretty easy to find out the differences. As far as your constant absolution of PayPal, if they violate state laws, then they could lose their ability to operate in that state. It's why there is half a floor of attorneys at PayPal. They cover every state and country they operate in.

You cite a case that is remarkably different in fact. The Michigan case deemed that internet cafes were gambling operators due to offering many different options. Global doesn't not do that. Global is legal purely from the standpoint that you don't ever use any legal tender, can buy gold coins which are never turned in, offer contests for $weepsCash, etc.... If you're studying law, then you know to get all the facts and understanding prior to making a determination. You have a little of both.

Please direct me to any state statute that says someone cannot pay for the ability to play a game with no tangible prizes. That's a facetious question, there is none. That is exactly what you are doing when you buy gold coins.

Enjoy the rest of your night, it's pointless to continue the discussion.

I always thought that WPT operated on a monthly subscription model - I wasn't aware they had changed their format.

Part of gambling is consideration. That monthly fee is consideration. Buying gold coins for a chance to win real money is consideration.

It is and that is part of the reason some states will not allow it. Sweepstakes laws are such that there is a 'no purchase necessary' clause and a monthly subscription is/can be deemed as a purchase to play. Global does not sell $weepsCash and that is the biggest difference. The gold coins are a fugazy and have no value. Thanks $weepsCash is given away for free. You cannot buy it in any way. At global, you don't even have to buy the gold coins, you can send in envelopes and get free $weepsCash or win a contest on Facebook.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(nyx...me=mcl-750-372

That law has nothing to do with internet cafes in particular. The internet cafes were in violation of this specific law. You didn't look at both links. The promotion that global is running is not occasional. Its all the time. Whether its poker or slots is irrelevant. Both have been deemed games of chance.

Oops, wrong again... https://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/08/2...ww.google.com/

Then PokerStars would be legal, genius.

https://www.pokernews.com/news/2013/...tina-16052.htm

But looks who's really wrong, lol.

Oh, so they're not exactly the same in that regard. Could there be other ways that they aren't the same?

Perhaps this: "You cannot for one minute begin to explain why WPT would exclude some states and Global does not." won't be so hard after all. Maybe it could be because:

1) They don't do things exactly the same way.
2) They are different companies with different management and legal teams, that might have different opinions on legality, risk, and benefits.

PokerStars signed an agreement with the US to stay out of the country to get the company back.

All this blabbering and you're not even familiar with the DOJ-GBT agreement....amazing. I hope you're a first year student.

From the link you provided....

"A small silver lining, at least for the poker community, is that the circuit court did not repudiate district court judge*Jack Weinstein's argument*on poker being separated from other forms of gambling because of its skill element"

Shoo....

They both sell a product and give you entries into real money games. They do essentially the same thing. Its no different than a company selling internet time for credits to gamble with like internet cafes. They all have the same model. The AMOE still doesn't make it legal in many states because of the benefit derived from running the operation.

WPT was started by an American lawyer and Global is an Australian company. I'll take the American lawyer.

But they are here. You lose again.

“The question of whether skill or chance predominates in poker is inapposite to this appeal,” the ruling stated.

That IGBA does not clearly define what games count as illegal gambling businesses, leaving that up to the states, illustrates the need for federal legislation that clarifies the law, according to the PPA.

Who wants to create the line on how much OP has lost on Global? O/U $5000?

Doesn't matter if s/he has made a million dollars, lost a million dollars, or has broken even. All that matters is the factual content of his/her assertions. Impugning the motives of a poster isn't very helpful. (And probably violates forum rules.)

The thing is, it's not an American lawyer vs an Australian company (who, of course, could have hired a massive team of American lawyers). No one, aside from you, is saying that WPT has it right and Global has it wrong. They could both have it right.

What this appears to be is your opinion versus Global's. Obviously they feel they have it right, and you don't. You seem to feel that you're expert enough to know better than Global's management and/or legal team. I guess time will tell if you do.

Woefully incompetent.....PokerStars has paid the LICENSING fee to do so.

You don't even understand their model and you assert you complete lack of knowledge on the matter.

Jesus, you actually do think you know more than everyone else. Although, since Global is so small and no one knows about them not seen their ads...perhaps you are right. Their low profile has likely flown under the radar of state AGs. What's the odds any if them ever even heard of Facebook??

By the way, while your displaying your ignorance, Global has a US law firm that specializes in, what for it.....sweepstakes!!! Holy ****, how f'n lost and arrogant can one person be??

Adam Solomon of Michelman & Robinson LLP, a US lawyer specialising in sweepstakes law.

https://www.mrllp.com/professionals-Adam-Solomon.html

Give Adam a call, 212-730-7700, and you can let him know the error of his ways. With Ms. Pentland, I'm sure they'd both be very interested in your views and proof. We all await you report back. I'm sure the other partners at Michelman &Robinson will be delighted to know you've been able to identify one of their own as not competent. If phone calls make you nervous, asolomon@mlro.com.

Do facts and logic matter to you at all or do you type away, click enter, toss the boa over your shoulder and declare your work is done? Seems you specialize in becoming a frivolous litigator.

I guess I'm curious why this "workaround" hasn't been employed by many others when there is so much to be made. Why is there not a "sweepstakes sportsbook"?

Also, you missed my point. I didn't say what they were doing is illegal, I'm not qualified to speak on that part. Though, if I were to make a legal challenge it would be that US law dictates sweepstakes winners MUST NOT be charged a fee to collect their prizes. Isn't Global's only form of payout PayPal and doesn't PayPal charge a fee when you collect? I understand that Global isn't the one charging the fee, but "sweepstakes winners" have no opportunity to collect winnings without paying a fee, which is in violation of the law.

I'll take off my internet lawyer hat now.


My point all along was to be considered a sweepstake the winner must be chosen at random and no skill involved. I'd assume that when people catch on that this isn't really poker, it's just a scratch off in disguise, that players wouldn't play there anymore. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe people just want to play no matter what:

"You know that place is a mitt joint, right?"
"Yea, but it's the only game in town."

In that regard, global pays the PayPal fee. It's like if you win a car on a game show. You pay to take to you home across the country. Where global fits in with the no purchase necessary is a Facebook contest. You correctly answer a trivia question and they pick five random correct answers as winners. You won 20$weepsCash. You decide to take that out immediately via PayPal withdrawal. That's it. You could opt to take the free $weepsCash and play a game to try and win more of it, poker tournament. You turn the 20 into 1000 $weepsCash and withdraw. No purchase or fee paid. Go to dinner and use your PayPal debit card with the winnings and the cycle is complete.

There is really no need for an existing site to try and convert into a sweepstakes model. Imagine the confusion for every player on William Hill if that was the case. They are already making money, lots of it. The bigger networks will just pay the slush fund fee, I mean state licensing fee, to operate in that state. The lawmakers could care less if you lose your money. If that was the case, every forward facing site would get a Black Friday Part Deux. They care about collecting taxes and enforcing leins/seizures of accounts.

Honestly, I think the only real challenge Global would have to deal with is enforcement by the IRS to provide 1099s. Not US entities do not have to provide it but can be pressured into it, like UBS was by the Obama administration. The Swiss bank loophole, so to speak, was closed. You can still open anonymous accounts in other nations. The difference is Switzerland imports zillions of dollars worth of chocolate and watches every year. The idea of a 30% tariff made it worth their while to 'agree' to being a snitch. Since Dominica imports nothing and has so little tourism from the US....the 'loophole' is open there. Eventually, I think the IRS will convince Global to issue 1099s. Imagine the hatred when they realize that a poker series with $5 million GTD is marketed to the US and the feds can't get their filthy mitts on their cut of the rake??