You're a Board member of the PPA. I'm curious do you think Stars is guilty of anything? Does the PPA think Stars is guilty?

Can a business be guilty of a crime?

Isn't the state allowed to look at everything, including character of the people running the company and even things like the peopel those people have associated with in the past? It isn't easy getting approved, and my skeptasism isn't anti stars, its just skeptasism. I have no idea what it takes to get a license and neither do 99% of the board. Gonna be interesting to watch unfold.

I don't know the story but what was the deal with borgata and a person tied to organized crime has to back out?

It won't be a monopoly because there will still be other sites, not very hard to understand.

"still other sites" does not negate a monopoly. It's apparently harder to understand than you think. Market share plays a huge role in determining a monopoly (ask Microsoft).

Microgaming accepted US players well after the UIGEA, at least into 2009 and maybe 2010. There does not appear to be any difference between casino games and poker.

Oh I never meant to imply it was not possible, I just think it's more likely to be more than two months time from now. I would be up for something 3rd/4th quarter.

I think the point is that the latter scenario (online permits) is not the question to be decided right now, and therefore any legal argument against that possibility is moot at the moment. The question at stake is whether PokerStars will be granted an interim casino authorization. (and of course the laughable scenario where AGA believes they have standing to even participate in such a decision).

One step at a time, PokerStars should be capable of saving a casino that is, without them, destined for almost immediate failure, saving move than 2000 jobs, and creating the possibility for additional jobs and revenue for AC and New Jersey.

LOL @ betting on a meal with a foodie like TT ! (pretty sure he still won't take the bet tho)

You sound more like the one doing the foot stomping for the alternative.

PokerStars comes with a leg up in reputation. The other casinos have compiled lists for decades of the gamers that have visited their casinos, which probably dwarfs the data base list that PokerStars, as we know it internationally, has for NJ based customers. Other casinos have partnered with platforms that also have been operating internationally over the years, so the technology advantage is baloney imo.

You miss the biggest point of all, you are asking to give an unfair advantage to the very entities that have spent almost infinite amounts of money over the years to be sure that online poker/casinos DID NOT COME to the US, including, but not limited to, NJ. The only time they changed their stance was when they realized it would happen with or without them.

If you are concerned that players are all "we want PokerStars", please stop typing and ask yourself why that is.

To complete a settlement, the government could have demanded that PS admit to certain things. They did not.

Are you claiming that PokerStars would have an unfair monopoly in NJ? Seriously? Even the AGA cant make that claim with a straight face. Fwiw, CET owns and operates 6 of the 13 casinos in Atlantic City.

I'm not saying that at all, you have to read the whole string to get the context

They could have demanded, but that likely would have been an incentive for PS to fight and go to trial, and the DoJ did not want to go to trial with this.

It's unfortunate, because the players come out the loser from this settlement.

I have been through the licensing process in NJ, NV, many other states and countries. This was both a personal gaming license as well as company gaming license. All online operators, software providers, payment processsing companies and maybe some others will have to to go through.

It is comprehensive review of the company and individuals. It takes 1 year plus (I think NV license was 19 months, NJ wasnt far behind, but cant rem exactly). I can't remember any being less than a year. Yes, they look at all aspects of your life. financial records, business dealings, personal relationships and family, etc etc

For public companies, certain officers, directors and large shareholders must get personal gaming license.

For private companies ALL owners must get personal gaming license (this is why you dont see many privately held gaming companies.

Stars is getting a license no matter what. You think NJ would deny them a license and cost 2400jobs at a struggling casino.

I didn't realize that about microgaming. Casino or sports games aside, I see no issue with allowing MPN either.

I was always under the impression that casino/sports companies were actually prosecuted under the law, not just pressured into making settlements where they admit no real wrongdoing. But that could just be a perception error of mine.

While everyone talks about poker issues coming up when processing is involved, isn't it clearly illegal to offer wagering on sports or casino games in this country?

Could you not make the distinction that it was never proven that PokerStars violated any processing laws directly, but it has been proven time and again that sports and casino companies violated laws directly?

This is a speculative part of my post, I'm not sure on any of this now that you bring it up.

Why would the players come out as losers in the settlement? You think that waiting even longer for players to get paid, increasing the chances greatly that FTP players get $0, and increasing chances that the best gaming brand in the world gets shut out is better for players?

Your other post to DF didn't make sense either. Tell us why the AGA companies are good for players and how they have not totally backdoor ****ed us by not supporting online poker legislation in 2006, ignoring us for years after that and only getting involved in the last few years, putting money behind something that is ONLY inclusive to their own and works with other legitimate power play industries zero (lottos and tribes which seem to have enough power to kill a federal bill)?

I can see how you get a little negative that a lot of us really think PokerStars is great (it's inarguable in my mind that they are clearly the best poker room in the world.. but hey there's always push back to popular sentiment), but how you can regard Stars as some criminal enterprise that is bad for players and just give the AGA a pass is sort of beyond me.

Wake up and smell the coffee, our government is like a gas tank near empty, barely moving, and the only fuel in it is driven by people that legally bribe those in power to make changes to benefit themselves. Of course this sometimes works out well, having the most informed people shaping legislation can be a good thing, but you can write books for the rest of your life about the corruption that has happened due to this system.

That is actually quite naive, imo. I assume history has now taught you different.

Again, we all know that PS/FT violated, if not the letter than certainly the intent, of the UIGEA. They were still processing transactions when those transactions were prohibited. I don't understand how this could even be disputed

Alright, let me explain if I can . . . .

A lot of the laws here are somewhat ambiguous, and have not had a test in court. The simple fact that the DoJ can revise how it perceives the application of the Wire Act is clear evidence that the courts have not ruled on it's interpretation. The DoJ's opinion means very little, other than how they are going to enforce the Wire Act in the future. Notice they came to terms with PS prior to making this new interpretation.

Had Pokerstars stood up and fought, the laws that are standing between us and 'the way it used to be' in online poker faced no challenge, and having not faced any challenge, those issues did not get properly addressed.

It's possible Pokerstars loses, and then we are right where we (players) are now, but Pokerstars is tagged a violator and is pretty much precluded from any future ipoker market. Same for us, bad for pokerstars.

It's also possible Pokerstars wins, all the money seized gets returned, and the Congress is sent back to the drawing board if they want to ban internet poker. Good for us, Good for Pokerstars, bad for the government.

Instead, Pokerstars settles, writes a big check, all the laws stand, Pokerstars still banned, FTP players are screwed, Pokerstars still has an 'in' in a regulated market. Good for Pokerstars, Good for the government, bad for us.

Waiting longer than what, indefinite?? IS that even possible? Most FTP players are in fact going to get $0, everyone should realize that by now. And I don't share your brand loyalty to Pokerstars, they may be the best now, but I don't believe that means the alternative is ****.

Those aren't my words or beliefs, so I'm not going to bother. Don't ask me to defend a straw man argument.

Again, I don't think Pokerstars is 'not great.' I think that they are not the 'be all and end all' of internet poker, that is all. Life would go on without that one particular brand, of that I have no doubt.

And I don't regard them as some criminal enterprise, although as I pointed out above, they clearly violated some civil laws.

Well, all the more reason that poker players should actually have, and contribute to, an advocacy group of their own. The poker community has done a piss poor job of getting their voices heard, and by being on the Pokerstars bandwagon, rather than worrying about protections for players, you are just furthering that which you seem to be complaining about.

Our government is as ****ed up as a soup sandwich.

I assure you I have read the entire thread, and your flawed categorization of monopoly in light of the facts I presented you with as to Caesars holdings in AC casinos, reinforces that you have blinders on as to the facts.

In fact, if you read the NJ bill, there is language in it specifically referring to not allowing the appearance of a monopoly by virtue of obtaining multiple licenses if you control multiple gaming venues in the jurisdiction. (paraphrased).

Please comment on the FACTS before you tell us again how PS would be a monopoly in NJ.

that is where we are disagreeing, my referring to them being a monopoly was in reference to the bigger picture, not current NJ situation. And I was questioning the validity of making a competition argument that seems to be coupled to a preference of the dominant site. To me, it's an oxymoron

NJ is just the toe in the door

so maybe you need to read the thread again

Since I never saw you post in the probably one millions posts that took place between BF and the settlements, I don't know what makes you draw these conclusions (which I disagree with btw).

If you would like time to study the actual cases to get up to speed, I will wait to debate you on this, no matter how long it takes you. My guess is it will take awhile.

If I gave the impression that I believe Pokerstars getting a B&M license to operate the Atlantic Club in New Jersey would be giving them a monopoly in New Jersey, that was not my intent.

lol

I read the thread just fine. You are bringing arguments to the debate that have nothing to do with what the thread and the question is. If you are still unclear, read the title of the thread and then read the petition filed by the AGA.

You get so hell bent on your own thoughts, that you cannot see the forest for the trees.