Can we get some fn news already?

NV does not need the feds to "allow" their gambling businesses to operate, in fact they legalized intrastate poker business before the DoJ letter.

Everybody who gets this survey needs to write in Artie Cobb, NOW, and say how much of a badass he is. DO IT NOW.

http://pokerfuse.com/news/law-and-re...r-john-campos/

OBV u need to stop posting here. Your posts are always idiotic. You do not think the survey means anything but they send to their whole data base just because????? Your an idiot of course it looks like tPS is doing a survey to get the opinions of who to sign to PS or FTP in the future DONK

There is no "US market". There is a US black market and while it's possible Stars would make the same mistake of operating there, it's very unlikely.

There is no UIGEA prohibition on banks; there is one applying to people in gambling businesses.

31 USC § 5364 - Policies and procedures to identify and prevent restricted transactions

Where there may be no express provision stating "it is illegal for a bank to process a poker transaction"

Now, your a regulatory risk officer for a financial institution in the United States. The above being part of the law, you gonna spend the money it takes to set up a system that ensures that gaming transactions are only processed within the lines of a single state, or to sites that only allow poker and not table games, etc., etc., etc., or risk being out of compliance with UIGEA, or are you just gonna say "**** it, there's not enough reason to risk it".

Especially when you consider:

As long as UIGEA is the law of the land, the answer for the banks is easy.

Do some actual research before you post.

June 14 CP article.

"Assembly Bill 258, the legislation that forced the adoption of online poker regulations, has a provision that says Nevada must wait for a federal bill or DoJ authorization to begin even intrastate. The federal clarification of the Wire Act in December 2011 is widely considered to have given the intrastate OK, but Nevada wants to make sure there’s no impediment."

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...the-holy-grail

I didn't know there were so many lawyers Itt... Interesting

NV recently said they plan to possibly rewrite that part of the law as they feel they aren't likely to get approval from the DOJ and likely don't need approval.

I believe the Obama Administration recently said they think it is best left to the states for now. Implicitly authorizing state action without fear of executive (DOJ) repercussions.

However, as the NV law currently stands...

Right, But its an open question whether the DOJ will "go after states" for offing online gaming it seems unlikely esp after the DOJ letter. DE just passed online gambling today (still needs to be signed into law) and they aren't seeking DOJ approval. The NGC and the NV governor already said they likely don't require DOJ approval and the Governor and lawmakers plan on changing that part of the law as they feel Fed legislation might not happen and they could would be waiting indefinitely for a DOJ decision they probably don't need.

So yeah the way NV law is now they need DOJ approval but that wording in the law is likely going to be stricken by the NV legislature before years end.

there is survey i've found on psgy forums.
http://imageshack.us/f/21/pstobuyft.jpg/

LOL @ the file name

Of course, if the payment processor and banks involved in the funding transactions, are not fully based in Nevada, then it seems to me you cannot avoid UIGEA issues here, because those financial transactions would necessarily involve interstate commerce...

It may not then matter that the site operates only in Nevada, and only allows internet access by people in Nevada. Good luck trying to get an out of state bank to agree to start processing those transactions, given the risks outlined above.

UIGEA defines the bets as being placed on the computer of the user as the location. Therefore one could argue that those transactions do not violate the UIGEA, since those bets do not violate any state or federal law at that point. This will allow the banks to process those transactions.

The survey means practically nothing. I received on 16/1/2012.

As long as it's specifically legal (licensed) in the State, it's by definition lawful, and the UIGEA doesn't apply if the player is in that State:

If two States authorize player pooling, it wouldn't violate the Wire Act because of the Safe Harbor clause:

When Nevada wrote their bill they were concerned that their transactions to out-state banks might violate the Wire Act, but the OLC said the Wire Act didn't apply to intermediaries, plus it wasn't relevant unless it was sports betting.

Let's speculate on who won the survey.

[ ] Antonio Esfandiari
[ ] David Benyamine
[ ] Erik Lindgren
[ ] Gus Hansen
[ ] Jennifer Harman
[ ] Joe Hachem
[ ] John Juanda
[ ] Johnny Chan
[ ] Mike Matusow
[ ] Patrik Antonius
[ ] Phil Hellmuth
[ ] Phil Ivey
[ ] Phil Laak
[ ] Sam Farha
[ ] Scotty Nguyen
[ ] Tom Dwan

I pick Johnny Chan and John Juanada (tie) as the best ambassadors of poker. Gus Hansen is the player I would most like to play against. (I have detected a few, how would you say, "leaks" in his game.) Benyamine is a close 2nd. I have played against both Phil Ivey and Juanada, forget it, they are way too good.

Every single person in that survey is sleazy..

What? Juanda as ambassador for poker? The guy still has huge amount of stolen player money in his bank account and hasn't said a single word about the situation for more than a year. You really want this kind of people to represent the game?

If I were in his position, I wouldn't say a thing. Loose lips sink ships.

I don't think he is responsible for stealing the money. It is of course possible that someday a court may rule he must give some of it back. But that is up to a court to decide.

Most likely to borrow money and lose it....

Matusow

Most likely to stab you in the back

Lindgren

Most likely to whine and brag.

Hellmuth

Most likely to play terribly and outdraw you on the river

Hansen

When FTP was thriving, these guys represented the site and made tons of money (mostly from stolen player fund as we now know). Right now the site failed, You don't think they have some kind of responsibilities to speak out to the players about the truth? Of course, all they are interested in right now is saving their own asses and don't speak a word as their lawyers suggested. The fact is that their reputation is tarnished in the scandal. You can't take all the benefits when FTP thrives but are free of any guilt or damage to your reputation when it falls. The world doesn't and shouldn't work this way.
We need to have higher standards for some guys who will represent the game for us. They need to have great integrity and to be outspoken about the bad things in poker like Negreanu did. There are hundreds or thousands of people who can quietly play great poker like Juanda, but much fewer of them have enough courage and integrity to represent the game.