Got that right.

Thanks a lot for the offer. Very nice of you!

Unfortunately they don't ask for any views on specific subjects. They just describe the subject very briefly and there are several linked documents (the whole legal text, an abbreviated version with explanations, 2 covering letters for the usal suspects who always get asked to respond to such consultations like different administrative bodies, organisations and so on and an adress list of the ones who always get asked to respond to these consultations). And they've added the addresses of the relevant guys who could expand more on the matter and who would adress our questions.

But I would be certainly interested to get to know more about the UK licencing model.

The essay question rather than the short question approach then. A sign that they are yet to get to the real detail or think about the full regime. Makes it seem even more distant, if still worrying.

In some ways that's easier, you write a short document/letter saying what you want and what you don't want - the potential harm for consumers of forcing them to grey/black market firms rather than the properly regulated - and then offer them a simple answer for poker - passport in other regulators epertise via bilateral agreements and a simple need for a Swiss licence that would allow the government/swiss regulator to impose any other requirements that they think are essential.

Far simpler than trying toduplicate new regulatory expertise of the online market for no real gain.

You'd probably want to point out how transparently self interested the Swisss casino ownership requirement is, in that it is just a regulatory capture grab that gives no greater protection anyway as the foreign firm could just buy one - a nice boost to the casinos value via anti consumer legislation. Stars experience in NJ may have even helped get the casino owners excited about this.

These sort of consultations are often quite cosy insider affairs, having an outsider, the consumer, putting on record the cynical nature of the market grab could be a bit of a shock for them. You can be a bit blunter than someone like Stars who is to seme extent supplicant and has their own commercial interest anyway.

Thanks a lot for the legal consulting. Again very helpful input. Are you working in this line of business?

No legal consuting expertise, just a bit gobby.

I have done responses to five or six UK consultations, about half on gambling issues (Point of Consumption Tax, licencing foreign suppliers, Licencing Conditions, Self Exclusion)

It amazes me that individuals don't use this mechanism to get their view accross. The consultations are a legal requirement, they have to pay attention to them and crucuially for a bureaucracy or for future political lobbying any warnings you make are there in the record for you to say told you so. What you say in a consultation goes direct to the decision makers in a way that is logged that they were told. Better than random letters to opinion formers or even ministers where the person paid to do their mail reads them, in a consultation the civil servant giving advice and drawing up the law reads them.

The way to use the system best is to pose awkward questions for them. The consultation is about checking that their actions are reasonable and proportionate, in the UK at least that can be tested at the European Court, Switzerland is a bit odd as all that is in bilateral trade agreements but the same general rule applies - they can restrict gambling but only in a way that is reasonable and proportionate for the stated aims.

If the concern is about limiting casino stakes to casino enterprises for consumer protection saying that banning penny stakes unavailable in casinos is unreasonable and is different tests that proportionality for the intended aims of the law. Given that online the vast majority play at sub casino stakes that is a problem for them and their legal team.

I believe it's coming more and more serious...

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/0...ling-19068.htm

hmm

What is the minimum stake (and rake) in a Swiss casino? Wake me up when they have a 10,000 strong MTT.

Some seemingly good news:

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2015/1...ming-23179.htm

I remember back a few years ago when anyone was able to organize poker tournaments.

We just had to ask the government.

So, during that time, there was nice events outside casinos.

Deepstacks with buy-in from 50 to 500 CHF (same as USD).

I miss that...

^ The article writes "small poker tournaments are allowed to be held outside casinos" so it sounds like it's allowed again

Not yet, can take ages allowing it again..

Nothing to do with the topic but I need your help if your ISP is Swisscom. Does somebody has an optic fiber connection with the router below (first one in the link below):
https://www.swisscom.ch/fr/clients-p...10233868).html
If yes, do you experience some lags with Pokerstars since about 1month?
Thanks for your help!

http://www.igamingbusiness.com/news/...online-casinos
...just wondering how this will end!

Whats happening again?

Why were they trying to block it in the first place..? Doesn't the government operate SVS?

Has it started? Party just told me to withdraw

I hold Switzerland in my mind to a higher standard than standard governments to block gaming companies. Hopefully anything they do ends up being rational/good.

Haven't heard from PS

not too close to the whole thing, but the idea of blocking in the first place didn't seem very rational to me.



the only thing i read about PS re Switzerland was that they are in talks with (a) local casino operator(s) ... can't recall if pp also has/had talks, so could be just random that pp is faster.


gl to all the swiss players that this is soon sorted out!

Your citizens are losing money to shady offshore gambling providers and getting nothing of value in return, additionally tax revenue is lost and economy loses as well.
You block the providers so a lot of losing players won't bother to go around that - money stays in the country. Winning pro players easily go around it and continue to win - money still goes into the country.

Sounds very rational to me.

SVS = Svenska Spel = Swedish government owned, yes.
But Sweden <> Switzerland lol

Party Rep told me they did not decide yet if they are gonna apply for a licence.

They baited the voters with stuff like ''we lose around 250 millions per year to foreign sites'' and ''sites do not care enough to fight gambling addiction''

Well guess what, swiss casinos don't give a **** about degens either.

On the other hand BILLIONS are going away each year to foreign online shops and stores at the borders to germany, france and italy because half the country goes there to shop, fill up gas and repair their cars because it's so much cheaper than in switzerland.

Ofc noone cares (a law which forbids stuff like that would have never been accepted), because everyone (politicians included) are doing it.

Very rational idd.

Isn't it true? They should have added they lose tax revenue as well.

At least you collect tax on them so you can fund some social services degens benefit from (once they degen out their wealth).

In this case people are getting something in return - goods. Trade is in general beneficial to a country. It may screw up some groups of people but overall it's beneficial if you can get goods cheaper. I mean, it's far from black and white but it's not comparable to gambling.

It is. Gambling is net negative for society. You don't want competition/cheaper services/free market unlike with food and other goods. Any idiot can provide gambling services so it might as well be an idiot in our camp paying our taxes. Banning offshore providers of gambling is very rational from government point of view. With food, electronics, cars there is value if someone else can make it cheaper and sell it to you, not so much with gambling.
I mean, it's obvious it's rational policy which benefits people in Switzerland.

^ Casino winnings are tax free unless you're a professional gambler. Our money is already income taxed and the casinos pay taxes on their winnings.

Ofc you get goods in return. What you also get are more unemployed people, because nobody is shopping at their stores anymore. This automatically leads to more costs for everyone due to even more people using the welfare net we have. This together with the huge amount of money which flows out of the country is by far one of our biggest concerns and not a couple people playing with their hard earned cash on some online site. 250millions is a drop in the bucket.

you realize any smart person would realize the opposite - start businesses in your country and have other people from around the world bring revenue back into your country rather than restrict freedoms of people for absolutely no sane reason.

but you with all your hiring lawyers stuff on bathroom prop bets hasn't really inspired much confidence in your opinions being worth too much anyway.