But socially conservative liberals should be massively pro-poker. Liberalism means not restricting the rights and freedoms of members of society

Socially conservative liberals less so compared to traditional liberals. Abbott and Turnbull are more the former...

Bad news I'm afraid. This is a legal review of the latest guidance from the UKGC for potential licence holders regarding grey markets

http://www.igamingbusiness.com/news/...ion-regulation

Now Aus is a black market really, but

It seems sure that poker networks will need to choose - UK or Aus. The UK has tax but it is also legal, and the biggest (legal) online gambling market in the world...

****kk

Um point to a largely dormant piece of legislation that isn't enforced and even though there is some argument that the liberals might change that it isn't going to happen any time soon.

The legal rationale? Not sure there is one given it appears contrary to the law atm - I know there is a business rationale which is to make as much money from these Australians before the federal government cracks down on it.

Statistics gathering I see with this...

Well in any of this I suppose pokerstars can point to the countless online gambling operators that are currently flooding the Australian market as a demonstration of either the lack of regulatory enforcement the government wants to do in relation to the law or the lack of clarity or understanding that the law actually applies to ban online poker.

Are there any foreseeable repercussions from this update? Also, what's the status of online poker in Australia (lol)? As in, I remember people betting ITT on whether we'd be able to play by the end of this year or something like that. Developments? Cliffs?

Cliffs are Richas will owe me $100 in eight and a bit months and online poker reform is not a priority of a coalition government in their first term at this stage so we're probably fine despite the assorted scaremongering

Yes, online poker is in danger in Australia but the danger is not immediate and after the internet filter fiasco under Labor derailing their agenda the Liberals won't want to touch anything internet-filtery (and to an extent that includes online poker) in any way that could be met with resistance because they will be using their political capital to focus on repealing the carbon tax which in itself will be very hard to do

Cliffs are I hope that I get to pay SwoopAE $100 in eight and a bit months time.

If, as I think will happen, Stars have pulled out of the Aus market by then because they need a UK licence to serve the UK market and that licence bans taking customers from places where the legality is in serious doubt he may have to pay me $100, which I will then pass on to charity.

The weight that you are placing in what this UK Commission considers to be inappropriate or perhaps even unlawful regulation in jurisdictions outside the UK and how they apply it to the criterion of awarding a licence in the UK is unrealistic.

You and I as well as a few others do believe that it is prima facie illegal to play poker online. Sports betting online would appear to be illegal as well. However, whether you like it or not it could be argued that the government has made a public policy decision to not enforce it - whether on the basis that it would be an inefficient use of resources or influence from the donations that these betting companies make to the political parties. Not to mention an overall revenue issue that if online sports betting was banned (which would have to occur for online poker to be banned as well), the federal government wouldn't be obtaining as much and in this climate with the budget position the government isn't going to move on it anytime soon.

The other problem you face with coming to the conclusion that the lack of this enforcement of this law will severely count against the granting of this licence in the UK is that we have very definitive tax laws which consider gambling losses/winnings as not deductible or assessable unless you satisfy certain criteria that establishes you are carrying on a business and not doing it ancillary to your usual professional job.

Bottom line is, there are competing considerations at hand for the Australian government to have to deal with in how it treats online poker and this ambiguity will mean that the Australian operations will not be the sole or significant determinant factor in whether or not pokerstars gets the licence.

I wish i could share your optimism but you write stuff like this which is just factually incorrect. It is, most definitely, not illegal to play online poker in Australia.

Point taken. I meant to say "provide" not "play".

Out of interest, why are you so focused on the Australian market? You say things like "It seems sure that poker networks will need to choose - UK or Aus" - but there are so many more markets where it is even "greyer" than Australia - Russia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Poland just to name a few off the top of my head. The implications of what you are saying are way wider than "uk or Aus".

Q2 while i have you: Can you link directly to where the UKGC made these 3% pronouncements? All the articles this week about this grey market appear to stem from a single EGR article that is unsourced, and has since been significantly "corrected" with a subsequent article:

http://www.egrmagazine.com/news/uk_g..._clarification

Whereas none of the consultation responses so far published have addressed the issue.

I'm still sticking with my earlier opinion in this thread that this will ultimately be a non-issue for PS and others, but interested in hearing more.

I'm not really - its just that this thread is about Aus. It is also not just about poker.

William Hill have already started cleaning house, pulling out of grey markets

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/0...ries-17867.htm

BetFair strategy change a while back was to pull all promotions/marketing in grey markets.

Party pulled out of 18 grey markets earlier this year:
http://calvinayre.com/2013/04/19/bus...-18-countries/

Like you I have checked the Commission website and they don't have this 3% "advice" anywhere on it, they are still swamped with their 3 lots of LCCP response with the uncontroversial one only published so far and two more due this month. They have also added another add on consultation on money laundering restrictions and in te Bill debate the minister has stuck them with a pile of work on self exclusion which they will need to consult on too.

The impression I get is that they are a bit swamped. You may want to try an FOI request to them on this guidance note as they are pretty responsive to those. Personally I'm not that bothered, the rules are clear, UK licencees can't operate in black markets and Aus has a real law in the IGA which is pretty unambiguous. What will be will be. If I turn out to have been a Cassandra in this thread I'll take my knocks and pay my $100.

The B2C not B2B clarification shows that this info comes from the ongoing LCCP work on poker networks with the B2Bs being brought in to regulation for the first time (playtech, microgaming) - they want out of the extra work it gives them and it looks like they will not need to measure the 3% threshold across their multiple B2C partners.

An important clarification for them no doubt as it lets them do what they always have in the past and pass the regulatory hassle to their partner B2Cs but not that important to the question of justifying accessing a black or grey market for the end consumer or B2Cs like Stars. Also the 3% is not that important anyway as they need to justify any effort to target a black/grey market.

I hope you are right that the impact will be less than I think.

For real though I love this country so far but wtf is up with this **** in the Prahran/St Kilda area on that building near Big W/Woolworth's and all that?

Literally a GIANT poster ****ing covering an entire side of this six story building that says
"LAST YEAR AUSTRALIANS LOST 11.4 MILLION DOLLARS PLAYING THA POKIES"

And as I'm sitting there I hear people walking by commenting on it like, "what a shame", "just unfortunate", "oh that's terrible" etc etc

Pokies == Poker here it seems to based on what I expect the average Australian to understand

ahh i thought we were in the PL thread not the Oz one but i think the point still stands - if what you say is true, then the issue is going to be way bigger than "uk or oz." It's going to be a massive industry shakeup. Yet no one really with the concerns that you do.

Ha, you link to 2 thin rewrites of articles we wrote. Sites always pull out and enter markets. I spoke with the execs at both sites about these withdrawals; they were not UK related.

Anyway, we'll see. Thanks for the info.

Yeah I have noticed before an ability for stories to go unattributed. I wasn't really claiming that these changes were a direct result of the legislation. increased concern about grey markets has been knocking about since Black Friday, not just for the industry but for regulators too.

The confusing thing with legislation in this area is not just its complexity but the willingness to act. Now the IGA in Aus clearly makes it an offence to offer poker there from overseas and yet it is unenforced.

Section 42 makes it an offence to cheat at online poker in the UK but it is never enforced, rarely enforced for any cheating......and more relevantly here section 44 of the act makes it a criminal offence for a UK site to provide gambling in a jurisdiction where it is prohibited:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/section/44

Now I have no idea where the banned list is, or which countries are on it, whether the Secretary of State (Mary Millar who is a bit tied up with her expenses scandal right now) has bothered to issue an order about how it would be enforced and at what level of punishment ......but the law is on the book and now the UK is forcing international suppliers and the decamped UK firms who set up in Gibraltar to have a UK licence and a UK address.

When the remote gambling licences are in the UK the UKGC pretty much has to care about the prohibited list - the UKGC and the industry may have some special "its the law but we have a get out of gaol free card" arrangement going on but the moment some Aussie minister rings up and asks - oi why is a UK licenced firm breaking the IGA in our country what is the UK minister gonna say?

I have lived my life being wrong about many things, I could well be wrong here too but I genuinely do believe this is a bigger deal than the industry has yet realised and that is why in the discussion on the LCCP going on now there are some silly negotiations about reporting levels for when the licensee has to explain why they are sure it is legal for them to do what they are doing and bigger questions about whether a licenced B2B poker network can have a non UK licensed B2C that focuses on a grey market join their network and share player liquidity.

This discussion cuts to the heart of the player fund protection rules that the UKGC have already hinted will be tougher for poker than other gambling and as it is new - the B2B bits have never been licensed before, both the firms and the regulator are treading on new ground.

Yep, which is a problem because any legislation targeting online Pokies will likely catch up online poker.

The real gambling problem in Australia is physical Pokies IMO but since they literally pay for the existance of pubs and clubs, that's a tough lobby to fight.

Well you could try letting adults spend their cash how they like.

I never play pokies or FOBTs, why would I? but freedom is freedom and if you are honest a fish at poker has as much chance as a pokie player.

Freedom (and help for addicts/degens). That powerful pokie lobby may be hated but it is potentially on your side.

So there is nothing to be worried about in the very near future so??

Poker may be less well positioned after the WA Senate vote.

why the greens are split on the issue and it isn't a priority for the and the lnpdidnt gain seats and the pup need to be lobbied to pass it and tony will have to give too much political capital to clive to pass anything and poker isntan issue tony cares enough about to waste political capital on without labor greens and ldp voting to stop poker which they wont abbott needs palmer to pass anything in the senate

Because if the Liberals don't get their 3 senators as they did in the last election then it will be harder to get their legislation through as they will be having to count on 6 crossbenchers instead of 5 out of the 8. In other words, Xenophon will be key as before it was just 3 Palmer, plus Motoring Enthusiast and Liberal Democrat and Abbott was home and hosed getting his legislation through. Now he needs the support of Xenophon and his support won't come cheap (although he will get his support eventually given his conservative inclinations) - what that entails who knows but it will probably mean a crack down on pokies and that may flow through to online betting/poker??

Heard from someone who works for Stars there are no plans to pull out of the Australian market for the foreseeable future and that if any legislation is passed in the future this person is confident it will be in a direction of regulation rather than outright banning online poker although 'the status quo is best for the players and we should try to avoid making an issue of it'.

Apparently it's not on the agenda at the moment and we were only at risk 'when Wilkie had the balance of power'. Also, I was told 'a lot of what you've posted in the thread is wrong' referring to my posts but 'you have nothing to worry about for the time being'. Not going to elaborate any further as i'm pretty sure this person wasn't speaking for stars at the time and was just giving me a personal opinion.

In any case, was very happy with what I heard and i'm under the impression that Stars is not worried at all about having to pull out of the Australian market at any stage over the next few years, so hopefully I get to enjoy my $100 in 7 months time and we all get to continue playing poker.

I'd be more concerned about the data exchange platforms that are being touted between ATO and casinos/online providers. Seems they are intent on (and retrospectively, if I hear it right) claiming the full tax off any poker player that is exclusively, ie. having no other taxed primary income source, living off poker earnings).

Too many have made it way too easy for ATO by posting in social media, poker forums, Youtube "specials" etc. re their poker winnings. Earnings are already pretty well unambiguously broadcast via casino sites, HendonMob and other sources - this area of undeclared income is going to be a big target in the 2013/14 tax year.

Many might be in for a really rude shock July 1. Fines (for memory issues) might outstrip earnings in some cases. Not all sections of all public service departments have been smashed; certain hit squads within ATO have tripled their staffing models since last July and have been building quite a database on the Australian poker player community.

I had a bad experience with ATO once before; they'll never get me again. The May Budget made it quite clear every revenue source is fair game - the week leading into July 1 is traditionally when ATO reveal the areas of income/deductions they will be targeting in the impending tax return. A big reality check for some elite poker players is drawing very near.

So are we blaming Tony Abbott for this?