1)Litigate, and possibly face the chance of losing and pissing off the government more, thereby making harder for legalization in the future. We have good reason to believe that we can't stand firm in the court of law and find the flaws in the DOJ's argument for why they believe online poker to be illegal. If we win, there seems to be a huge payoff in that we can keep the government from harassing us and possibly in time, we don't have to worry about the security of our money b/c the DOJ will be wrong and halt their PP seizures.

2) Or, just keep on waiting for legalization to happening. We don't know the timetable for when things will get rolling, not to mention how things will improve or get worse when the government creates regulations and tries to keep a tight a reign over this industry. Some predict it will be another poker boom if this happens, while some are pessimistic that there won't be a bigger player b/c international people won't be playing. Also, some fear higher rake, but believe this will be negated b/c of more sites popping up and creating competition, which equals better VIP programs, RB.

I would say #1

Another poker boom sounds interesting. I never thought of it like that. Regulation is +EV = everyone happy IMHO.

I don't think we will ever see another poker boom like we just saw. For one thing, poker on TV is played out. It's no different than any other niche reality show. American Chopper is passe, and now the public just doesn't care. WSOP is the same way. If you aren't into poker, it gets old real fast. Yammering hosts aside, watching a bunch of guys look at their cards behind sunglasses really isn't all that exciting. Truth be told, I think part of the initial success of that kind of media coverage was professional poker had a seedy reputation and we wanted to see if it was true. Not to mention the fame that Chris Moneymaker brought to the game when he showed a nobody could win it all. Trends move on and if something isn't trendy it gets no tv coverage. No coverage and no outside money. Sposerships will dry up and we'll be back to the old days when you might see a big name player schilling for some new line of chips or a table or trying to sell his books.

Poker will still be played in home games, by people on vacation at casinos, online (even if for free on sites like Yahoo) and as recreation, but the good times are over.

ZYNGA makes billions off of PLAY money poker. once poker is legal all their millions of play money customers will have the chance to play for real money and then $$$$$ will fall from the sky. the real poker boom is when normal people can deposit easily. even 5 years ago I remember having to set up a stupid ewallet to deposit which seemed kind of shady and most of my credit cards would not let me deposit. once all those hurdles are removed then online poker will become the number one pasttime in america.

dude you don't understand the law, It does not target poker at all its US banks transfereing money to gambling websites. the concern is money laundering not illegal gambling so your "lets prove poker is a game of Skill" suit is completely irrelavent

yes i understand that. But other companies have made bogus accounts that seemed suspicious. The money laundering wasn't for selling yay or the prozac kodiac, it was for running their business. If they can prove that it what they were doing isn't illegal, the money laundering becomes irrelevant, but just shady looking.

i think this is what you're saying but the money laundering is illegal in and of itself. if you are laundering money while running an otherwise legit business, it's not shady it's illegal.

that said, if you're running a legit business there is no reason to launder the money. so i do think that while it won't save ft or ps, longterm getting poker established as a game of skill will make for a much kinder american landscape for the next wave of poker sites

Its not a black and white, slam dunk that poker is a game of skill.

Consider this, it is a matter of chance who will have the winning hand. Over a million hands players will have the "same" number of winning hands.

The skill comes in the wagering. When to bet, how much to bet, when to call, when to not call.

If you were betting on what player would win more money over a million hands, you would be betting the skill factor. But you are betting on the chance factor. It is in the betting itself that the skill comes into play.

grunching

The recent legal actions have nothing to do with poker being a skill game vs poker being gambling. The owners of these sites have allegedly committed blatant acts of fraud and money laundering. Even if these guys ran Wal-Mart or some other non-gambling company, they'd still be fked on this one.

This makes no sense. It's impossible to launder money obtained legitimately.

Especially since black and white is a chess thing, and slam dunks are basketball.

But a game where the odds shift, and the players can choose to bet more when they think the odds are in their favor, is a game of skill.

The UIGEA made facilitating "online gambling payments" illegal. So there that is.

Good luck "proving" the abstract/intangible.

At great cost.

Really? So lets say we have to decide whether it is legal to bet money on this game. We can't do that by betting money because that is illegal.

So, we will play a million hands against each other NOT for money. What skill will you use to win more than half of those hands?

The skill is in the betting.

1. If it can be proved poker is not gambling as defined by UIGEA, then the DOJ's case crumbles.
2. Just bc the court rules that poker is gambling and these sites violated UIGEA, does not mean it is a good law and cant be repealed by Congress.

altering bets when odds shift? That sounds like counting cards in blackjack. You need to show that the skill is IN THE GAME before the wagering of money enters the picture. You are trying to prove that the money is ok because the GAME takes skill, not the betting.

this is where the focus should be. Legalize and regulate.

And, not coincidentally, it's a betting game.

Well, judging from how the playmoney games seem to play, they're beatable for about 80 bb/100 or so.

Look, im not a lawyer; but i married one. I thought of it as a game of skill til she showed me how a lawyer could tear that apart.

You cant say that the betting is legal because the betting takes skill. The question would be is what you are betting on based in skill.

Look at chess. With no wagering involved you can clearly show the element of skill in the game.

How do you prove poker is skill without involving wagering so that then the wagering would be allowed?

How about RICO, ever hear of that? AND they made false statements on bank filings according to the indictments that's a crime regardless of intent. Nope anybody that thinks proving poker is a game of skill is going to somehow unring this bell is kidding themselves (it undeniably IS a game of skill imho). PS, FT, AP and those charged are finished in the U.S. and they'll be lucky not to be finished period with the seizures and possible extraditions. Sorry, DOJ (actually U.S. Atty, SDNY) dropped the nuke, game over.

Still, thats a measure of the wagering.

Play me heads up for a million hands with no wagering. We will simply tally who uses their skill to win the most hands at showdown. How will you win more than half the hands? What skill will you use?

Play me heads up for a million hands with no wagering. We will simply tally who uses their skill to win the most hands at showdown. How will you win more than half the hands? What skill will you use?

Use "points", or play money, instead of real money. Play enough hands to create statistically significant sample size. Skilled player has more points. EZ.

What I think is funny is that something like the stock market, which is effectively betting in a much more chaotic environment with no clear rules and infinitely more complicated variables, is NOT considered gambling, is totally kosher, & yet the massive losers get reimbursed by the taxpayers even if a taxpayer chooses not to play. Explain that one to me, please.

Too big to fail, obv.