UIGEA Is Final - Page 7 - Poker News - News, Views and Gossip

Two Plus Two Forums Poker News & Discussion News, Views, and Gossip

UIGEA Is Final

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 7 of 21

First

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17

Last

Page 7 of 21

First

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17

Last

11-12-2008 , 05:56 PM

#151

cavalucho

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 502

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1p0kerboy

"Illegal Internet Gambling."

And child pornography.

Quote

11-12-2008 , 05:57 PM

#152

PlzLife

centurion

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 144

Will access to pokersites be blocked from the US?

Quote

11-12-2008 , 05:57 PM

#153

DjiDji

journeyman

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 362

It's no problem for US residents to open a bank account in most european countries and transfer your funds via online banking. The account maintenance charge in Germany might be around 5 US-$ if your monthly deposit is less than around 1500 US-$. It slightly differes depending on which bank you might chose.
And I don't think this will scare the fish away.

Quote

11-12-2008 , 05:58 PM

#154

Victor

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 76,505

Quote:

Originally Posted by coinflipper

It will be the same as it is now:

New processor opens and handles transactions.
After a few weeks or months that processor is Id'ed then shut down.

New processor opens and handles transactions.
...
...
...
...
...

ya. i really dont see how its gonna be any different than it is now. how is this different than the uigea? it looks the same.

Quote

11-12-2008 , 05:58 PM

#155

RJarv

enthusiast

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tappy Tibbons

This is not true. I have a Canadian bank account (CIBC) with a US address - you just have to apply for one in person. I told them I played poker for a living and they had no problem with that.

So, you can play on party, or wherever you like, no?

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:01 PM

#156

ShipDaSherb

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,694

What are the chances of that legal intrastate California poker network ever being approved? If it does there will be a big influx of players to the state.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-law/...ved-until-2009

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:08 PM

#157

Tappy Tibbons

adept

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 889

Quote:

Originally Posted by RJarv

So, you can play on party, or wherever you like, no?

I originally set it up to play on Party (and I also rented a UPS store mailbox in Canada), but as of this summer Party has fewer fish (and crappier software, as always) than Full Tilt or Stars, so I don't play there anymore. It's nice to know that if necessary, I can have funds wired to the Canadian account, then write personal checks to my own account. I think anyone who's a serious poker player and close enough to drive to Canada should consider setting up an account.

If you do set up an account, I recommend being honest about what it's going to be used for. I had my first account closed by RBC because I told them I was going to be doing IT work in Canada, and after a year of wire transfers from Gibraltar, they decided to close my account. I was told that CIBC and TD bank were the most poker friendly, and had no problems opening an account at CIBC and transfering money.

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:11 PM

#158

Ponder

veteran

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,341

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tappy Tibbons

What are the extra costs associated with this?

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:11 PM

#159

kk405

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,444

this is the only viable way to enforce the law...

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmay28

Similar to the proposed rule, the final rule does not contemplate that the Agencies, other government agencies, or any other entity will establish or publish a list of businesses known to be involved in unlawful Internet gambling. Although the Act does not require creation of a list of unlawful Internet gambling businesses, some commenters have suggested that the Agencies should create such a list and make it available to designated payment systems and their participants in order to permit them to block payments destined to those entities.

Admittedly this stuff is a bit over my head but from my understanding this is basically saying that it's up to everyone involved whether they want to create lists or not, but they don't have to. If they don't have to, then hopefully nobody will feel the need to push the UIGEA anytime soon.

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:11 PM

#160

mrwalken

adept

Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 843

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterLJ

No. You can receive payments 100% legally, so there's absolutely no point in withdrawing.

I'm sorry, I missed how we know this is going to continue to be true. The rule explicitly talks about payments to and from gambling sites. How is a check from a gambling site not a payment from a gambling site?

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:15 PM

#161

FakeKramer

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 630

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riveredya

Hopefully Obama will exec order this into the ground!

Yea and hopefully girls will start paying me to let them blow me.

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:16 PM

#162

MasterLJ

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 13,684

No... it very explicitly states that only transactions to the site are under review.

Can a mod sticky this? It would really help quiet the Fire and Brimstone crowd, along with those asking legitimately like mrwalken.

Quote:

§___.2(y) Restricted transaction. Several commenters asked the Agencies to clarify that the definition of "restricted transaction" would not apply to funds going to a consumer (i.e., a gambler), as opposed to funds going to a commercial customer (i.e., an Internet gambling business).38 The Act defines "restricted transaction" in § 5362(7) as “any transaction…which the recipient is prohibited from accepting under section 5363.” In turn, § 5363 provides that “[n]o person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept” a payment “in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling.” Under the final rule, the term "restricted transaction" would not include funds going to a gambler, and would only include funds going to an Internet gambling business

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:17 PM

#163

kk405

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,444

these were all true prior to passage of this law, but after January 2009, I suspect things will change and rules will tighten up....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tappy Tibbons

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:20 PM

#164

Damntra

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,716

Quote:

Originally Posted by FakeKramer

Yea and hopefully girls will start paying me to let them blow me.

Not really out of the realm of possibility.

Quote:

Even though the CRA can’t be filibustered, legislative lifting is generally more difficult than executive action. “There’s a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that,” John Podesta, who is helping direct Obama’s transition team, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Jerry Brito, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, closely follows midnight regulations. He said he would advise the Obama administration to package all of the regulations it wants overturned into one large vehicle to be voted up or down.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15530.html

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:22 PM

#165

Ultim8Degen

banned

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,967

Quote:

Originally Posted by VarianceMinefield

i think some of you underestimate Obama. I think if we have enough people messaging him instead of whatever we were just messaging, he would listen.

you really cant be this stupid

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:23 PM

#166

DarthIgnurnt

adept

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 702

[QUOTE=ShipDaSherb;7092415]What are the chances of that legal intrastate California poker network ever being approved? If it does there will be a big influx of players to the state.
QUOTE]

That's kind of my question too. Based on this nugget dug up earlier in the thread (quoted below), couldn't any state, local, or tribal gaming entity license any online gaming site for use within that state (or tribe, or locality)?

And wouldn't this by definition exempt such gaming from the term "unlawful Internet gambling"? And any payment to or from a certified entity would be expressly permitted for the financial institutions?

I know nothing about gaming commissions and their authority to issue online licenses, but it seems like this is a major exception that could be taken advantage of within the boundaries of this law as written.

Quote:

Interference with State, Local, and Tribal Governments
The Act does not alter State, local or Tribal gaming law.100 The Act exempts from the definition of the term “unlawful Internet gambling,” intrastate, intratribal, and intertribal transactions.101 Because the final rule does not alter these defined terms, it avoids undue interference with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of governmental functions. In addition, the final rule’s non-exclusive due diligence examples contained in §___.6 accord deference to State and Tribal authorities. Specifically, the final rule’s due diligence examples provide that a regulated entity may accept as evidence of a commercial customer’s legal authority to engage in an Internet gambling business, a license issued by an appropriate State or Tribal authority that expressly allows the regulated entity’s commercial customer to engage in the Internet gambling business

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:24 PM

#167

RJarv

enthusiast

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 56

Has there been any sort of statement from any poker site, esp Stars and Tilt?

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:24 PM

#168

MasterLJ

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 13,684

They are probably reacting to it still. It will take time I'd imagine.

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:32 PM

#169

p3rc4

banned

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 10,991

Quote:

Originally Posted by addingalpha

not to mention navigating when the site is blocked by your ISP

Ever heard of proxy servers?

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:33 PM

#170

AndyBernard6

adept

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 981

Do you think any of the major sites will now block U.S. players with this latest news?

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:34 PM

#171

mrwalken

adept

Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 843

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterLJ

Thanks, that's a pretty huge deal imo. At least we can wait for armageddon to hit, and don't have to try to anticipate it.

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:36 PM

#172

RolloTomasi

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 3,086

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterLJ

Wow, I never bought into the conspiracy theories, but the only people who would leave a comment like this would be lobbies for Brick and Mortar and/or NFL etc.

good morning! B&M Casinos not friends of online and dominate the PPA

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:39 PM

#173

Ralpher

centurion

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 163

U guys need to lobby and pay Greenstein(or someone of his caliber that's willing) some serious cash so he can work on this full time and gather the american poker players against this piece of bull**** law.

GOGO AMERICA!! YEAH!

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:40 PM

#174

JsTs

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,250

Has anyone emailed pokerstars?

Quote

11-12-2008 , 06:41 PM

#175

NutsInYoEye

enthusiast

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 83

Americans are the only people that play poker. Americans are the only ones that deposit money onto poker sites. Americans are the only ones that play horribly. The American government has a strong track record of enforcing such policies, especially in the domain of the internet. This is inded the end.

Quote

Page 7 of 21

First

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 7 of 21

First

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17

Last