I don't know where the President stands on the current legislative proposals. But I can assure you that the domestic business interests (AKA Vegas) who would like to have a law that sweeps offshore operators off the table were cheering on Black Friday. In that sense, the DOJ's actions are consistent with a path towards licensed, US-based internet poker.

Furthermore, we've got buy-in from big names on both sides of the aisle for zapping UIGEA and passing a law. It's not helpful to throw the leader(s) of either party under the bus as we build bi-partisan support.

I know very little about any of this, but what is the difference between our situation and that of marijuana dispensaries in california?

Obama seems to have shut that down.

Please read the post above yours. There is more than one path to abolishing UIGEA and allowing licensed internet poker. Cracking down on those who operate in violation of current law is the first step on one such path. This is also the plan of action preferred by the Senate Majority Leader.

the only thing the teabagger knows for sure is that obama is the enemy. ya that's consistent.

and it's not surprising that hunting season is open for online casinos after BF and the letter to doj. i feel less awful losing almost my entire merge deposit now, though.

This is the stupidest thing I've read in weeks.

What if there were no stores in the country that sold cigarettes and the only way to get them was through black market? Doesn't that imply that the government wants to ban smoking? I was never good at analogies but...

Obama may or may not be an enemy, and he may or may not be worse than the alternative from 2008, but the track record of his administration CLEARLY is closer to what we would expect from an enemy rather than a friend.

His DOJ has been as, if not more, aggressive than that of W and he has refused to even acknowledge our issue despite being given numerous chances in many town hall forums, petitions, etc. I get there may be good political reasons for that, but his track record is not favorable.

Obama is definitely an enemy to foreign sites. It remains to be seen whether he's our enemy or not.

Not necessarily. Depends on whether the government supports a smoking bill.

Enlighten us with your intellect please. What is wrong with the analogy?

His entire post is the most sensible post of this entire thread. I hope you have the ability to see why.

Reid and Kyl are asking for this, the AGA is asking for this, the DOJ is asking for this, Maryland is asking for this, SDNY is asking for this. Large casino and tribal donors in just about every state are asking for this. And there's a lot of money out there to be seized. Why would Obama or any president stick up for online poker in the face of that? These guys don't get to the top opposing the powerful entities I mentioned above, especially when the "other side" is fighting very strong misperceptions about how it really works.

For example, in this thread alone at least two people have mentioned underage gambling, as if it is a real concern and danger on the current sites.

Incorrect, age verification has been pretty standard on even smaller networks and sites for years. How does a 15 year old cashout without stealing multiple identification and bills from their parents and finding a way to get funds into their parent's bank account (and then out of) without their knowledge?

The answer is that without the help of a parent or without stealing ID from a parent and using an 18+ friend, it's virtually impossible to find a way to get money from a poker site as an underage player, yet even poker players in this thread are repeating that misconception.

And if players that spends hour a day reading about poker don't understand that, how the hell would we expect someone like Obama to understand it, given all that comes way before poker in his world?

plenty of people have (publicly) bragged about how much they made online prior to being 18 y/o

EDIT: There are other people in the world besides parents

It has never been difficult to deposit as underage, IDs are never (rarely) checked until cashing out. People under 18 CAN lose money, but then have trouble getting winnings.

Actually, if you give the Obama administration's position on marijuana dispensaries some thought, you'll realize what is going on with the offshore poker sites.

The DOJ is inclined to leave medical marijuana dispensaries alone IF it is convinced that there is little abuse and the users are bona fide medical users. On the other hand, if they think it is a cover for wider distribution for recreational use, they reserve the right to take action.

In other words, the DOJ has a set of wider concerns, and tailors its prosecution decisions to those concerns. (Contrast that with the Ashcroft DOJ, which was a true "enemy" of medical marijuana that took an absolutist position.)

The Obama DOJ, on internet poker, is going after offshore unregulated sites, because it believes that those sites' activities are incompatible with the enforcement of our tax, money laundering, and underage gaming laws. That does not, however, mean that the Obama Administration would oppose a poker bill.

The government's fight against online poker, at least over the last few years, has always been about wider concerns than the morality of gambling. I get the feeling that a lot of libertarian types can't believe that the government might contain people who (a) generally don't have any moral objections to poker but (b) still think offshore, unregulated online poker needs to be shut down. But I assure you, that is probably the prevailing view of the federal prosecutors who have brought these enforcement actions.

I honestly don't think online poker comes into the view of our president very often. It seems to be a much smaller issue than that. I think the president is keeping tabs on what holder is saying more for things like that Fast and Furious gun thing. With online poker, I doubt there's anything for Obama to lose to just let Holder have free reign on it, are republicans going to attack him for letting the DOJ go after poker sites branded illegal by the likes of Bachus and Kyl? I don't think so. We're kidding ourselves to think that Obama is sitting there catching the daily updates with online poker and approving Holder's actions step by step. Holder is probably approving some lower rank and file actions, that I'd believe.

ID checks have increased in recent years. That one guy, timex or whatever, I believe he played in a much looser marketplace for ID checks.

These days even to transfer funds on Merge you need to send in ID. So that means creating a fake account in your parents name, depositing via WU or visa card under the age of 18 (WU is one of the only methods for many people to deposit, so you'd have to give an ID there).

Then to get funds off you need the help of an 18+ player, since you can't cashout. Do you really think 15-17 year olds are doing this regularly?

We've heard the stories, sure, but that's usually somebody's little brother that was brought into the poker world, not some innocent kid that gets caught up in the world of online poker.

Face it, the under age thing is greatly exaggerated and is not a problem in the industry.

Even in a regulated market, 21 year old Billy will probably let his younger brother hop on his account for some micro sngs. If anything, it'll be easier in that environment, where Billy can more easily deposit, cashout and play. Realistically, more kids under 18 will probably play online poker in a regulated market than today, maybe even a higher % of the total playerbase.

A couple of things about age verification.

First, as LT22 notes, we simply have plenty of public evidence of underage play. I suspect, in that respect, that even though she was from Europe, the fact that an 18 year old beat the best players in the world in the WSOP-Europe a couple of years ago was not lost on a lot of law enforcement types. Nor is the fact that every year the WSOP Main Event is full of players who just turned 21 and seem to be experts at no limit hold 'em, and that a couple of such players have actually won the event. There's also discussions every once in awhile on 2+2 about underage players who want to figure out ways to cash out or disclose their actual age to the poker sites.

I know the poker sites do TRY to prevent underage play, but they definitely do not succeed.

Second, as a general matter, regulation DOES help prevent underage play. It's simply easier to do ANY sort of identity verification when you are operating within a lawful, regulated industry. Databases can be set up. Identification documents can be matched up against records held by credit card companies or state departments of motor vehicles. Penalties can be imposed on underage players as well as sites that allow them. Depending on how much effort sites want to invest in age verification, they can make it extremely hard for underage players to play.

Now, it's also possible for regulated poker to be completely ineffective at stopping underage play. But, again, in general, it is much easier to create the tools that MIGHT be effective for dealing with this problem if the sites are working with regulators rather than trying to dodge law enforcement.

At any rate, I am sure that whether or not you agree, DOJ prosecutors basically view this issue in this way.

Unless your position is simply that underage players SHOULD get to play, I think this conclusion is 180 degrees opposite from reality.

I assume majority of people 15-17 who are playing online poker are not likely to be attempting to cash out. They can easily lose the money at the tables, but they can't win.

Sites need to do an ID verification FIRST, before play is ever allowed.

Cigarettes are legal in this country because they are taxed and are sold everywhere, not because there is a bill saying that it is ok to smoke.

This is no different than Vegas when I was underage. You want to come and place a big sports bet? No problemo. You just won that big bet? You better be over 21 if you want to see your cash!

This would be a terrible assumption. My guess is 15-17 has the same % of winners and losers as any other age range.

cigarettes and alchohol were grandfathered in because of how widely socially acceptable/used they were. Any use of common sense would tell you if all the other substances are off limits they should be as well. Allthough I disagree with that.

Yeah, but in your hypothetical nobody was selling cigarettes, which implied that it was at least perceived to be IL-legal and a bill was needed.

I think this thread has gone way off track!

Back to the subject at hand...

If you really read this you see all it says is that there are “possibly” pending DOJ actions for processors to have funds seized. Processors have been shut down and funds seized for years. This is news being written to sound scarier than it really is. The writer is sensationalizing this story knowing that people will interpret it as “OMG Merge is being indicted” when the writer plainly says according to his “source” it is unclear if there are indictments for Merge or the skins.

I also don’t believe SP couldn’t get confirmation that Merge keeps player funds segregated I’ve been told by Carbon Poker and by the CEO of Hero (which can be found in the Hero thread) that they definitely do keep player funds segregated.

I’m just not particularly bothered by this.