I was thinking more about those skill vs luck in poker formal studies. I was thinking a good study would be 24 people playing 1,000 24 man big stack non-turbo sng's and having the same 24 people play 1,000 kamakaze sng's against each other.

That would prove not only the luck vs skill in actually playing vs the luck of the draw, but also the difference that good players would learn tells and betting patterns that the bad players would lose more and more over time. It would also be its own control group by showing the difference between long term play vs individual hand play, because the bad players may win bigger pots early on, but way less of the actual sng's.

Is there any word on waiting time for visa withdrawals for non US PS players please? I have found I need suddenly need to withdraw my 3 figure PS roll and I need to know what kind of waiting time I'm facing for approval.

Sorry to post it here I couldn't find an answer anywhere.

Check out this thread in NVG for non-US cash-outs, lots of posts from other non-us players http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...ayers-1020772/

Thanks! I saw that thread in legislation a while ago. Didn't know it had been moved, explains why I couldn't find.

Thanks for thoughtful response. .But I know the whole big picture here..and am essentially impugning their motives, which is not too hard to do given context..like for ex. how they've chosen to exercise their granted power of discretion in the past with regard to whom they've chosen to (not/) prosecute...etc etc

I approve of this message.

Interesting article about an Arizona Credit Union linked to the DOJ busts

http://www.cutimes.com/2011/04/27/ve...plotter?page=1

Many people in these forums are putting much of the blame for the crackdown on online poker on the Bush administration. It is true that the UIGEA was passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by then President Bush. However, it is also true that the wording is extremely vague, and it leaves the legality of online poker up to interpretation.

In steps Obama/Holder. Again, many people on these forums try to defend Obama/Holder by stating that they were merely enforcing a law already on the books. However, as stated above, the UIGEA is extremely vague; it doesn't even define what "online gambling" is. So, the DOJ could have interpreted the law differently.

But even if the UIGEA unambiguously defined online poker as illegal (which it doesn't), the Obama/Holder DOJ has already shown that it will choose what laws it wants to enforce. The Defense of Marriage Act, a law passed by large majorities of congress in 1996, defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. There have been many suits by BGLTSA groups over the years, and in February of 2011 the DOJ stated that it would cease legal defense of the law.

This is a clear example of the Obama/Holder DOJ choosing what laws it wants to enforce. I'm sure that other justice departments have done this in the past, but either way, when it comes to the online poker crackdown, the DOJ could have looked the other way AND/OR chosen to interpret the law differently.

Not to mention the laws regarding illegal entry into the US, which they have been ignoring for way too long.

Obama has to be held responsible, fully responsible for these attacks. But there are others from both parties that need to be held responsible.

My two US senators for example. One Dem., one Rep., I have wrote to them repeatedly about this issue, they have yet to state their position. I will vote accordingly.

Dem. Boxer and Rep. Kyl need to be held responsible, they are both strong determined enemies of internet freedom.

This is not a Dem versus Rep. issue. We have good friends and unreasonable enemies in both parties.

In before the libs start flaming 3 very rational posts.

This is not a partisan issue. We need to work with both parties (as the PPA already is doing)

TBH if the sites were paying taxes to the government they probably would have been more likely to allow it or regulate it asap. When millions or billions are being made off the US there is no way they are going to look the other way.

Lol, the stuff in this thread is dumb as ****. UIGEA isn't the reason this is happening. Bank fraud, is. UIGEA inspires the bank fraud, sure, but this case is about bank fraud, not UIGEA enforcement. If you want to blame someone for bank fraud, blame the sites. If you want to blame someone for UIGEA, blame Frist, Goodlatte, Leach and Kyl. If you want to blame someone for the enforcement, blame the sites for ratting out Tzvetkoff.

If you really enjoy blaming, lets blame Bush for implementing and Obama for executing the UIGEA, but that's quite a stretch on both accounts.

8 of the 9 charges against the defendants accuse them of "operating an illegal gambling business." One charge alleges bank fraud.

A charge of bank fraud could easily have been brought without including the other 8 charges.

If you think this is a "bank fraud case," you are being misled.

Skallagrim

This.

7 of 9. 1 count conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and a money laundering count.

I'm of the opinion that the 7 UIGEA counts are more of a shot in the dark, and the meat of this, the reason the DoJ decided to act instead of sitting on their hands, is because they had 2 counts which will play in court. With that, the DoJ can much more easily argue for a settlement rather than risking a bad ruling on the UIGEA.

The consensus by the informed here seems to be that a successful defense against the UIGEA charges will also apply to the money laundering charge, as that charge must show that the money is "dirty" in the first place to make it stick. Whereas the same doesn't hold true for the bank fraud charge, so that's the one to be most concerned about, since it can stand on its own.

+1. This case wouldn't have been brought without the fake payees/payors. (Of course, these were necessitated by the UIGEA, but the motivating factor here IMO was bank fraud.)

Ridiculous that the article about the CU says they were conned or were the con artists. Given the unclear USA poker laws why isn't there a third suggestion that they were legally processing poker transactions? The media are doj pawns.

The "investigation" was long underway before the Bank fraud charges were dropped into the DOJ's lap...Rumors of the DOJ seeking an indictment was nearly 2 years ago IIRC...

IMO you can say the timing and immediacy of the indictment is the bank fraud charges..

To the OP there is plaenty of blame to go around...

Maybe if the sites had challenged the DOJ long ago instead of just "saying we violate no laws" it might not have come to this. Of course that's only if the sites thought they were legal and they violated no laws,which leads me to believe they knew what they were doing was illegal in some fashion.

We can blame Bush Or Obama all we we want but no matter who was in charge they would have gone after these sites for operating an illegal business,if that's what they (the DOJ) thought the sites were doing. The sites didn't have to piss in the face of the law (DOJ) by offering play in the US once the DOJ said it was illegal, the sites could have challenged the DOJ in court if they thought that operating in the US was legal. Instead they simply ignored the DOJ and went about their business.

60 Minutes (212) 975-3247
Congressman Barney Frank (202) 225-5931 (Washington Office)
Senator Harry Reid (202) 224-3542 (Washington Office)
Steven Colbert (212) 586-2477 (Studio)
thedailyshow@comedycentral.com
comments@foxnews.com
Special@foxnews.com
Foxreport@foxnews.com
Oreilly@foxnews.com
Ontherecord@foxnews.com
dateline@nbcuni.com
Hardball@msnbc.com
joe@msnbc.com
nightly@nbc.com
today@nbc.com
newshour@pbs.org
ombudsman@npr.org
letters@latimes.com
readers.rep@latimes.com
letters@nytimes.com
news-tips@nytimes.com
editor@usatoday.com
wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
wsjcontact@dowjones.com
letters@washpost.com
ombudsman@washpost.com
letters@newsweek.com
letters@time.com
letters@usnews.com
info@ap.org
tips@upi.com
ed@edschultzshow.com
vern@edschultzshow.com
james@edschultzshow.com
wendyjoschultz@yahoo.com

a few of these don't work..
mods feel free to update and edit..

As always, its all about the $.
Which administration wouldn't want to tax a multi billion industry? Especially a government in a broke ass country, up to its ears in debt.
Add some moral BS from the religious lobby and this is what you get.

How can anyone be surprised or outraged by whats happening?

Maybe, Skall, but IMO, the DOJ would not have filed the indictment if they had no basis for a claim such as bank fraud which is not UIGEA or illegal gambling related.

And don't forget about the weed stores in California. Not that I am against legalizing pot. I think we should regulate and tax that in addition to poker.