Bwin CEO Blasts PokerStars, Full Tilt as Illegal Online Poker Rooms

It's a cut-throat business, for sure.

he seems to be quite the ******

Here is the original eGaming Review article, which explains this seeming contradiction:

The issue has been beaten to death in other threads but they had/have casino games and sports betting so there's your major difference.

What is "******ed" about Teufelberger's comments is that the UIGEA did not itself change which iGambling is or is not legal. So, if PS & FTP are "operating illegally", then BWIN was also doing so before they pulled out of the US (pre-UIGEA). In fact, since BWIN is a sportsbook, they were definitely doing so whereas PS and FTP only ever offered iPoker. Maybe PS & FTP should be granted licenses, but BWIN should be denied.

Yup!

Any company that ever had a US facing Sportsbook will never get a license. Casinos may be a little different if they pulled out like Party did in 2006.

Lord how I miss my Party and Empire and Interpoker and ................ accounts. :-) I was such the bonus slut back then.

LOL seriously? Who the f is BWIN?

Bwin is Ongame Network, which is merging with Party Poker in 2011. More sour grapes....

I believe Stars and Full Tilt were the only ones who were smart and right, maybe they just have the best legal advice. This BWin CEO fails to acknowledge the difference between his company and theirs. His company is associated with accepting U.S. Online Sportsbook wagers and U.S. Online Casino wagers. You can't say that about Stars or FTP.

IMHO Stars and FTP's legal team foresaw all what is now the current political climate and chose the pure poker route, realizing that they would/could win vs. US DOJ when it came down to it, due to its strict poker only affiliation.

Doing a bit of research there seems to be a more clear pattern. Every single publicly held company pulled out of the US. Few to no private companies did so. Some, such as Bodog, did not pull out and continue to offer sports betting to US residents.

While possible it seems unusual that somehow all of the publicly held companies received the 'wrong' legal advice and the typically smaller privately held companies all received the 'right' legal advice. To me Occam's razor is quite clear here, but I'm in a small minority. And obviously my opinion is based on little more than empirical observation since I'm certainly not qualified to attempt to interpret the law unlike some that also hold your opinion.

The publicly-traded sites pulled out essentially because they are publicly-traded: the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclay's Bank finance the public offerings of these sites on the London Stock Exchange. Due largely to their US banking presence, these banks can't be associated with activities that are [incorrectly] viewed by the DOJ as illegal. So, the bankers threatened to immediately call in the loans of the sites, which would have bankrupted the sites. The sites had no choice but to pull out. It had nothing directly to do with whether or not the UIGEA made the sites unlawful.

I'm not sure this is accurate at all. What loans are you referring to?

I do, however, agree that pressure from and responsibility to instiutional investors (with BetonSports fresh in everyone's minds) was a major factor.

Party and Bwin never offered sports betting in the US. That was Europe only.

And everyone forgets that the re mastercard case that is always thrown up as proof that the Wire Act doesn't apply to poker was spefically about online CASINO gaming and not poker.

This is true, but the Wire Act is not the only Federal law in play. The Illegal Gambling Businesses Act (IGBA) is another. It is very difficult to argue, at least with respect to most states, that online casino games are not federally illegal pursuant to that law.

OTOH, the argument that the IGBA does not apply to online poker is strong.

Skallagrim

Indeed. Carruthers from BoS was charged with Illegal Gambling Act violations along with Wire Act violations to the best of my knowledge.

What is the poker argument in your view? Apologies if this has been discussed many times before.

The specifics of the IGBA appear to apply only to house banked games of chance and lotteries.

Also, the argument (applicable in many places) that poker-only businesses are not "in the business of betting and wagering" is also present.

Skallagrim

Thanks. I think I follow you. You're focusing on the fact that poker is not a game against the house rather than it not being gambling as such? It would be a fascinating argument in court that's for sure.

At the time, the sites had considerable liabilities from investors shedding their stocks. If the banks pulled out their underwriting and loans, the sites would bankrupt.

Unfortunately, I don't have any references to give as the articles are no longer around. It's just something I researched at the time.

I'm still confused what you are referring to. There was for sure the potential for a share price collapse, but I'm not sure what you mean by underwriting and loans. This was a good 12 months after a very succesful IPO.

Party offered casino games in the US. From the Statement of Facts agreement with the US DOJ:

Not sure what your point is with either comment.

1. Yes. I know that. Are you just agreeing with me? I said they didn't offer sports betting in the US. There is a BIG difference between having offered US casino gaming and US sports betting.

2. Again. Are you just agreeing with me? That is a share price collapse. That happened after they pulled out. It could well have been worse if they didn't. What's your point exactly?

Also, sorry if it appears I am trying to start an argument here. I'm not. I'm just a little confused as to the detail of what PX is saying. Banks underwrite IPOs, and that was 12 months prior and sold out. And Party didn't have any significant loans at that point did it?

I have just noticed that I am talking specifically about PartyGaming, who were the first to pull out. Perhaps that is where the confusion comes from.

Full Tilt was the clear winner of the UIGEA. Its traffic was bottom of the top 10 before. I do hope they get shut out