Why would an existing lawful offshore site need to be concerned about their U.S. operations triggering the Unlawful IGE Act? And what is this about penalties...what part of lawful did you or me miss?

This is a lot to process, but damn everyone relax a little please.

There are two issues here. (1) is online poker legal?, and (2) does it make a practical difference whether the sites are offshore?

The answer to (1), as has been rehashed a million times, is (a) we think it is, (b) certain parts of federal and state law enforcement think it is not, and (c) while there is one or two court decisions in our favor, they are not definitive and do not bind those parts of law enforcement who want to take actions against online poker.

The answer to (2) is yes, because the tools of American law enforcement are simply more effective against onshore companies and individuals. For instance, it's obviously easier to arrest people, seize their assets, block their transactions, etc., when they are operating within the United States.

Of course, a hypothetical American poker room could bring a direct challenge to the federal government's position on online poker. But that would be a huge gamble, with the result of an unfavorable ruling being possible criminal convictions, civil fines and penalties, seizures of assets, and lawsuits.

So it's a better gamble for anyone operating an online poker room to locate offshore.

Has there not been any PPA action-call on this bill yet?

Okay, thanks. Let me stop there and ask about the basics. Maybe I don't understand the proper meaning for legal / lawful as applied to poker business. Would you say that legal commercial poker dealt in the U.S. needs a law allowing same; or does it become legal another way?

If a law is needed, then "we think" there is a current law allowing foreign poker sites to deal legal IP. Let's just show that to law enforcement.

If no law is needed, why do we want / need to pass another law?

If there is another way that foreign sites are running their lawful tables here, please address that. Or if you are unsure that their U.S. operations are lawful, why?

Yes, we've sent out a targeted blast to members with congressmen on the House Financial Services Committee. We'll be blasting the entire membership in the near future.

For now, everyone should visit www.theppa.org/takeaction and send the letter to Congress.

Please check out 3/31/11 Fight for Poker Rights Video + Q&A. I addressed this a bit on that video.

I'm no lawyer but I was under the impression laws define what is illegal. I've never seen a law that tells me it's legal for me to breath. Yet I seem to get away with it on a constant basis. What law makes it legal for me to blink or go to the bathroom or brush my teeth? Do you see how many laws there would have to be if laws were required to make something legal?

The reason we want a law passed is because the department of justice is operating under the assumption that online poker is illegal based on the wire act (mainly). A new law regulating online poker would basically define that online poker is not covered by the wire act. Then US companies would be much more likely to get into the business.

That is my understanding of the situation at least.

Done.

Your understanding is 99% correct. The other 1% has to do with the fact that there are arguably some other Federal laws (which are based on state laws) that also come into play, at least according to the DOJ.

Skallagrim

Don't mind permafrost. He just has the most complex level 0 thinking posts in all of 2+2. He asks the same stupid "devil's advocate" questions year after year, gets the same serious answer from different posters who don't realize he's a troll year after year, and repeats the mantra...year after year.

I've replied to the points you raised more than a few times. Perhaps check out the video I referenced earlier ITT and then let me know if you have further questions.

You don't seem to know what a HUD is. A HUD does not tell you what decision to make.

A HUD displays statistical information. That's it. That's all it does.

You then have to interpret the information. You then have to make a decision on your own. And there is a lot of information that a HUD can not display that is important in making a decision.

HUDs display statistical information that you wouldn't have or couldn't possibly remember otherwise. Obviously just having a HUD does nothing for you. You have to know how to use it to make adjustments, which why I stated twice and even put the second one in bold, HUDs can be used to (guess I should have put help) make the correct decision every time. Obviously HUDs are not bots that make every decision for you. Though given enough hands, you can put a player on a very specific range by simply looking at select stats that no one could remember otherwise.
If you are saying that every hand can't be mathematically broken down, then I disagree. Obviously, HUDs can't display every stat, but enough stats can be displayed to create reads that can and do give an advantage that a player would never have.

With that said, other than using it with datamining, I have no problem with using HUDs. But once again, if we are talking about what is fair for all parties involved, then the default HUD settings should either be available for everyone or no one.

It is available for everyone, what are you talking about?

Majority of online players couldn't tell you what tracking software is or what HUDs are. I say this again even though I said the same thing 20 posts up. HUDs should either be built into sites or not allowed at all. A third party program that gives any advantage shouldn't be allowed if poker is regulated. Every player should have the same advantage without having to pay for a third party program.
I am not trying to be an anti-HUD guy. I actually dont care either way, as long as its one or the other. I am just trying voice my opinion on what is best for all players if legislation ever happens.

I met my friend the other month I hadn't seen in years, hes a day trader now. He had multiple programs across 6 monitors with copious amounts of graphs and numbers that would be impossible to remember. I've done a bit of trading and didn't use the same programs or really know about them. A simple google search lead to me all the information/access to the programs I needed, how is tracking software any different?

Because they have to put in effort/research to improve? It should just be spoon fed to everyone?

Day trading isn't a player vs player game. How your friend trades does not affect your trading. The two aren't comparable in this area. It's alot closer to steroids in baseball before being banned. You still had to be good at baseball, but they let you hit the ball further, recover faster so you can play more games(or tables). They weren't banned by MLB and at times seemed encouraged(more rake), but steroids were shady at best, because it gave players an advantage they wouldn't have had otherwise. Should players be forced to use steroids to stay competitive or should MLB do what they did and just ban them outright? The only thing that is unacceptable, from a macro player perspective, is some people using them when others aren't(for any reason).
Researching poker software should not give you an advantage. You obviously think it should, so agree to disagree because I'm not flooding this thread anymore with HUD talk.

Does anyone know Bernie Sanders' stance on this?

He's noncommital, but his responses to my emails have made me reasonably optimistic we could get his support given that I think we are right on the merits, his mind remains open, and the state opt-out clauses should address his Federalist concerns.

This was the most recent response I got from him, in Jan. of this year. Its pretty close to the same response I got from him a year ago.


Dear LetsGambool

Thank you for contacting me about your concerns regarding online poker playing. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this important issue.

Unlike many other states, Vermont has not approved casinos, slot machines or most other forms of gambling. Because of this, addressing on-line gambling is a difficult issue for someone who believes, as I do, in our federalist system - the essence of which is that, everything being equal, we leave law enforcement decisions to that governmental body closest to home. The global reach of the internet presents society with a very important question: should each state be able to address the issue of internet gambling, or is this an issue to be addressed by the federal government?

This is a complicated issue with many ramifications which go beyond on-line poker. So let me respond by saying that my mind is not yet made up on the issue, and that I hope to continue listening to voices like yours if and when any legislation comes forward.

Legislation was introduced in the 111th Congress to address this issue. S.1597, The Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act would authorize the federal government to oversee internet gambling and issue licenses to companies that wish to engage in hosting internet gambling. Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind should this legislation be reintroduced in the 112th Congress, which began in January of this year.

Again, thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Feel free to contact me again in the future about this or any other subject of interest to you, or for up-to-date information on what my office is working on please visit http://www.sanders.senate.gov. While there, I invite you to sign up for my e-newsletter, the Bernie Buzz, at http://sanders.senate.gov/buzz/. Please be aware that due to security screening procedures, postal mail to my office experiences delays that will lengthen the time it takes me to get back to you. The fastest way to contact my office is by calling 1-800-339-9834.

Sincerely,


BERNARD SANDERS
United States Senator

what about futures and options trading?

edit: I only have a basic knowledge of them. From what I understand though, they're both essentially zero sum games where one person wins at the expense of the other.

WROTE IN QUOTE IN BOLD.

Steroids in baseball is a terrible analogy. Steroids are against the rules in most sports because long-term use harms the athlete. AFAIK, using a HUD has no long term ill effects on a person's health.

A better analogy would be protein drinks, herbal drinks, electrolyte drinks, etc. Athletes are not required to buy such products or drink them, but doing so could give them a small edge. Researching the right "power" drink could give an athlete that little extra bit. And these products, unlike steroids, do not have long term ill effects.

You should be banned for this terrible analogy

That would solve the not everyone knowing about them at the very least(and should be done anyway), but I still don't like the idea of having to buy third party software that gives an in game advantage. I doubt law makers will(would) either. I understand the, "it is available argument", but think about someone depositing $25 for the first time only to find out he needs an even 100 to be on the same playing field. This is why, imho, every bill will(not should) ban them. I'm really done with HUDs now itt, thanks for an actual response.