see: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=1167

what reasons, if any, would lawmakers have to oppose international player pools?

Players on the non-US skins would not be subject to the US regulations, so theoretically, US players would be open to fraud, illegal activities (money laundering), etc. from the non-US players.

At some point, I think there will have to be some recognition and cooperation between US and non-US licensing authorities. I had hoped this would be considered and included in the current legislation, but I don't see any sign of it yet.

that actually makes sense. thanks

Are you sure this is true? Doesn't this depend on the treasury's regulations? I'd imagine the treasury would require the ability to regulate the entire network, not just the US skin.

US Regulation will(IF it happens) will reopen the WTO case from Antigua, which is still unresolved, and make the EU re-evaluate the pros and cons of bringing a case against the US. Im sure PS is splashing some cash around Brussels after they fell on their swords to make the French and Italian only sites. Its something to worry about after 45 states opt-out and the FBI opens a task force to shut down PS and FTP.

Yeah, I'd think this too. At the very least, the Treasury could require that the international skins of all US-licensed poker sites obey the US-facing rules and regulations to their entire global network. Or at least the crucial, fraud-related ones. I don't expect sites would oppose this as long as most of these regulations are common-sense things that they'd be doing already, so hopefully the Treasury would be aware of this.

This seems like a really obvious thing for treasury to do, IMHO.

Also, we don't have to hope the treasury will be aware of things. We can talk to those people.

Tks to all the ppl in this thread with the patience to repeat themselves over and over again and thanks to the PPA for continuing the fight for the right to play poker -- I'm not sure what our chances of getting this bill through are, but I think that the current giant revenue gaps at state and federal level hugely help the cause and that whatever the chance, it's the largest we've had in a long time

Keep in mind that once things are legalized/decriminalized, it is very rare that they move backwards again. Watch the slow spread of marijuana decriminalization and medical marijuana for example.

Dear latefordinner:

In this: http://houseofcardsradio.com/pages/July_26_2010.html internet radio interview, gambling law expert I. Nelson Rose begins by pointing out the irony of how four years ago it was "mostly conservative Republicans" who were trying to kill internet poker by passing the UIGEA. Now, four years later, we're in the midst of "Great Recession" and they're all desperate for new sources of money to replace dwindling tax revenues. Irony indeed when desperation trumps ideology.

Former DJ

Jonas:

I think your 45 states opt-out "guesstimate" is too high by a factor of approximately 2x. Based on an exhaustive reading of Skall's "Individual State Opt Out Prediction Thread," I believe the number of likely opt-out states is more in the 15-20 range; although the reality is that nobody will really know until states actually start opting out - these are all guesses and (not so informed) opinions.

As for your prediction that the FBI will open a task force to shut down Poker Stars and Full Tilt Poker, I'm not sure what the FBI can really do in that regard since these overseas sites are outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law. (The FBI has to have jurisdiction to launch an investigation or an enforcement action or something as severe as actually attempting to "shut down" a site.) What I think is more likely is that the DOJ will go after Tilt and Stars through indirect means - such as ordering ISPs here in the U.S. to block access to their sites for IP addresses emanating from within the United States. This is similar to how the Government attempted to "enforce" the UIGEA by exerting pressure on banks, credit card issuers, and payment processors. It's the Government's equivalent of guerilla warfare.

Former DJ

I'm not sure I follow. The purpose of requiring the US-facing skin to locate in the US is to ensure that US players are protected. If non-US players are using a site to launder money, the US players weren't involved and won't be affected. As for fraud, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Non-US players executing fraudulent money transactions might hurt the company as a whole, but won't hurt US players except indirectly by raising site costs. Anyway the sites have every incentive to prevent this as it is as the money comes out of their pockets, so it doesn't matter what US regulators do.

Non-US players might steal a US player's account or collude or whatever, but regulations won't protect against it anyway.

That's why I say it's "theoretical". I don't see much danger from these activities to US players. But there is one danger not covered - a Russ Hamilton-type fraud perpetrated on a non-US skin by non-US players. There would be no legal recourse directly against the perpetrators.

The FBI cannot order any blocking of IP sites. Doing so violates the first amendment. The only exception are child porn and terrorist sites. And blocking them requires a court order.

This isn't the old Soviet Union. The DoJ does not have the authority to tell ISPs to block anything. Some prior legislation has sought this remedy, but none of those proposed bills were passed into law. Check out Federal online poker & gaming legislation history for more.

Minnesota proposed requiring ISP's to block online poker sites last year. This was greeted with an amazing amount of opposition. The state quickly backed down. Some articles from my blog:

Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) Wants to Censor the Internet
An Open Letter to Gov. Tim Pawlenty on the Minnesota Internet Censorship Plan
Poker Players Alliance Declares Victory as Minnesota Backs Off Of ISP Blocking Plan!!

KY is now suing sites, seeking forfeiture of Internet domain names. It has similarly drawn a great deal of opposition. The Commonwealth lost at the KY Court of Appeals and is an underdog in the KY Supreme Court.

Finally, it's not at all clear that ISP blocks would be effective. After all, do you play directly on a site? No. Well, you don't play at all, but those of us who do play via programs which we download. These don't route play through branded domains, of course, so I don't require access to the FullTiltPoker.com website at all.

Didn't know the last paragraph, TE. It is an interesting tidbit. Of course, the actual websites would be protected by the first amendment.

It came up in the KY case.

No one has ever played poker on the domain FullTiltPoker.com or the domain PokerStars.com. AFAIK, no one has ever deposited or withdrawn funds through these domains, either. So, it's even more of a First Amendment issue than it seems at first look.

Hey DJ,

Couple quick questions for you:

You seem to do a lot of reading and research and, generally, devote a lot of time to poker legislation for someone who does not play (rarely plays) poker. Could you please clarify why you devote so much time and energy to this legislation and all the ancillary discussions that it spawns?

Also, why are you a lying liar on these forums and then, after being caught, think that you have any credibility here? If you are actually capable of logic and realize that you have no credibility, then why continue posting here?

I know how close to the heart this issue is for you as poker, real estate investments, and equities are so tightly intertwined in your mind. Even though you don't play poker (rarely play poker) your livelihood in investment income is at stake here. I know I'm paraphrasing here but I love your laughable attempt at spinning your blatant lies.

So, why do you care so much??

What's an example of the Blatant lies?

Originally Posted by Former DJ View Post
(07-21-2010, 11:15 AM)

I played (briefly) last year with one of Cake's major competitors. It was my first experience with internet poker.

...

After a month or so of playing online and getting nowhere, I finally decided "Who needs this?"

...

I will be joining Cake Poker as a new player shortly.

Originally Posted by Former DJ View Post
(07-23-2010, 07:36 PM)

If our new (or next) Governor chooses to opt Alabama out from legalized internet poker then I'm basically screwed since I've just been deprived of a good portion of my livelihood. (If worse comes to worse, I may even have to go back to work in a regular job.)

The "logic" behind the only 10-15 opt-outs is based on some assumptions I profoundly believe unsound. We will have to wait and see how certain players
line up. Where do the state lotteries come down? Are they willing to fight for revenue or defer support until they get full monopolies? How many states have religious or liberal nanny nutjobs legislators who reflexively oppose any gambling expansion? There are states where 40% or more of legislators fall in that category. You claim intimate state by state knowledge of horse racing looking at extinction, and how they will lobby? Every horse racing state has a lobbying power that dwarfs ours. You can't just say "Oh, our state is blue, we will opt-in" or our state is "revenue starved". It would be nice if the money existed to study and sound out state by state, but it doesn't. So you have to judge our clout vs our opponents clout, and our line of attack is uphill in almost EVERY state. Im not a poker only person any longer, so maybe its not as bread and butter for me, but I still see opting out as a cluster grenade to the people who still are micro to medium stakes "pros".

There is even still time to make "opting out" difficult or poisonous, especially since whatever bill it comes in will never be debated or amended outside of a conference committee. But, I accept no one agrees with me on focusing on tweaking opting out to make it fiscally impossible or nigh-impossible to enforce.

When I say I FBI task force to shut down PS and FTP, its the second hand route. Right now, no one is directing or budgeting funds specifically to make life hell for PS and FTP. If you think everything else I say is pure Chicken Little, please listen to this. The day an internet regulation bill passes, the licensees will demand and get dedicated law enforcement to do everything they can to cut off access to non-licensed sites. Every method of payment will be scrutinized and harassed beyond anything we have seen. IP blocking, domain name seizures, maybe they can't do that, but someone will try those or similar means. Like the DoJ has any regard for rights or the law now.

Jonas:

You make some compelling points, and you may even be right, but here's the problem with your argument. I consider myself a pessimist on the opt-out issue, but even I have a hard time imagining that up to 45 states would opt-out. I mean, if the PPA, Harrah’s, et al are successful in getting internet poker “legalized” only to have 40 or more states opt-out, wouldn’t that be the equivalent of winning the battle and losing the war? If 40 or more states opt out of legal internet poker in the United States, wouldn’t that pretty much kill the internet poker market here in the US? If 45 states opt-out, there’s no way all those disenfranchised online poker players are going to move to the five states where it’s still legal just so they can continue to play online poker. For those players, legalization would be an unmitigated disaster.

As for your view that the Government will come down hard on Poker Stars and Full Tilt as soon as these bills pass, I agree 100 percent. As soon as internet poker is "legal" in the United States, the gloves will come off on all the unlicensed sites.

Former DJ

Remember when you lost all credibility and got exposed as the obvious fraud you are? I do.

I dont think we can dismiss the possibility that only 10 states or so don't opt out. Depends on the final bill. Its probably a pessimistic outlook.

My best guess based on the current bill is probably about a 50% opt-in/opt-out rate, but its just a guess. We're all flying blind, which is definitely one of the downsides of the bill. I think the opt-in, opt-out thread was running closer to 60% opt in.

tool:

Why don't you post your cherry-picked taken-out-of-context "expose" about 50 more times - just in case somebody might have missed it.

Former DJ