Online Gambling: Do it while you can

Live forum: http://forum.freeipodguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=42792

theysayjump

11-07-2006 19:46:15

I know alot of you will love it if this gets passed

http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5171034.stm

[quote0f4a781756]The US House of Representatives has backed a bill which aims to rein in online gambling.

The bill aims to limit internet gaming by making it illegal for US-based banks and credit card firms to make payments to online gambling sites.[/quote0f4a781756]

hehehhehe

11-07-2006 19:53:50

Are neteller and epassporte US based? I think Neteller isn't so it would still work. Not sure about epassporte.

TryinToGetPaid

11-07-2006 20:00:11

I doubt it will pass, most likely I bet you they just tax it so they government can harvest more of our cash.

KeithA

11-07-2006 20:03:24

I don't know much about this, but I don't think either neteller or epassporte are banks or credit cards, so they'd be exempt.

Many banks (including mine) have voluntarily declined to fund online casinos for a while now, assumedly in anticipation of this sort of legislation.

justinag06

11-07-2006 20:07:12

I am about to go out so I didn't get to read much about this, but...

"The House voted 317 to 93 to pass a bill that would make it illegal for financial institutions or [i2185f82129]intermediaries[/i2185f82129] to process payments to offshore casinos through bettors’ credit cards, electronic funds transfers, checks, debits and other electronic transactions."

NYTimes.

That would be neteller to me.

I glanced on 2+2 and they seemed to think this would be a long drawn out process that might take 2-3 years.

I dunno i'll look into more tomorrow.

KeithA

11-07-2006 20:09:10

[quote1c9b055317="justinag06"]"The House voted 317 to 93 to pass a bill that would make it illegal for financial institutions or [i1c9b055317]intermediaries[/i1c9b055317] to process payments to offshore casinos through bettors’ credit cards, electronic funds transfers, checks, debits and other electronic transactions."

NYTimes.

That would be neteller to me.[/quote1c9b055317]

Yeah, I didn't RTFA, but that's pretty ominous.

jy3

11-07-2006 21:03:39

not sure how a bill like this would be constitutional. I also find it amusing how our government is so keen on reigning in online gambling - sure it costs a decent amount of people money/jobs...but unlike other areas of commerce endorsed by our government, online gambling does not kill people. seems like once again we are going after what should be the less important issues.

tylerc

11-07-2006 21:04:23

Seems like we should legalize pot.

jy3

11-07-2006 21:06:24

[quote60052a43c7="tylerc"]Seems like we should legalize pot.[/quote60052a43c7]
well, that is not what I am saying. I learned once before to not have that discussion with the age group that frequents this forum )

lets not hijack this thread

hehehhehe

11-07-2006 21:09:54

[quoteb1682b1b83="justinag06"]I am about to go out so I didn't get to read much about this, but...

"The House voted 317 to 93 to pass a bill that would make it illegal for financial institutions or [ib1682b1b83]intermediaries[/ib1682b1b83] to process payments to offshore casinos through bettors’ credit cards, electronic funds transfers, checks, debits and other electronic transactions."

NYTimes.

That would be neteller to me.

I glanced on 2+2 and they seemed to think this would be a long drawn out process that might take 2-3 years.

I dunno i'll look into more tomorrow.[/quoteb1682b1b83]
Yeah but I don't think Neteller is US based so how would they control them?

jy3

11-07-2006 21:13:11

[quote61524098b1="hehehhehe"][quote61524098b1="justinag06"]I am about to go out so I didn't get to read much about this, but...

"The House voted 317 to 93 to pass a bill that would make it illegal for financial institutions or [i61524098b1]intermediaries[/i61524098b1] to process payments to offshore casinos through bettors’ credit cards, electronic funds transfers, checks, debits and other electronic transactions."

NYTimes.

That would be neteller to me.

I glanced on 2+2 and they seemed to think this would be a long drawn out process that might take 2-3 years.

I dunno i'll look into more tomorrow.[/quote61524098b1]
Yeah but I don't think Neteller is US based so how would they control them?[/quote61524098b1]

but is their financial backing US based?

hehehhehe

11-07-2006 22:34:23

What are you talking about by financial backing? They are a public UK company.

schizerbone

11-07-2006 22:38:09

My bank already doesn't allow me to deposit into gambling sites, so I have to use epassporte or neteller...

justinag06

12-07-2006 01:07:18

neteller is an intermeadiary, plus like I said the people on 2+2 did not seem to blow this off lightly or seem apathetic about it. Which is a sign that we might be in trouble. I will give it a good run down tomorrow and let all know what I think of it.

doesn't look good though.

between this and net nutrality, all of my(our) online business ventures are looking seriously fucked.

tjwor

12-07-2006 01:26:50

won't pass...

if it did it wouldn't let any US banks allow neteller/epassporte/firepay to make payments, idk about withdraws from them though...


but it isn't going to pass anyways so we don't have much to worry about shrug

justinag06

12-07-2006 01:52:35

317 to 93

thats pretty lopsided, we can assume most people that voted to make this a bill will also vote to pass it. Also considering this is just a revision of the 1961 Wire Act, I am starting to worry.

If you feel certain its going to pass then I suggest buying stock in Party gaming and neteller becuase it has plumited like 25% in the last day and is probably going to get cheaper.

I might agree that when it does pass people will find another way to do it.

oh yeah and online gambling could generate over 3 billion each year for the US.

we need to just regulate it, like the UK recently did.

bballp6699

12-07-2006 05:48:26

Looks like FON is back to welfare.

dmorris68

12-07-2006 06:08:31

[quote4b6d2c3267="jy3"]not sure how a bill like this would be constitutional.[/quote4b6d2c3267]
Huh? Nothing in the Constitution guarantees your right to gamble, online or otherwise. )

Not to slam on your personaly, jy3, but I always get a kick out of folks who claim Constitutional protection for things like "vices" (gambling, smoking, drinking, etc.). If something isn't [b4b6d2c3267]specifically and explicitly[/b4b6d2c3267] protected by the Bill of Rights or an Amendment (speech, press, assembly, women's right to vote, etc.) then it is not a constitutional issue and can be regulated by the government at will.

justinag06

12-07-2006 10:30:24

I'm laughing at how hypocritical it is. The bill targets all forms of online gambling except online lotto and horse betting. Why those two will have a loophole carved out for them I don't know.

Interestingly enough, ebay has a major hand in this, hmmm I wonder why.

http//www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6429

Like hehe said Neteller is a UK based operation, so they cannot be forced to stop payments to gambling sites by the US government.

However I suppose the government might be able to prohibit users from making deposits into Neteller. Which wouldn't exactly be fair considering it is a growing online wallet service that many people use for services other than online gambling.

justinag06

12-07-2006 10:38:49

By Sarah Turner, MarketWatch
Last Update 1212 PM ET Jul 12, 2006
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Gambling shares rose Wednesday as investors and analysts weighed the odds of the current U.S. attempt to ban online gaming becoming law in the near future.
PartyGaming (PRTY) rallied 4.3% in a generally higher London market, while Sportingbet (SBT) rose 2.7%.
The price gains for online gaming shares came in the wake of the House of Representatives passing a bill late Tuesday that would attempt to kill off Internet gambling in the U.S. by cutting off its money supply.
However, the fate of the bill is uncertain as it will now proceed to the Senate, where only a short amount of time is left in the session before the lawmakers break for the campaign season ahead of the November elections.
The Bush administration backs the bill but said in an official statement of policy that it had some unspecified "concerns."
This theme was picked up by Morgan Stanley analysts, who noted that the bill allows certain forms of online gaming such as horse racing, lotteries and fantasy sports but does not contain a provision that would prevent underage users from playing.
"We think that the bill contains a number of provisions that we view as problematic, and think that it is very unlikely to pass the Senate," said these analysts.
They advised clients to use any share price weakness as a buying opportunity.

justinag06

25-09-2006 17:37:00

http//www.eog.com/news/industry.aspx?id=8460

still safe for now it appears.

1 more lame duck session to go after the fall elections.

cyberpunk243

25-09-2006 18:07:14

Stupid government. ANARCHY MUST PREVAIL!!!

OldManWrigley

25-09-2006 18:41:09

[quote233669b5ef="dmorris68"][quote233669b5ef="jy3"]not sure how a bill like this would be constitutional.[/quote233669b5ef]
Huh? Nothing in the Constitution guarantees your right to gamble, online or otherwise. )

Not to slam on your personaly, jy3, but I always get a kick out of folks who claim Constitutional protection for things like "vices" (gambling, smoking, drinking, etc.). If something isn't [b233669b5ef]specifically and explicitly[/b233669b5ef] protected by the Bill of Rights or an Amendment (speech, press, assembly, women's right to vote, etc.) then it is not a constitutional issue and can be regulated by the government at will.[/quote233669b5ef]

Gambling has been around since the beginning of time. I, personally, make my living off of online poker, and my buddy who got me started makes about $2,000,000 a year off of it, and I know about 15 people he knows that make over $100,000 a year off of it. They file taxes on that, obviously, which the government can make money off of, obviously. I think it violates a lot of rights that we as Americans have.

Just realized this thread was older then James Brolins balls.

Last I knew it still had to go through the senate.

JordanE

25-09-2006 20:01:35

I'm torn on this issue.

From a fiscal view point this bill would olny boost an already high Nevada economy witch is always good for us nevadans. The other part of me really dosen't care.

justinag06

01-10-2006 18:11:36

I disagree with you Jordan, at one time that was true, but with the billions of dollars it is generating each year, and the money they pour into the WSOP vegas is booming because of this.

without online poker, TV poker dies. When TV poker dies, all the extra tourism you are seeing in LV will return back to it's normal state in a few years.

oh and this

http//www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/news_story/1424?class=PokerNews

i've been reading up on it, and the implications. For now, no one know what is up. I'd cash out any monies inside any gaming site for now though to neteller at the least.

In a week or two we will know where we stand better.

Bentley

01-10-2006 21:36:17

[quote7c3ad46b84="OldManWrigley"][quote7c3ad46b84="dmorris68"][quote7c3ad46b84="jy3"]not sure how a bill like this would be constitutional.[/quote7c3ad46b84]
Huh? Nothing in the Constitution guarantees your right to gamble, online or otherwise. )

Not to slam on your personaly, jy3, but I always get a kick out of folks who claim Constitutional protection for things like "vices" (gambling, smoking, drinking, etc.). If something isn't [b7c3ad46b84]specifically and explicitly[/b7c3ad46b84] protected by the Bill of Rights or an Amendment (speech, press, assembly, women's right to vote, etc.) then it is not a constitutional issue and can be regulated by the government at will.[/quote7c3ad46b84]

Gambling has been around since the beginning of time. I, personally, make my living off of online poker, and my buddy who got me started makes about $2,000,000 a year off of it, and I know about 15 people he knows that make over $100,000 a year off of it. They file taxes on that, obviously, which the government can make money off of, obviously. I think it violates a lot of rights that we as Americans have.

Just realized this thread was older then James Brolins balls.

Last I knew it still had to go through the senate.[/quote7c3ad46b84]

Dang what online gambling sites are you guys playing?

Bill

01-10-2006 23:41:50

Online gambling is over. All the big poker/casino sites are banning US players including Partypoker.

evil evil evil

kdollar

02-10-2006 07:29:47

where did u hear this?

what about sportsbetting??

KeithA

02-10-2006 07:30:46

They've been arresting the CEOs of foreign-based online betting companies when they arrive on US soil for the last 6 weeks or so. Seems kinda nuts to me...

Nimh

02-10-2006 09:10:00

This is so stupid. I think the part that pisses me off the most is that the only way they could get it through was the sneak it in the back door of a security bill.

kdollar

02-10-2006 10:23:31

[quotefb42f48419="KeithA"]They've been arresting the CEOs of foreign-based online betting companies when they arrive on US soil for the last 6 weeks or so. Seems kinda nuts to me...[/quotefb42f48419]

why?

KeithA

02-10-2006 10:31:43

[quote3f055fe339="kdollar"][quote3f055fe339="KeithA"]They've been arresting the CEOs of foreign-based online betting companies when they arrive on US soil for the last 6 weeks or so. Seems kinda nuts to me...[/quote3f055fe339]

why?[/quote3f055fe339]

Mostly to make a statement. This article refers to the most recent arrests, primarily David Carruthers of BetOnSports and the CEO of Sportingbet.

http//www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6BTLrSohXn0&refer=home[]http//www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6BTLrSohXn0&refer=home

hehehhehe

02-10-2006 10:53:06

Do you guys think this is just a precursor to US based online casinos?

"The American Gaming Association, which represents casino operators based in Las Vegas and elsewhere, had asked Congress to fund a commission that would study whether online gambling can be regulated and taxed in the U.S. The lobby group's hope is a study may eventually let major casino operators such as MGM Mirage and Harrah's Entertainment Inc. enter the online business."

theysayjump

02-10-2006 11:07:50

Yeah this is definitely a precursor to US based online gambling.

They're making a statement, basically saying that you can either have absolutely nothing the way it is at the moment, or you can have it heavily regulated by us and we make a killing from your vices.

justinag06

02-10-2006 12:23:05

No I don't think so hehehe. I think it is one thing, and one thing alone. The republicans, namely one Bill Frist, trying to get elected to a higher office in 2 years. You are right LV wants to break in, and have this regulated. I don't think the US would shut down the current machine now, in order to regulate it. I think we would see it made legal, and they would just regulate what we have going on, allowing the big boys to step in.

It doesn't make any sense why they didn't regulate it, the europeans are making a killing of this, also i'm not going to abandon all hope yet.

The statements released by Party Poker seem to imply that this may only be a temporary ban. I have very little doubt that in 6 months when this law goes into effect, the gaming industry will have a solution for US players to be funded.

For instanse, a UK based bank that allows US customers to register online.

The US could not stop someone from making a transaction to that bank, and then they could fund whatever they like with it.

I think party poker and 888 are merely preparing for the worst, and trying to avoid being sent to jail like KiethA mentioned. US players account for over 70% of party's player base, and somewhere btw 1-2 billion dollars in revenue generated each year.

I don't see how the US can police an industry this big.

and yes kdollar this means sportsbetting too. If you have large sums of money in any sportsbook I would cash them out back to NT. While this law cannot go into effect until 6 months from now, it might be best to wait a week or two to see which casinos are pulling out of the US. I read that party poker said US players will able to access their accounts, and play for free, and cash out. But not deposit, or play cash games.


currently
party poker
intercasino
888(includes casino on net, and pacific poker)

are outing US players

Pokerstars is expected to announce a decesion soon.

also one site, WSEX.com has come out and said they aren't going anywhere for US players at all. The have a sportsbook/casino also.

Nimh

02-10-2006 13:16:57

I used to play on PartyPoker a while back (lost the $50 I put in there for fun), and recently they gave me $25 to play with. They know I'm a US citizen, and I've been playing on their recently without any problems, so I'm not really sure what the deal is.

justinag06

02-10-2006 13:22:22

well party isn't banning US players untill Bush signs the bill.

OldManWrigley

02-10-2006 13:42:25

Which hopefully doesn't happen for a while (

justinag06

02-10-2006 13:52:51

umm has to happen by october 7th.

is you friend moving to amsterdam?

OldManWrigley

02-10-2006 14:22:32

I hope he pays me my 10k before oops

Tholek

02-10-2006 14:29:09

Supposedly they're eyeing the CEO of Bodog for arrest. He's pracxtically exiled himself to Costa Rica. (Saw it on Nightline a couple of weeks ago)

KeithA

02-10-2006 15:00:40

[quotedd390113be="Tholek"]Supposedly they're eyeing the CEO of Bodog for arrest. He's pracxtically exiled himself to Costa Rica. (Saw it on Nightline a couple of weeks ago)[/quotedd390113be]

Wouldn't surprise me. On a few of the blogs I monitor they're saying any of these guys would be nuts to travel in the US at the moment.