Online Gaming will continue to thrive

[datek23]

Okay this is what I have notice and this is what I predict will happen.

The reason Betonsports is not around anymore and 888.com, sportingbet on the verge of not doing business anymore in the USA is because there are public companies and have shareholders. Whenever something negatively short term like this happens, the shareholders will get rid of you fast, because shareholder are interested in their money and do not want to lose their equity no matter how successful online gaming is down the road. These type of companies cannot deal with shady practices or loopholes because they are fully committed to the shareholders and shareholder will not accept shady practices like swiss accounts, several third party payment plans, and etc. .

Now for example I do not believe PinnacleSports.com or Sportsinteraction are public companies and have no demands to cater to anyone except themselves. So these type of companies will find ways to still and continue business through several loopholes.

That being said look for companies that are not controlled by shareholders, that are graded highly by SBR, and have several payment options. One comes to mind Pinnacle Sports.

What will the outcome be?

Hundreds of foreign bases third party payments companies will begin, more business in foreign accounts, and etc. So many loopholes already that there is absolutely no way to controll it without making the whole banking and justice system bankrupt. It is like a cancer, the USA didn't stop the spread when online gaming first came out and now the cancer is in stage 5 massive spread and no way of curing it or stopping it in the long term.

Lot of people use panic and negative thoughts without using common sense especially on the message boards. Common sense would say public trades stocks will take a hit but soon after the bill is signed, a new era of online gaming will form. Smaller clever online gamings will form and along the big ones will continue, new clever payment systems will form, and etc.

So basically Wall street might say online gaming is dead in the short term because of the massive losses that sportingbet and 888.com, and neteller have incurred but think long term and stay away from the publicly traded companies and all the shareholder drama.


Does anyone agree or disagree with what I wrote?

[isetcap]

Very well thought out, datek. I agree completely.

[rolemand]

Except investors go where the profits are. Right now the public is pulling out of the public companies. Doesn't mean the profits are going down. In fact I would bet they are not. If in fact this bill does little to stop US bettors from placing wagers online these public companies will continue to show profits and the investors will come back.

[datek23]

Except investors go where the profits are. Right now the public is pulling out of the public companies. Doesn't mean the profits are going down. In fact I would bet they are not. If in fact this bill does little to stop US bettors from placing wagers online these public companies will continue to show profits and the investors will come back.

I agree all of those companies are still making profits but shareholders are looking down the road and when current information is very vague with mass confusion and extreme panic, shareholders dump shares...history always repeats itself.

[isetcap]

Except investors go where the profits are. Right now the public is pulling out of the public companies. Doesn't mean the profits are going down. In fact I would bet they are not. If in fact this bill does little to stop US bettors from placing wagers online these public companies will continue to show profits and the investors will come back.

In a circuitous manner, I agree with this statement also. The companies that have been quick to pull out are putting themselves on safe ground while they let the others test the rough waters. Should the groups that remain show good results as the situation stabilizes, I suspect you will see a return to the market by some of those who have left.

[jjgold]

The poker houses are done though, they will never thrive in the usa now

[nosuzieno]

Bill appears to be more targeted at Sportsbooks than anything else. More specifically, some real disincentives to companies like instadebit/netteller to handle the payment processing. Hope I'm wrong, but going to keep my accounts to bare minimum b/c really no legal recourse if they go bellyup like sportsbet did, might just find a "sorry but ya know" letter in my email when i go to cash out ...

[datek23]

Bill appears to be more targeted at Sportsbooks than anything else. More specifically, some real disincentives to companies like instadebit/netteller to handle the payment processing. Hope I'm wrong, but going to keep my accounts to bare minimum b/c really no legal recourse if they go bellyup like sportsbet did, might just find a "sorry but ya know" letter in my email when i go to cash out ...

Heres a interesting article I found....

Laurence Benhamou, AFP
Published: Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Article tools

U.S. lawmakers' high-stakes and morally charged offensive on Internet gamblers has as much chance of success as America's 1920s Prohibition against alcohol, several analysts said.

The Republican-controlled Congress Saturday hustled through a bill that outlaws U.S. banks and credit card companies from processing online bets. It was expected to be signed by President George W. Bush this week.

More Technology news

Bush to sign anti-gambling bill

Online bettors seek return of money

Web gambling under attack

Internet service providers can also block U.S. bettors' access to gambling sites, operated out of offshore tax havens but controlled by fast-growing companies based most notably in Britain and Canada.

Republicans tucked the measure into a bill aimed at enhancing port security, proclaiming a pre-election "values" agenda designed to protect youngsters from the financial and moral damage of online gambling.

London stocks of online betting sites, which derive most of their earnings in the United States, went into meltdown.

But some analysts said a potentially lucrative regulation, rather than prohibition, was still the most likely outcome for Internet gambling once November 7 elections to Congress are out of the way.

Ken Weitzner, who runs the Eye on Gambling website, said the bill "doesn't seem enforceable".

Gamblers could, for instance, wire money to offshore banks to replenish their poker accounts, or bet through third-party agents out of reach of the U.S. law.

"This is a Republican initiative, to please their religious base," he said.

"It is very possible that a Democratic administration will tax it rather than prohibit it, which would be like leaving the Dark Ages for the 21st century," Weitzner added.

Experts said the vast majority of bettors are placing online wagers on poker via a variety of websites located in places like Antigua and Gibraltar.

PartyGaming, the Gibraltar-based owner of the world's biggest online poker business, and 888 Holdings, also based in Gibraltar, said they would suspend their business with U.S. residents.

Critics noted that gambling on horse-racing and state lotteries, which enjoy powerful political patronage, was exempted from the new bill.

Some have also queried that it might bring the U.S. government afoul of the World Trade Organisation, which last year ruled in favour of the tiny Caribbean state of Antigua and Barbuda over other U.S. restrictions on cross-border gaming.

Joseph Kelly, a law professor specialising in gambling at Buffalo State College in New York state, likened the act to the widely ignored U.S. ban on the manufacture and sale of alcohol that lasted from 1920 to 1933.

"Once this is clear, in some years Congress will legislate and tax it. In 2010 online gambling might be worth over 24 billion dollars. You can't eradicate it," he said.

"You can't prohibit it in just one country, we need international regulators for the Internet," he said.

Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players' Alliance, said Congress had squandered the chance of reaping billions of dollars in taxes on legal gambling websites.

"If the goal of Congress is to protect people from the possible dangers of gambling, a prohibition is the worst way of achieving it. All it will do is push poker underground," he said.

Even the American Gaming Association, which represents the traditional casino industry in gambling meccas like Las Vegas and Atlantic City, said the new bill was a "bad idea".

AGA chief executive Frank Fahrenkopf said his group wanted a federal commission to study whether the technology exists to go after under-age gambling on the Internet while regulating and taxing above-board websites.

"I still think the next Congress will pass such a measure," he said.

[jjgold]

Rumpurs flying that ISP;s are going to block sportsbooks and casinos

[MrX]

Flying Rumpurs?

[jjgold]

X'er I just finished my 19thh beer, lost my Southern Missisiszippi bet aslo

[MrX]

I start seeing Flying Rumpurs after 12 beers. You're a better man than I.

[datek23]

another article i have found


Internet Gambling Prohibition: How Does it Affect the Consumer
October 03, 2006
by Aaron Todd

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act passed by Congress, coupled with the flurried response of Internet gambling companies around the globe, has left many wondering what the impact of the bill will have on the Internet gambling habits of Americans.

Most of the answers remain to be seen.
Read more
Related stories
Congress deals Internet gambling a bad hand | Legal analysis | Party Poker leads industry exodus | What's a good gambler to do?

Industry giants PartyGaming – parent company of Party Poker – 888, and Cryptologic, have already announced that they will stop taking bets from U.S. customers when President Bush signs the act into law. Until the law is signed, customers can wager real money at these sites, and PartyGaming will allow Americans to play free money games even after the law goes into effect.

"Customers will continue to have access to their account at any time," said John Shepherd, Director of Corporate Communications for PartyGaming. "Withdrawals from PartyAccounts are not prohibited by the Act."

BetFred.com, which hosts an Internet poker room, sportsbook and casino, is taking a different approach, closing all accounts the company believes "originate in the USA." Account holders were sent an e-mail with a phone number to call to claim their remaining balance from their accounts on Tuesday morning.

Legal expert I. Nelson Rose says online casinos who have pulled out of the U.S. may change their minds.

"I think they didn't read the bill," Rose said. "I know the boards of directors were meeting over the weekend, but it took me a full day to figure out (what the bill means)."

While the bill outlaws U.S. financial institutions from allowing transactions to Internet gambling accounts, Rose points out that most banks and credit cards already block them.

Federal regulators will have 270 days from the time Bush signs the bill to create rules that financial institutions will have to follow to be in compliance with the law. What regulators do with offshore third-party payment processors such as Neteller and *******, which do allow transfers to Internet gambling accounts, may determine the fate of American online gamblers.

"There's a danger there," Rose says. "I don't think 100 percent of Neteller's business is with gambling sites. Unless they take a zero tolerance policy and say as long as Neteller allows money to be transferred to a gambling site, you can't transfer money to Neteller, then Neteller would not get on the list."

Rose also points out that the bill does not make it illegal to for a user to gamble online, but considering the industry response, it may be much more difficult for a consumer to find a site that will accept a bet.

[pags11]

we will survive...

[Santo]

The only flying rumors are one's JJ starts

[jjgold]

Online gaming flourished because of ease of getting money into places

That no longer will be the case, online gaming is going to take huge hits and lucky if 5 books are operating.

You will see

[pags11]

JJ,

you know chicken little?...