US Moves To Implement Rules Banning Most Internet Gambling

[MonkeyF0cker]

My point is that the UIGEA and the subsequent federal action was a collective push at eliminating Internet gaming from the U.S. marketplace. I'm not aware of the specifics but the UIGEA somehow opened up publicly traded corporations to prosecution from the U.S. government. It's why you see Full Tilt and Poker Stars still in the market but Party Poker was forced to exit. Neteller similarly was a publicly traded corporation. That law opened the door to their demise.

[gm_mets85]

credit cards are already banned.. I don't see anything changing... Its mind blogging that they even have time for this when there are much bigger concerns. Barney Frank supports sports gambling and poker. He feels people should be able to do what they want with their money. This is clear from his statements.

[WileOut]

Yes gm mets85, if Barney Frank had his way, all online gambling would be legal. He is on our side.

However he knows that he may not be able to completely have it his way, and was totally willing to throw sports betting under the bus with HR 6870 in the sake of online poker. Read HR 6870. It says poker is legal but to go after sports betting operations hard within 90 days. Thank goodness the legislation stalled and hasn't gone anywhere yet.

Frank is open to compromise and a compromise would mean legalize poker and really put it to the online sports gambling operations.

I agree that this UIGEA enactment will not change much if anything. But time will tell and I'm sure some insiders know more than we do.

[unde0087]

My bank has already stopped all credit card transactions but it doesn't stop me. If you haven't noticed most good sportsbooks have already addressed the problem by adding other middle man online companies such as ewalletexpress and others. You really think the government is going to be able to stop this. I mean you have dems already fighting to legalize sportsbetting again. Americans are the #1 sportsbettors, online companies can't afford to loose the money generated by us, they will find a way to keep us as customers or many books will go out of business. Goverment tried to stop Neteller thought that would do something and look what happened about 20 other popped up. It will be a never ending battle that they just can't win in my opinion. They have already passed laws and who has it stopped? No one.

[bigboydan]

So does that mean get all my money out now, or will the sites still have to honor what they owe.

Just because the rules change doesn't mean the game ends sir. I feel pulling your funds would be deemed as an overreaction on players part, because books will find other creative ways for players to keep playing just like they have after the Oct. 13, 2006 law that was past.

[Utah]

Just because the rules change doesn't mean the game ends sir. I feel pulling your funds would be deemed as an overreaction on players part, because books will find other creative ways for players to keep playing just like they have after the Oct. 13, 2006 law that was past.

Hi bigboydan,

I have zero doubt that there will be deposit options. There are new options constantly and I used used two new options this week. But, I do this full-time so I am willing to accept the hassle. My concern is how it affects the health of the books if the average gambler just stops playing. Can the A and B rated books easily survive the passage of this crap or does it put some highly rated books at risk?

[bigboydan]

Hi bigboydan,

I have zero doubt that there will be deposit options. There are new options constantly and I used used two new options this week. But, I do this full-time so I am willing to accept the hassle. My concern is how it affects the health of the books if the average gambler just stops playing. Can the A and B rated books easily survive the passage of this crap or does it put some highly rated books at risk?

I'm not going to sit here and tell you this might not be the case, because I could feel we could see it effect some shops. However, I doubt it will effect the bigger ones like A's or B+ rated books at all, because their client base is strong enough to endure the casual bettors.

[Willie Bee]

Once the law passes and goes into effect, which apparently will be sometime before Bush's term as president expires.

Seems about right for the guy who "will go down in history as one of the best presidents the U.S. ever had."

[pico]

does this mean anything? isn't credit card and bankwires from US already blocked? what else is new?

unless they block western union, this legislation doesn't seem that serious.

[Brock Landers]

It says no credit cards transactions. So what's new about that?

i was going to saw the same thing, so what?!

[gm_mets85]

Yes gm mets85, if Barney Frank had his way, all online gambling would be legal. He is on our side.

However he knows that he may not be able to completely have it his way, and was totally willing to throw sports betting under the bus with HR 6870 in the sake of online poker. Read HR 6870. It says poker is legal but to go after sports betting operations hard within 90 days. Thank goodness the legislation stalled and hasn't gone anywhere yet.

Frank is open to compromise and a compromise would mean legalize poker and really put it to the online sports gambling operations.

I agree that this UIGEA enactment will not change much if anything. But time will tell and I'm sure some insiders know more than we do.

I did read that already... it does throw sports gambling under the bus. But the thing is I don't see that passing. I really don't see much changing. They would not be able to tell if money is going to poker or sports gambling even if they did pass HR 6870, however I would not see it as a good thing. The only way I see a total stop is if the government would block these gambling sites out. Which I also do not see happening because of the 1st ammendment.. The true problem is that there is no one really lobbying for the sports gambler it is the Poker Alliance group who is trying to turn things around. People need to organize to try and legalize all gaming online until then people are just going to have to jump hoops to try to get money on and off sites. It is a money issue. They do not want all this money leaving the country. They will not say this.. they will bring up moral issues and such but when I can go to the race track and bet freely with my family or go down the street and buy a lottery ticket... or go to an indian reservation and bet at a casino this is all fine in the government's view because they are earning TAXES and that is what it is all about. They should atleast study the effects of gambling and then come to conclusions not pull things out of their asses. I know I make good money off of this by being smart and I know maybe some other people do that also. I should freely be able to do what I want to do when I am not hurting any one. Hopefully the democratics can do one thing right and leagalize this but government has to figure out the other financial system worries before this.

[Iamtheman]

There will always be a way around that, with so many restrictions they are only making it stronger.

[datek23]

What I have learned over the years is, if there is a will then there is a way around everything. There is just too much money and everything is very vague. They could try but it will not work effectively unless they go after Bodog or Pinnacle even then, new sites keep popping up.

Friday November 7th, 2008 / 0h56



By Corey Boles Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The Treasury Department has finalized regulations that would effectively ban online gambling in the U.S. and is trying to have them implemented in the waning days of the Bush administration.
The controversial rules would make it illegal for banks to process credit card transactions from most Internet gambling sites.
Their implementation has been opposed by groups advocating individuals' right to gamble, the banking industry, Democratic lawmakers in Congress and even officials at the Federal Reserve.
The rules stem from a last-minute addition to a law passed in the final hours of the Republican controlled Congress in 2006. The provisions related to online gambling were included in an unrelated port security bill.
The Treausury Department forwarded the final regulations to the Office of Management and Budget on Oct. 21, a necessary step towards their implementation.
It's standard practice for outgoing administrations to finalize controversial regulations before leaving office, a practice known as a midnight drop.
The law as drafted by Congress includes some exemptionsfor horse race betting, interstate online lotteries and betting on fantasy sports.
But draft rules published by the Treasury in October 2007 don't define what would be considered an illegal transaction, and there has been much confusion as to what types of online gambling would be rendered illegal.
Banks have warned they may block all online gambling transactions rather than try to determine which ones are illegal. An official from the Federal Reserve testified before Congress in April that the draft regulations created considerable uncertainty.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, attempted to drum up support from fellow lawmakers for legislation that would amend the law to allow online gambling transactions to continue.
He was unsuccessful but pledged to return to the issue next year.
The Poker Players Alliance, a group formed to combat the law, has fought against its implementation. It argues that Internet poker should be exempted from the law.
"It's really remarkable that this administration would try to push this out given the burden it would place on financial institutions at this time of financial crisis," said John Pappas, the executive director of the group.
Pappas is meeting Friday with officials from the OMB, whose job it is to formally implement the regulations, in a last ditch effort to prevent them from being put on the books.
He wants officials to wait until President-elect Barack Obama's administration takes office in January to allow for a thorough review of the potential impact of the rules.
A Treasury spokeswoman did not return phone calls seeking comment for this report.
-By Corey Boles, Dow Jones News


Friday November 7th, 2008 / 0h56 Source : Dowjones Business News

[Brock Landers]

if any of you played back in the mid 90's like i did, BEFORE the Neteller days, you know this is meaningless. There are a lot of ways to get money to and from the books, But it might not be instantaneous. then again there is always ** and **, A BS law in 2006, and more BS when it gets "implemented"

[robert715]

That article means nothing.