[TLD]

But as to the topic of the thread itself, one thing I’ve been thinking about that often comes up in these discussions (though I don’t see it really being talked about in this particular thread) is the claim that we should welcome legislation like this, because if it makes it easier for poker sites, then sportsbettors can just send money to and from the poker sites and then transfer it to affiliated sportsbooks.

Admittedly this isn’t something I’ve researched or thought through in great detail—so I’m more than happy to be corrected—but I’m very skeptical of that claim.

I’m skeptical because, if that were the predictable result of such legislation, why wouldn’t we be seeing the same phenomenon at work now? Not with poker, but with any one of a billion other unambiguously legal products or services? If this legislation would mean I can get money to and from Greek’s poker site hassle free, and then just transfer it from there to Greek’s sportsbook and no one would be the wiser, why isn’t Greek selling toothbrushes or baseball cards or magazine subscriptions now that I can pretend to send money for and then really use for sportsbetting?

Neteller allowed other uses for its service besides getting money to and from gambling sites. Why didn’t that save it? Couldn’t people just have plausibly said back then, “Hey, the government and the banks can’t prove this check or wire I got from Neteller is for gambling, so there’s nothing they can do”? But that didn’t stop the powers that be from seizing assets, arresting people, driving Neteller out of the U.S., etc.

For that matter, the check processors today are third parties who don’t limit themselves to gambling transactions. Yet they’re constantly being exposed and blocked by banks, resulting in delays lasting weeks and months to get checks to the U.S. from books that used to pay in days.

Heck, if it were as easy as is being suggested, then Al Qaeda could sell Dolly Parton CDs, and if I were inclined to send them money to fund terrorist operations I could openly do so because no one could “prove” I wasn’t instead sending them that money for CDs.

So I don’t buy this idea that if the government or the banks can’t know for sure which of multiple sources money is being sent to or from, and at least one of said sources is legally fine, then there’s nothing they can do but let the transaction go through. More likely if they can’t know whether the money’s for poker or sports, that ambiguity will constitute a reason for them to block the transaction.

So I don’t think the upshot of legislation like this will be that sportsbooks will somehow be cleansed by associating with the now legal poker sites. To the contrary I suspect it’ll be a “guilty until proven innocent” deal where poker sites would be tainted by the still illegal sportsbooks. That is, poker sites and check processors and such would want to disassociate themselves from businesses that it’s still illegal to send money to and from, so as not to have their own transactions blocked.

It’s not going to be any easier to send and receive sportsbook money by pretending it’s for legal poker, than it is now by pretending it’s for phone cards or as a gift from your close personal friend Hector Gonzalez Gonzalez from Lima, Peru, or the other shenanigans we’ve been reduced to. The same cat and mouse games.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I'm wondering what sort of effect this could have on several of the A rated books out there currently. How much will liquidity be effected on Matchbook, for instance, should a bill such as this successfully remove U.S. customers from their client base? Will this bill spell the doom of some of these books out there? Or won't it effect them to that great of an extent? Would it be a feasible option for me to just move out of the U.S. should this legislation pass and effectively remove the U.S. players out of the marketplace? I honestly can't believe things continue to get worse in this regard. Who do these politicians think they are? I'd be more than happy to have these sites report earnings to the IRS and have them taxed if it meant keeping the option to play alive. They certainly need the extra money anyway. Is it purely laziness that these politicians will not look to regulation rather than elimination? Or is it another case of imposing their "moral" will on their constituents once again? This government is teetering on the brink of absurdity. Is it ever going to end?

[reno cool]

I tend to think you're right tld. Many of us tend to think the govt can't do anything until they have absolute proof(maybe all those crime dramas), But the reality seems to be closer to the idea they do what they want and find justification or rationalizations later.

[donjuan]

Or is it another case of imposing their "moral" will on their constituents once again? This government is teetering on the brink of absurdity. Is it ever going to end?

Something like that. Of course with a $9 trillion national debt, all of these bailouts and the Iraq War you'd think they'd be looking for income streams. Nah, let's just lower taxes and let the grandchildren pay for it.

[poetwarrior41]

AIG is going broke and were worried about finding a way to make a wager.

Well said Fishhead, i respect JC immensley, but sorry we got more pressing needs these days then helping he and his partners line their pockets anymore. The post up business is dead, its back to the underground!