Simply incorrect. You seem to have confusion with the definition of those "engaged in the business of betting or wagering". "In analyzing the first element, the legislative history[60] of the Wire Act seems to support the position that casual bettors would fall outside of the prosecutorial reach of the statute. During the House of Representatives debate on the bill, Congressman Emanuel Celler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee stated "[t]his bill only gets after the bookmaker, the gambler who makes it his business to take bets or to lay off bets. . . It does not go after the causal gambler who bets $2 on a race. That type of transaction is not within the purvue of the statute."[61] In Baborian, the federal district court concluded that Congress did not intend to include social bettors within the umbrella of the statute, even those bettors that bet large sums of money and show a certain degree of sophistication.[62]"
source See S. 1656, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961); see also H.R. 7039, 87th Cong., 1st Sess.(1961) United States v. Baborian, 528 F. Supp. 324, 328 (D.R.I. 1981) (quoting 107 Cong.Rec. 16,534 (1961)). So now that your confusion has been cleared up (unless from some bizarre reason you still insist the wire act applies to players), we can move on to your other reasons for believing online gambling for players "is illegal in every state". You did say "for starters". Or was that all you had?