-
-
finally the tide is starting to turn in our favorComment -
I wonder if it will pass.Comment -
This bill will make it more difficult to gamble on sports online.Comment -
-
it will benifit usComment -
Even the linked article supports Durito’s post.
Worthless, explicitly anti-sportsbetting bill.Comment -
Doesn't help at all.Comment -
Actually it will help.
If a sportsbook had a poker room, there is nothing in the bill that would prevent a player from moving the money from its "gaming room" to its "sportsbook.
The language of the bill will allow US players to deposit into a poker book, but the US has no authority or jurisdiction that would allow them to see how that money is played once at the respective book.Comment -
I think this is bad for offshore sportsbetting... it very well could contain language that makes placing a bet on sports illegal. This is good for poker, good for US based tracks, bad for sports bettors. On the bright side, it could allow Neteller to come back to life.Last edited by mtneer1212; 10-01-08, 08:25 PM.Comment -
As I asked in another thread, why then wait for this bill to lift the banking restrictions on poker? Why doesn't every sportsbook already have an affiliated business that sells pies, or any other legal good or service? After all, the "US has no authority or jurisdiction that would allow them to see how that money" is then transferred from the pie business to the sportsbook.Comment -
Good for on-line poker.
BAD for on-line sports betting for US bettors.
This legislation would effectively kill internet sportsbetting in the US (not that it is already in bad shape) for the sake of on-line poker - which is exactly what the sports leagues (NFL, NBA...) want - with all the opt-out clauses included.
Write your representative to vote AGAINST this bill.Comment -
If JC says it will be bad for online sports betting, then it will be bad for online sports betting.Comment -
Just curious, how in the world would banks know if a check came from a sportsbook or poker site?Comment -
"The new legislation also calls for institutions to block Internet wagers on sports, excepting jai-alai and horse and dog racing."
How would they block this? I think they are trying to block certain sites by going through internet providers. This will be a questionable pratice because it is limiting access to certain material... which is scary. Personally I don't think this will pass and everything will be the same. But the problem here is that the Players Poker Alliance and other organizations are actually trying to do something while no one is really supporting the sports gambler. Essentially I do not think there is any difference between a poker player and sports gambler. Yes, poker has some skill but you can argue the same for sports gambling. There is no skill in playing the lottery and that is legal. As noted by many people there is just too much hypocrisy.Comment -
You are exactly right!
Basically, things would go back to pre-2006 days in which we would have a processor like Neteller to move funds. There is no way the U.S. government would know the difference between funds being used for Poker or sportsbetting.
It will be interesting to see how the brick-and-mortor U.S. casinos complain because they'll again lose business to the Off-shore competition. I suspect they'll start funding the naive Religious Right groups again to push for re-implementing the UIEGA!
Thank god for the Decmocrats! This news is HUGE!
Comment -
From the article:
["The new bill would put off implementation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006."]
Do you know what that means? It means that the sportsbook environment goes back to pre-2006 status or at least something similar.
You guys who keep complaining that sports wagering isn't directly approved in these bills are totally off target. Since when was sports wagering over the internet and phone ever approved??
According to Bush and the Republican party, the 1961 Wire act fobade sports wagering over any physical phone lines. All internet data hits a phone line at some point.
What the 2006 UIEGA chaned was that it made a concentrated effort to hold financial services such as banks and Neteller responsible by threatening harsh fines and prison terms for their executives/employees. OK....so offshore sportsbook execs should avoid traveling through U.S. airports...fine. As long as the can freely send money back an forth to members, then where is the problem?Comment -
“The new legislation also calls for institutions to block Internet wagers on sports, excepting jai-alai and horse and dog racing. “
It doesn’t repeal the UIGEA. It says to finally move forward to implement it, but only against the truly evil vice of sportsbetting, not quaint, all-American activities like poker and horse racing.
And if the response is “Oh that’s good news, because then the sportsbooks will all affiliate with poker sites, and we’ll all just make believe we’re sending money back and forth for poker and no one will be the wiser,” please see my post #11 in this thread.
And perhaps explain why Jay Cohen, who went to prison as a matter of principle in support of your right to wager with offshore sportsbooks—and whose book does indeed have a poker room—does not see this legislation as a welcome opportunity to resume hassle-free money transfers to and from the books.Comment -
If anybody need help for open account on europe guy i can help.I am from europe.Comment -
Actually the bill suspends enforcement of the UIGEA on everything EXCEPT sports betting. As a matter of fact the amended bill that went through the committee expressly tells them to start ENFORCING the UIGEA against sports betting in 60 days.From the article:
["The new bill would put off implementation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006."]
Do you know what that means? It means that the sportsbook environment goes back to pre-2006 status or at least something similar.
You guys who keep complaining that sports wagering isn't directly approved in these bills are totally off target. Since when was sports wagering over the internet and phone ever approved?? According to Bush and the Republican party, the 1961 Wire act fobade sports wagering over any physical phone lines. All internet data hits a phone line at some point.
What the 2006 UIEGA chaned was that it made a concentrated effort to hold financial services such as banks and Neteller responsible by threatening harsh fines and prison terms for their executives/employees. OK....so offshore sportsbook execs should avoid traveling through U.S. airports...fine. As long as the can freely send money back an forth to members, then where is the problem?
From the bill:
b) INTERIMFINAL REGULATIONS ON UNLAWFUL INTERNET SPORTS GAMBLING.—Before the end of the 60 day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall jointly prescribe interim final regulations as required by subchapter IV of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, to the extent that such regulations pertain to unlawful Internet sports gambling.
As for the poker room ---> sportsbook deposit methods, that will work about a week. They are idiots but they are not stupid. It's just more cat and mouse stuff.
This bill, HR 6870, goes out of its way to throw sports betting under the bus in the hope of saving poker. HR 5767 would have suspended the UIGEA regs for everything. If 6870 passes, we will never see a 5767.
The PPA has done an excellent job of organizing players. It's too bad sports bettors can never organize themselves.Comment -
Why do you say that?As for the poker room ---> sportsbook deposit methods, that will work about a week. They are idiots but they are not stupid. It's just more cat and mouse stuff.
Once the money is into an offshore account, I would think it would be untrackable.Comment -
Remember that the sportsbooks are fully legal in their host countries and according to International Law (World Trade Oraganization) They report their income/activities legally to their host governments. It wouldn't make sense for them to lie about selling pies.
If Jay Cohen is so smart then why is he one of the few people in prison? Maybe it's not welcome for getting his ass out of jail but that's another issue.
Also, most sportsbook already have a poker site as part of their service.
the bill doesn't say to move forward and implement the UIEGA regarding financial activities of sending money back-and-forth between offshore sites and U.S. customers.Comment -
again, are you saying that sports wagering/investing was deemed acceptable by the Republican Congress and Bush prior to 2006? Where does it ever say that?
Again, the UIEGA was written precisely to go after Neteller and the financial institutions that allowed for the flow of funds from Site to Customer and vice versa. Sports wagering/investing was always considered punishable by the law according to Bush and the Republicans since the 1961 Wire Act.
Therefore, removing the UIEGA allow money to flow freely again between Poker websites (which WINK WINK also have sportsbooks)
Look, why do you think the UIEGA will be stopped? It's because the Banks lobbied hard since 2006 to repeal it because they don't have the time and money to go through millions of daily financial transaction figuring out which one is related to sports investing. For God's sake....how do you think decisions are made in Washington?Comment -
JC, Nice argument Retard. Howard Stern is your Hero and you call other people idiots? At least finish highschool before you use such big words Moron.
You obviously don't get it because it's beyond your 16-year old pee brain. So just go back to doing your beginners algebra homeworkComment -
JC,
how do you propose the government "move forward and implement the UIEGA with respect to Sportsbetting."
I can't wait to hear you highschool answer
Comment -
HAHA
You are the one who obviously can't read.
As for nice arguments, "If Jay Cohen is so smart then why is he one of the few people in prison? Maybe it's not welcome for getting his ass out of jail but that's another issue." Uh, yeah, that makes sense.
Finish high school? Very funny, would you like to compare degrees?Comment -
That's what the bill we are discussing instructs the Treasury Department to do. If you think it's impossible, then none of this matters anyway.Comment -
-
Getting back on topic now (since you were first to start with insults off topic),
Yes, it seems very difficult to enforce.
Consider that it was already very difficult for the Banks to block ALL internet sites regarding poker, sports investing....Everything. Now isn't it exponentially more difficult to block only fincancial transactions regarding sports wagering while allowing Poker fincancial related transactions?
I believe it's a sly way of repealing the UIEGA while mollifying the sports leagues. Who pushed for it's repeal? The answer is the BANKS. It wasn't a group of lazy losers who post on gambling message boards (don't worry, I'm not including you in that group. I won't insult you if you don't insult me).
The Banks don't want to spend resources blocking internet casino sites for any reason. This gives them a way out by rationally arguing that it's impossible to decipher between poker and sports wagering. AS you know, the devil is in the details we'd really have to dissect the entire BILL in it's final format.Comment
