EPTFeds cracking down on online poker..? - Page 16
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Pokerstars is an online poker site. Pokerstrategy is an educational training site. They are not the same site. The TSL3 is sponsored by pokerstrategy.com. | ||
|
Demonace34
United States2493 Posts
| ||
|
Johnnybb
Denmark486 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Layden
United States45 Posts
On April 16 2011 07:14 SonuvBob wrote: Hm... I saw a post somewhere saying where either PS's or FTP's stored, but I can't find it now. From the PS FAQ: Remember that money in players accounts, while not part of operational expenses are still considered assets of the company (until they are paid out) and are fair game to be frozen. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On April 16 2011 07:14 prejler wrote: umad america? God, I can't wait to hit my one year anniversary so I can have the satisfaction of clicking the report button... | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 16 2011 07:14 Demonace34 wrote: Maybe I don't understand online poker at all, but why would anyone leave over 1k in there on a daily basis? Just cash out your money once per week, and put in enough to last you the next 2 or whatever. To be honest, virtual money in computer systems scares the shit out of me, so I would never keep more money than I felt I could lose in anything except an FDIC bank. Hope everything works out for you guys, but hopefully this will be a lesson for people to be more careful with the amount of money they have tied up in these sites. Yes.. you don't understand poker at all. Just cash out your money once per week, and put in enough to last you the next 2 or whatever. what does this even mean? like, what are you saying? There are plenty of players who can only play 1 buyin with $1000. And good bankroll management might require, say. 50 buyins. Or even 100. Or more. So to play their stakes they have to have $100,000 online. For higher stakes players it would be higher. | ||
|
Seide
United States831 Posts
On April 16 2011 07:13 JeeJee wrote: hehe you'd think if the us gov't cared about companies abusing loopholes to screw uncle sam out of tax dollars, they'd go after companies like google, microsoft or facebook (brb swindling sam out of tens of billions of tax dollars every year, np) Yeah, this is true :/ but its a lot easier to go after something a large proportion of the population views as evil. There would be a lot of backlash going after a company that pretty much everyone in the developed world relies on for basic solutions for modern living. | ||
|
Aus.Force
Australia1278 Posts
On April 16 2011 07:14 Demonace34 wrote: Maybe I don't understand online poker at all, but why would anyone leave over 1k in there on a daily basis? Just cash out your money once per week, and put in enough to last you the next 2 or whatever. To be honest, virtual money in computer systems scares the shit out of me, so I would never keep more money than I felt I could lose in anything except an FDIC bank. Hope everything works out for you guys, but hopefully this will be a lesson for people to be more careful with the amount of money they have tied up in these sites. because 1k is worth nothing to many a player on there. Look up Gus Hanson, Antonio Esfandiari etc and see how much they win/lose in a hand. 1k is like watching bill gates burn a $100 note... he could care less | ||
|
Kurr
Canada2338 Posts
On April 16 2011 07:13 jdseemoreglass wrote: So we need the government to control us for our own good? This is the philosophy today... thank god I don't have children. Some people do need the government to control them when it comes to gambling. There are enough examples of people losing everything they own to gambling debts that I don't think I need to elaborate. I'm not trying to demonize poker. I play it once in a while, it's fun. But I have self control. If I lose 10$, I'm not going to play again right away. Some people instead play 20$ more when they lose. Just an example, but yes, people are that stupid. | ||
|
Slithe
United States985 Posts
On April 16 2011 07:02 Modafinil wrote: I think you guys thinking that the government could just legalize and tax online gambling are forgetting that plenty of American Christians think that gambling is a horrible sin and should be illegal. And plenty of non-Christians think it's socially destructive and want it banned regardless of religious reasons. There isn't really a lot of support for fully legalized online gambling in America. Maybe 50/50 at best. Kind of like weed. People are within their rights to have differing moral views. The problem is that those people who don't support gambling and weed are fundamentally misguided in thinking that it's the government's job to impose such restrictions. It is unconstitutional, and they are being distinctly un-American by pushing such legislation. On April 16 2011 07:05 Kurr wrote: Still, gambling is a real problem and online it's even harder to stop people from doing so. All the money you win comes from someone else at the end of the day. Some people need the government to hold their hands in these type of matters because they have no self control. I disagree wholeheartedly here. The government is overstepping it's boundaries in a big way by prohibiting consenting adults from doing what they want. The United States is supposed to be a free country. | ||
|
Soap
Brazil1546 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 16 2011 06:59 Jibba wrote: If they could get a cut, there'd be no qualms about it. I know people here are extremely invested in poker, but a lot of you would be cheering for the DoJ if it had been one of the other multi-billion dollar companies abusing loopholes and using offshore bank accounts. A dirty business got caught. Some of you are starting to sound like hardcore libertarians, especially the Europeans. :x Except pokerstars isn't an american business in the first place. What they got caught doing was breaking laws to bypass the roadblocks the U.S. government was intentionally putting in their way. They weren't actually harming anyone, nor taking money from anyone. This is a situation the DOJ wanted to happen, the DOJ was never in the right in the first place they just wanted a cut of what wasn't theirs. | ||
|
Gryffes
United Kingdom763 Posts
| ||
|
Aus.Force
Australia1278 Posts
On April 16 2011 07:18 Kurr wrote: Some people do need the government to control them when it comes to gambling. There are enough examples of people losing everything they own to gambling debts that I don't think I need to elaborate. I'm not trying to demonize poker. I play it once in a while, it's fun. But I have self control. If I lose 10$, I'm not going to play again right away. Some people instead play 20$ more when they lose. Just an example, but yes, people are that stupid. same can be said for alcohol, drugs, smoking and so on.... regulation these days is out of hand. there's got to be a point where people are responsible for their own actions. but then again, these are the problems of all western countries. | ||
|
Slithe
United States985 Posts
On April 16 2011 07:18 Kurr wrote: Some people do need the government to control them when it comes to gambling. There are enough examples of people losing everything they own to gambling debts that I don't think I need to elaborate. I'm not trying to demonize poker. I play it once in a while, it's fun. But I have self control. If I lose 10$, I'm not going to play again right away. Some people instead play 20$ more when they lose. Just an example, but yes, people are that stupid. People have the right to be stupid and do stupid things to themselves. If you believe that it's the government's job to treat the public like children, then you are directly in conflict with the principles of the constitution. | ||
|
Modafinil
United States35 Posts
On April 16 2011 07:06 KimTaeYeon wrote: For the last time, online poker is NOT illegal in the US In this instance, govt is targeting the sites for their PAYMENT PROCESSING techniques For the last time, IT IS. Q1. What state do you live in? A1. Whatever state you just said, it has a law against gambling at all, or unlicensed gambling. Doesn't have to be online, just gambling. Q2. What does that have to do with federal law? A2. Read UIGEA: (10) UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING. (A) IN GENERAL.—The term 'unlawful Internet gambling' means to place, receive, or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made. So as soon as any poker site receives your bet, anyone else's bet, and then transmits that bet to you or anyone else in a state where gambling is illegal, the poker site has violated the UIGEA. If your state allows high stakes poker with no regulation (it doesn't), then online poker is legal there (it isn't). Just because there is no explicit federal law that says "online poker is illegal in the US" doesn't mean anything. Further, a later section states, § 5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for unlawful Internet gambling No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling: and then it proceeds to say "your money" in about 500 different ways. Online poker is illegal in the United States. End of story. Some sites thought they could get around it and are now paying for that. Some sites were wise enough to get out before they screwed themselves over (like PartyPoker and PacificPoker). | ||
|
Soap
Brazil1546 Posts
On April 16 2011 07:19 travis wrote: Except pokerstars isn't an american business in the first place. What they got caught doing was breaking laws to bypass the roadblocks the U.S. government was intentionally putting in their way. They weren't actually harming anyone, nor taking money from anyone. This is a situation the DOJ wanted to happen, the DOJ was never in the right in the first place they just wanted a cut of what wasn't theirs. They could have played nice and left the US market until a legal framework could be set, as PartyPoker (the biggest room at the time) did. I can't care less if they get sucked out of every cent they have, but to punish the players or the industry itself is outlandish. | ||
|
ilbh
Brazil1606 Posts
well... at least they have it here in Brazil, I can deposit direct to their banking accounts here in the Banco do Brasil (brazilian bank). I don't understand why they have that old law in the USA against online poker... is it only in the USA? I mean, poker is not gambling... I don't get it | ||
|
Demonace34
United States2493 Posts
On April 16 2011 07:16 travis wrote: Yes.. you don't understand poker at all. what does this even mean? like, what are you saying? There are plenty of players who can only play 1 buyin with $1000. And good bankroll management might require, say. 50 buyins. Or even 100. Or more. So to play their stakes they have to have $100,000 online. For higher stakes players it would be higher. I was asking a question... I see my newbie friends that play on these sites with 200-400 bucks. I would figure that people would budget how much they put in weekly and only ever put enough in to play for however long they desired/lost or won it all. Next time I post my opinion or ask a question about a topic in the general forums, I'll be sure to look up more information... good luck on everyone getting their money back. | ||
|
Ingenol
United States1328 Posts
On April 16 2011 07:18 Kurr wrote: Some people do need the government to control them when it comes to gambling. There are enough examples of people losing everything they own to gambling debts that I don't think I need to elaborate. I'm not trying to demonize poker. I play it once in a while, it's fun. But I have self control. If I lose 10$, I'm not going to play again right away. Some people instead play 20$ more when they lose. Just an example, but yes, people are that stupid. Regardless of whether they cannot control themselves, it is not the role of government to control them. If you believe otherwise, why shouldn't the government deliver prepackaged meals to everyone in order to help people who overeat and thus cannot control themselves? | ||
|
Layden
United States45 Posts
On April 16 2011 07:20 Aus.Force wrote: same can be said for alcohol, drugs, smoking and so on.... regulation these days is out of hand. there's got to be a point where people are responsible for their own actions. but then again, these are the problems of all western countries. The philosophy you describe is embodied in America by the Liberitarian Party, which sadly isn't represented in any for at any level of the U.S. Government. For those of you unfamiliar with U.S. politics, we have a Social Conservative/Small Government party in the Republicans and a Social Liberal/Big Government party in the Democrats. Laws like the UIGEA/DOMA/Prop 8/Drug laws and other social restricting laws are usually passed by both parties but anti-gambling is a republican initiative. Strangely the U.S. electorate tends to be divided 50/50 between both parties. Social politics play a big, sometimes strange role, in the U.S. which is why the budget battle wasn't over money but Abortion. | ||
| ||
