|
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. |
On April 16 2011 08:49 Xursian wrote:
Q: Is my PokerStars account balance used for your operational expenses or is it kept in a separate account?
A: PokerStars is proud that, under special banking arrangements, an amount covering the total of all players' account balances is held in segregated accounts, not used for any operational expenses. These segregated accounts are managed by one of Europe's leading financial services groups. These arrangements ensure that PokerStars can at all times fulfil its obligations towards its players, and provides further reassurance that players' funds are always secure with PokerStars.
Be at ease Americans...
How is this any relief?
according to:
On April 16 2011 08:33 Go0g3n wrote:
Russian news (lenta.ru) posted an article about this. 76 Bank accounts registered in 14 countries were frozen, operation was carried out by FBI and Interpol. The 11 conspirators, if convicted on all charges, can get over 50 years in prison each, 3 of them have already been arrested in US, others, reportedly, are in Costa Rica, Isle of Man and Ireland.
Now guess, which countries normally cooperate the most with the US...
If the news above are true that's pretty bad for everybody located anywhere that played on those poker sites...
|
On April 16 2011 08:12 travis wrote:
The law you quoted talks about the transferring of funds. In what way does it make it illegal to play poker for money that is already on a site? (it doesn't)
Oh... man. I see the confusion now.
I've never been saying it's illegal to *play*. If you look back at the first post I was responding to, it was
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
My response is that *operating an online poker site* is definitely illegal in the US which is why after UIGEA, everyone either went offshore and tried to keep US customers, or just blocked US customers. It is *not* just the "PAYMENT PROCESSING techniques". Operating an online poker site in the US is illegal. (And, yes "in the US" includes "can be accessed in the US.")
I agree, the Oregon law definitely doesn't make it illegal for *you* to *play* (although it would still be "unlawful gambling" and an "unlawful game" since it's not an authorized game). It just makes it illegal for them to run it.
But you might be happy to know that you can now sue to recover anything you lost!
30.740 Right of gambling loser to recover double losses. All persons losing money or anything of value at or on any unlawful game described in ORS 167.117, 167.122 and 167.127 shall have a cause of action to recover from the dealer winning the same, or proprietor for whose benefit such game was played or dealt, or such money or thing of value won, twice the amount of the money or double the value of the thing so lost.
So if you kept records for all of your, say, tournament entries, lost cash game buy-ins, etc, you could actually sue to recover twice the amount! You'll have to get in line behind a lot of people, but, hey, who knows.
|
On April 16 2011 08:12 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 08:02 Modafinil wrote:On April 16 2011 07:46 travis wrote:On April 16 2011 07:36 Modafinil wrote:On April 16 2011 07:29 travis wrote:On April 16 2011 07:22 Modafinil wrote: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). You're wrong dude, you don't know what you are talking about. transmitting money means sending it to the site. when you make bets the money is already on the site you aren't transmitting anything. also, there's been multiple precedents set for poker being a "game of skill". you shouldn't be so confident when you're wrong, anyways. or it's at least highly debated and hasn't been definitively interpreted one way or another (but pretty much all research I have done on the matter, which im sure is more extensive than what you've done, agrees with what I am saying here) Ok, let's try this one step at a time, since you couldn't handle it all at once. Q1. What state do you live in? Oregon Ok, ORS 167.109: (1) A person engaged in an Internet gambling business may not knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful gambling using the Internet - (money, whether check/EFT/wire etc or money that came through those means) ORS 167.117 (24): "Unlawful" means not specifically authorized by law. Is Pokerstars/FTP/AB/etc "specifically authorized by law" in Oregon? Are you "specifically authorized by law" to gamble on the internet? No. Thus it is "unlawful gambling" for you to play internet poker in Oregon, and it is illegal for the sites to receive your money, even indirectly. Is "poker" gambling in Oregon? Yes: ORS 167.117 (7): "Gambling" means that a person stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. Because it is against Oregon state law, it is a violation of the UIGEA. We could repeat this for every state. But even if UIGEA didn't exist, it'd still be illegal in your state, and sites could still be liable under state law, which is fine for any definition of "illegal". Time to leave "work", bbl. The law you quoted talks about the transferring of funds. In what way does it make it illegal to play poker for money that is already on a site? (it doesn't)
How would you get the money there in the first place ? Also your counterargument seems to be based purely on semantics and such tricks should not work in any reasonably designed justice system.
|
Thank goodness the U.S. government is tackling the hard-line issues like this one instead of silly shit like America's massive incarceration rate, unsustainable transfer payment systems, or an outrageously inflated budget.
|
On April 16 2011 09:08 Modafinil wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 08:12 travis wrote:
The law you quoted talks about the transferring of funds. In what way does it make it illegal to play poker for money that is already on a site? (it doesn't) Oh... man. I see the confusion now. I've never been saying it's illegal to *play*.
oh haha. Yay ambiguity! :p
|
Heart goes out to the guys with bankrolls they can't touch and no other way to make money... seems like such a waste. BTW, to sue for lost money you would have to prove you didn't know that the checks you received from the company were coming to you illegally. Pretty difficult to prove in a case like this.
From another point of view how does something like this effect an e-sport sponsor like poker strategy who has done the TSL twice now?
|
On April 16 2011 08:10 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 08:02 Modafinil wrote:Is "poker" gambling in Oregon? Yes: ORS 167.117 (7): "Gambling" means that a person stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. Because it is against Oregon state law, it is a violation of the UIGEA. We could repeat this for every state. But even if UIGEA didn't exist, it'd still be illegal in your state, and sites could still be liable under state law, which is fine for any definition of "illegal". Poker isn't necessarily gambling under that definition. Poker is under the control or influence of the person, due to the option to bet/fold/raise at any given street. Over 70% hands involve pure skill: They end before showdown, meaning someone bet everyone out of the pot. Clearly it is only the actions of players that determine such hands, as no cards are ever shown. Even the hands that do involve some sort of chance are not as clearcut as say, a roulette spin, because of the fact that players make the choice to call or fold in any given situation, a choice that is clearly skill based. Whether or not poker is a game of chance or a game of skill is something that must be determined, and hasn't been determined in any court that I know of.
It's not a question of chance vs. skill. It's a question of whether you are
1. risking something of value (your tournament buy-in or your blind, raise, or call in a cash game)
2. upon the outcome of a future contingent event (what cards are coming next, or the actions of your opponent)
3. not under the control or influence of the person (the cards that come out, or your opponent's actions)
4. upon the agreement or understanding that the person will receive something of value (the pot, or the tournament payout)
5. in the event of a certain outcome (having the better hand, your opponent folding, or finishing in the money).
You might bet your opponent(s) out of every pot preflop, but every time, whether or not he folded was out of your control. That's a "future contingent event". It was never sure he was going to fold. You don't know what your opponent is going to do, because you don't know his cards. Even if he folded to your first 99 PFRs, you don't know that he's going to fold to the 100th.
And even if you were going to be dealt the nuts, you didn't know that until you had put some money in the pot, somehow. You risked money on a future contingent event. It doesn't need to be clear-cut, you just need to put money in, not knowing what would happen, with the possibility of winning something.
|
On April 16 2011 09:11 Drowsy wrote:
Thank goodness the U.S. government is tackling the hard-line issues like this one instead of silly shit like America's massive incarceration rate, unsustainable transfer payment systems, or an outrageously inflated budget.
who says this isn't for the budget :D increased income!
I always enjoy these posts, I dislike the government in general so when they deal with one thing I'm going to complain about another thing they deal with poorly, as if the said government is incapable of multitasking. Zeesh it's like you're the government mother nothing is every good enough for you is it?
|
Wow, was on the verge of depositing some money in the coming week when I'm done school.. Crazy timing.
|
I'm so confused to the comments. So all the money is gone for all poker players that are involved with those pokersites? And which sites are affected ? Just those 3 in the OP mentioned? I don't really know which ones are the big poker sites so if anyone could tell me about that.
What about the professional poker players then? I'm not a poker player but I have a few friends who are and it would really suck if they lost all their money that is stored on those sites.
|
On April 16 2011 09:23 Modafinil wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 08:10 trias_e wrote:On April 16 2011 08:02 Modafinil wrote:Is "poker" gambling in Oregon? Yes: ORS 167.117 (7): "Gambling" means that a person stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. Because it is against Oregon state law, it is a violation of the UIGEA. We could repeat this for every state. But even if UIGEA didn't exist, it'd still be illegal in your state, and sites could still be liable under state law, which is fine for any definition of "illegal". Poker isn't necessarily gambling under that definition. Poker is under the control or influence of the person, due to the option to bet/fold/raise at any given street. Over 70% hands involve pure skill: They end before showdown, meaning someone bet everyone out of the pot. Clearly it is only the actions of players that determine such hands, as no cards are ever shown. Even the hands that do involve some sort of chance are not as clearcut as say, a roulette spin, because of the fact that players make the choice to call or fold in any given situation, a choice that is clearly skill based. Whether or not poker is a game of chance or a game of skill is something that must be determined, and hasn't been determined in any court that I know of. It's not a question of chance vs. skill. It's a question of whether you are 1. risking something of value (your tournament buy-in or your blind, raise, or call in a cash game) 2. upon the outcome of a future contingent event (what cards are coming next, or the actions of your opponent) 3. not under the control or influence of the person (the cards that come out, or your opponent's actions) 4. upon the agreement or understanding that the person will receive something of value (the pot, or the tournament payout) 5. in the event of a certain outcome (having the better hand, your opponent folding, or finishing in the money). You might bet your opponent(s) out of every pot preflop, but every time, whether or not he folded was out of your control. That's a "future contingent event". It was never sure he was going to fold. You don't know what your opponent is going to do, because you don't know his cards. Even if he folded to your first 99 PFRs, you don't know that he's going to fold to the 100th. And even if you were going to be dealt the nuts, you didn't know that until you had put some money in the pot, somehow. You risked money on a future contingent event. It doesn't need to be clear-cut, you just need to put money in, not knowing what would happen, with the possibility of winning something.
I don't think you can defend the law in this way. In chess, I don't know what my opponent's next move will be. Therefore, by your reasoning, it is gambling if I put money on myself to win.
Maybe if you reword it it will make more sense.
|
|
|
i imagine people who already play for a living will just move out of the country
|
On April 16 2011 09:09 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 08:12 travis wrote:On April 16 2011 08:02 Modafinil wrote:On April 16 2011 07:46 travis wrote:On April 16 2011 07:36 Modafinil wrote:On April 16 2011 07:29 travis wrote:On April 16 2011 07:22 Modafinil wrote: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). You're wrong dude, you don't know what you are talking about. transmitting money means sending it to the site. when you make bets the money is already on the site you aren't transmitting anything. also, there's been multiple precedents set for poker being a "game of skill". you shouldn't be so confident when you're wrong, anyways. or it's at least highly debated and hasn't been definitively interpreted one way or another (but pretty much all research I have done on the matter, which im sure is more extensive than what you've done, agrees with what I am saying here) Ok, let's try this one step at a time, since you couldn't handle it all at once. Q1. What state do you live in? Oregon Ok, ORS 167.109: (1) A person engaged in an Internet gambling business may not knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful gambling using the Internet - (money, whether check/EFT/wire etc or money that came through those means) ORS 167.117 (24): "Unlawful" means not specifically authorized by law. Is Pokerstars/FTP/AB/etc "specifically authorized by law" in Oregon? Are you "specifically authorized by law" to gamble on the internet? No. Thus it is "unlawful gambling" for you to play internet poker in Oregon, and it is illegal for the sites to receive your money, even indirectly. Is "poker" gambling in Oregon? Yes: ORS 167.117 (7): "Gambling" means that a person stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. Because it is against Oregon state law, it is a violation of the UIGEA. We could repeat this for every state. But even if UIGEA didn't exist, it'd still be illegal in your state, and sites could still be liable under state law, which is fine for any definition of "illegal". Time to leave "work", bbl. The law you quoted talks about the transferring of funds. In what way does it make it illegal to play poker for money that is already on a site? (it doesn't) How would you get the money there in the first place ? Also your counterargument seems to be based purely on semantics and such tricks should not work in any reasonably designed justice system.
lol then by ur definition the justice system most definitely isn't reasonably designed.
but anyways it would be possible to get funds on their anyways by winning freerolls.
|
On April 16 2011 09:23 Modafinil wrote:
3. not under the control or influence of the person (the cards that come out, or your opponent's actions)
This is where I have a problem with your argument. Whether or not my opponent folds might not be under my direct control, but it certainly under my influence. Also, folding when I am behind is under my direct control.
The only time in poker where something is not in my direct control or influence is an all-in situation with cards yet to come. Even in this case, it was a choice over which I had direct control over in the context of the game to go all-in. If I felt I was behind, I had the choice to fold.
|
|
|
Cashed out the whole lot on FTP, i'm from EU
Going to my moneybookers
God damned xfer limits are annoying
gl to us and to all with money on there
|
Whatever the methods.... they were just following the free market that democracy so cherishes, the same horn that the US toots every fucken day. Let the market decide, but no. They had to do some trickery to make the cash flow work in an oppressive law wasteland, fucken travesty.
|
I was browsing that site the OP has linked and look at this link.
http://www.businessinsider.com/boy-genius-online-poker-scandal-2011-4
This guy is supposedly the guy that made it possible for the FBI to take down these poker sites :O and he was sold out by the poker sites mentioned in the OP to the FBI before but now he's out on bail which he didn't get in the first place. So if I'm reading this correct this is all a payback to the ones that betrayed him.
Does this mean he basically screwed almost the entire poker world?
Correct me if I'm wrong though.
Full article in spoiler.
+ Show Spoiler +he internet is still coming to grips with the huge online gambling bust that just took down the U.S.'s three biggest online poker sites. But Australia's Courier-Mail newspaper already has the scoop on the one man who may have single-handedly built the online industry ... then handed it to the U.S. government on a platter. According to this story, Daniel Tzvetkoff was a young Australian entrepreneur who set up the payment processing schemes used by the biggest poker sites to handle their (mostly illegal) transactions. He is described by those who know him as a "boy wonder" and "genius" who started his first company at 13 and knew all the intricacies of e-commerce. He made Full Tilt Poker and Poker Stars millions of dollars — and made as much as $150,000 a day for himself — but then got even more greedy and started taking their. They sued him, accusing Tzvetkoff of taking more than $100 million of their money. Then last April, Tzvetkoff was arrested in Las Vegas and charged with the same crimes those sites' founders were charged with today: money laundering, bank fraud, wire fraud. As an Australian citizen with a lot of cash, he was considered a flight risk and denied bail. Then after a "secret" meeting with prosecutors last August, he was suddenly out on bail. And now his former colleagues are the ones facing serious prison time. Daniel Tzvetkoff knows the operations of these poker sites inside and out. It was knowledge of the financial industry that allowed them to operate. He's the one man positioned to give the U.S. Attorneys everything they needed to take down their businesses. And it looks like that's exactly what he did, cooperating with the authorities to avoid his own lengthy jail sentence. All the major gambling prosecutions in the U.S. since Tzvetkoff's arrest have been run out of the office of Arlo Devlin-Brown, the Manhattan Asst. U.S. Attorney who is Tzvetkoff's "handler." According to a source, Tzvetkoff "knows how to reverse-engineer transactions to determine its original source," making him very valuable to investigators. And the biggest irony of all? It's been rumored that the only reason the FBI got their hands on him is because Full Tilt or Poker Stars (the companies he used to work for and stole from) tipped off the FBI that he was going to be traveling to the United States last year. They ratted him out ... and he turned the tables. No honor among thieves. And as the Courier Mail put it, if this were still the old days, he'd buried in the Las Vegas desert right now. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/boy-genius-online-poker-scandal-2011-4#ixzz1JdrKMxxF
|
cashed out 12k via check on stars, hopefully it gets here and doesn't bounce
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
