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.
Apparently pokerstars.com, absolutepoker.com, and other poker sites have been 'confiscated by the FBI'. News was just posted, not sure what is going on?
tl;dr: allegations are that these large online poker sites (Full Tilt, Pokerstars, absolutepoker) were using fake businesses to process payments because banks were refusing to knowingly process illegal gambling transactions.
edit: thanks to Modafinil for finding the following:
Lots of people in America still seem to be able to access the sites. DNS propagation takes time. Many international people are already getting the seizure notices. It's not purely a matter of where you are.
Probably too late to cash out anyway. Even if the site processes your command, and even if you get the check in the mail, the accounts have been frozen. The check will probably not clear.
When they hit it , they hit it everywhere O.o. But I suppose that most of these are not paying taxes or something?hence why they are being charged for illegal gambling, the OP is a link to a forum with 2 lines though, so I am not sure whats going on.
Well that would suck. Hopefully the people that haven't used it in a long time, like myself, won't have the feds come a knocking at their doors. Come to think of it would anyone actually get in trouble? Cause while it's illegal in the US the sites never stopped you and always asked you where you were from so it'd be their problem for helping US people gamble right?
It is hard to tell what will happen, the companies can just move their hosting out of the US and ban all US residents from playing on their tables. It is really hard to tell if they will actually prosecute any of them because they also run live events in casino's as well which isn't against US gambling laws.
One of the guys in the forum thread I linked posted this:
DNS propagation is still in progress so it might not show for you. Depends on who your ISP is but it is coming. Look at the name servers for ub.com, absolutepoker.com, pokerstars.com, fulltiltpoker.com ...all the same. And all updated today.
Lots of people in America still seem to be able to access the sites. DNS propagation takes time. Many international people are already getting the seizure notices. It's not purely a matter of where you are.
Probably too late to cash out anyway. Even if the site processes your command, and even if you get the check in the mail, the accounts have been frozen. The check will probably not clear.
Because U.S. banks and credit card issuers were largely unwilling to process their payments, the Poker Companies allegedly used fraudulent methods to circumvent federal law and trick these institutions into processing payments on their behalf. For example, defendants ISAI SCHEINBERG and PAUL TATE of PokerStars, RAYMOND BITAR and NELSON BURTNICK of Full Tilt Poker, and SCOTT TOM and BRENT BECKLEY of Absolute Poker, arranged for the money received from U.S. gamblers to be disguised as payments to hundreds of non-existent online merchants purporting to sell merchandise such as jewelry and golf balls. Of the billions of dollars in payment transactions that the Poker Companies tricked U.S. banks into processing, approximately one-third or more of the funds went directly to the Poker Companies as revenue through the "rake" charged to players on almost every poker hand played online.
It looks like they were putting payments through the system illegally under different names to avoid certain people/banks knowing they were gambling transactions.
That USAtoday link confuses me. I kinda skimmed it but it doesn't say anything in there about poker websites getting shut down I think, what am I missing?
On April 16 2011 03:53 jalstar wrote: i only have $50 on PS anyway, hopefully my $200 withdrawal echeck from last week clears though.
Restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts used by the poker companies and their payment processors, while five Internet domain names used by the companies to host poker games were seized, federal authorities added in a statement.
They aren't cracking down on online poker, certain sites just broke some Act passed in America in 2006 by labelling gambling transactions as something else to get banks to accept the payments. They have brought charges against people outside the US [ like Isle of Man ]. US banks were heavily involved so they decided to step in.
oh what the fuck is this. The government is that desperate for money that they are trying to steal from online gambling sites? What about those mortgage backed securities, CDOs and those other institutionalized gambling forms? Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, AIG too difficult of targets? Do we really need an online gaming lobby?
"How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug gangs" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs Is Wachovia "too profitable to fail"? Or is it because the drug cartels have organized weaponry and might fight back, unlike online poker players?
Restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts used by the poker companies and their payment processors, while five Internet domain names used by the companies to host poker games were seized, federal authorities added in a statement.
well -$250 sucks a lot but there are some people with thousands on there, this is huge.
On April 16 2011 03:56 where wrote: oh what the fuck is this. The government is that desperate for money that they are trying to steal from online gambling sites? What about those mortgage backed securities, CDOs and those other institutionalized gambling forms? Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, AIG too difficult of targets? Do we really need an online gaming lobby?
Online gambling = no taxation for them
Those other "targets" are banks and they do investments and pay taxes
On April 16 2011 03:53 jalstar wrote: i only have $50 on PS anyway, hopefully my $200 withdrawal echeck from last week clears though.
Restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts used by the poker companies and their payment processors, while five Internet domain names used by the companies to host poker games were seized, federal authorities added in a statement.
well -$250 sucks a lot but there are some people with thousands on there, this is huge.
is the govt aloud to do this and not give your money back?
All i can see is this causing even more unrest and people trying to get their money back using legal action.
On April 16 2011 03:53 jalstar wrote: i only have $50 on PS anyway, hopefully my $200 withdrawal echeck from last week clears though.
Restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts used by the poker companies and their payment processors, while five Internet domain names used by the companies to host poker games were seized, federal authorities added in a statement.
well -$250 sucks a lot but there are some people with thousands on there, this is huge.
is the govt aloud to do this and not give your money back?
All i can see is this causing even more unrest and people trying to get their money back using legal action.
They probably won't release any money until after the trials, collecting their own share first etc.
On April 16 2011 04:01 relyt wrote: Doesn't the government know how many regular people they just fucked over? Why can't they just leave this shit alone.
Because you have to be an evil soul-sucker to throw someone in jail for a victimless crime such as these. They're blind agents of a draconian government enforcing our country's backwards, immoral laws.
On April 16 2011 03:53 jalstar wrote: i only have $50 on PS anyway, hopefully my $200 withdrawal echeck from last week clears though.
Restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts used by the poker companies and their payment processors, while five Internet domain names used by the companies to host poker games were seized, federal authorities added in a statement.
well -$250 sucks a lot but there are some people with thousands on there, this is huge.
is the govt aloud to do this and not give your money back?
All i can see is this causing even more unrest and people trying to get their money back using legal action.
i'm not planning on suing, i can make that back in 2 weeks of min wage part time work
but people with $10000+ bankrolls, especially non-US players who weren't breaking their country's laws, are gonna take action for sure.
I know a buddy who makes his living playing online poker...I can definitely see this affecting him as well, forcing him to find a real job...but he hasn't "worked" in years...only passed all this time playing online poker...
need to read further on this but if tax evasion was involved but this is extremely serious and could put a huge damper on online poker period.
On April 16 2011 03:56 where wrote: oh what the fuck is this. The government is that desperate for money that they are trying to steal from online gambling sites? What about those mortgage backed securities, CDOs and those other institutionalized gambling forms? Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, AIG too difficult of targets? Do we really need an online gaming lobby?
Online gambling = no taxation for them
Those other "targets" are banks and they do investments and pay taxes
haha yes let's invest in CEO compensation and drug cartels and systemic inefficiency, because it is more profitable to the owners to keep it running as is
On April 16 2011 03:53 jalstar wrote: i only have $50 on PS anyway, hopefully my $200 withdrawal echeck from last week clears though.
Restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts used by the poker companies and their payment processors, while five Internet domain names used by the companies to host poker games were seized, federal authorities added in a statement.
well -$250 sucks a lot but there are some people with thousands on there, this is huge.
is the govt aloud to do this and not give your money back?
All i can see is this causing even more unrest and people trying to get their money back using legal action.
It's not "your money". It is money that was sitting in the bank account of an entity engaged in a criminal enterprise. The money has been seized as part of a federal criminal investigation.
Trying to get your money through legal action against the US government here would be like trying to get your money back from your local drug dealer after he was arrested. Your money is gone. You have a 0% chance of ever getting it back.
On April 16 2011 03:53 jalstar wrote: i only have $50 on PS anyway, hopefully my $200 withdrawal echeck from last week clears though.
Restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts used by the poker companies and their payment processors, while five Internet domain names used by the companies to host poker games were seized, federal authorities added in a statement.
well -$250 sucks a lot but there are some people with thousands on there, this is huge.
is the govt aloud to do this and not give your money back?
All i can see is this causing even more unrest and people trying to get their money back using legal action.
It's not "your money". It is money that was sitting in the bank account of an entity engaged in a criminal enterprise. The money has been seized as part of a federal criminal investigation.
Trying to get your money through legal action against the US government here would be like trying to get your money back from your local drug dealer after he was arrested. Your money is gone. You have a 0% chance of ever getting it back.
if you buy drugs you're breaking the law. non-us players weren't breaking any laws by playing on stars and full-tilt.
like if you invest in a bank (legal) and the bank doesn't pay their taxes (illegal) should you lose your money?
On April 16 2011 04:00 Thrill wrote: PokerStrategy.com TSL4?
Bye bye if this turns out to be the real deal.
Well it will just come down to finding a different sponsor if pokerstrategy pulls out as a result of the current events. Of course finding sponsors is challenging to say the least but if I was the sales rep charging with finding sponsors for this event, I would approach companies who have sponsored players in the past, eg. Stride gum for example.
...but people with $10000+ bankrolls, especially non-US players who weren't breaking their country's laws, are gonna take action for sure.
wait.... is online gambling a crime? I thought that the sites were getting shut down for laundering, fraud, and other crimes, not because of "gambling."
this article just popped up on reuters less than 10 minutes ago
says that federal prosecuters charged Full Tilt, Absolite, and Pokerstars for fraud and violation of US anti-online gambling laws.
I'm posting this from my phone, but this article is so vague and wrong that it is not even funny. For those of you who want to learn why these sites don't technically break any laws, you should really google it and read up.
...but people with $10000+ bankrolls, especially non-US players who weren't breaking their country's laws, are gonna take action for sure.
wait.... is online gambling a crime? I thought that the sites were getting shut down for laundering, fraud, and other crimes, not because of "gambling."
only in the us i believe, and operating a site is a much bigger crime than playing on one.
This is fucking dreadful for the poker community and the teamliquid community, the damage this causes to the poker movement in america and the rest of the world is awful.
On April 16 2011 03:53 jalstar wrote: i only have $50 on PS anyway, hopefully my $200 withdrawal echeck from last week clears though.
Restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts used by the poker companies and their payment processors, while five Internet domain names used by the companies to host poker games were seized, federal authorities added in a statement.
well -$250 sucks a lot but there are some people with thousands on there, this is huge.
is the govt aloud to do this and not give your money back?
All i can see is this causing even more unrest and people trying to get their money back using legal action.
It's not "your money". It is money that was sitting in the bank account of an entity engaged in a criminal enterprise. The money has been seized as part of a federal criminal investigation.
Trying to get your money through legal action against the US government here would be like trying to get your money back from your local drug dealer after he was arrested. Your money is gone. You have a 0% chance of ever getting it back.
if you buy drugs you're breaking the law. non-us players weren't breaking any laws by playing on stars and full-tilt.
That's not the point at all.
The point is that the money is evidence against the drug dealer, even if he was selling weed somewhere legal as well as illegal. The point is he was laundering the money, and some of it came from illegal activities, whether or not some also came from legal activities.
...but people with $10000+ bankrolls, especially non-US players who weren't breaking their country's laws, are gonna take action for sure.
wait.... is online gambling a crime? I thought that the sites were getting shut down for laundering, fraud, and other crimes, not because of "gambling."
It shouldn't be a crime, but since the US government can't tax it, they will make it a fucking crime.
On April 16 2011 04:00 Thrill wrote: PokerStrategy.com TSL4?
Bye bye if this turns out to be the real deal.
poker strategy is not a gambling site, it's a strategy site, big difference.
Poker strategy makes money with the rake of gambling sites so if those sites are closed well they can't make money anymore.
i think non-us sites like party and ipoker are still open though.
none of the sites who had their domains seized are run in the states. they had their .com domains seized, which is a US-controlled domain. the danger isn't even operating in the states anymore, it's having any tie to any US-controlled body at all
On April 16 2011 03:53 jalstar wrote: i only have $50 on PS anyway, hopefully my $200 withdrawal echeck from last week clears though.
Restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts used by the poker companies and their payment processors, while five Internet domain names used by the companies to host poker games were seized, federal authorities added in a statement.
well -$250 sucks a lot but there are some people with thousands on there, this is huge.
is the govt aloud to do this and not give your money back?
All i can see is this causing even more unrest and people trying to get their money back using legal action.
It's not "your money". It is money that was sitting in the bank account of an entity engaged in a criminal enterprise. The money has been seized as part of a federal criminal investigation.
Trying to get your money through legal action against the US government here would be like trying to get your money back from your local drug dealer after he was arrested. Your money is gone. You have a 0% chance of ever getting it back.
if you buy drugs you're breaking the law. non-us players weren't breaking any laws by playing on stars and full-tilt.
like if you invest in a bank (legal) and the bank doesn't pay their taxes (illegal) should you lose your money?
non-US players weren't breaking any laws, so they arent going to jail... for their money they may have a case but theyre unlikely to get it back, figure its not "local drug dealer" but "international drug dealer" which may be legal in some other country
On April 16 2011 04:00 Thrill wrote: PokerStrategy.com TSL4?
Bye bye if this turns out to be the real deal.
poker strategy is not a gambling site, it's a strategy site, big difference.
Poker strategy makes money with the rake of gambling sites so if those sites are closed well they can't make money anymore.
i think non-us sites like party and ipoker are still open though.
none of the sites who had their domains seized are run in the states. they had their .com domains seized, which is a US-controlled domain. the danger isn't even operating in the states anymore, it's having any tie to any US-controlled body at all
On April 16 2011 04:07 StarStruck wrote: It's just one of the risks you take by doing it. :/
No it really isn't. Don't make it sound like it's the poker players' fault for losing the money.
This is not something anyone could have ever foreseen. Ever. There were maybe like a few thousand people in the whole world who knew what was going on.
Say you get struck by a meteor playing golf. That is not one of the risks of playing golf.
I think I just lost my £400 for my euro trip then.
oh america, the land of the free... I wish we were that civilised here in my third world country, I'd ban all our gambling sites as well, online gambling killed my dog, true story.
On April 16 2011 03:53 jalstar wrote: i only have $50 on PS anyway, hopefully my $200 withdrawal echeck from last week clears though.
Restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts used by the poker companies and their payment processors, while five Internet domain names used by the companies to host poker games were seized, federal authorities added in a statement.
well -$250 sucks a lot but there are some people with thousands on there, this is huge.
is the govt aloud to do this and not give your money back?
All i can see is this causing even more unrest and people trying to get their money back using legal action.
It's not "your money". It is money that was sitting in the bank account of an entity engaged in a criminal enterprise. The money has been seized as part of a federal criminal investigation.
Trying to get your money through legal action against the US government here would be like trying to get your money back from your local drug dealer after he was arrested. Your money is gone. You have a 0% chance of ever getting it back.
Yes, it IS my money. I spent countless hours studying poker theory, played and analyzed hundreds of thousands of hands. Don't tell me that isn't my own hard-earned money. They have not seized funds from these sites yet, nor are these sites "criminal organizations." They're based in countries where what they're doing is completely legal, and the US has no jurisdiction. Comparing this with getting back money from a drug dealer demonstrates your ignorance on the subject.
On April 16 2011 04:00 Thrill wrote: PokerStrategy.com TSL4?
Bye bye if this turns out to be the real deal.
poker strategy is not a gambling site, it's a strategy site, big difference.
Poker strategy makes money with the rake of gambling sites so if those sites are closed well they can't make money anymore.
i think non-us sites like party and ipoker are still open though.
none of the sites who had their domains seized are run in the states. they had their .com domains seized, which is a US-controlled domain. the danger isn't even operating in the states anymore, it's having any tie to any US-controlled body at all
To add to this, the DHS combined with US customs has been "seizing" domain names for the last six months or so, originally concentrating on copyright violation. This has not been really been reported in the mainstream media, although it has had heavy coverage on tech websites such as slashdot. A lot of people are questioning the legality of these seizures as well, but so far it seems that nothing can be done about it.
Would be funny if this made me somehow get back my 800€ which FT simply stole from me when they closed my account because I was too closely related to my cousin... lol!
On April 16 2011 04:07 StarStruck wrote: It's just one of the risks you take by doing it. :/
No it really isn't. Don't make it sound like it's the poker players' fault for losing the money.
This is not something anyone could have ever foreseen. Ever. There were maybe like a few thousand people in the whole world who knew what was going on.
Say you get struck by a meteor playing golf. That is not one of the risks of playing golf.
I think I just lost my £400 for my euro trip then.
While I sympathize with the players who lost money, I think "meteor while playing golf" is a bit over-dramatic.
The fact is online poker has always been a grey area, whether it was the passage of the UIGEA in 2006 or just the sites themselves having problems with cheating and shills.
A lot of you are probably too young to remember this but online poker has been on the government's radar for almost a decade. It was always a question of WHEN the "meteor" would hit, not IF.
That said there was no telling when. It sucks that it happened now, but it was inevitable.
On April 16 2011 03:53 jalstar wrote: i only have $50 on PS anyway, hopefully my $200 withdrawal echeck from last week clears though.
Restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts used by the poker companies and their payment processors, while five Internet domain names used by the companies to host poker games were seized, federal authorities added in a statement.
well -$250 sucks a lot but there are some people with thousands on there, this is huge.
is the govt aloud to do this and not give your money back?
All i can see is this causing even more unrest and people trying to get their money back using legal action.
It's not "your money". It is money that was sitting in the bank account of an entity engaged in a criminal enterprise. The money has been seized as part of a federal criminal investigation.
Trying to get your money through legal action against the US government here would be like trying to get your money back from your local drug dealer after he was arrested. Your money is gone. You have a 0% chance of ever getting it back.
if you buy drugs you're breaking the law. non-us players weren't breaking any laws by playing on stars and full-tilt.
sure if you're playing from a different country, then ok you were not doing anything illegal sure, by playing on these online gambling sites. But as to whether you'll get your money back, is a totally different story as others have stated here.
Anytime your money is at the mercy of a company which isn't even in your country, how much is your government going to be able to do?
Just to be clear, the poker companies are not accused of tax avoidance. They are accused of misreporting their transactions as something other than gambling so that they could continue doing business in the USA. This would be like somebody operating a speakeasy during prohibition of reporting their alcohol sales as ice cream sales.
If the United States were acting rationally they would simply tax online gambling at a reasonable rate and allow poker players to continue doing what they enjoy. If you live in the United States or any other jurisdiction which is attempting to ban online gaming please contact your representative and let them know that you are in favor of allowing people to play poker online.
By outlawing online poker the United States is wasting resources enforcing a silly law when they could instead allow a business to thrive and produce entertainment for millions of people.
Additionally, allowing companies to operate inside the USA would allow better consumer protection.
holy guacamole, this can really REALLY be the end of online poker.
And I am not over extending here, if those people are declared guilty, trust me, once pokerstars go down, and billions of dollars are lost within tens of thousands of users, it could get like a pyramid and a lot of sites are going to go down because players leaving or afraid of the same and so on...
poker players need to show support or at least do something right now before the trials and all.
They seized the domains (ie. the address you type to access the website, not the software or the servers where the game runs) and bank accounts within the US. Unless they were retarded enough to leave much money on a country where their activity is viewed by some authorities as illegal, there's no harm done.
20 years in prison; fine of $500,000 or twice the amount laundered; 3 years supervised release; forfeiture of proceeds of offense
Is that who's getting charged and what they can get?
There's a link to the Department of Justice pdf of the filing in the OP. It details the charges.
Oh, sorry, not really in the mood for reading legal stuff in .pdf format right now
On April 16 2011 04:24 Propane wrote: If the United States were acting rationally they would simply tax cocaine at a reasonable rate and allow drug addicts to continue doing what they enjoy. If you live in the United States or any other jurisdiction which is attempting to ban cocaine please contact your representative and let them know that you are in favor of allowing people to do drugs.
By outlawing cocaine the United States is wasting resources enforcing a silly law when they could instead allow a business to thrive and produce entertainment for millions of people.
Additionally, allowing companies to operate inside the USA would allow better consumer protection.
...but people with $10000+ bankrolls, especially non-US players who weren't breaking their country's laws, are gonna take action for sure.
wait.... is online gambling a crime? I thought that the sites were getting shut down for laundering, fraud, and other crimes, not because of "gambling."
On April 16 2011 03:53 jalstar wrote: i only have $50 on PS anyway, hopefully my $200 withdrawal echeck from last week clears though.
Restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts used by the poker companies and their payment processors, while five Internet domain names used by the companies to host poker games were seized, federal authorities added in a statement.
well -$250 sucks a lot but there are some people with thousands on there, this is huge.
is the govt aloud to do this and not give your money back?
All i can see is this causing even more unrest and people trying to get their money back using legal action.
It's not "your money". It is money that was sitting in the bank account of an entity engaged in a criminal enterprise. The money has been seized as part of a federal criminal investigation.
Trying to get your money through legal action against the US government here would be like trying to get your money back from your local drug dealer after he was arrested. Your money is gone. You have a 0% chance of ever getting it back.
Yes, it IS my money. I spent countless hours studying poker theory, played and analyzed hundreds of thousands of hands. Don't tell me that isn't my own hard-earned money. They have not seized funds from these sites yet, nor are these sites "criminal organizations." They're based in countries where what they're doing is completely legal, and the US has no jurisdiction. Comparing this with getting back money from a drug dealer demonstrates your ignorance on the subject.
I'm not ignorant of the subject. I'm an attorney in the US and a former online poker player.
The bolded part is particularly laughable. Yes, I understand, you spent a lot of time playing poker. How much effort you put into it has no bearing on its legality or the legality of what the poker sites did with the money they took in - including the money of yours they were holding.
The sites aren't criminal enterprises? You can go argue with the federal indictment. To quote the press release,
The United States also filed a civil money laundering and in rem forfeiture complaint (the "Civil Complaint") against the Poker Companies, their assets, and the assets of several payment processors for the Poker Companies. In addition, restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts utilized by the Poker Companies and their payment processors
whether or not poker is legal where the companies were based, what they were doing with the money was illegal. Some of that involved activity in the US, and with US financial institutions. Thus, the US has jurisdiction.
On April 16 2011 03:53 jalstar wrote: i only have $50 on PS anyway, hopefully my $200 withdrawal echeck from last week clears though.
Restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts used by the poker companies and their payment processors, while five Internet domain names used by the companies to host poker games were seized, federal authorities added in a statement.
well -$250 sucks a lot but there are some people with thousands on there, this is huge.
is the govt aloud to do this and not give your money back?
All i can see is this causing even more unrest and people trying to get their money back using legal action.
It's not "your money". It is money that was sitting in the bank account of an entity engaged in a criminal enterprise. The money has been seized as part of a federal criminal investigation.
Trying to get your money through legal action against the US government here would be like trying to get your money back from your local drug dealer after he was arrested. Your money is gone. You have a 0% chance of ever getting it back.
Yes, it IS my money. I spent countless hours studying poker theory, played and analyzed hundreds of thousands of hands. Don't tell me that isn't my own hard-earned money. They have not seized funds from these sites yet, nor are these sites "criminal organizations." They're based in countries where what they're doing is completely legal, and the US has no jurisdiction. Comparing this with getting back money from a drug dealer demonstrates your ignorance on the subject.
Yet you've spent your money by studying, and then playing, online gambling. No one here is arguing that your effort isn't worth something. Of course it is.
But what has happened, happened. And these companies are going the way of the dodo, like it or not. If any online gambling for-profit companies remain, they are gonna be either heavily regulated in some shape or form, or they pay their taxes just like any other company, period. And YOU - have you reported all your poker earnings on your tax returns?
But back to your study of poker. Can you not take your poker skills and just head down to your poker house of choice or vegas? Why restrict your means of income to online venues only?
On April 16 2011 04:07 StarStruck wrote: It's just one of the risks you take by doing it. :/
No it really isn't. Don't make it sound like it's the poker players' fault for losing the money.
This is not something anyone could have ever foreseen. Ever. There were maybe like a few thousand people in the whole world who knew what was going on.
Say you get struck by a meteor playing golf. That is not one of the risks of playing golf.
I think I just lost my £400 for my euro trip then.
While I sympathize with the players who lost money, I think "meteor while playing golf" is a bit over-dramatic.
The fact is online poker has always been a grey area, whether it was the passage of the UIGEA in 2006 or just the sites themselves having problems with cheating and shills.
A lot of you are probably too young to remember this but online poker has been on the government's radar for almost a decade. It was always a question of WHEN the "meteor" would hit, not IF.
That said there was no telling when. It sucks that it happened now, but it was inevitable.
Why are you comparing cheating at online poker to this? They are not the same at all and it isn't relevant. Don't call poker a "grey area".
The UIGEA has nothing to do with me. It should not have affected me.
lol i always thought it was weird that it is illegal to gamble online but no one seemed to do anything about it. I know some american's used some friends to initallity transfer money to an account but it's obvious that tons of american ip addresses were constantly playing.
pokerstars, partypoker and all that even sound like american companies. this isn't bullshit like thepiratebay getting fucked over cause they were clearly european and euros shouldn't care about that shit.
but ya really, i don't know why this is illegal. america is the state of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. why can't people gamble their money on the computer? we all know how sexual the computer can get with porno/webcams, why is virtual gambling illegal?
stupid law
edit: that is my unbias testimony as this effects me in no way
On April 16 2011 04:24 Propane wrote: Just to be clear, the poker companies are not accused of tax avoidance. They are accused of misreporting their transactions as something other than gambling so that they could continue doing business in the USA. This would be like somebody operating a speakeasy during prohibition of reporting their alcohol sales as ice cream sales.
If the United States were acting rationally they would simply tax online gambling at a reasonable rate and allow poker players to continue doing what they enjoy. If you live in the United States or any other jurisdiction which is attempting to ban online gaming please contact your representative and let them know that you are in favor of allowing people to play poker online.
By outlawing online poker the United States is wasting resources enforcing a silly law when they could instead allow a business to thrive and produce entertainment for millions of people.
Additionally, allowing companies to operate inside the USA would allow better consumer protection.
Interesting. My father plays poker as one of his primary sources of income, although for legal reasons he can't play in tournaments. He stopped playing online because of a general lack of trust in the poker companies - switched strictly to casinos a while ago.
On April 16 2011 03:53 jalstar wrote: i only have $50 on PS anyway, hopefully my $200 withdrawal echeck from last week clears though.
Restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts used by the poker companies and their payment processors, while five Internet domain names used by the companies to host poker games were seized, federal authorities added in a statement.
well -$250 sucks a lot but there are some people with thousands on there, this is huge.
is the govt aloud to do this and not give your money back?
All i can see is this causing even more unrest and people trying to get their money back using legal action.
It's not "your money". It is money that was sitting in the bank account of an entity engaged in a criminal enterprise. The money has been seized as part of a federal criminal investigation.
Trying to get your money through legal action against the US government here would be like trying to get your money back from your local drug dealer after he was arrested. Your money is gone. You have a 0% chance of ever getting it back.
Yes, it IS my money. I spent countless hours studying poker theory, played and analyzed hundreds of thousands of hands. Don't tell me that isn't my own hard-earned money. They have not seized funds from these sites yet, nor are these sites "criminal organizations." They're based in countries where what they're doing is completely legal, and the US has no jurisdiction. Comparing this with getting back money from a drug dealer demonstrates your ignorance on the subject.
Yet you've spent your money by studying, and then playing, online gambling. No one here is arguing that your effort isn't worth something. Of course it is.
But what has happened, happened. And these companies are going the way of the dodo, like it or not. If any online gambling for-profit companies remain, they are gonna be either heavily regulated in some shape or form, or they pay their taxes just like any other company, period. And YOU - have you reported all your poker earnings on your tax returns?
But back to your study of poker. Can you not take your poker skills and just head down to your poker house of choice or vegas? Why restrict your means of income to online venues only?
Maybe online poker will die in USA. There are plenty of other countries where people will still be able to play it.
It's much harder to make money in live play because you can't put in the volume of games. You need a much bigger edge to be able to solely play live games and make a profit. You can play so many more games simultaneously online.
On April 16 2011 04:29 Fayth wrote: meh for god sake i got 75k on these sites
Ouch dude >< Hope they actually turn the money over to the owners...since there is pretty much no way ordinary users could have known about the money laundering, and online poker itself is theoretically not explicitly illegal (grey area I think?).
Though the cynical side of me thinks this is going to all end up in treasury coffers...
On April 16 2011 04:07 StarStruck wrote: It's just one of the risks you take by doing it. :/
No it really isn't. Don't make it sound like it's the poker players' fault for losing the money.
This is not something anyone could have ever foreseen. Ever. There were maybe like a few thousand people in the whole world who knew what was going on.
Say you get struck by a meteor playing golf. That is not one of the risks of playing golf.
I think I just lost my £400 for my euro trip then.
While I sympathize with the players who lost money, I think "meteor while playing golf" is a bit over-dramatic.
The fact is online poker has always been a grey area, whether it was the passage of the UIGEA in 2006 or just the sites themselves having problems with cheating and shills.
A lot of you are probably too young to remember this but online poker has been on the government's radar for almost a decade. It was always a question of WHEN the "meteor" would hit, not IF.
That said there was no telling when. It sucks that it happened now, but it was inevitable.
Why are you comparing cheating at online poker to this? They are not the same at all and it isn't relevant. Don't call poker a "grey area".
The UIGEA has nothing to do with me. It should not have affected me.
I don't know how many times I have to explain this.
The poker sites were allegedly engaged in fraud and money laundering. Whether or not you were legally depositing there, they were allegedly doing illegal things with your money. As a result, the assets of the companies are being seized - including your money.
Am I right to assume that all the money will be percieved as evidence in these cases?And as such will not be released until the court cases are over? Or will the money just be gone because it involves illegal gambling?
I have also taken a look at the PDF format(relax, its only 7 pages)
Violation of Unlawful Internet GamblingEnforcement Act (UIGIEA) - FullTilt Poker, other poker sites too. Does anyone know how this law works? In any case this kind of operation probably took months if not multiple years of planning. I'd be suprised if they didn't have an ironclad case.
It is reasonable to assume the most of the money is held outside of the US and therefore not under their jurisdiction. There's a reason most poker sites are private companies and located at fiscal paradises.
Fuck. I don't like the idea of losing ~1k..... Could be a lot worse, but I really don't like the idea of losing money over this bullshit.
I feel sorry for people who are gonna lose more though..... There could have at least been some warning so that individual people weren't going to get fucked over by this.....
i feel relief because i've lost alot of money on poker sites and always regret not spending it in something else, if i were good knowning myself i would not cash out until hitting 100k, which would not get me enough time as to right now to have accomplished, thus losing my money either way...
still this is bullshit though, so many people and such a industry can fall down here, entire familys, unemploment etc.
So I just noticed, if you read the FBI notice which now shows up, you might notice:
Conducting, financing, managing, supervising, directing, or owning all or part of an illegal gambling business is a federal crime (18 U.S.C 1955)
For persons engaged in the business of betting or wagering, it is also a federal crime to knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful internet gambling, credit, electronic fund transfers, or checks (31 U.S.C. 5363 & 5366)
Might this suggest that the FBI is currently viewing PS, FT, and absolutepoker as an illegal gambling business (this itself being a dramatic conclusion)? If so, then it would follow from the above that everyone using the site is committing a federal crime, and since I doubt they would bother to try everyone, that would suggest all the money or some large portion would just be kept by the gov.
Not sure of the law on how much money could be taken, but someone mentioned that for the PS owners, they could face fines of up to twice the money laundered. If there is similar logic applied for PS/other poke site users, then they could just take all the money and call it a day could they not?
Would be really shitty for everyday users, especially since as far as I have heard from everyone, the US gov was not clear on the illegality of this, and everyone I know irl seems to think that online poker is legal.
On April 16 2011 04:27 Modafinil wrote: I'm not ignorant of the subject. I'm an attorney in the US and a former online poker player.
The bolded part is particularly laughable. Yes, I understand, you spent a lot of time playing poker. How much effort you put into it has no bearing on its legality or the legality of what the poker sites did with the money they took in - including the money of yours they were holding.
The sites aren't criminal enterprises? You can go argue with the federal indictment. To quote the press release,
The United States also filed a civil money laundering and in rem forfeiture complaint (the "Civil Complaint") against the Poker Companies, their assets, and the assets of several payment processors for the Poker Companies. In addition, restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts utilized by the Poker Companies and their payment processors
whether or not poker is legal where the companies were based, what they were doing with the money was illegal. Some of that involved activity in the US, and with US financial institutions. Thus, the US has jurisdiction.
The true criminals here are the legislators who snuck UIGEA into a completely unrelated bill and shuffled it through congress, and attorneys like you who will gladly try your hardest to put these nonviolent offenders in jail for a significant portion of their lives. And for what end?
On April 16 2011 04:24 Propane wrote: If the United States were acting rationally they would simply tax cocaine at a reasonable rate and allow drug addicts to continue doing what they enjoy. If you live in the United States or any other jurisdiction which is attempting to ban cocaine please contact your representative and let them know that you are in favor of allowing people to do drugs.
By outlawing cocaine the United States is wasting resources enforcing a silly law when they could instead allow a business to thrive and produce entertainment for millions of people.
Additionally, allowing companies to operate inside the USA would allow better consumer protection.
See now how bad your argument sounds?
His argument doesn't sound bad at all. It's true that the drug war is an enormous money sink that does not yield benefits. Drug legalization would in all likelihood significantly reduce our drug problem in many ways, including reduced crime, extra revenue, and greater consumer safety.
The government should not be so heavy handed in what they let a person do, so long as it does not harm anyone else. What a person does with their money and their body is up to them.
The USA allows lotteries, which is just large-scale distributed gambling. Stocks, housing investments, these are all legal forms of gambling. Why are they trying so hard to make poker illegal?
On April 16 2011 04:07 StarStruck wrote: It's just one of the risks you take by doing it. :/
No it really isn't. Don't make it sound like it's the poker players' fault for losing the money.
This is not something anyone could have ever foreseen. Ever. There were maybe like a few thousand people in the whole world who knew what was going on.
Say you get struck by a meteor playing golf. That is not one of the risks of playing golf.
I think I just lost my £400 for my euro trip then.
While I sympathize with the players who lost money, I think "meteor while playing golf" is a bit over-dramatic.
The fact is online poker has always been a grey area, whether it was the passage of the UIGEA in 2006 or just the sites themselves having problems with cheating and shills.
A lot of you are probably too young to remember this but online poker has been on the government's radar for almost a decade. It was always a question of WHEN the "meteor" would hit, not IF.
That said there was no telling when. It sucks that it happened now, but it was inevitable.
Why are you comparing cheating at online poker to this? They are not the same at all and it isn't relevant. Don't call poker a "grey area".
The UIGEA has nothing to do with me. It should not have affected me.
I don't know how many times I have to explain this.
The poker sites were allegedly engaged in fraud and money laundering. Whether or not you were legally depositing there, they were allegedly doing illegal things with your money. As a result, the assets of the companies are being seized - including your money.
I understand that. It says that in the OP.
The UIGEA is a law in a country that I am not a citizen of. I gave my money to an American company with the faith that they were operating legally. As far as I am aware, there was nothing to indicate to me that they were operating illegally. If you could point me to some evidence that would show that I was stupid for doing this then please go ahead. That is, evidence that is readily available to anyone and that highlights the possibility of the scenario the poker sites are facing now.
Your point about the cheating in poker has no relevance on this subject at all.
On April 16 2011 04:37 Soap wrote: It is reasonable to assume the most of the money is held outside of the US and therefore not under their jurisdiction. There's a reason most poker sites are private companies and located at fiscal paradises.
I assume the gov could fine PS/etc for some huge amount that would require taking the money out of their havens? I guess those people better not be in the US anywhere in the near future, and hope that their countries don't extradite.
On April 16 2011 04:27 Modafinil wrote: I'm not ignorant of the subject. I'm an attorney in the US and a former online poker player.
The bolded part is particularly laughable. Yes, I understand, you spent a lot of time playing poker. How much effort you put into it has no bearing on its legality or the legality of what the poker sites did with the money they took in - including the money of yours they were holding.
The sites aren't criminal enterprises? You can go argue with the federal indictment. To quote the press release,
The United States also filed a civil money laundering and in rem forfeiture complaint (the "Civil Complaint") against the Poker Companies, their assets, and the assets of several payment processors for the Poker Companies. In addition, restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts utilized by the Poker Companies and their payment processors
whether or not poker is legal where the companies were based, what they were doing with the money was illegal. Some of that involved activity in the US, and with US financial institutions. Thus, the US has jurisdiction.
The true criminals here are the legislators who snuck UIGEA into a completely unrelated bill and shuffled it through congress, and attorneys like you who will gladly try your hardest to put these nonviolent offenders in jail for a significant portion of their lives. And for what end?
"Attorneys like [me]"? The vast majority of attorneys don't even work in criminal law (including me), and of those that do, far more work in defense than prosecution.
There's plenty of blame to lay at the feet of the legal profession, but prosecuting poker players isn't one of them.
On April 16 2011 04:07 StarStruck wrote: It's just one of the risks you take by doing it. :/
No it really isn't. Don't make it sound like it's the poker players' fault for losing the money.
This is not something anyone could have ever foreseen. Ever. There were maybe like a few thousand people in the whole world who knew what was going on.
Say you get struck by a meteor playing golf. That is not one of the risks of playing golf.
I think I just lost my £400 for my euro trip then.
While I sympathize with the players who lost money, I think "meteor while playing golf" is a bit over-dramatic.
The fact is online poker has always been a grey area, whether it was the passage of the UIGEA in 2006 or just the sites themselves having problems with cheating and shills.
A lot of you are probably too young to remember this but online poker has been on the government's radar for almost a decade. It was always a question of WHEN the "meteor" would hit, not IF.
That said there was no telling when. It sucks that it happened now, but it was inevitable.
Why are you comparing cheating at online poker to this? They are not the same at all and it isn't relevant. Don't call poker a "grey area".
The UIGEA has nothing to do with me. It should not have affected me.
I don't know how many times I have to explain this.
The poker sites were allegedly engaged in fraud and money laundering. Whether or not you were legally depositing there, they were allegedly doing illegal things with your money. As a result, the assets of the companies are being seized - including your money.
I understand that. It says that in the OP.
The UIGEA is a law in a country that I am not a citizen of. I gave my money to an American company with the faith that they were operating legally. As far as I am aware, there was nothing to indicate to me that they were operating illegally. If you could point me to some evidence that would show that I was stupid for doing this then please go ahead. That is, evidence that is readily available to anyone and that highlights the possibility of the scenario the poker sites are facing now.
Your point about the cheating in poker has no relevance on this subject at all.
i dont know law or anything but i think exactly this.
Not giving the money back to their rightful owners would be complete bullshit and IMO immoral. Lots of people have alot of money on these sites.
On April 16 2011 04:46 zyzski wrote: people are going to be killing themselves because of this stuff, wowowowow
Seriously. You're definitely not far from the truth.....
A lot of people may lose a lot of money by doing things that are completely legal in their own countries..... Entire life savings could be gone in a fucking instant.
On April 16 2011 04:44 Kipsate wrote: Non-violent means little, it is more of a white-collar crime, and money laundering is quite a serious offense.
It's only called "money laundering" because their enterprise isn't legally condoned by the government. That's it. No money was stolen here. No people were wronged. No one was hurt. It doesn't take much critical thinking to see that nothing that the purveyors of the poker site did nothing inherently criminal or immoral. They broke unjust laws, and they will face an unjust punishment if convicted.
On April 16 2011 04:07 StarStruck wrote: It's just one of the risks you take by doing it. :/
No it really isn't. Don't make it sound like it's the poker players' fault for losing the money.
This is not something anyone could have ever foreseen. Ever. There were maybe like a few thousand people in the whole world who knew what was going on.
Say you get struck by a meteor playing golf. That is not one of the risks of playing golf.
I think I just lost my £400 for my euro trip then.
While I sympathize with the players who lost money, I think "meteor while playing golf" is a bit over-dramatic.
The fact is online poker has always been a grey area, whether it was the passage of the UIGEA in 2006 or just the sites themselves having problems with cheating and shills.
A lot of you are probably too young to remember this but online poker has been on the government's radar for almost a decade. It was always a question of WHEN the "meteor" would hit, not IF.
That said there was no telling when. It sucks that it happened now, but it was inevitable.
Why are you comparing cheating at online poker to this? They are not the same at all and it isn't relevant. Don't call poker a "grey area".
The UIGEA has nothing to do with me. It should not have affected me.
I don't know how many times I have to explain this.
The poker sites were allegedly engaged in fraud and money laundering. Whether or not you were legally depositing there, they were allegedly doing illegal things with your money. As a result, the assets of the companies are being seized - including your money.
I understand that. It says that in the OP.
The UIGEA is a law in a country that I am not a citizen of. I gave my money to an American company with the faith that they were operating legally. As far as I am aware, there was nothing to indicate to me that they were operating illegally. If you could point me to some evidence that would show that I was stupid for doing this then please go ahead. That is, evidence that is readily available to anyone and that highlights the possibility of the scenario the poker sites are facing now.
Your point about the cheating in poker has no relevance on this subject at all.
i dont know law or anything but i think exactly this.
Not giving the money back to their rightful owners would be complete bullshit and IMO immoral. Lots of people have alot of money on these sites.
Same could be said for all the people that got done by Madoff, stock market crashes, and dodgy bankers unfortunately the world isn't always fair
On April 16 2011 04:37 Soap wrote: It is reasonable to assume the most of the money is held outside of the US and therefore not under their jurisdiction. There's a reason most poker sites are private companies and located at fiscal paradises.
I assume the gov could fine PS/etc for some huge amount that would require taking the money out of their havens? I guess those people better not be in the US anywhere in the near future, and hope that their countries don't extradite.
They simply would be unable to enforce it, because the nature of online poker doesn't require them to have any presence in the US or even exist under US law. What they could and are trying to is to prevent US borne funds to reach them, which is a drawback but by no means catrastrophic. There's enough of a market elsewere, as PartyPoker and others who fully withdrew from the US demonstrate.
Just withdraw a reasonable amount from full tilt. Premium Bank Wire. It went through, but who knows if I actually will ever see that money. If not, I'm pretty boned.
Meet The Boy Genius Who Just Took Down The Online Poker Industry
The 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 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 made Full Tilt Poker and Poker Stars millions of dollars — and making as much $150,000 a day for himself — but then got even more greedy and started taking them for himself. They sued him, demanding more than $100 million of their own money back.
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 wealth, he was considered a flight risk and denied bail.
Then after a "secret" meeting with prosecutors, he was suddenly out on bail. And now, his former colleagues are the ones facing serious jail time.
Daniel Tzvetkoff knows the operations of these poker site inside and out. He's the one man positioned to give these companies to the U.S. Attorneys on a silver platter. 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, "He 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
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.
On April 16 2011 04:41 Wohmfg wrote: The UIGEA is a law in a country that I am not a citizen of. I gave my money to an American company with the faith that they were operating legally. As far as I am aware, there was nothing to indicate to me that they were operating illegally.
Good faith isn't going to get you anywhere here, unfortunately. Again, sucks to be you, but you have no recourse. The assets of the company are the subject of an in rem seizure - legally speaking, you're completely unrelated to the matter here. The assets are property connected to an illegal activity - fraud and money laundering to avoid UIGEA.
If you could point me to some evidence that would show that I was stupid for doing this then please go ahead. That is, evidence that is readily available to anyone and that highlights the possibility of the scenario the poker sites are facing now.
I mean, it should have been fairly obvious once UIGEA was passed in the first place - that's when I quit (though for other reasons too). Everyone knew that, in practice, UIGEA was just going to be make the whole deposit/withdrawal process more difficult. But did anyone really think that was going to be the end of it? I certainly didn't.
I definitely understand that people weren't aware of what the situation was like going into poker. No, there probably was no way to know directly if you got into the game late, especially in the past couple years. The FBI investigation has been going on since 2009 from what I understand.
Your point about the cheating in poker has no relevance on this subject at all.
Not directly, no. It's just that the whole area has been kind of... iffy. I mean, you have to realize that for every cheater that's caught, there's probably an order of magnitude more who aren't, right? Online poker definitely got me some good returns in 2004/2005, when it was still new and full of fish and nobody was using tracking sites like sharkscope. But it wasn't going to last, and it didn't.
Meet The Boy Genius Who Just Took Down The Online Poker Industry
The 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 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 made Full Tilt Poker and Poker Stars millions of dollars — and making as much $150,000 a day for himself — but then got even more greedy and started taking them for himself. They sued him, demanding more than $100 million of their own money back.
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 wealth, he was considered a flight risk and denied bail.
Then after a "secret" meeting with prosecutors, he was suddenly out on bail. And now, his former colleagues are the ones facing serious jail time.
Daniel Tzvetkoff knows the operations of these poker site inside and out. He's the one man positioned to give these companies to the U.S. Attorneys on a silver platter. 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, "He 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
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.
On April 16 2011 04:45 TURKISHRAMBO wrote: i dont know law or anything but i think exactly this.
Not giving the money back to their rightful owners would be complete bullshit and IMO immoral. Lots of people have alot of money on these sites.
Well, it's not really about who the "rightful owners" are. Currently, all the money is in possesion of the poker sites. They have liabilities towards all their players with bankrolls on their sites. However, if the pokers sites are convicted, they will have liabilities towards the US government. With all their US bank accounts frozen the money on them cannot be accessed by anybody. After the trial the money from these accounts will be distributed to the entities that the poker sites have liabilities towards. Now guess, which liabilites will be covered first... Furthermore, if the fines become too huge the poker sites can go broke. If this happens, there is absolutely no way that the users (from anywhere) see their money ever again.
Meet The Boy Genius Who Just Took Down The Online Poker Industry
The 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 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 made Full Tilt Poker and Poker Stars millions of dollars — and making as much $150,000 a day for himself — but then got even more greedy and started taking them for himself. They sued him, demanding more than $100 million of their own money back.
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 wealth, he was considered a flight risk and denied bail.
Then after a "secret" meeting with prosecutors, he was suddenly out on bail. And now, his former colleagues are the ones facing serious jail time.
Daniel Tzvetkoff knows the operations of these poker site inside and out. He's the one man positioned to give these companies to the U.S. Attorneys on a silver platter. 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, "He 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
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.
Meet The Boy Genius Who Just Took Down The Online Poker Industry
The 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 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 made Full Tilt Poker and Poker Stars millions of dollars — and making as much $150,000 a day for himself — but then got even more greedy and started taking them for himself. They sued him, demanding more than $100 million of their own money back.
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 wealth, he was considered a flight risk and denied bail.
Then after a "secret" meeting with prosecutors, he was suddenly out on bail. And now, his former colleagues are the ones facing serious jail time.
Daniel Tzvetkoff knows the operations of these poker site inside and out. He's the one man positioned to give these companies to the U.S. Attorneys on a silver platter. 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, "He 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
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.
On April 16 2011 04:44 Kipsate wrote: Non-violent means little, it is more of a white-collar crime, and money laundering is quite a serious offense.
It's only called "money laundering" because their enterprise isn't legally condoned by the government. That's it. No money was stolen here. No people were wronged. No one was hurt. It doesn't take much critical thinking to see that nothing that the purveyors of the poker site did nothing inherently criminal or immoral. They broke unjust laws, and they will face an unjust punishment if convicted.
LOL, kind of like how not being allowed to print your own money is unjust right?
I have 10k at stars and i've just withdrawn few k (well I've just requested to withdraw as usual, and system said 'ok np wait for e-mail' as usual)
However if US players will be banned from online-poker, this means hard time for most online-poker professionals since U.S. players lose nearly as much as the players from all other countries combined (according to http://www.pokertableratings.com/top-countries). There are plenty world-class U.S. professionals and shitload of casual players.
On April 16 2011 04:41 Wohmfg wrote: The UIGEA is a law in a country that I am not a citizen of. I gave my money to an American company with the faith that they were operating legally. As far as I am aware, there was nothing to indicate to me that they were operating illegally.
Good faith isn't going to get you anywhere here, unfortunately. Again, sucks to be you, but you have no recourse. The assets of the company are the subject of an in rem seizure - legally speaking, you're completely unrelated to the matter here. The assets are property connected to an illegal activity - fraud and money laundering to avoid UIGEA.
If you could point me to some evidence that would show that I was stupid for doing this then please go ahead. That is, evidence that is readily available to anyone and that highlights the possibility of the scenario the poker sites are facing now.
I mean, it should have been fairly obvious once UIGEA was passed in the first place - that's when I quit (though for other reasons too). Everyone knew that, in practice, UIGEA was just going to be make the whole deposit/withdrawal process more difficult. But did anyone really think that was going to be the end of it? I certainly didn't.
I definitely understand that people weren't aware of what the situation was like going into poker. No, there probably was no way to know directly if you got into the game late, especially in the past couple years. The FBI investigation has been going on since 2009 from what I understand.
Your point about the cheating in poker has no relevance on this subject at all.
Not directly, no. It's just that the whole area has been kind of... iffy. I mean, you have to realize that for every cheater that's caught, there's probably an order of magnitude more who aren't, right? Online poker definitely got me some good returns in 2004/2005, when it was still new and full of fish and nobody was using tracking sites like sharkscope. But it wasn't going to last, and it didn't.
I haven't asked once for any recourse.
So as soon as UIGEA, you assumed that all the poker sites operating in USA were operating illegally? And everyone else should have as well? That's crazy to assume.
On April 16 2011 05:02 laegoose wrote: I have 10k at stars and i've just withdrawn few k (well I've just requested to withdraw as usual, and system said 'ok np wait for e-mail' as usual)
However if US players will be banned from online-poker, this means hard time for most online-poker professionals since U.S. players lose nearly as much as the players from all other countries combined (according to http://www.pokertableratings.com/top-countries). There are plenty world-class U.S. professionals and shitload of casual players.
Can't they just move to non-US sites like i4poker or something?
On April 16 2011 04:44 Kipsate wrote: Non-violent means little, it is more of a white-collar crime, and money laundering is quite a serious offense.
It's only called "money laundering" because their enterprise isn't legally condoned by the government. That's it. No money was stolen here. No people were wronged. No one was hurt. It doesn't take much critical thinking to see that nothing that the purveyors of the poker site did nothing inherently criminal or immoral. They broke unjust laws, and they will face an unjust punishment if convicted.
LOL, kind of like how not being allowed to print your own money is unjust right?
You're clueless. The government monopolization of money and the transformation of money from a commodity money to fiat money is one of the greatest problems facing the world today. Just wait until a few years from now when all the debt monetization that has been happening to finance our outrageous deficit spending rears its ugly head in the form of massive devaluation of the dollar.
On April 16 2011 03:53 jalstar wrote: i only have $50 on PS anyway, hopefully my $200 withdrawal echeck from last week clears though.
Restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts used by the poker companies and their payment processors, while five Internet domain names used by the companies to host poker games were seized, federal authorities added in a statement.
well -$250 sucks a lot but there are some people with thousands on there, this is huge.
is the govt aloud to do this and not give your money back?
All i can see is this causing even more unrest and people trying to get their money back using legal action.
It's not "your money". It is money that was sitting in the bank account of an entity engaged in a criminal enterprise. The money has been seized as part of a federal criminal investigation.
Trying to get your money through legal action against the US government here would be like trying to get your money back from your local drug dealer after he was arrested. Your money is gone. You have a 0% chance of ever getting it back.
Yes, it IS my money. I spent countless hours studying poker theory, played and analyzed hundreds of thousands of hands. Don't tell me that isn't my own hard-earned money. They have not seized funds from these sites yet, nor are these sites "criminal organizations." They're based in countries where what they're doing is completely legal, and the US has no jurisdiction. Comparing this with getting back money from a drug dealer demonstrates your ignorance on the subject.
Yet you've spent your money by studying, and then playing, online gambling. No one here is arguing that your effort isn't worth something. Of course it is.
But what has happened, happened. And these companies are going the way of the dodo, like it or not. If any online gambling for-profit companies remain, they are gonna be either heavily regulated in some shape or form, or they pay their taxes just like any other company, period. And YOU - have you reported all your poker earnings on your tax returns?
But back to your study of poker. Can you not take your poker skills and just head down to your poker house of choice or vegas? Why restrict your means of income to online venues only?
Yes, I've paid taxes on the money I made, which is ironic, considering taxpayer money is now being used to finance the investigation of my source of income and the seizure of funds I would have paid taxes on. Makes perfect sense.
Theoretically, I could be playing in Vegas, but there are two problems with that. First, I can't 12-table vegas poker. That's a difference between 1000 hands per hour and 25 hands per hour. It means my winrate would have to be 40 times as high, which is impossible, and that the variance I'll experience will be absurd. Sure, a 20k hand downswing sucks when you play 20k hands in a couple of weeks, but I can't begin to imagine it over a year. Second, I'm a college student in Denver. I play poker to pay tuition and expenses, and do not have the time to play the epic number of hours at a live table in order to scrape by.
@US Attorney, we're coming at this issue from two different sides. You're taking the purely legal route, while I'm taking the idealistic-pissed-off-at-what-I-see-as-injustice perspective. I know the government has a legal right to seize these funds. That's why I'm pissed; I have no recourse. And I'm still of the belief that you're completely ignorant as to what it takes to turn poker into a profitable enterprise.
On April 16 2011 04:45 TURKISHRAMBO wrote: i dont know law or anything but i think exactly this.
Not giving the money back to their rightful owners would be complete bullshit and IMO immoral. Lots of people have alot of money on these sites.
Well, it's not really about who the "rightful owners" are. Currently, all the money is in possesion of the poker sites. They have liabilities towards all their players with bankrolls on their sites. However, if the pokers sites are convicted, they will have liabilities towards the US government. With all their US bank accounts frozen the money on them cannot be accessed by anybody. After the trial the money from these accounts will be distributed to the entities that the poker sites have liabilities towards. Now guess, which liabilites will be covered first... Furthermore, if the fines become too huge the poker sites can go broke. If this happens, there is absolutely no way that the users (from anywhere) see their money ever again.
Not only that, but this is going to take years. The poker sites' legal fees are going to be among their future liabilities, which are going to be massive.
In the future, some international players could, in theory, get their money back. But that seems incredibly unlikely at this point.
This is clearly immoral, to not give back the money of the customers. For me it's one of the biggest robbery of the century with maddoff, enron and co.
On April 16 2011 04:29 Fayth wrote: meh for god sake i got 75k on these sites
lol what? you are gonna lose money now cause america slacked for the last 10 years? the fame of these sites means they are legit.
if this truly fucks all the non-american players then it really should turn into an international crisis as big as the last "bubble burst"
i say bigger cause i bet more people play online poker than buy houses in america.
no, much much much much much much much smaller because the majority of online players are losing players that don't have any significant money on poker sites.
On April 16 2011 04:44 Kipsate wrote: Non-violent means little, it is more of a white-collar crime, and money laundering is quite a serious offense.
It's only called "money laundering" because their enterprise isn't legally condoned by the government. That's it. No money was stolen here. No people were wronged. No one was hurt. It doesn't take much critical thinking to see that nothing that the purveyors of the poker site did nothing inherently criminal or immoral. They broke unjust laws, and they will face an unjust punishment if convicted.
LOL, kind of like how not being allowed to print your own money is unjust right?
You're clueless. The government monopolization of money and the transformation of money from a commodity money to fiat money is one of the greatest problems facing the world today. Just wait until a few years from now when all the debt monetization that has been happening to finance our outrageous deficit spending rears its ugly head in the form of massive devaluation of the dollar.
Oh, so poker sites were intent on trying to decrease the deficit and save the dollar from devaluation. How could I have been so clueless?
I think people are getting angry at the wrong other people.
Yes, it's bullshit that online poker is illegal in the United States. However, it was and is illegal and the aforementioned poker sites know that. They're the ones that have brought this upon all their customers.
To bring up the prohibition metaphor again. If I have a family that depends on me for financial support and I decide to pocket a little by selling alcohol on the side, and I get arrested, it is not the US Government's fault that my family is going to starve.
Goverments surely care about their people.. What a joke. They allow people to gamble on 100% luck based, unbelievably -EV stuff, yet they jump on poker, because they can't get in on the action. World fucking sucks
GEE GEE, looks like i ain't going to see the 10 bux i turned into 300 dollars... Then lost 110 dollars the past two days on a downswing.
Now i don't feel so bad i was getting bad beats and what not, feels a little liberating =p Though i was thinking of withdrawing 100 bux a few weeks ago but i got an unfavourable exchange rate (1 AUD = 1.05 USD). Ah well at least i only deposited 10 bux to get the rakeback, doesn't hit me as much as other people and i kinda sucked at it.
On April 16 2011 04:41 Wohmfg wrote: The UIGEA is a law in a country that I am not a citizen of. I gave my money to an American company with the faith that they were operating legally. As far as I am aware, there was nothing to indicate to me that they were operating illegally.
Good faith isn't going to get you anywhere here, unfortunately. Again, sucks to be you, but you have no recourse. The assets of the company are the subject of an in rem seizure - legally speaking, you're completely unrelated to the matter here. The assets are property connected to an illegal activity - fraud and money laundering to avoid UIGEA.
If you could point me to some evidence that would show that I was stupid for doing this then please go ahead. That is, evidence that is readily available to anyone and that highlights the possibility of the scenario the poker sites are facing now.
I mean, it should have been fairly obvious once UIGEA was passed in the first place - that's when I quit (though for other reasons too). Everyone knew that, in practice, UIGEA was just going to be make the whole deposit/withdrawal process more difficult. But did anyone really think that was going to be the end of it? I certainly didn't.
I definitely understand that people weren't aware of what the situation was like going into poker. No, there probably was no way to know directly if you got into the game late, especially in the past couple years. The FBI investigation has been going on since 2009 from what I understand.
Your point about the cheating in poker has no relevance on this subject at all.
Not directly, no. It's just that the whole area has been kind of... iffy. I mean, you have to realize that for every cheater that's caught, there's probably an order of magnitude more who aren't, right? Online poker definitely got me some good returns in 2004/2005, when it was still new and full of fish and nobody was using tracking sites like sharkscope. But it wasn't going to last, and it didn't.
I haven't asked once for any recourse.
I thought we were talking about getting your money back? How you went about it would be some recourse.
So as soon as UIGEA, you assumed that all the poker sites operating in USA were operating illegally? And everyone else should have as well? That's crazy to assume.
Apparently it wasn't. And let's not forget that Partypoker and PacificPoker blocked US customers as a result of the UIGEA. Seems like a good move now, doesn't it? If you'd been playing there your money would be safe now, from what I can see.
And yeah, any site operating in the USA was certainly operating in violation of most state law, although the question of personal jurisdiction over a website hadn't really been clarified in American law at that point, but was clearly leaning in the direction of state jurisdiction over commercial websites. You have to understand how jurisdiction works - if you're doing something illegal in one country, your stuff is another country can be seized pursuant to the illegal activity in the other country. Most countries cooperate with each other in this way, for plenty of other good reasons.
But yes, the fact that the US passed a federal law clearly designed to attack online poker should have been some indication that things were not in the clear for online poker. Ironically, I was always more worried by 1) collusion and 2) bad faith on the part of the house, both of which turned out to be going on too, in some instances. (though not related to this, obviously).
That said, I feel pretty bad for anyone who lost money today. There was no way to know this would happen now, and in my view online poker should be legal anyway. But now it has and there's really little chance of anyone getting anything back.
On April 16 2011 05:11 Wohmfg wrote: Just a thought, won't our money be insured against things like this?
What I think happens is that these poker sites have a debt to you, however if the US goverment sues these sites and wins the cases, then the poker sites will have a debt to the US goverment too, the US goverment however has priority over, well anyone, after that come major shareholders etcetera.(correct me if I am wrong).
So even if there was insurance I doubt you'd get your money back, you can't get money off someone who has noone. Atleast thats how I see it, but what do I know .
On April 16 2011 05:14 Sufficiency wrote: Good. I seriously think gambling online (especially poker) is stupid. All you need is a calculator and you are good to go.
On April 16 2011 05:14 Sufficiency wrote: Good. I seriously think gambling online (especially poker) is stupid. All you need is a calculator and you are good to go.
On April 16 2011 05:14 Sufficiency wrote: Good. I seriously think gambling online (especially poker) is stupid. All you need is a calculator and you are good to go.
On April 16 2011 05:02 Pervect wrote: MONEY once again defending the world from grave injustices. Another great success for the greatest nation in history. MONEY MONEY MONEY
On April 16 2011 05:15 Puosu wrote: So much differing information being spewed out everywhere, as an European I have no idea whether or not to panic and if so to what degree. Fuck.
The attorney dude is almost certainly likely right, and everybody else is probably reeling from their losses.
wtf... God damn how retarded can the government be? Jesus -_-. I mean fuck I didn't play poker and make a ton of money just played for fun and all that just deposited like 10-20$ play that would last me till I either withdrew the 100$ I made or something (didn't play that much).
I mean wow I feel so bad for the people who make a lot of money playing poker and are now getting fucked over. Joys of the government always trying to baby people T_T.
On April 16 2011 05:11 Wohmfg wrote: Just a thought, won't our money be insured against things like this?
What I think happens is that these poker sites have a debt to you, however if the US goverment sues these sites and wins the cases, then the poker sites will have a debt to the US goverment too, the US goverment however has priority over, well anyone, after that come major shareholders etcetera.(correct me if I am wrong).
So even if there was insurance I doubt you'd get your money back, you can't get money off someone who has noone. Atleast thats how I see it, but what do I know .
Thats 100% true. Happened to my dad. He owns a small business, sells metal to large companies that manufacture homes. Well one of those companies decided they were in over their head and didn't want to pay anyone. Bankruptcy = Profit.
And of course they are still in business and my Dad still does business with them, even though they owe him 20k that he will never get. -_-'
Wouldn't those 'individuals' use that exact scheme to get money through banks in other countries? Pretty sure after the dust settles a lot more websites will be brought down. Well, there go my $3.45...
On April 16 2011 04:44 Kipsate wrote: Non-violent means little, it is more of a white-collar crime, and money laundering is quite a serious offense.
It's only called "money laundering" because their enterprise isn't legally condoned by the government. That's it. No money was stolen here. No people were wronged. No one was hurt. It doesn't take much critical thinking to see that nothing that the purveyors of the poker site did nothing inherently criminal or immoral. They broke unjust laws, and they will face an unjust punishment if convicted.
LOL, kind of like how not being allowed to print your own money is unjust right?
You're clueless. The government monopolization of money and the transformation of money from a commodity money to fiat money is one of the greatest problems facing the world today. Just wait until a few years from now when all the debt monetization that has been happening to finance our outrageous deficit spending rears its ugly head in the form of massive devaluation of the dollar.
Oh, so poker sites were intent on trying to decrease the deficit and save the dollar from devaluation. How could I have been so clueless?
No, the two issues have nothing to do with one another, but nice attempt at a goalpost shift. Do you concede to my original point that the sites did nothing immoral, and that any attempt to prosecute them is unjust, or are you going to continue trying to view the world through your broken moral lens?
On April 16 2011 05:13 Zerokaiser wrote:Yes, it's bullshit that online poker is illegal in the United States. However, it was and is illegal and the aforementioned poker sites know that. They're the ones that have brought this upon all their customers.
That's an extense grey area. What's certain is it's illegal to process payments to and from online gambing parlors in the US. First, that's an issue for payment processors, neither us nor the sites itself that aren't even based in the US. Second, it's arguable if poker fits under gambling; statistically, the better player always win.
Wow that's terrible for all you poker players I feel sorry for you. I just watched "The Untouchables" yesterday and this totally feels like the modern day equivalent of it.
On April 16 2011 04:41 Wohmfg wrote: The UIGEA is a law in a country that I am not a citizen of. I gave my money to an American company with the faith that they were operating legally. As far as I am aware, there was nothing to indicate to me that they were operating illegally.
Good faith isn't going to get you anywhere here, unfortunately. Again, sucks to be you, but you have no recourse. The assets of the company are the subject of an in rem seizure - legally speaking, you're completely unrelated to the matter here. The assets are property connected to an illegal activity - fraud and money laundering to avoid UIGEA.
If you could point me to some evidence that would show that I was stupid for doing this then please go ahead. That is, evidence that is readily available to anyone and that highlights the possibility of the scenario the poker sites are facing now.
I mean, it should have been fairly obvious once UIGEA was passed in the first place - that's when I quit (though for other reasons too). Everyone knew that, in practice, UIGEA was just going to be make the whole deposit/withdrawal process more difficult. But did anyone really think that was going to be the end of it? I certainly didn't.
I definitely understand that people weren't aware of what the situation was like going into poker. No, there probably was no way to know directly if you got into the game late, especially in the past couple years. The FBI investigation has been going on since 2009 from what I understand.
Your point about the cheating in poker has no relevance on this subject at all.
Not directly, no. It's just that the whole area has been kind of... iffy. I mean, you have to realize that for every cheater that's caught, there's probably an order of magnitude more who aren't, right? Online poker definitely got me some good returns in 2004/2005, when it was still new and full of fish and nobody was using tracking sites like sharkscope. But it wasn't going to last, and it didn't.
I haven't asked once for any recourse.
I thought we were talking about getting your money back? How you went about it would be some recourse.
So as soon as UIGEA, you assumed that all the poker sites operating in USA were operating illegally? And everyone else should have as well? That's crazy to assume.
Apparently it wasn't. And let's not forget that Partypoker and PacificPoker blocked US customers as a result of the UIGEA. Seems like a good move now, doesn't it? If you'd been playing there your money would be safe now, from what I can see.
And yeah, any site operating in the USA was certainly operating in violation of most state law, although the question of personal jurisdiction over a website hadn't really been clarified in American law at that point, but was clearly leaning in the direction of state jurisdiction over commercial websites. You have to understand how jurisdiction works - if you're doing something illegal in one country, your stuff is another country can be seized pursuant to the illegal activity in the other country. Most countries cooperate with each other in this way, for plenty of other good reasons.
But yes, the fact that the US passed a federal law clearly designed to attack online poker should have been some indication that things were not in the clear for online poker. Ironically, I was always more worried by 1) collusion and 2) bad faith on the part of the house, both of which turned out to be going on too, in some instances. (though not related to this, obviously).
That said, I feel pretty bad for anyone who lost money today. There was no way to know this would happen now, and in my view online poker should be legal anyway. But now it has and there's really little chance of anyone getting anything back.
Thanks for saying what I've been trying to get out of you!
Well done for knowing that it was going to happen, but it's unreasonable to expect that everyone else should know too.
This is surely another way for the government to try and dig itself out of the debt hole. Seize any money it can. Did the same with Libyan assets. As soon as they could justify it stole they make the move and steal the money. Most every one of these sites is run from outside the US and have its company setup on some island nation where they don't bother them. They send the checks through 3rd party distributors to get banks to clear them but I don't see how the FBI feel its justified in seizing anything. If it wanted to have the sites block US use that's one thing but these sites are international and used by people in Canada and other countries which are OK with their business. Anyone who's freaking out move to Canada, they don't even tax income from Gambling there.
On April 16 2011 05:24 jtw1n wrote: Anyone who's freaking out move to Canada, they don't even tax income from Gambling there.
this isn't quite true. the law regarding this is gray and not well established. if it's something like a "windfall" profit like lucking from a slots machine jackpot or whatever, it's not taxable, but if you're playing poker professionally (as in it makes up a large portion of your income every year), you may have to pay taxes. there's a big thread on twoplustwo about this.
On April 16 2011 05:25 travis wrote: Get this. My buddy cashed a pokerstars check for $1500 8 days ago. It showed the $1500 as processing to be added to his account.
Yesterday the transaction was canceled, apparently.
So the check just vaporized? This is fucking ridiculous.
On April 16 2011 05:21 GinDo wrote: Who keeps the money at the end? The U.S?
-_- so this is how they solve our financial problems
Not really. This is like throwing an H2O molecule into an empty pool. Not gonna make a splash at all. This does smell a little funny though. They obviously had to know how many people were going to be affected.
On April 16 2011 03:53 jalstar wrote: i only have $50 on PS anyway, hopefully my $200 withdrawal echeck from last week clears though.
Restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts used by the poker companies and their payment processors, while five Internet domain names used by the companies to host poker games were seized, federal authorities added in a statement.
well -$250 sucks a lot but there are some people with thousands on there, this is huge.
is the govt aloud to do this and not give your money back?
All i can see is this causing even more unrest and people trying to get their money back using legal action.
It's not "your money". It is money that was sitting in the bank account of an entity engaged in a criminal enterprise. The money has been seized as part of a federal criminal investigation.
Trying to get your money through legal action against the US government here would be like trying to get your money back from your local drug dealer after he was arrested. Your money is gone. You have a 0% chance of ever getting it back.
Yes, it IS my money. I spent countless hours studying poker theory, played and analyzed hundreds of thousands of hands. Don't tell me that isn't my own hard-earned money. They have not seized funds from these sites yet, nor are these sites "criminal organizations." They're based in countries where what they're doing is completely legal, and the US has no jurisdiction. Comparing this with getting back money from a drug dealer demonstrates your ignorance on the subject.
Yet you've spent your money by studying, and then playing, online gambling. No one here is arguing that your effort isn't worth something. Of course it is.
But what has happened, happened. And these companies are going the way of the dodo, like it or not. If any online gambling for-profit companies remain, they are gonna be either heavily regulated in some shape or form, or they pay their taxes just like any other company, period. And YOU - have you reported all your poker earnings on your tax returns?
But back to your study of poker. Can you not take your poker skills and just head down to your poker house of choice or vegas? Why restrict your means of income to online venues only?
Yes, I've paid taxes on the money I made, which is ironic, considering taxpayer money is now being used to finance the investigation of my source of income and the seizure of funds I would have paid taxes on. Makes perfect sense.
Theoretically, I could be playing in Vegas, but there are two problems with that. First, I can't 12-table vegas poker. That's a difference between 1000 hands per hour and 25 hands per hour. It means my winrate would have to be 40 times as high, which is impossible, and that the variance I'll experience will be absurd. Sure, a 20k hand downswing sucks when you play 20k hands in a couple of weeks, but I can't begin to imagine it over a year. Second, I'm a college student in Denver. I play poker to pay tuition and expenses, and do not have the time to play the epic number of hours at a live table in order to scrape by.
@US Attorney, we're coming at this issue from two different sides. You're taking the purely legal route, while I'm taking the idealistic-pissed-off-at-what-I-see-as-injustice perspective. I know the government has a legal right to seize these funds. That's why I'm pissed; I have no recourse. And I'm still of the belief that you're completely ignorant as to what it takes to turn poker into a profitable enterprise.
Oh, trust me, I know. I never played "professionally", but I got some pocket money during school playing on Partypoker in 2005. I had a friend living on my couch trying to play professionally; he also quit that when Partypoker decided that US players weren't worth the risk after UIGEA.
As it turns out, Partypoker was right. I still have friends who were multitabling on the side of their real jobs for extra income, or just something else to do during EvE/WoW/whatever. I know how many hands per hour you can get playing online at 10+ tables versus playing IRL.
On April 16 2011 05:13 Zerokaiser wrote:Yes, it's bullshit that online poker is illegal in the United States. However, it was and is illegal and the aforementioned poker sites know that. They're the ones that have brought this upon all their customers.
The sites aren't technically run from the United States. It is the American Citizens gambling from their own homes that is a problem. The rest of the civilized world isn't that petty though.
On April 16 2011 05:25 travis wrote: Get this. My buddy cashed a pokerstars check for $1500 8 days ago. It showed the $1500 as processing to be added to his account.
Yesterday the transaction was canceled, apparently.
That isn't particularly uncommon, when it happens stars/ftp normally just send another cheque.
On April 16 2011 05:25 travis wrote: Get this. My buddy cashed a pokerstars check for $1500 8 days ago. It showed the $1500 as processing to be added to his account.
Yesterday the transaction was canceled, apparently.
That isn't particularly uncommon, when it happens stars/ftp normally just send another cheque.
I've never heard of this happening, and both he and I have cashed out a shitload of checks from stars.
This is such BS. The poker websites were all pretty legitimate in my experience (the big ones at least) and even worked hard to combat collusion and poker bots.
What the US is doing is just so morally wrong.
Anyone know if Cake Poker is/will be seriously affected?
I've withdrawn 4-5 times from FTP, half of those times my checks were cancelled and had to be re-issued. So it's possible that your friend's check not going through wasn't a result of the govt's actions but honestly it probably is what happened.
Have $3k (just from grinding microstakes whenever I felt like in over the past few years). Requested $2.5k bankwire (the maximum allowed). Hope it goes through, but I am not expecting it . On the bright side, I only actually invested like $150 originally.
On April 16 2011 05:25 travis wrote: Get this. My buddy cashed a pokerstars check for $1500 8 days ago. It showed the $1500 as processing to be added to his account.
Yesterday the transaction was canceled, apparently.
That isn't particularly uncommon, when it happens stars/ftp normally just send another cheque.
I've never heard of this happening, and both he and I have cashed out a shitload of checks from stars.
Check the zoo out on 2p2, it happens many times a week.
On April 16 2011 05:25 travis wrote: Get this. My buddy cashed a pokerstars check for $1500 8 days ago. It showed the $1500 as processing to be added to his account.
Yesterday the transaction was canceled, apparently.
That isn't particularly uncommon, when it happens stars/ftp normally just send another cheque.
I've never heard of this happening, and both he and I have cashed out a shitload of checks from stars.
Check the zoo out on 2p2, it happens many times a week.
ah. I suppose I am lucky it never happened to me then.
also I seem to have had pretty good timing with quitting poker.
On April 16 2011 05:25 travis wrote: Get this. My buddy cashed a pokerstars check for $1500 8 days ago. It showed the $1500 as processing to be added to his account.
Yesterday the transaction was canceled, apparently.
If pokerstars' bank is outside of the U.S. I can't really see the DOJ having the authority to freeze that transaction, although they may have issued a notice to every U.S. bank not to accept further transactions from said foreign bank.
On April 16 2011 04:44 Kipsate wrote: Non-violent means little, it is more of a white-collar crime, and money laundering is quite a serious offense.
It's only called "money laundering" because their enterprise isn't legally condoned by the government. That's it. No money was stolen here. No people were wronged. No one was hurt. It doesn't take much critical thinking to see that nothing that the purveyors of the poker site did nothing inherently criminal or immoral. They broke unjust laws, and they will face an unjust punishment if convicted.
LOL, kind of like how not being allowed to print your own money is unjust right?
You're clueless. The government monopolization of money and the transformation of money from a commodity money to fiat money is one of the greatest problems facing the world today. Just wait until a few years from now when all the debt monetization that has been happening to finance our outrageous deficit spending rears its ugly head in the form of massive devaluation of the dollar.
Oh, so poker sites were intent on trying to decrease the deficit and save the dollar from devaluation. How could I have been so clueless?
No, the two issues have nothing to do with one another, but nice attempt at a goalpost shift. Do you concede to my original point that the sites did nothing immoral, and that any attempt to prosecute them is unjust, or are you going to continue trying to view the world through your broken moral lens?
Even if the money laundering was not immoral, hell even if this whole case is immoral, even if they get convincted on immoral laws. They will be convicted, and people WILL lose money over it, argueing about the morality of this is irrellevant to the case as far as I can see. They broke the law, then they need to suffer the consequences, even if it is infact a stupid law. I also think that apart from money laundering they did nothing immoral.
I guess the main question is whether the US can seize (seems very unlikely) or tie up money in non-US accounts. If not, then non-US players probably don't have much to worry about. I imagine the only money the sites have in US accounts is for their weird payment processing setup.
I think US players are only completely screwed if the sites don't have enough left over after the $3 billion lawsuit. I can't find much info on that, but it's probably split between the 4 sites, and they're all rich as fuck, so I don't think that's a problem. So your money will likely still be there, but actually getting it may be next to impossible (and you might not even be able to play with it either)
But that's just short term. Long term, no more American players I guess?
Can't find any useful info on 2p2 since the site's getting hammered right now. =/
Currently Active Users: 12243 (4076 members and 8167 guests) View Who's Online Most users ever online was 12,244, Today at 04:20 PM.
Currently I cannot cash out of fulltilt. Bad timing for me cause I need this cash . Well I'm still healty (alwais see the positive ...). Kind of depressing. Good luck to all of you who lost important money.
On April 16 2011 04:44 Kipsate wrote: Non-violent means little, it is more of a white-collar crime, and money laundering is quite a serious offense.
It's only called "money laundering" because their enterprise isn't legally condoned by the government. That's it. No money was stolen here. No people were wronged. No one was hurt. It doesn't take much critical thinking to see that nothing that the purveyors of the poker site did nothing inherently criminal or immoral. They broke unjust laws, and they will face an unjust punishment if convicted.
LOL, kind of like how not being allowed to print your own money is unjust right?
You're clueless. The government monopolization of money and the transformation of money from a commodity money to fiat money is one of the greatest problems facing the world today. Just wait until a few years from now when all the debt monetization that has been happening to finance our outrageous deficit spending rears its ugly head in the form of massive devaluation of the dollar.
so you call someoene clueless but you dont know that the government has not printed the money in almost 100 years. The Federal Reserve is a private bank and is about as "Federal" as Federal Express.
Here is a clip of Allen Greenspan, former head of the Fed saying there is no relation between the governent and the fed. Its not a secret, it never has been. You're clueless
more on topic here is the best article Ive found about the guy who helped bust them
On April 16 2011 05:39 sekritzzz wrote: When is the next unemployment report coming in? Mr. Obama, be prepared for a 20% unemployment rate this time of year.
Maybe that will change the govt opinion to reverse this move lol
What are you talking about? Though this sucks it will have zero effect on the average person whatsoever.
On April 16 2011 05:39 sekritzzz wrote: When is the next unemployment report coming in? Mr. Obama, be prepared for a 20% unemployment rate this time of year.
Maybe that will change the govt opinion to reverse this move lol
Lol i was thinking the same thing. Some of my poker friends have never worked a "real" job before, i dont know what they will do now. I guess moving to Canada isn't a bad option eh?
You have to be careful who you trust your money with, no matter where you put it.
It's seriously like all your friends telling you to give money to "this guy" because he'll get you money in return if you "do a couple things for him", you can't be sure you can trust what he is doing is legit unless you do your research. It's always been my opinion that people who are putting tens of thousands of dollars into online gambling are taking a massive risk, not from the gambling, but from what is going on behind the scenes that you can't see to begin with.
I'm very surprised that there are a lot of people out there who didn't see this coming, you need to do some research before you trust websites like these.
On April 16 2011 05:39 sekritzzz wrote: When is the next unemployment report coming in? Mr. Obama, be prepared for a 20% unemployment rate this time of year.
Maybe that will change the govt opinion to reverse this move lol
What are you talking about? Though this sucks it will have zero effect on the average person whatsoever.
On April 16 2011 05:42 Shocae wrote: No!!! I wonder what all the professionals are going to do now. Live games may get really tough.
The pro scene, as it is today, will collapse. The televised tours and events will disappear because the major sponsors were online poker sites. Why advertise in a country you can't do business in at all?
I'm just glad only a small amount of my roll is on stars, the rest on a site that doesn't take US customers so isn't at risk.
It's funny to hear people chime in with random comments about what we should/shouldn't be doing when they are utterly clueless as to anything regarding online poker.
On April 16 2011 05:36 Kipsate wrote: Even if the money laundering was not immoral, hell even if this whole case is immoral, even if they get convincted on immoral laws. They will be convicted, and people WILL lose money over it, argueing about the morality of this is irrellevant to the case as far as I can see. They broke the law, then they need to suffer the consequences, even if it is infact a stupid law. I also think that apart from money laundering they did nothing immoral.
Nothing discussed here on the forums will affect the outcome of the case. So? We don't discuss it? No. This is a discussion forum. I'm disgusted by the immorality of it - the poker sites have done nothing inherently wrong - so that's what I post about.
And your logic doesn't make sense. Regardless of whether or not the law is moral, people should be punished to the fullest extent of the law? Do you understand how many terrible scenarios I could construct where people are brutally murdered or tortured or imprisoned for life for silly offenses to nonsensical laws? Do you realize how many of the brutalities and injustices of history were legally condoned by the despots that carried them out?
Don't rely on government to teach you right from wrong. Legality is largely arbitrary.
Could someone please answer my dumb question, please If online gambling is illegal in the US, wasn't this bound to happen? Even if the companies are located elsewhere you have to live up to the laws of the country in which you reside, no?
On April 16 2011 05:49 SpiffD wrote: Could someone please answer my dumb question, please If online gambling is illegal in the US, wasn't this bound to happen? Even if the companies are located elsewhere you have to live up to the laws of the country in which you reside, no?
On April 16 2011 05:49 SpiffD wrote: Could someone please answer my dumb question, please If online gambling is illegal in the US, wasn't this bound to happen? Even if the companies are located elsewhere you have to live up to the laws of the country in which you reside, no?
Wire act only covers sports betting not poker, UIGEA is what they are nailing people for on this.
On April 16 2011 05:36 SonuvBob wrote: I guess the main question is whether the US can seize (seems very unlikely) or tie up money in non-US accounts. If not, then non-US players probably don't have much to worry about. I imagine the only money the sites have in US accounts is for their weird payment processing setup.
I think US players are only completely screwed if the sites don't have enough left over after the $3 billion lawsuit. I can't find much info on that, but it's probably split between the 4 sites, and they're all rich as fuck, so I don't think that's a problem. So your money will likely still be there, but actually getting it may be next to impossible (and you might not even be able to play with it either)
But that's just short term. Long term, no more American players I guess?
Can't find any useful info on 2p2 since the site's getting hammered right now. =/
Currently Active Users: 12243 (4076 members and 8167 guests) View Who's Online Most users ever online was 12,244, Today at 04:20 PM.
If you mean "non-US accounts" as in "non-US poker accounts", then yeah, that money is just as tied up as if its drug money. It's the subject of a civil asset forfeiture proceeding, which is LITERALLY how the FBI seizes drug money and drug dealer cars. It is the same proceeding. The money is not going anywhere; they don't care who deposited it.
In a few years, you could, in theory get your money back if you're an international player. But it's really unlikely there will be any money left then, after fines, assets forfeited as the result of the actual criminal acts, legal fees, etc. I would just expect it to be a full loss.
On April 16 2011 05:49 SpiffD wrote: Could someone please answer my dumb question, please If online gambling is illegal in the US, wasn't this bound to happen? Even if the companies are located elsewhere you have to live up to the laws of the country in which you reside, no?
Online gambling isn't illegal in the US.
Of all the inaccurate statements in this thread, this is probably the inaccuratest.
On April 16 2011 04:44 Kipsate wrote: Non-violent means little, it is more of a white-collar crime, and money laundering is quite a serious offense.
It's only called "money laundering" because their enterprise isn't legally condoned by the government. That's it. No money was stolen here. No people were wronged. No one was hurt. It doesn't take much critical thinking to see that nothing that the purveyors of the poker site did nothing inherently criminal or immoral. They broke unjust laws, and they will face an unjust punishment if convicted.
LOL, kind of like how not being allowed to print your own money is unjust right?
You're clueless. The government monopolization of money and the transformation of money from a commodity money to fiat money is one of the greatest problems facing the world today. Just wait until a few years from now when all the debt monetization that has been happening to finance our outrageous deficit spending rears its ugly head in the form of massive devaluation of the dollar.
Oh, so poker sites were intent on trying to decrease the deficit and save the dollar from devaluation. How could I have been so clueless?
No, the two issues have nothing to do with one another, but nice attempt at a goalpost shift. Do you concede to my original point that the sites did nothing immoral, and that any attempt to prosecute them is unjust, or are you going to continue trying to view the world through your broken moral lens?
Lol why did you quote me if you weren't trying to establish a connection between your original post and your subsequent reply to me? You're the one who brought up something completely irrelevant, and my post pointed out how your post had nothing to do with this point of discussion. Again, look at my original analogy to determine whether or not their actions were unjust, in my humble opinion.
so you call someoene clueless but you dont know that the government has not printed the money in almost 100 years. The Federal Reserve is a private bank and is about as "Federal" as Federal Express.
Here is a clip of Allen Greenspan, former head of the Fed saying there is no relation between the governent and the fed. Its not a secret, it never has been. You're clueless
Bollocks. And realize I'm not referring to literal printing but the more modern method which is the electronic creation of money. And yes, the relationship between the government and the Federal Reserve is a peculiar one, but it would be foolish to say the government has nothing to do with the Fed.
And it really says something about you that you defer to a former head of the Fed to enlighten us on the issue.
On April 16 2011 05:49 SpiffD wrote: Could someone please answer my dumb question, please If online gambling is illegal in the US, wasn't this bound to happen? Even if the companies are located elsewhere you have to live up to the laws of the country in which you reside, no?
Online gambling isn't illegal in the US.
Players are allowed to play poker online, there's no law against that. There is however a law that prohibits US financial institutions from doing transactions with the poker companies (a flimsy and unreasonable law but that's how it is).
On April 16 2011 05:49 SpiffD wrote: Could someone please answer my dumb question, please If online gambling is illegal in the US, wasn't this bound to happen? Even if the companies are located elsewhere you have to live up to the laws of the country in which you reside, no?
Online gambling isn't illegal in the US.
You can say this, and lots of people do for kicks or something, but it pretty much is illegal according to the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act" which says:
[the Act] prohibits any person engaged in the business of betting or wagering (as defined in the Act) from knowingly accepting payments in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling."
On April 16 2011 05:49 SpiffD wrote: Could someone please answer my dumb question, please If online gambling is illegal in the US, wasn't this bound to happen? Even if the companies are located elsewhere you have to live up to the laws of the country in which you reside, no?
Bound? Maybe not, maybe one of the attempts to repeal this law and put in a system for legal online gambling (in general not for specific types) could've succeeded before this happened, but when it was made illegal the chance of this happening skyrocketed, not to mention the evidence for this case has probably been in the works for years.
On April 16 2011 05:49 SpiffD wrote: Could someone please answer my dumb question, please If online gambling is illegal in the US, wasn't this bound to happen? Even if the companies are located elsewhere you have to live up to the laws of the country in which you reside, no?
Online gambling isn't illegal in the US.
Of all the inaccurate statements in this thread, this is probably the inaccuratest.
? online poker is not illegal in the united states. Only the state of washington has passed a law regarding playing poker online. The UIGEA restricts banks from dealing with online gambling entities, not the players themselves.
On April 16 2011 05:49 SpiffD wrote: Could someone please answer my dumb question, please If online gambling is illegal in the US, wasn't this bound to happen? Even if the companies are located elsewhere you have to live up to the laws of the country in which you reside, no?
Online gambling isn't illegal in the US.
Not really true. UIGEA prohibits any financial institution from processing a bet, and almost every state outlaws gambling to some extent.
[the Act] prohibits any person engaged in the business of betting or wagering (as defined in the Act) from knowingly accepting payments in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling."
UIGEA doesn't criminalize players - it criminalizes banks that take process payments for it.
I'm sure there are plenty of innocent people who will be effected by this and I truly feel sorry for them. The degens however, and we all know these people I could give a flying fuck about.
On April 16 2011 05:36 Kipsate wrote: Even if the money laundering was not immoral, hell even if this whole case is immoral, even if they get convincted on immoral laws. They will be convicted, and people WILL lose money over it, argueing about the morality of this is irrellevant to the case as far as I can see. They broke the law, then they need to suffer the consequences, even if it is infact a stupid law. I also think that apart from money laundering they did nothing immoral.
Nothing discussed here on the forums will affect the outcome of the case. So? We don't discuss it? No. This is a discussion forum. I'm disgusted by the immorality of it - the poker sites have done nothing inherently wrong - so that's what I post about.
Actually, a law passed which made it difficult to process transactions from US customers. The poker sites cooked up schemes to bypass that. That's what they're being busted for. You can't break a law and then afterward try to claim you're not guilty on the grounds that the law is stupid (even if it is). If you want to contest a law, it should be done before it is passed, not after you've broken it.
On April 16 2011 05:02 laegoose wrote: I have 10k at stars and i've just withdrawn few k (well I've just requested to withdraw as usual, and system said 'ok np wait for e-mail' as usual)
However if US players will be banned from online-poker, this means hard time for most online-poker professionals since U.S. players lose nearly as much as the players from all other countries combined (according to http://www.pokertableratings.com/top-countries). There are plenty world-class U.S. professionals and shitload of casual players.
Can't they just move to non-US sites like i4poker or something?
Of course they can, however if 1000 mid-highstakes professionals move to ipoker, they won't be able to win a single cent because there isn't much fish (rake...). Also ipoker software and support are just awful.
Also Pokerstars are not 'US', they are from Isle of Man. Most likely they will continue to operate. But with 50% less fish games will be tough as hell if they don't lower the rake.
On April 16 2011 05:49 SpiffD wrote: Could someone please answer my dumb question, please If online gambling is illegal in the US, wasn't this bound to happen? Even if the companies are located elsewhere you have to live up to the laws of the country in which you reside, no?
Online gambling isn't illegal in the US.
Of all the inaccurate statements in this thread, this is probably the inaccuratest.
It's very accurate.
Btw my dns just updated and the wording of the FBI warning is quite amusing, apparently it's illegal to own an illegal gambling business. So if your gambling business is legal there's no problem, and online poker is very much so.
This whole mess is happeinig because some fine gentleman went out of their way to shit on UIGEA, nothing to really panic on.
This is quite funny lol, I can't see how people expect to get away with an illegal activity without repurcusions. I just find it unfortunate that it wasn't common knowledge that online gambling was illegal in the states, I personally had no clue. I don't see why people are pissed off at the US government about this, if i were you i'd be pissed at the money laundering, frauding founders that caused this siezure of the 3 sites and their accounts, because honestly it wasn't the internet gambling that set them off.
Also Pokerstars are not 'US', they are from Isle of Man. Most likely they will continue to operate. But with 50% less fish games will be tough as hell if they don't lower the rake.
games would be easier. fish:good player ratio of us players turned for the worse after it became a pain in the arse to deposit
I just re-installed pokerstars to see if I could get my money out and IT WORKED. I logged into my account and cashier and got a check sent to my home just in case. I hope this works... Fuckin bullshit.
On April 16 2011 05:56 laegoose wrote:Also Pokerstars are not 'US', they are from Isle of Man. Most likely they will continue to operate. But with 50% less fish games will be tough as hell if they don't lower the rake.
PartyPoker withdrew from the US years ago and the games are just fine, probably even better if there's an impact on other sites.
But the authorities are having all this trouble to only suspend transactions, I serious doubt they would be able to cease all play unless they force the ISPs to IP block, but then there's all the bad press and comparisons with China.
On April 16 2011 06:02 thekoven wrote: I just re-installed pokerstars to see if I could get my money out and IT WORKED. I logged into my account and cashier and got a check sent to my home just in case. I hope this works... Fuckin bullshit.
That check probably wont check since the accounts are frozen and can't have money moved in our out, like everyone else stated in this thread. Unless you got super lucky and it was cashed by an account that wasn't siezed, which is very unlikely.
On April 16 2011 06:03 MaGic~PhiL wrote: crazy shit people are shit
getting 150.000 $ a day and still wanting more
fucking asshole T_T
I really doubt that story is the whole case or even 1/10th of it. Something like this doesn't go down after one meeting with someone, even as important as this guy may have been. The government has probably been getting the evidence on this for quite possibly years.
20 years in prison; fine of $500,000 or twice the amount laundered; 3 years supervised release; forfeiture of proceeds of offense
Is that who's getting charged and what they can get?
There's a link to the Department of Justice pdf of the filing in the OP. It details the charges.
Oh, sorry, not really in the mood for reading legal stuff in .pdf format right now
On April 16 2011 04:24 Propane wrote: If the United States were acting rationally they would simply tax cocaine at a reasonable rate and allow drug addicts to continue doing what they enjoy. If you live in the United States or any other jurisdiction which is attempting to ban cocaine please contact your representative and let them know that you are in favor of allowing people to do drugs.
By outlawing cocaine the United States is wasting resources enforcing a silly law when they could instead allow a business to thrive and produce entertainment for millions of people.
Additionally, allowing companies to operate inside the USA would allow better consumer protection.
See now how bad your argument sounds?
His argument doesn't sound bad at all. It's true that the drug war is an enormous money sink that does not yield benefits. Drug legalization would in all likelihood significantly reduce our drug problem in many ways, including reduced crime, extra revenue, and greater consumer safety.
The government should not be so heavy handed in what they let a person do, so long as it does not harm anyone else. What a person does with their money and their body is up to them.
The USA allows lotteries, which is just large-scale distributed gambling. Stocks, housing investments, these are all legal forms of gambling. Why are they trying so hard to make poker illegal?
simple as hell to understand WHY. look at vegas.
Vegas is probably the most controlled, highly regulated areas anywhere in the world, despite the facade of entertainment they try to present. and it wasn't always that way.
bottom line is this. You can run almost any kind of business you want - as long as the government knows about it, and if you're dealing with enormous sums of money - you're paying your taxes, properly reporting your income, you're acquiring all the proper licenses for what you're doing - the government is completely kosher with it.
All they care really is, they get a piece of your pie. When you cut uncle sam out of the equation, he's out to get you. Now apply this understanding to what's been happening with online poker. Seriously you're a smart guy. You're not obtuse by nature. You knew within yourself, that gambling is shady business itself, but you got blindsided by all these online poker sites popping up, and since you see the adverts everywhere, you assume it must all be totally legal and kosher.
Not to mention the huge fad around televised poker with all these personalities who make the scene look so cool and interesting. Especially that actress(can't remember her name), who caused quite a splash with her general appearance and her unique strategy(you know who i'm talking about).
Meet The Boy Genius Who Just Took Down The Online Poker Industry
The 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 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 made Full Tilt Poker and Poker Stars millions of dollars — and making as much $150,000 a day for himself — but then got even more greedy and started taking them for himself. They sued him, demanding more than $100 million of their own money back.
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 wealth, he was considered a flight risk and denied bail.
Then after a "secret" meeting with prosecutors, he was suddenly out on bail. And now, his former colleagues are the ones facing serious jail time.
Daniel Tzvetkoff knows the operations of these poker site inside and out. He's the one man positioned to give these companies to the U.S. Attorneys on a silver platter. 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, "He 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
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.
On April 16 2011 05:49 SpiffD wrote: Could someone please answer my dumb question, please If online gambling is illegal in the US, wasn't this bound to happen? Even if the companies are located elsewhere you have to live up to the laws of the country in which you reside, no?
Online gambling isn't illegal in the US.
Of all the inaccurate statements in this thread, this is probably the inaccuratest.
20 years in prison; fine of $500,000 or twice the amount laundered; 3 years supervised release; forfeiture of proceeds of offense
Is that who's getting charged and what they can get?
There's a link to the Department of Justice pdf of the filing in the OP. It details the charges.
Oh, sorry, not really in the mood for reading legal stuff in .pdf format right now
On April 16 2011 04:24 Propane wrote: If the United States were acting rationally they would simply tax cocaine at a reasonable rate and allow drug addicts to continue doing what they enjoy. If you live in the United States or any other jurisdiction which is attempting to ban cocaine please contact your representative and let them know that you are in favor of allowing people to do drugs.
By outlawing cocaine the United States is wasting resources enforcing a silly law when they could instead allow a business to thrive and produce entertainment for millions of people.
Additionally, allowing companies to operate inside the USA would allow better consumer protection.
See now how bad your argument sounds?
His argument doesn't sound bad at all. It's true that the drug war is an enormous money sink that does not yield benefits. Drug legalization would in all likelihood significantly reduce our drug problem in many ways, including reduced crime, extra revenue, and greater consumer safety.
The government should not be so heavy handed in what they let a person do, so long as it does not harm anyone else. What a person does with their money and their body is up to them.
The USA allows lotteries, which is just large-scale distributed gambling. Stocks, housing investments, these are all legal forms of gambling. Why are they trying so hard to make poker illegal?
simple as hell to understand WHY. look at vegas.
Vegas is probably the most controlled, highly regulated areas anywhere in the world, despite the facade of entertainment they try to present. and it wasn't always that way.
bottom line is this. You can run almost any kind of business you want - as long as the government knows about it, and if you're dealing with enormous sums of money - you're paying your taxes, properly reporting your income, you're acquiring all the proper licenses for what you're doing - the government is completely kosher with it.
All they care really is, they get a piece of your pie. When you cut uncle sam out of the equation, he's out to get you. Now apply this understanding to what's been happening with online poker. Seriously you're a smart guy. You're not obtuse by nature. You knew within yourself, that gambling is shady business itself, but you got blindsided by all these online poker sites popping up, and since you see the adverts everywhere, you assume it must all be totally legal and kosher.
Not to mention the huge fad around televised poker with all these personalities who make the scene look so cool and interesting. Especially that actress(can't remember her name), who caused quite a splash with her general appearance and her unique strategy(you know who i'm talking about).
My question is why doesn't the government come to an agreement with the poker sites for regulation. That way they can get their "piece of the pie", and everybody will be happy. Instead, they waste money to chase down the poker sites, while the sites waste money to continue to evade them. Sounds like a lose/lose to me.
I don't know for sure which side is unwilling to negotiate on the matter, but my impression was that it's the government.
Cash-outs for people outside of the USA seem to be working for the people that can still enter the sites from what I hear from friends (payout for people outside the USA isn't working with American bank accounts so the FBI can't block those as easily as they seem to have done with the American accounts). But then again I don't have any details on if they actually received the money in their bank accounts.
Currently every poker player outside the USA with money on one of the effected sites is making a dash for the cash out register.
Although as the common reaction under many players seems to be at this moment that this whole situation won't effect players from outside the USA I wouldn't be surprised if the Pokersites would close down their check out ability to prevent a widespread panic.
On April 16 2011 06:14 Slithe wrote:My question is why doesn't the government come to an agreement with the poker sites for regulation. That way they can get their "piece of the pie", and everybody will be happy. Instead, they waste money to chase down the poker sites, while the sites waste money to continue to evade them. Sounds like a lose/lose to me.
For the same reason Blizzard does not come to an agreement about BW rights: they'd rather get rid of it and have people doing other stuff. After all gambling is a sin amirite?
On April 16 2011 06:02 thekoven wrote: I just re-installed pokerstars to see if I could get my money out and IT WORKED. I logged into my account and cashier and got a check sent to my home just in case. I hope this works... Fuckin bullshit.
On April 16 2011 05:45 Fayth wrote: cashed out 6k on stars and i got it instantly
Glad to hear that. Hope you can recover the 69K(ish) remaining
Meet The Boy Genius Who Just Took Down The Online Poker Industry
The 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 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.
He made Full Tilt Poker and Poker Stars millions of dollars — and making as much $150,000 a day for himself — but then got even more greedy and started taking them for himself. They sued him, demanding more than $100 million of their own money back.
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.
Then after a "secret" meeting with prosecutors, he was suddenly out on bail. And now, his former colleagues are the ones facing serious jail time.
Daniel Tzvetkoff knows the operations of these poker site inside and out. He's the one man positioned to give these companies to the U.S. Attorneys on a silver platter. And it looks like that's exactly what he did, cooperating with the authorities to avoid his own lengthy jail sentence.
They ratted him out ... and he turned the tables. No honor among thieves.
20 years in prison; fine of $500,000 or twice the amount laundered; 3 years supervised release; forfeiture of proceeds of offense
Is that who's getting charged and what they can get?
There's a link to the Department of Justice pdf of the filing in the OP. It details the charges.
Oh, sorry, not really in the mood for reading legal stuff in .pdf format right now
On April 16 2011 04:24 Propane wrote: If the United States were acting rationally they would simply tax cocaine at a reasonable rate and allow drug addicts to continue doing what they enjoy. If you live in the United States or any other jurisdiction which is attempting to ban cocaine please contact your representative and let them know that you are in favor of allowing people to do drugs.
By outlawing cocaine the United States is wasting resources enforcing a silly law when they could instead allow a business to thrive and produce entertainment for millions of people.
Additionally, allowing companies to operate inside the USA would allow better consumer protection.
See now how bad your argument sounds?
His argument doesn't sound bad at all. It's true that the drug war is an enormous money sink that does not yield benefits. Drug legalization would in all likelihood significantly reduce our drug problem in many ways, including reduced crime, extra revenue, and greater consumer safety.
The government should not be so heavy handed in what they let a person do, so long as it does not harm anyone else. What a person does with their money and their body is up to them.
The USA allows lotteries, which is just large-scale distributed gambling. Stocks, housing investments, these are all legal forms of gambling. Why are they trying so hard to make poker illegal?
simple as hell to understand WHY. look at vegas.
Vegas is probably the most controlled, highly regulated areas anywhere in the world, despite the facade of entertainment they try to present. and it wasn't always that way.
bottom line is this. You can run almost any kind of business you want - as long as the government knows about it, and if you're dealing with enormous sums of money - you're paying your taxes, properly reporting your income, you're acquiring all the proper licenses for what you're doing - the government is completely kosher with it.
All they care really is, they get a piece of your pie. When you cut uncle sam out of the equation, he's out to get you. Now apply this understanding to what's been happening with online poker. Seriously you're a smart guy. You're not obtuse by nature. You knew within yourself, that gambling is shady business itself, but you got blindsided by all these online poker sites popping up, and since you see the adverts everywhere, you assume it must all be totally legal and kosher.
Not to mention the huge fad around televised poker with all these personalities who make the scene look so cool and interesting. Especially that actress(can't remember her name), who caused quite a splash with her general appearance and her unique strategy(you know who i'm talking about).
My question is why doesn't the government come to an agreement with the poker sites for regulation. That way they can get their "piece of the pie", and everybody will be happy. Instead, they waste money to chase down the poker sites, while the sites waste money to continue to evade them. Sounds like a lose/lose to me.
I don't know for sure which side is unwilling to negotiate on the matter, but my impression was that it's the government.
Because thats how the laws are at the moment, yes it's that stupid. And there's probably more people who care whether online gambling is illegal or not.
On April 16 2011 06:14 Slithe wrote:My question is why doesn't the government come to an agreement with the poker sites for regulation. That way they can get their "piece of the pie", and everybody will be happy. Instead, they waste money to chase down the poker sites, while the sites waste money to continue to evade them. Sounds like a lose/lose to me.
For the same reason Blizzard does not come to an agreement about BW rights: they'd rather get rid of it and have people doing other stuff. After all gambling is a sin amirite?
Your sounding pretty ignorant, from my understand Blizzard has been spending many years discussing about thier IP rights on a game they created. As for the the topic i don't really know specifics, but i think it's better to send a strong statement that you don't fuck with us rather then implying oh well if you shit on our deck we'll discuss how we both can clean it up.
Theres no way to know if withdrawals for non us players will be ok yet - the instant withdrawals are neteller creditbacks and work in a different fashion and are handled automatically.
On April 16 2011 06:02 thekoven wrote: I just re-installed pokerstars to see if I could get my money out and IT WORKED. I logged into my account and cashier and got a check sent to my home just in case. I hope this works...
This info should be placed on top of every page. Hope people get their money back.
I have about 200$ on PS, damn that would cover 2 Years GSL Permium
lol is that how you translate how much $200 is for the SC community
For the people hateing on the goverment the people that run these site aren't stupid they know the laws and they should also know if the US goverment thinks your trying to defraud them in anyway they'll come down on them like a ton of bricks
On April 16 2011 05:02 Pervect wrote: USA once again defending the world from grave injustices. Another great success for the greatest nation in history. USA USA USA
I have about 200$ on PS, damn that would cover 2 Years GSL Permium
lol is that how you translate how much $200 is for the SC community
For the people hateing on the goverment the people that run these site aren't stupid they know the laws and they should also know if the US goverment thinks your trying to defraud them in anyway they'll come down on them like a ton of bricks
People don't hate the government for enforcing the laws, they hate them for having shit laws to begin with.
On April 16 2011 05:36 SonuvBob wrote: I guess the main question is whether the US can seize (seems very unlikely) or tie up money in non-US accounts. If not, then non-US players probably don't have much to worry about. I imagine the only money the sites have in US accounts is for their weird payment processing setup.
I think US players are only completely screwed if the sites don't have enough left over after the $3 billion lawsuit. I can't find much info on that, but it's probably split between the 4 sites, and they're all rich as fuck, so I don't think that's a problem. So your money will likely still be there, but actually getting it may be next to impossible (and you might not even be able to play with it either)
But that's just short term. Long term, no more American players I guess?
Can't find any useful info on 2p2 since the site's getting hammered right now. =/
Currently Active Users: 12243 (4076 members and 8167 guests) View Who's Online Most users ever online was 12,244, Today at 04:20 PM.
If you mean "non-US accounts" as in "non-US poker accounts", then yeah, that money is just as tied up as if its drug money. It's the subject of a civil asset forfeiture proceeding, which is LITERALLY how the FBI seizes drug money and drug dealer cars. It is the same proceeding. The money is not going anywhere; they don't care who deposited it.
In a few years, you could, in theory get your money back if you're an international player. But it's really unlikely there will be any money left then, after fines, assets forfeited as the result of the actual criminal acts, legal fees, etc. I would just expect it to be a full loss.
Nope, I mean non-US bank accounts. The sites keep the vast majority of the money offshore.
I really hope that through mass pressure (if there is any) and fair treatment (hah .....) non-US players dont get hit too hard. This could really hurt me...
Not wanting to sound too harsh toward US players, you have my every sympathy, but everyone has to be selfish to some degree.
On April 16 2011 05:36 SonuvBob wrote: I guess the main question is whether the US can seize (seems very unlikely) or tie up money in non-US accounts. If not, then non-US players probably don't have much to worry about. I imagine the only money the sites have in US accounts is for their weird payment processing setup.
I think US players are only completely screwed if the sites don't have enough left over after the $3 billion lawsuit. I can't find much info on that, but it's probably split between the 4 sites, and they're all rich as fuck, so I don't think that's a problem. So your money will likely still be there, but actually getting it may be next to impossible (and you might not even be able to play with it either)
But that's just short term. Long term, no more American players I guess?
Can't find any useful info on 2p2 since the site's getting hammered right now. =/
Currently Active Users: 12243 (4076 members and 8167 guests) View Who's Online Most users ever online was 12,244, Today at 04:20 PM.
If you mean "non-US accounts" as in "non-US poker accounts", then yeah, that money is just as tied up as if its drug money. It's the subject of a civil asset forfeiture proceeding, which is LITERALLY how the FBI seizes drug money and drug dealer cars. It is the same proceeding. The money is not going anywhere; they don't care who deposited it.
In a few years, you could, in theory get your money back if you're an international player. But it's really unlikely there will be any money left then, after fines, assets forfeited as the result of the actual criminal acts, legal fees, etc. I would just expect it to be a full loss.
Nope, I mean non-US bank accounts. The sites keep the vast majority of the money offshore.
But "your" money will probably lose on it's value, you wont get 100c on a $ probably. As Tom Dwan twitted http://twitter.com/tom_dwan. It's not like you can sue them if you are American because you expose yourself to criminal lawsuit I guess. I myself in some kind of miracle got through without much hammering to withdrawal process, only question is will it complete, they have 48h to process the request. Poker sites are like banks, their cash is 95% virtual, just numbers in computer.
The laws are not even shit to begin with. The only way to enforce regulation is before or when money goes to tax havens, and in an absolute and ultimate way, regulation is welcome. But instead of striking a compromise the owners preferred to earn the full profits till they were brought down, and they just were.
Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
20:30 GMT durrrr comments Tom Dwan writes on Twitter: "I long ago realized that laws replaced common sense in every day government, however I still thought n hoped the regulation of billion dollar industries was usually done in a logical fashion."
20:34 GMT PokerStars Traffic declining Kevmath from the US, editor at Bluff Magazine and 2+2 moderator reports: "Last 10 minutes or so, Stars has dropped 15k players".
20:36 GMT PokerStars doesn't allow any US players ESPN reports via Twitter that several US players are facing problems while connecting to PokerStars.
20:44 GMT Onyx Cup? The first Full Tilt Poker Onyx Cup is scheduled to take place in May in Las Vegas. Discussions are heating up on Twitter whether or not this will still go ahead.
20:50 GMT 11 managers charged Wall Street Journal reports that a total of 11 managers from several poker rooms has been charged.
20:53 GMT Over 75 accounts frozen The Wall Street Journal further reports that over 75 bank accounts of companies linked to poker rooms have been frozen.
20:56 GMT Poker rooms are facing up to 3 billion USD in fines According to Forbes, poker rooms are facing fines up about 3 billion US dollar.
21:03 GMT The names of the 11 managers charged The names of the managers charged can be found in the charging document here: Isai Scheinberg, Raymond Bitar, Scott Tom, Brent Beckley, Nelson Burtnick, Paul Tate, Ryan Lang, Bradley Franzen, Ira Rubin, Chad Elie und John Campos.
21:08 GMT nanonoko comments Online legend and PokerStars Pro nanonoko said on Twitter: "hmm...might need to consider buying from the value menu again at McDonalds if things don't work so well".
21:10 GMT Poker rooms used "fraudulent methods" The charging document states "...used fraudulent methods to avoid restrictions and to receive billions of dollars from United States residents who gambled."
21:13 GMT Charges of money laundering The document also states that poker rooms "...also engaged in massive money laundering and bank fraud. Foreign firms that choose to operate in the United States are not free to flout the laws they don’t like simply because they can’t bear to be parted from their profits."
21:17 GMT PokerStars, FTP, UB and AP scammed customers according to FBI Janice K. Fedarcyk of the FBI said: "These defendants, knowing full well that their business with U.S. customers and U.S. banks was illegal, tried to stack the deck."
21:19 GMT Allegedly, poker rooms bribed and lied to banks Fedarcyk: "They lied to banks about the true nature of their business. Then, some of the defendants found banks willing to flout the law for a fee. The defendants bet the house that they could continue their scheme, and they lost."
Here is some extra information. I'm not sure if it has been posted, and i don't have time right now to look through the thread. This is from pokerstrategy.com
On April 16 2011 05:36 SonuvBob wrote: I guess the main question is whether the US can seize (seems very unlikely) or tie up money in non-US accounts. If not, then non-US players probably don't have much to worry about. I imagine the only money the sites have in US accounts is for their weird payment processing setup.
I think US players are only completely screwed if the sites don't have enough left over after the $3 billion lawsuit. I can't find much info on that, but it's probably split between the 4 sites, and they're all rich as fuck, so I don't think that's a problem. So your money will likely still be there, but actually getting it may be next to impossible (and you might not even be able to play with it either)
But that's just short term. Long term, no more American players I guess?
Can't find any useful info on 2p2 since the site's getting hammered right now. =/
Currently Active Users: 12243 (4076 members and 8167 guests) View Who's Online Most users ever online was 12,244, Today at 04:20 PM.
If you mean "non-US accounts" as in "non-US poker accounts", then yeah, that money is just as tied up as if its drug money. It's the subject of a civil asset forfeiture proceeding, which is LITERALLY how the FBI seizes drug money and drug dealer cars. It is the same proceeding. The money is not going anywhere; they don't care who deposited it.
In a few years, you could, in theory get your money back if you're an international player. But it's really unlikely there will be any money left then, after fines, assets forfeited as the result of the actual criminal acts, legal fees, etc. I would just expect it to be a full loss.
Nope, I mean non-US bank accounts. The sites keep the vast majority of the money offshore.
But "your" money will probably lose on it's value, you wont get 100c on a $ probably. As Tom Dwan twitted http://twitter.com/tom_dwan. It's not like you can sue them if you are American because you expose yourself to criminal lawsuit I guess. I myself in some kind of miracle got through without much hammering to withdrawal process, only question is will it complete, they have 48h to process the request. Poker sites are like banks, their cash is 95% virtual, just numbers in computer.
I think he means as a conversion rate as of right now. Like you'd transfer $100 to someone on PS for $93 or more on Paypal or whatever. For FTP/Stars, the rate being lower than 100% (or whatever the standard is) is just because the money will likely be held up for a few months, whereas with the other sites there's a real risk of it going poof.
He actually sounds pretty optimistic.
Tom_Dwan Tom Dwan "@HRRNighthawk: That sounds like you don't think the sites are ever coming back for the US customers?" 85-90% they will. 99.93% will pay
On April 16 2011 05:36 SonuvBob wrote: I guess the main question is whether the US can seize (seems very unlikely) or tie up money in non-US accounts. If not, then non-US players probably don't have much to worry about. I imagine the only money the sites have in US accounts is for their weird payment processing setup.
I think US players are only completely screwed if the sites don't have enough left over after the $3 billion lawsuit. I can't find much info on that, but it's probably split between the 4 sites, and they're all rich as fuck, so I don't think that's a problem. So your money will likely still be there, but actually getting it may be next to impossible (and you might not even be able to play with it either)
But that's just short term. Long term, no more American players I guess?
Can't find any useful info on 2p2 since the site's getting hammered right now. =/
Currently Active Users: 12243 (4076 members and 8167 guests) View Who's Online Most users ever online was 12,244, Today at 04:20 PM.
If you mean "non-US accounts" as in "non-US poker accounts", then yeah, that money is just as tied up as if its drug money. It's the subject of a civil asset forfeiture proceeding, which is LITERALLY how the FBI seizes drug money and drug dealer cars. It is the same proceeding. The money is not going anywhere; they don't care who deposited it.
In a few years, you could, in theory get your money back if you're an international player. But it's really unlikely there will be any money left then, after fines, assets forfeited as the result of the actual criminal acts, legal fees, etc. I would just expect it to be a full loss.
Nope, I mean non-US bank accounts. The sites keep the vast majority of the money offshore.
Oh well, in that case, the answer is still "definitely, they can get it". The US seizes/freezes international bank accounts all the time, and have been doing it for years. The bank cooperates or risks losing any assets it has in the US or that touch the US in any way (now or in the future). Or the US government gets your own government to do the seizure itself. Pretty much every country in the developed world (and even plenty that aren't developed, like, say, Panama) is party to legal cooperation treaties, and almost every country will assist in the arrest or deportation of the target of a valid arrest warrant, or in the seizure of assets so requested, or even in the enforcement of a judgment from a foreign court (couple exceptions to the last one, but still).
The exceptions to this are total pariah countries like North Korea and Cuba, and, until recently, Switzerland. But even Switzerland stopped having secret bank accounts and decided to cooperate with the US in its UBS tax fraud investigation.
On April 16 2011 06:36 DrunkeN. wrote: The Government woulda just made it legal to begin with they would of got their taxes. Instead all the major sites move to foreign banks.
I would venture a guess that non-online gambling lobby and some Christian groups are pretty strong players on the political scene (the first one more important than the second in this case I would guess) and that is the reason for the laws.
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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.
Yeah, I can't speak for everyone but I am not angry about the fact that they got caught doing illegal things. I am angry that we cant play online poker without having to jump through hoops and break other laws.
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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
Loopholes can only be abused if they exist. Why not let people decide on their own how to spend their hard-earned money?
Disclaimer: I'm a hardcore libertarian. Edited for grammar.
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.
Actually, it's worse than I thought. Looks like in Washington state a poll was 85/15 against online gambling. In Iowa a poll went 73/27 against online gambling.
The fact is that most people don't share our view and the government has enacted laws to reflect that. It is unfortunate but it is how democracy works, and the Constitution isn't going to come protect your right to gamble.
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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.
Yea it's true that the business was playing dirty, and they were wrong in doing so. It just sucks because the reason they did it in the first place was to get around a dirty law. Two wrongs don't make a right, but the government cast the first stone so I'm going to point my middle finger in their direction.
On April 16 2011 05:36 SonuvBob wrote: I guess the main question is whether the US can seize (seems very unlikely) or tie up money in non-US accounts. If not, then non-US players probably don't have much to worry about. I imagine the only money the sites have in US accounts is for their weird payment processing setup.
I think US players are only completely screwed if the sites don't have enough left over after the $3 billion lawsuit. I can't find much info on that, but it's probably split between the 4 sites, and they're all rich as fuck, so I don't think that's a problem. So your money will likely still be there, but actually getting it may be next to impossible (and you might not even be able to play with it either)
But that's just short term. Long term, no more American players I guess?
Can't find any useful info on 2p2 since the site's getting hammered right now. =/
Currently Active Users: 12243 (4076 members and 8167 guests) View Who's Online Most users ever online was 12,244, Today at 04:20 PM.
If you mean "non-US accounts" as in "non-US poker accounts", then yeah, that money is just as tied up as if its drug money. It's the subject of a civil asset forfeiture proceeding, which is LITERALLY how the FBI seizes drug money and drug dealer cars. It is the same proceeding. The money is not going anywhere; they don't care who deposited it.
In a few years, you could, in theory get your money back if you're an international player. But it's really unlikely there will be any money left then, after fines, assets forfeited as the result of the actual criminal acts, legal fees, etc. I would just expect it to be a full loss.
Nope, I mean non-US bank accounts. The sites keep the vast majority of the money offshore.
But "your" money will probably lose on it's value, you wont get 100c on a $ probably. As Tom Dwan twitted http://twitter.com/tom_dwan. It's not like you can sue them if you are American because you expose yourself to criminal lawsuit I guess. I myself in some kind of miracle got through without much hammering to withdrawal process, only question is will it complete, they have 48h to process the request. Poker sites are like banks, their cash is 95% virtual, just numbers in computer.
I think he means as a conversion rate as of right now. Like you'd transfer $100 to someone on PS for $93 or more on Paypal or whatever. For FTP/Stars, the rate being lower than 100% (or whatever the standard is) is just because the money will likely be held up for a few months, whereas with the other sites there's a real risk of it going poof.
Tom_Dwan Tom Dwan "@HRRNighthawk: That sounds like you don't think the sites are ever coming back for the US customers?" 85-90% they will. 99.93% will pay
But the real problem is massive panic, they don't have the money "in stock". I myself panicked and requested the withdrawal of all my founds. Large "outflow" of money, plus freezing some of accounts, plus this very very and I mean very bad press will lead to huge problems in my opinion. It's like they are a stock market company which stock plummet, you can buy it out but on "X"c on a $. People are not that patient to wait few months for their money. Those rooms where like giant companies on financial market, they will surely hold up, I am sure of that, but at what cost?
I have no problems with this and completely agree with Jibba. It's harsh but the law was there from the start.
I feel sorry for the people that will lose thousands of dollars but it was a risk they took. I once thought of playing poker online and I'm glad I never went through with it, wow.
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'm not into this scene but can you not withdraw your money at any point of your choosing? Personally I have a Paypal account that I make sure to withdraw from immediately when it gets a little high.
With all due respect and a lot of sympathy on a personal level, those who were leaving significant amounts of money sitting in such accounts were simply asking for trouble. It is extremely poor financial management to leave funds in such legally shady acounts which, obviously, are not covered by any protective law on bank deposits.
I guess you can see it as part of the risk of playing poker, though. Just deal with the loss.
On April 16 2011 05:36 SonuvBob wrote: I guess the main question is whether the US can seize (seems very unlikely) or tie up money in non-US accounts. If not, then non-US players probably don't have much to worry about. I imagine the only money the sites have in US accounts is for their weird payment processing setup.
I think US players are only completely screwed if the sites don't have enough left over after the $3 billion lawsuit. I can't find much info on that, but it's probably split between the 4 sites, and they're all rich as fuck, so I don't think that's a problem. So your money will likely still be there, but actually getting it may be next to impossible (and you might not even be able to play with it either)
But that's just short term. Long term, no more American players I guess?
Can't find any useful info on 2p2 since the site's getting hammered right now. =/
Currently Active Users: 12243 (4076 members and 8167 guests) View Who's Online Most users ever online was 12,244, Today at 04:20 PM.
If you mean "non-US accounts" as in "non-US poker accounts", then yeah, that money is just as tied up as if its drug money. It's the subject of a civil asset forfeiture proceeding, which is LITERALLY how the FBI seizes drug money and drug dealer cars. It is the same proceeding. The money is not going anywhere; they don't care who deposited it.
In a few years, you could, in theory get your money back if you're an international player. But it's really unlikely there will be any money left then, after fines, assets forfeited as the result of the actual criminal acts, legal fees, etc. I would just expect it to be a full loss.
Nope, I mean non-US bank accounts. The sites keep the vast majority of the money offshore.
But "your" money will probably lose on it's value, you wont get 100c on a $ probably. As Tom Dwan twitted http://twitter.com/tom_dwan. It's not like you can sue them if you are American because you expose yourself to criminal lawsuit I guess. I myself in some kind of miracle got through without much hammering to withdrawal process, only question is will it complete, they have 48h to process the request. Poker sites are like banks, their cash is 95% virtual, just numbers in computer.
I think he means as a conversion rate as of right now. Like you'd transfer $100 to someone on PS for $93 or more on Paypal or whatever. For FTP/Stars, the rate being lower than 100% (or whatever the standard is) is just because the money will likely be held up for a few months, whereas with the other sites there's a real risk of it going poof.
Tom_Dwan Tom Dwan "@HRRNighthawk: That sounds like you don't think the sites are ever coming back for the US customers?" 85-90% they will. 99.93% will pay
you got it right
also people who don't have anything to contribute//don't know what they are talking about should stop misleading people with bad information
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
YEAH!! I am so happy I cashed out most of my money a couple weeks ago! Only got about $200 left in my account... sucks to lose, but it is better than losing it all
Wow this is huge. I play on PS but i got like ~100$ which is nothing compared with others . I dont understand this but only US citizens are fucked or everyone else if they somehow shut down the major poker rooms?
On April 16 2011 07:07 Seide wrote: I'm sad for the players who are getting screwed here.I hope that situation is resolved and you all get your money back without pain.
I'm not sad for the US Gov't showing some balls and going after a business for using loopholes. I am actually kinda happy with that to be honest.
I don't agree that poker is demonized here like it is, but even if its stupid, law is law.
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)
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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
It's not being hardcore libertarians to say that customers (who are not involve in this fraud) must recover their money; It's just common sens...
On April 16 2011 05:36 SonuvBob wrote: I guess the main question is whether the US can seize (seems very unlikely) or tie up money in non-US accounts. If not, then non-US players probably don't have much to worry about. I imagine the only money the sites have in US accounts is for their weird payment processing setup.
I think US players are only completely screwed if the sites don't have enough left over after the $3 billion lawsuit. I can't find much info on that, but it's probably split between the 4 sites, and they're all rich as fuck, so I don't think that's a problem. So your money will likely still be there, but actually getting it may be next to impossible (and you might not even be able to play with it either)
But that's just short term. Long term, no more American players I guess?
Can't find any useful info on 2p2 since the site's getting hammered right now. =/
Currently Active Users: 12243 (4076 members and 8167 guests) View Who's Online Most users ever online was 12,244, Today at 04:20 PM.
If you mean "non-US accounts" as in "non-US poker accounts", then yeah, that money is just as tied up as if its drug money. It's the subject of a civil asset forfeiture proceeding, which is LITERALLY how the FBI seizes drug money and drug dealer cars. It is the same proceeding. The money is not going anywhere; they don't care who deposited it.
In a few years, you could, in theory get your money back if you're an international player. But it's really unlikely there will be any money left then, after fines, assets forfeited as the result of the actual criminal acts, legal fees, etc. I would just expect it to be a full loss.
Nope, I mean non-US bank accounts. The sites keep the vast majority of the money offshore.
Oh well, in that case, the answer is still "definitely, they can get it". The US seizes/freezes international bank accounts all the time, and have been doing it for years. The bank cooperates or risks losing any assets it has in the US or that touch the US in any way (now or in the future). Or the US government gets your own government to do the seizure itself. Pretty much every country in the developed world (and even plenty that aren't developed, like, say, Panama) is party to legal cooperation treaties, and almost every country will assist in the arrest or deportation of the target of a valid arrest warrant, or in the seizure of assets so requested, or even in the enforcement of a judgment from a foreign court (couple exceptions to the last one, but still).
The exceptions to this are total pariah countries like North Korea and Cuba, and, until recently, Switzerland. But even Switzerland stopped having secret bank accounts and decided to cooperate with the US in its UBS tax fraud investigation.
Hm... I saw a post somewhere saying where either PS's or FTP's stored, but I can't find it now.
On April 16 2011 05:36 SonuvBob wrote: I guess the main question is whether the US can seize (seems very unlikely) or tie up money in non-US accounts. If not, then non-US players probably don't have much to worry about. I imagine the only money the sites have in US accounts is for their weird payment processing setup.
I think US players are only completely screwed if the sites don't have enough left over after the $3 billion lawsuit. I can't find much info on that, but it's probably split between the 4 sites, and they're all rich as fuck, so I don't think that's a problem. So your money will likely still be there, but actually getting it may be next to impossible (and you might not even be able to play with it either)
But that's just short term. Long term, no more American players I guess?
Can't find any useful info on 2p2 since the site's getting hammered right now. =/
Currently Active Users: 12243 (4076 members and 8167 guests) View Who's Online Most users ever online was 12,244, Today at 04:20 PM.
If you mean "non-US accounts" as in "non-US poker accounts", then yeah, that money is just as tied up as if its drug money. It's the subject of a civil asset forfeiture proceeding, which is LITERALLY how the FBI seizes drug money and drug dealer cars. It is the same proceeding. The money is not going anywhere; they don't care who deposited it.
In a few years, you could, in theory get your money back if you're an international player. But it's really unlikely there will be any money left then, after fines, assets forfeited as the result of the actual criminal acts, legal fees, etc. I would just expect it to be a full loss.
Nope, I mean non-US bank accounts. The sites keep the vast majority of the money offshore.
But "your" money will probably lose on it's value, you wont get 100c on a $ probably. As Tom Dwan twitted http://twitter.com/tom_dwan. It's not like you can sue them if you are American because you expose yourself to criminal lawsuit I guess. I myself in some kind of miracle got through without much hammering to withdrawal process, only question is will it complete, they have 48h to process the request. Poker sites are like banks, their cash is 95% virtual, just numbers in computer.
I think he means as a conversion rate as of right now. Like you'd transfer $100 to someone on PS for $93 or more on Paypal or whatever. For FTP/Stars, the rate being lower than 100% (or whatever the standard is) is just because the money will likely be held up for a few months, whereas with the other sites there's a real risk of it going poof.
He actually sounds pretty optimistic.
Tom_Dwan Tom Dwan "@HRRNighthawk: That sounds like you don't think the sites are ever coming back for the US customers?" 85-90% they will. 99.93% will pay
But the real problem is massive panic, they don't have the money "in stock". I myself panicked and requested the withdrawal of all my founds. Large "outflow" of money, plus freezing some of accounts, plus this very very and I mean very bad press will lead to huge problems in my opinion. It's like they are a stock market company which stock plummet, you can buy it out but on "X"c on a $. People are not that patient to wait few months for their money. Those rooms where like giant companies on financial market, they will surely hold up, I am sure of that, but at what cost?
From the PS FAQ:
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.
So they have the money, but who knows what'll happen to it.
I think it's fair to say that something of this magnitude was eventual in the United States. When UIGEA was passed in 2005 it severly crippled the industry's ability to pay OUT (not in) to U.S. custoners. About 6-8 weeks after the passage, everything went back to pretty much normal, but nobody really knew how they were skirting banks, and now they may have (aledgedly) been committing fraud to do so.
If you are a US player it's a shame that your money is likely gone but that really was a known risk after UIGEA. I played a lot between 2002 and 2005 and when UIGEA I took a majority of my money off all the sites for various reasons. I havn't played since about 2009, but i think it's safe to say that this may spell the deathknell for online poker in the US for some time.
If you are outside the US, I highly suggest CASHING OUT AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. Pay whatever fees you need to in order to get the money in your hands ASAP. This may only affect US players, but in fact it affects the entire business. The US government cannot legally sieze funds in non-Us territories, but they can ASK and if the bank that has your deposit does any type of business in the U.S. (or is a subsidiary of a larger U.S. bank holding company) they will likely comply.
I hate to sound like chicken little, but this is really judgement day for the online poker industry.
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.
On April 16 2011 05:36 SonuvBob wrote: I guess the main question is whether the US can seize (seems very unlikely) or tie up money in non-US accounts. If not, then non-US players probably don't have much to worry about. I imagine the only money the sites have in US accounts is for their weird payment processing setup.
I think US players are only completely screwed if the sites don't have enough left over after the $3 billion lawsuit. I can't find much info on that, but it's probably split between the 4 sites, and they're all rich as fuck, so I don't think that's a problem. So your money will likely still be there, but actually getting it may be next to impossible (and you might not even be able to play with it either)
But that's just short term. Long term, no more American players I guess?
Can't find any useful info on 2p2 since the site's getting hammered right now. =/
Currently Active Users: 12243 (4076 members and 8167 guests) View Who's Online Most users ever online was 12,244, Today at 04:20 PM.
If you mean "non-US accounts" as in "non-US poker accounts", then yeah, that money is just as tied up as if its drug money. It's the subject of a civil asset forfeiture proceeding, which is LITERALLY how the FBI seizes drug money and drug dealer cars. It is the same proceeding. The money is not going anywhere; they don't care who deposited it.
In a few years, you could, in theory get your money back if you're an international player. But it's really unlikely there will be any money left then, after fines, assets forfeited as the result of the actual criminal acts, legal fees, etc. I would just expect it to be a full loss.
Nope, I mean non-US bank accounts. The sites keep the vast majority of the money offshore.
Oh well, in that case, the answer is still "definitely, they can get it". The US seizes/freezes international bank accounts all the time, and have been doing it for years. The bank cooperates or risks losing any assets it has in the US or that touch the US in any way (now or in the future). Or the US government gets your own government to do the seizure itself. Pretty much every country in the developed world (and even plenty that aren't developed, like, say, Panama) is party to legal cooperation treaties, and almost every country will assist in the arrest or deportation of the target of a valid arrest warrant, or in the seizure of assets so requested, or even in the enforcement of a judgment from a foreign court (couple exceptions to the last one, but still).
The exceptions to this are total pariah countries like North Korea and Cuba, and, until recently, Switzerland. But even Switzerland stopped having secret bank accounts and decided to cooperate with the US in its UBS tax fraud investigation.
Hm... I saw a post somewhere saying where either PS's or FTP's stored, but I can't find it now.
On April 16 2011 05:36 SonuvBob wrote: I guess the main question is whether the US can seize (seems very unlikely) or tie up money in non-US accounts. If not, then non-US players probably don't have much to worry about. I imagine the only money the sites have in US accounts is for their weird payment processing setup.
I think US players are only completely screwed if the sites don't have enough left over after the $3 billion lawsuit. I can't find much info on that, but it's probably split between the 4 sites, and they're all rich as fuck, so I don't think that's a problem. So your money will likely still be there, but actually getting it may be next to impossible (and you might not even be able to play with it either)
But that's just short term. Long term, no more American players I guess?
Can't find any useful info on 2p2 since the site's getting hammered right now. =/
Currently Active Users: 12243 (4076 members and 8167 guests) View Who's Online Most users ever online was 12,244, Today at 04:20 PM.
If you mean "non-US accounts" as in "non-US poker accounts", then yeah, that money is just as tied up as if its drug money. It's the subject of a civil asset forfeiture proceeding, which is LITERALLY how the FBI seizes drug money and drug dealer cars. It is the same proceeding. The money is not going anywhere; they don't care who deposited it.
In a few years, you could, in theory get your money back if you're an international player. But it's really unlikely there will be any money left then, after fines, assets forfeited as the result of the actual criminal acts, legal fees, etc. I would just expect it to be a full loss.
Nope, I mean non-US bank accounts. The sites keep the vast majority of the money offshore.
But "your" money will probably lose on it's value, you wont get 100c on a $ probably. As Tom Dwan twitted http://twitter.com/tom_dwan. It's not like you can sue them if you are American because you expose yourself to criminal lawsuit I guess. I myself in some kind of miracle got through without much hammering to withdrawal process, only question is will it complete, they have 48h to process the request. Poker sites are like banks, their cash is 95% virtual, just numbers in computer.
I think he means as a conversion rate as of right now. Like you'd transfer $100 to someone on PS for $93 or more on Paypal or whatever. For FTP/Stars, the rate being lower than 100% (or whatever the standard is) is just because the money will likely be held up for a few months, whereas with the other sites there's a real risk of it going poof.
He actually sounds pretty optimistic.
Tom_Dwan Tom Dwan "@HRRNighthawk: That sounds like you don't think the sites are ever coming back for the US customers?" 85-90% they will. 99.93% will pay
But the real problem is massive panic, they don't have the money "in stock". I myself panicked and requested the withdrawal of all my founds. Large "outflow" of money, plus freezing some of accounts, plus this very very and I mean very bad press will lead to huge problems in my opinion. It's like they are a stock market company which stock plummet, you can buy it out but on "X"c on a $. People are not that patient to wait few months for their money. Those rooms where like giant companies on financial market, they will surely hold up, I am sure of that, but at what cost?
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.
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.
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.
On April 16 2011 07:07 Seide wrote: I'm sad for the players who are getting screwed here.I hope that situation is resolved and you all get your money back without pain.
I'm not sad for the US Gov't showing some balls and going after a business for using loopholes. I am actually kinda happy with that to be honest.
I don't agree that poker is demonized here like it is, but even if its stupid, law is law.
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.
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 $100 note... he could care less
On April 16 2011 07:05 Kurr wrote: Some people need the government to hold their hands in these type of matters because they have no self control.
So we need the government to control us for our own good?
This is the philosophy today... thank god I don't have children.
Some people do need the government to control them when it comes to gambling. There are enough examples of people losing everything they own to gambling debts that I don't think I need to elaborate. I'm not trying to demonize poker. I play it once in a while, it's fun. But I have self control. If I lose 10$, I'm not going to play again right away. Some people instead play 20$ more when they lose.
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.
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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.
I'm guessing all the money on Ultimate Bet is effectively gone, all money on FTP is suspect, Stars is imo the only site people will realistically get their money out of whether now or some time in the future.
On April 16 2011 07:05 Kurr wrote: Some people need the government to hold their hands in these type of matters because they have no self control.
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.
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.
On April 16 2011 07:05 Kurr wrote: Some people need the government to hold their hands in these type of matters because they have no self control.
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.
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.
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).
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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.
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.
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.
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 $100,000 online. For higher stakes players it would be higher.
I was asking a question... I see my newbie friends that play on these sites with 200-400 bucks. I would figure that people would budget how much they put in weekly and only ever put enough in to play for however long they desired/lost or won it all.
Next time I post my opinion or ask a question about a topic in the general forums, I'll be sure to look up more information... good luck on everyone getting their money back.
On April 16 2011 07:05 Kurr wrote: Some people need the government to hold their hands in these type of matters because they have no self control.
So we need the government to control us for our own good?
This is the philosophy today... thank god I don't have children.
Some people do need the government to control them when it comes to gambling. There are enough examples of people losing everything they own to gambling debts that I don't think I need to elaborate. I'm not trying to demonize poker. I play it once in a while, it's fun. But I have self control. If I lose 10$, 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.
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?
On April 16 2011 07:05 Kurr wrote: Some people need the government to hold their hands in these type of matters because they have no self control.
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.
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.
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.
§ 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)
For those of you saying internet poker isn't illegal, the question has always been "When will someone challenge it in court?" Clearly the big poker sites do not believe it violates the wire act, or any other gambling statutes. This will be the first federal test for online poker, sad it had to come about this way.
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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.
So i've read through a lot of the posts in this tread (unfortunately not all), couldn't we consider the following:
While i understand that pokerstars isn't an american business, their money WAS in american banks. They could have had mostly Non-US Money, but the important thing is that all of the money was passing through us, and that's how they were able to freeze it. It's not like they called UBS and had switzerland freeze all the Swiss Bank accounts or anything like that.
While I personally don't have any problem with online poker, I can understand their legal ground of basically, "coming into our house and breaking our rules"
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.
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.
I wasn't upset or trying to scold you or anything, please don't take offense because it wasn't my intention.
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.
No, it's not unconstitutional. Nothing in the Constitution protects your right to gamble, and the Founders were all very against gambling to begin with. The ability of the government to regulate "vices" like gambling, alcohol, and prostitution was well-accepted at the time and well-understood to begin within the police powers that are reserved to the States.
Further, no Constitutional interpretation since then would interpret anything in the Constitution to provide a "right to gamble". If anything, commerce clause jurisprudence would simply provide an avenue for even the federal government to regulate gambling, in addition to the States.
The Constitution is not a blank check by which you can write your own beliefs.
On April 16 2011 07:29 Layden wrote: For those of you saying internet poker isn't illegal, the question has always been "When will someone challenge it in court?" Clearly the big poker sites do not believe it violates the wire act, or any other gambling statutes. This will be the first federal test for online poker, sad it had to come about this way.
Internet pokers legality varies on a state by state basis. For example in WA, online poker is not really legal. I'm sure this goes the same for various other states.
Im saying this because as I'm reading this thread the idea of State Laws does not seem to come up in any discussion. Some people are saying "online poker illegal", other saying "no its not", when in reality in some places in the US, online poker is in fact illegal, while in other places it is not.
Furthermore these seizures have nothing to do with the legality of online poker in the US, but based on bank fraud. Why is the question of poker legality coming into play at all?
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.
No, it's not unconstitutional. Nothing in the Constitution protects your right to gamble, and the Founders were all very against gambling to begin with. The ability of the government to regulate "vices" like gambling, alcohol, and prostitution was well-accepted at the time and well-understood to begin within the police powers that are reserved to the States.
Further, no Constitutional interpretation since then would interpret anything in the Constitution to provide a "right to gamble". If anything, commerce clause jurisprudence would simply provide an avenue for even the federal government to regulate gambling, in addition to the States.
The Constitution is not a blank check by which you can write your own beliefs.
Yea you're right, I just rechecked and there wasn't anything of that nature in the Constitution. I was misremembering the Libertarian views of the Harm principle as a Constitutional right.
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.
No, it's not unconstitutional. Nothing in the Constitution protects your right to gamble, and the Founders were all very against gambling to begin with. The ability of the government to regulate "vices" like gambling, alcohol, and prostitution was well-accepted at the time and well-understood to begin within the police powers that are reserved to the States.
Further, no Constitutional interpretation since then would interpret anything in the Constitution to provide a "right to gamble". If anything, commerce clause jurisprudence would simply provide an avenue for even the federal government to regulate gambling, in addition to the States.
The Constitution is not a blank check by which you can write your own beliefs.
Agreed, but part of the problem now is the federal government is so strong in relation to states that when it makes ridiculous rulings like UIGEA it is virtually impossible to protest them. Not to mention that they can simply tack this on as a clause in a completely unrelated bill is beyond ludicrous.
From an idealistic stance people should be free to possess private funds and to dispose of them as they see fit.
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.
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.
No, it's not unconstitutional. Nothing in the Constitution protects your right to gamble, and the Founders were all very against gambling to begin with. The ability of the government to regulate "vices" like gambling, alcohol, and prostitution was well-accepted at the time and well-understood to begin within the police powers that are reserved to the States.
Further, no Constitutional interpretation since then would interpret anything in the Constitution to provide a "right to gamble". If anything, commerce clause jurisprudence would simply provide an avenue for even the federal government to regulate gambling, in addition to the States.
The Constitution is not a blank check by which you can write your own beliefs.
Agreed, but part of the problem now is the federal government is so strong in relation to states that when it makes ridiculous rulings like UIGEA it is virtually impossible to protest them. Not to mention that they can simply tack this on as a clause in a completely unrelated bill is beyond ludicrous.
From an idealistic stance people should be free to possess private funds and to dispose of them as they see fit.
Yeah, I agree. We should have a Constitutional Convention to overhaul the thing.
Until then, you don't have a constitutional right to gamble.
On April 16 2011 07:41 rycho wrote: i am absolutely embarrassed for my shitty government and i'm really sorry the rest of the world has to put up with american stupidity
Um, the rest of the world operates with this same philosophy with respect to a host of different issues, so rest assured they're very familiar with stupid and shitty governments.
On April 16 2011 07:42 universalwill wrote: really glad i never got into online poker because a lot of people are about to lose a whole lot of money.
To be fair, I made a whole lot more money over the last few years playing poker than I'm losing right now. What sucks more is that I can't play for a living anymore. And we might even get the money back, like what happened with Neteller...of course it could take 6+ months.
On April 16 2011 07:41 hifriend wrote: wouldn't us citizens be able to just transfer whatever amount of cash they wish to withdraw to a european friend or w/e and have them do it?
No. The accounts at the banks are frozen. The banks are not moving the money in or out at all.
In theory, once the entire thing is resolved, non-US players could get their money out, if there is any money left. But that's (1) years away and (2) doubtful.
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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.
So i've read through a lot of the posts in this tread (unfortunately not all), couldn't we consider the following:
While i understand that pokerstars isn't an american business, their money WAS in american banks. They could have had mostly Non-US Money, but the important thing is that all of the money was passing through us, and that's how they were able to freeze it. It's not like they called UBS and had switzerland freeze all the Swiss Bank accounts or anything like that.
While I personally don't have any problem with online poker, I can understand their legal ground of basically, "coming into our house and breaking our rules"
You know, I am not even 100% sure what the situation is. But pokerstars doesn't hold their money in U.S. banks, and the DOJ surely was looking for any opportunity to screw pokerstars over as they don't make money from pokerstars.
I would guess that the reality of the situation is that pokerstars was not cooperating with the unreasonable demands of the U.S. government and so eventually the U.S. government fucked them in the ass.
Just like when a business doesn't cooperate with the mafia, and then the mafia comes in and wrecks their store and breaks their leg.
If someone can tell me who was actually hurt by what pokerstars did, then I will be amazed.
On April 16 2011 07:45 419 wrote: My libertarian side says that these laws are completely unnecessary. That said, "don't gamble if you can't afford to lose," as the saying goes...
This is not the same. That line applies to losing money while gambling, meaning it's your own fault and lack of skill + luck.
This is more like "don't gamble if you can't afford to have your winnings stolen by the government"
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.
On April 16 2011 07:41 rycho wrote: i am absolutely embarrassed for my shitty government and i'm really sorry the rest of the world has to put up with american stupidity
[QUOTE]On April 16 2011 06:33 relyt wrote: [QUOTE]On April 16 2011 06:32 TrANCE, wrote: [quote]I have about 200$ on PS, damn that would cover 2 Years GSL Permium [/quote]
lol is that how you translate how much $200 is for the SC community
For the people hateing on the goverment the people that run these site aren't stupid they know the laws and they should also know if the US goverment thinks your trying to defraud them in anyway they'll come down on them like a ton of bricks[/QUOTE]
People don't hate the government for enforcing the laws, they hate them for having shit laws to begin with.
Shit laws asin what? Fraud and money laundering laws i don't think the vast majority of tax payers would call " shit laws " If their spending the man power and money to pursue this it's oviously on a massive scale running into millions of dollars
I have a couple hundred dollars in my FT account as well. But it doesn't really matter that much to me. I saw this coming years ago. If you think the U.S. government was going to turn a blind eye to this forever, you are fooling yourselves.
On April 16 2011 07:48 TrANCE, wrote: Shit laws asin what? Fraud and money laundering laws i don't think the vast majority of tax payers would call " shit laws " If their spending the man power and money to pursue this it's oviously on a massive scale running into millions of dollars
Do you even understand the situation? The reason they were engaging in fraud and money laundering was so that US citizens could play poker on their sites (i.e. do what they wanted with THEIR money). They weren't stealing money from anyone. They broke other laws to get around a terrible law: the UIGEA. Not saying what they did wasn't illegal but people are incensed because there is no reason playing online poker should have been rendered effectively illegal by the United States government in the first place.
On April 16 2011 07:45 419 wrote: My libertarian side says that these laws are completely unnecessary. That said, "don't gamble if you can't afford to lose," as the saying goes...
This is not the same. That line applies to losing money while gambling, meaning it's your own fault and lack of skill + luck.
This is more like "don't gamble if you can't afford to have your winnings stolen by the government"
"Stolen"?
From what I see, the law was the law. Now of course the law may be completely stupid, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't factor into the risk assessment.
Actually this is really entertaining. I wonder how far the Pokersite = Bank analogy goes. People probably don't cash out too often usually (or atleast hte sites can probably find how often people do cash out) So these sites would probably want to invest most of the cash rather than hold it with inflation risk / whatever opportunity cost there is of holding that much cash.
tldr Insolvent not illiquid? But there's no "guarantee" so could you end up with a "run" on a poker site?
Ofc I need a lot more in the way of facts to confirm any of this, but this has potential :D
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
HAHAHA now I know why you act like you hate the government sooo much. Our state government is seriously fucked.
lol is that how you translate how much $200 is for the SC community
For the people hateing on the goverment the people that run these site aren't stupid they know the laws and they should also know if the US goverment thinks your trying to defraud them in anyway they'll come down on them like a ton of bricks
People don't hate the government for enforcing the laws, they hate them for having shit laws to begin with.
Shit laws asin what? Fraud and money laundering laws i don't think the vast majority of tax payers would call " shit laws " If their spending the man power and money to pursue this it's oviously on a massive scale running into millions of dollars
The shit law that he speaks of would be the UIGEA laws, which prohibit transactions between gambling sites and US financial institutions. This law is just a bullshit roadblock that the government placed without particularly sound reasoning.
Then, the poker sites tried to get around this via laundering, which of course is a no-no.
On April 16 2011 07:45 419 wrote: My libertarian side says that these laws are completely unnecessary. That said, "don't gamble if you can't afford to lose," as the saying goes...
This is not the same. That line applies to losing money while gambling, meaning it's your own fault and lack of skill + luck.
This is more like "don't gamble if you can't afford to have your winnings stolen by the government"
"Stolen"?
From what I see, the law was the law. Now of course the law may be completely stupid, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't factor into the risk assessment.
Considering these closured have less to do with legality of poker, but more with the legality of bank fraud. A lot of people who are innocent are getting screwed over by this.
Sure you can argue that they did this because there was a customer base in the US that wanted to play, but that doesn't mean they should go to illegal means to serve that customer base.
People whould be mad at FT and PS et al. for pursuing illegal action when doing transactions, not the US government for pursuing criminal activity.
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
HAHAHA now I know why you act like you hate the government sooo much. Our state government is seriously fucked.
Yet again hippocracy rules in America. You are not allowed to gamble, it is wrong. They forbid you to gamble on games where you have good odds and can win money, but here try our state sponsored lotteries. Where your chances of winning are 1 in 45,000,000.
In my state, Florida, they got the lottery started by saying all the money would go to education. What they actually did was, for every dollar lottery provides to education funding, they take a dollar out of their budget for education. The end result is the same as if you put the money into their state budget/slush fund.
The government in the U.S. is completely out of control. The federal and state governments are already in debt, they will never be able to pay. But they waste time and money going after crimes that have no victims. Such stupidity. Meanwhile social security will be broke in the next 15 years because the government took the money, promised not to spend it, and then spent it all. Then they spent all the money they predict will come for the next 20 years.
The U.S. government is a shrine to immorality but they want to force everyone to live by their morals. Which only apply when it is convenient for them. I wish I had the money to take my family and leave this backwards ass country forever. I hear Sweden is quite nice.
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".
On April 16 2011 07:05 Kurr wrote: Some people need the government to hold their hands in these type of matters because they have no self control.
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.
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/Big Government party in the Republicans and a Social Liberal/Big Government party in the Democrats. Strangely the U.S. electorate tends to be divided 50/50 between both parties.
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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.
Let me put it this way, how does your argument regarding the UIGEA differ from people who think the Federal government shouldn't be allowed to collect taxes?
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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
Not to hate, but innocent till proven guilt is a very important concept. While we can all argue the Federal government has to have a case or else they wouldn't be doing this. We need to remember that the federal government is jailing tens of thousands of people without even telling them what their charges are.
I'm going wait for all the facts to come out before making judgement.
On the discussion of poker, I personally see it as a game of skill and would like to see it move out of the "gambling" class of games. Hopefully a lot of you who care about this issue will write your Reps in DC.
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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
Not to hate, but innocent till proven guilt is a very important concept. While we can all argue the Federal government has to have a case or else they wouldn't be doing this. We need to remember that the federal government is jailing tens of thousands of people without even telling them what their charges are.
I'm going wait for all the facts to come out before making judgement.
On the discussion of poker, I personally see it as a game of skill and would like to see it move out of the "gambling" class of games. Hopefully a lot of you who care about this issue will write your Reps in DC.
The real issue isn't whether or not poker is gambling, it's why on Earth should the government's purpose include determining what people can or cannot spend their money on? Pragmatism FTL.
"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.
This should sure help unemployment -_-. I have a few friends who make their (insanely comfortable living) off of online poker. Are they gonna have to find work?
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.
(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)
"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)
(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)
Sounds like it's talking about the person running the business.
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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
Not to hate, but innocent till proven guilt is a very important concept. While we can all argue the Federal government has to have a case or else they wouldn't be doing this. We need to remember that the federal government is jailing tens of thousands of people without even telling them what their charges are.
I'm going wait for all the facts to come out before making judgement.
On the discussion of poker, I personally see it as a game of skill and would like to see it move out of the "gambling" class of games. Hopefully a lot of you who care about this issue will write your Reps in DC.
They're not jailed. They invested money (mostly unknowingly) in a business conducting illegal activities. Freezing it is standard procedure, regardless of what the business is. When public companies are charged by the SEC, their stock and all their assets are frozen. This is no different.
Do you even understand the situation? The reason they were engaging in fraud and money laundering was so that US citizens could play poker on their sites (i.e. do what they wanted with THEIR money). They weren't stealing money from anyone. They broke other laws to get around a terrible law: the UIGEA. Not saying what they did wasn't illegal but people are incensed because there is no reason playing online poker should have been rendered effectively illegal by the United States government in the first place.
Edit: quote tags messed up.
What im saying is it's law im not getting into if it's right or wrong to stop US citizens from gambling online and the large poker sites has known this fact for years but still they knowingly break the law,
Im not saying the uigea isn't a shit law but money laundering and fraud isn't. The Bigger poker sites didn't feal sorry for the american online poker players they just wanted access to the american market knowing fullwell it was illegal.
the uigea is pritty much unenforceable. The exception being against the biggest sites that still flaunt the law
On April 16 2011 08:11 Mohdoo wrote: This should sure help unemployment -_-. I have a few friends who make their (insanely comfortable living) off of online poker. Are they gonna have to find work?
Actually it wouldn't do jack all to uneployment. The people who work will still have their jobs, and the people who havent worked in awhile and play poker for a living wont be eligible for any substantial unemployment benefits.
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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.
Let me put it this way, how does your argument regarding the UIGEA differ from people who think the Federal government shouldn't be allowed to collect taxes?
Could you ask more plainly? I do not know all the arguments against the payment of federal taxes.
I also don't think it's comparable anyways. The issue is one of regulation. What you are saying is that we shouldn't be allowed to play poker on offshore sites. That's nonsense. If I want to buy products from another country then I most certainly can.
Gonna be good so little amount of people playing guarantees tournaments this night. Oh and Sunday Million will not reach its guarantee at all :D How about SCOOP?
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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.
Let me put it this way, how does your argument regarding the UIGEA differ from people who think the Federal government shouldn't be allowed to collect taxes?
Could you ask more plainly? I do not know all the arguments against the payment of federal taxes.
I also don't think it's comparable anyways. The issue is one of regulation. What you are saying is that we shouldn't be allowed to play poker on offshore sites. That's nonsense. If I want to buy products from another country then I most certainly can.
How is this comparable to taxes?
The point is that your argument that you should be allowed to play poker on offshore sites carries that same validity as theirs that you shouldn't have to pay taxes. Yet neither side that holds those beliefs believes in the others'. It's both a matter of opinion. I believe in voodoo, but your business of juju is complete nonsense. You stick true to your juju gods, but I'm a fool for believing in voodoo. Ultimately neither of us play by the rules used in the rest of society.
On April 16 2011 08:21 trias_e wrote: Full Tilt, AP, and Stars are apparently getting shut down in 48 hours. So I wouldn't be so happy about playing those guarantees.
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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.
Let me put it this way, how does your argument regarding the UIGEA differ from people who think the Federal government shouldn't be allowed to collect taxes?
Could you ask more plainly? I do not know all the arguments against the payment of federal taxes.
I also don't think it's comparable anyways. The issue is one of regulation. What you are saying is that we shouldn't be allowed to play poker on offshore sites. That's nonsense. If I want to buy products from another country then I most certainly can.
How is this comparable to taxes?
The point is that your argument that you should be allowed to play poker on offshore sites carries that same validity as theirs that you shouldn't have to pay taxes. Yet neither side that holds those beliefs believes in the others'. It's both a matter of opinion. I believe in voodoo, but your business of juju is complete nonsense. You stick true to your juju gods, but I'm a fool for believing in voodoo. Ultimately neither of us play by the rules created in the rest of society.
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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.
Let me put it this way, how does your argument regarding the UIGEA differ from people who think the Federal government shouldn't be allowed to collect taxes?
Could you ask more plainly? I do not know all the arguments against the payment of federal taxes.
I also don't think it's comparable anyways. The issue is one of regulation. What you are saying is that we shouldn't be allowed to play poker on offshore sites. That's nonsense. If I want to buy products from another country then I most certainly can.
How is this comparable to taxes?
So are you enjoying your cuban cigars then? Different situation, but If you wanted to buy a product from this country, you most certainly cannot. Legally, that is.
The government did nothing wrong here(speicifically in regards to seizures), they followed standard procedure to sieze someone performing illegal activity (bank fraud). Yes innocent people were fucked over by this, but they should be mad at the poker sites for participating in illegal activity to get a larger customer base and make more money.
You are arguing that the reason they performed bank fraud is because of a law that you think is stupid. Well guess what, a law is still a law.
The taxes question is related to someone who is arrested for tax evasion, then in defense forms an argument about how taxes shouldnt exist. While he could create a completely logical argument for this, the fact still stands that he broke a law that exists. What he feels about that law does not matter at this point.
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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
Not to hate, but innocent till proven guilt is a very important concept. While we can all argue the Federal government has to have a case or else they wouldn't be doing this. We need to remember that the federal government is jailing tens of thousands of people without even telling them what their charges are.
I'm going wait for all the facts to come out before making judgement.
On the discussion of poker, I personally see it as a game of skill and would like to see it move out of the "gambling" class of games. Hopefully a lot of you who care about this issue will write your Reps in DC.
They're not jailed. They invested money (mostly unknowingly) in a business conducting illegal activities. Freezing it is standard procedure, regardless of what the business is. When public companies are charged by the SEC, their stock and all their assets are frozen. This is no different.
I never said they were jailed. Merely saying United States is jailing a lot of people arugable illegally. Sorry if you find it confusing but I just want to stress that they may be innocent and we should wait till all the facts are out before condemning them.
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.
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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
Not to hate, but innocent till proven guilt is a very important concept. While we can all argue the Federal government has to have a case or else they wouldn't be doing this. We need to remember that the federal government is jailing tens of thousands of people without even telling them what their charges are.
I'm going wait for all the facts to come out before making judgement.
On the discussion of poker, I personally see it as a game of skill and would like to see it move out of the "gambling" class of games. Hopefully a lot of you who care about this issue will write your Reps in DC.
They're not jailed. They invested money (mostly unknowingly) in a business conducting illegal activities. Freezing it is standard procedure, regardless of what the business is. When public companies are charged by the SEC, their stock and all their assets are frozen. This is no different.
I never said they were jailed. Merely saying United States is jailing a lot of people arugable illegally. Sorry if you find it confusing but I just want to stress that they may be innocent and we should wait till all the facts are out before condemning them.
Wait, what? I thought only the conspirators are getting put in jail. Are you saying actual players are being jailed? I thought you meant it as a metaphor for having their money frozen.
On April 16 2011 06:43 Soap wrote: Doesn't help that there are conservative officials that would prefer gambling to be evicted from the world, but the real difficulty is the same as always, the people who are in good faith and just want to play some games are silent.
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
Not to hate, but innocent till proven guilt is a very important concept. While we can all argue the Federal government has to have a case or else they wouldn't be doing this. We need to remember that the federal government is jailing tens of thousands of people without even telling them what their charges are.
I'm going wait for all the facts to come out before making judgement.
On the discussion of poker, I personally see it as a game of skill and would like to see it move out of the "gambling" class of games. Hopefully a lot of you who care about this issue will write your Reps in DC.
They're not jailed. They invested money (mostly unknowingly) in a business conducting illegal activities. Freezing it is standard procedure, regardless of what the business is. When public companies are charged by the SEC, their stock and all their assets are frozen. This is no different.
I never said they were jailed. Merely saying United States is jailing a lot of people arugable illegally. Sorry if you find it confusing but I just want to stress that they may be innocent and we should wait till all the facts are out before condemning them.
Wait, what? I thought only the conspirators are getting put in jail. Are you saying actual players are being jailed? I thought you meant it as a metaphor for having their money frozen.
No, nevermind. I'm personally going wait till all the facts are release before saying their business was dirty.
On April 16 2011 08:35 never_toss wrote: wait. what about pokerstrategy? Is it being affected too? how about tsl's prizemoney?
Depending on what happens, I could see this affecting pokerstrategy's potential sponsorship of TSL 4. But I'm guessing that TSL3 will go on as planned.
On April 16 2011 08:35 never_toss wrote: wait. what about pokerstrategy? Is it being affected too? how about tsl's prizemoney?
AFAIK from what was said before in the thread, pokerstrategy is merely a gateway to sites where you can actually gamble from, and does not in and of itself provide any services beyond coaching, discussion of poker strategy, forums etc. As an entity, I don't think they have any legal risk of lawsuit or criminal complaint. However, they are partnered with many of the targeted sites and I would assume that this means a form of revenue is going to be cut off. How big is anyone's guess. I have no qualification to presume what would happen to TSL prize money.
This is an extremly highly technical and legal issue, not something a normal-guy would ever understand, I know that some players here have much money in their bankrolls but reading through this thead I don't get the feeling that except maybe Travis, the legal dude, Jibba and Sonovbob have any good arguments at all.
You think the US are freezing your money for their depts? Don't overestimate your business just because guys can live from it (some even very good).
The Pokersites did nothing immoral and illegal? Immoral is subjective and as someone stated more than 50% in the US think they do. That's called democracy, YOU have to follow majority (history should tell you why).
That they did something illegal to bypass a law is, so I think, proven or about to be proven. Then there's nothing more to say. Accounts get frozen, that's standard procedure. You can't just go there and say "that law is stupid" and I'm pretty sure that deep down in your heart you know why and that that is a good thing. Because every law is stupid to somebody sometimes.
Instead of getting pissed at the US gov, you should get pissed at the sites themselves to be so stupid to do this. By trusting these sites you gambled your money away. And now it's lost most probably.
In times like these, where the world gets faster every day, People are so fast to call something immoral and unjust. But in most cases, people did things they "assumed" were legal and so on. If you don't understand something in its full extent, DONT DO IT. You would'nt drive a car, if you didn't know how, would you?
It was the same with the financial crisis.. A LOT of people lost a LOT of money, because they put their money into things they didn't understand at all. I feel a lot for these people, but their ignorance can't just be put aside.
The same case I think can be argued here. In a grey area, many people just made assumptions about legal things. But you don't make legal assumptions, that's why big companies have hordes of lawyers, because legal uncertainty in these times is the greatest danger to everything.(as a TLer, a quick look to Blizz vs OGN/MBC should enhance this argument.)
And also, at the end of the day, the legal system is (and was never, except maybe in murder cases etc) about justice. It is about the balance of interests. Never forget that please, most people here are looking at the case and looking for their lost money because it was theirs and it should belong to them. That's not how the legal system works (to explain you why, I am not good enough in writing, also it would maybe need like 200pages at least).
What I also noticed is that nobody is questioning the "how" of the pokersites. To fool that many banks, or even worse blackmail them, there has to be an extreme amount of criminal energy behind that. I don't think it is that easy to fake dozens of transactions. Especially with that range of money (some withdraws with only 10-100$ some with over 5-10k).
the last thing i want to mention, that in any legal system money (like real money) is not handled the same way as online-money (i don't know the proper legal term in the US, i'm sorry). The sites just have a dept to you, and if a site get's bankrupt depts have a certain order to be paid ( usually with a "cut", you get only a certain percentage). so legally, that money is NOT yours. Please ensure to read that sentence often enough to really grasp it. you have no case at all if you're going to the court and demand "your money" back. The only thing you can demand is that they pay your debt. But their bankrupt now, so they can't pay it back. and that is why you're screwed. Also there is a lot to the argument that maybe you should be screwed. Why didn't you know about this legal uncertainties and issues? Why didn't you know how money in the legal system is accounted for? Why didn't you ask yourself how the sites run so smooth in US despite this law?
Somebody has to pay now, because some people screwed up. Usually, as in this case, the people with the least clue and information basis are these screwed people. As in the financial crisis. I can't stress it enough, DON'T DO THINGS WITH YOUR MONEY YOU DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND:
My post are just some brain teasers. I hope you can do something with it, if not now in the state of emotions, maybe later. good day, i hope for everyone to get their money back. Also not every opinion i stated in this post is necessarily my own, just wanted to give a more wide picture.
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.
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.
But seriously, thank you for providing an informed voice of reason on this thread. Keep up the good work.
With regard to legal contention over whether poker counts as gambling, historically, the answer has been yes. There have been a few arguments otherwise recently, but nothing serious enough to affect the proceedings here.
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...
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.
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.
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)
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?
"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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
How do Stars and FTP handle bounced checks? Fortunately I took most of my roll offline fearing this scenario and don't play much on FTP but if the check bounces, do you just email support and they credit your account or what? I'm a bit scared because we have no direct contact with the processors obviously.
Does anyone have experience with moneybookers xfer limits, it says 11k for 90 days for me
Does that mean im gonna have money stuck on there for months or what? How hard is it gonna be to put it back onto ftp/stars (or shove it all onto a euro website), or to take it into my bank?
On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote: So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers.
How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task.
Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter.
no honour amongst thieves indeed, even if it's not the olden days millions is still on the line i know if i was faceing jail and looseing all my money because of some rat i would have him taken care of (wink)
"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.
Yeah, it probably would be gambling if you bet on chess... not sure why that's a surprise.
On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote: So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers.
How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task.
Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter.
Are you qualified to assign which tasks are worth their resources? Just because a goverment has say 20 bil to put into say crime in general doesn't mean they should invest all of that into one kind of crime, if i put 200 people working on one assignment who's to say with paperwork among other things that cause delay that just 20 people would be just as effective for the most part, it's likely easier to push a bunch of paper work though channels to get servers and people served. Vs criminals hiding out in obscure locations.
On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote: So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers.
How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task.
Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter.
Are you qualified to assign which tasks are worth their resources? Just because a goverment has say 20 bil to put into say crime in general doesn't mean they should invest all of that into one kind of crime, if i put 200 people working on one assignment who's to say with paperwork among other things that cause delay that just 20 people would be just as effective for the most part, it's likely easier to push a bunch of paper work though channels to get servers and people served. Vs criminals hiding out in obscure locations.
The first step is to decide what the purpose of government is. From that all other answers flow. Today we find ourselves in a situation where our government has no clearly defined purpose, and so we get into irresolvable, endless arguments about what politicians refer to as "issues." We are completely drowning in a sea of pragmatism, and it's like that all over the world.
Nothing can happen without a return to thinking and acting on ideals and principles, rather than approaching each subject as a new task. I'm a pessimist who believes it is a virtual certainty this will never happen.
"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.
Yeah, it probably would be gambling if you bet on chess... not sure why that's a surprise.
So any chess tournament where it costs to enter is gambling?
"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.
Yeah, it probably would be gambling if you bet on chess... not sure why that's a surprise.
So any chess tournament where it costs to enter is gambling?
And if you take that money and use questionable ways of transferring the money to avoid certain laws you too can be served by the government.
"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.
Yeah, it probably would be gambling if you bet on chess... not sure why that's a surprise.
Would you consider it gambling to have a chess tournament with cash prizes as well as entry fees? If so, this is surprising to me.
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?
This is a non-issue and the time spent on "dealing" with it could much better be directed almost anywhere else.
On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote: So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers.
How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task.
Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter.
Are you qualified to assign which tasks are worth their resources?
Yes, we fucking elected them and paid the taxes to give them the resources.
On April 16 2011 10:00 Too_MuchZerg wrote: Pokerstars lowering guarantees... 100k Guaranteed now 50k. Seems like they are moving fast now to reduce losses.
Makes sense to lower it since half their userbase can't play.
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.
But none of it was under your control or influence when you first put money in the pot. I mean, sure, maybe it wouldn't be "gambling" if you sat at a cash game and never called the bb? But once you do, you've bet on a contingent event that's outside your influence; that's kind of why it's called a "blind". You have no influence on the cards you get dealt, or the cards anyone else gets dealt.
As to "influencing" your opponent's actions, I think that it's a little more complicated, because you can do something *hoping* that your opponent reacts a certain way, but you don't really know that it well, or what that reaction will be. People going against your "influence" is how they suck out; you put them in a situation where they have to have to fold or make a bad call doesn't really mean you're "influencing" them to play correctly and fold. And hell, maybe he makes some kind of meta-game calculation like "if I suck out here this guy is going to steam like crazy", so maybe he makes a "bad" call in the hopes of more payout than just the pot.
Regardless, Oregon actually does better and just goes ahead and defines hold'em and poker generally as a "casino game" that is "gambling":
167.117 (4)
"Casino game" means any of the traditional gambling-based games commonly known as dice, faro, monte, roulette, fan-tan, twenty-one, blackjack, Texas hold-’em, seven-and-a-half, big injun, klondike, craps, poker, chuck-a-luck, Chinese chuck-a-luck (dai shu), wheel of fortune, chemin de fer, baccarat, pai gow, beat the banker, panquinqui, red dog, acey-deucey, or any other gambling-based game similar in form or content.
In other states, it might be considered a "game of skill" but still regulated specifically. In Oregon, at least, it is definitely gambling.
On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote: So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers.
How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task.
Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter.
Are you qualified to assign which tasks are worth their resources?
Yes, we fucking elected them and paid the taxes to give them the resources.
By that logic you would be qualified to build roads, police people and fight fires. So next time you are being robbed or your house is on fire, you should just mosey on over the the police and fire stations to borrow equipment becuase you clearly don't need the trained professionals.
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?
This is a non-issue and the time spent on "dealing" with it could much better be directed almost anywhere else.
That assumes time does not exist and things happen in sequence without having a delay in execution. If i bake a pizza can i not also cook some pasta during the time the pizza is in the oven.
On April 16 2011 09:37 sikatrix wrote: cashed out 12k via check on stars, hopefully it gets here and doesn't bounce
I'm in the same boat for 9k via check.
:S :S :S come through canada (even tho this has nothing to do with it)
EDIT: although, I wonder if leaving it in pokerstars might be better. If the check bounces you are kinda screwed forever )
if it bounces you just message support and you get another one sent
Hmm, so is cashing out money equivalent to a bank run? I know little about this but from what I've read it appears to be akin to one, as they won't have any more money if everyone cashes out, right?
Also, this won't affect MightyAtom since his businesses have nothing to do with the illegal companies mentioned in the OP's tl;dr section, right? :O
On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote: So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers.
How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task.
Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter.
Are you qualified to assign which tasks are worth their resources?
Yes, we fucking elected them and paid the taxes to give them the resources.
By that logic you would be qualified to build roads, police people and fight fires. So next time you are being robbed or your house is on fire, you should just mosey on over the the police and fire stations to borrow equipment becuase you clearly don't need the trained professionals.
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?
This is a non-issue and the time spent on "dealing" with it could much better be directed almost anywhere else.
That assumes time does not exist and things happen in sequence without having a delay in execution. If i bake a pizza can i not also cook some pasta during the time the pizza is in the oven.
By that logic, my elected officials should spend money on all kinds of shit I don't want them to. They may as well pour money into Unicorn research. Do you know how foolish that sounds? Of course we want the government to spend money on things like building roads, law enforcement, and firefighting. That's a very far cry from launching a crackdown on an online card game. Clearly because I, and most likely the vast majority of American citizens, don't want their tax dollars spent on this, we also don't want a public police or firefighting force. Infallible logic.
On April 16 2011 09:37 sikatrix wrote: cashed out 12k via check on stars, hopefully it gets here and doesn't bounce
I'm in the same boat for 9k via check.
:S :S :S come through canada (even tho this has nothing to do with it)
EDIT: although, I wonder if leaving it in pokerstars might be better. If the check bounces you are kinda screwed forever )
if it bounces you just message support and you get another one sent
Hmm, so is cashing out money equivalent to a bank run? I know little about this but from what I've read it appears to be akin to one, as they won't have any more money if everyone cashes out, right?
Also, this won't affect MightyAtom since his businesses have nothing to do with the illegal companies mentioned in the OP's tl;dr section, right? :O
Only bankrun if they don't keep all of the depositors money in their own secure accounts ie. they reinvest it elsewhere.
A friend told me about this while at was at work. My basic response was this: I have no real sympathy for those who can't access their money or funds. This has been illegal since its existence and you were taking a risk in putting your money into something that could have been seized at any time. I saw a documentary on this on ABC about a year ago and I wised up - I decided not to put any money into pokerstars - where I was playing pretty heavily with "play" money.
On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote: So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers.
How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task.
Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter.
Are you qualified to assign which tasks are worth their resources?
Yes, we fucking elected them and paid the taxes to give them the resources.
By that logic you would be qualified to build roads, police people and fight fires. So next time you are being robbed or your house is on fire, you should just mosey on over the the police and fire stations to borrow equipment becuase you clearly don't need the trained professionals.
On April 16 2011 10:02 Drowsy wrote:
On April 16 2011 09:24 semantics wrote:
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?
This is a non-issue and the time spent on "dealing" with it could much better be directed almost anywhere else.
That assumes time does not exist and things happen in sequence without having a delay in execution. If i bake a pizza can i not also cook some pasta during the time the pizza is in the oven.
By that logic, my elected officials should spend money on all kinds of shit I don't want them to. They may as well pour money into Unicorn research. Do you know how foolish that sounds? Of course we want the government to spend money on things like building roads, law enforcement, and firefighting. That's a very far cry from launching a crackdown on an online card game.
I agree with what you're saying--that people living under the government should give it its direction, but to say "of course we want...firefighting" is just your opinion. Why should the government build roads or fight fires, or even enforce laws for that matter (the last one is a little more obvious).
What is the purpose of government? That is the only question that really matters.
On April 16 2011 10:14 enzymezero wrote: A friend told me about this while at was at work. My basic response was this: I have no real sympathy for those who can't access their money or funds. This has been illegal since its existence and you were taking a risk in putting your money into something that could have been seized at any time. I saw a documentary on this on ABC about a year ago and I wised up - I decided not to put any money into pokerstars - where I was playing pretty heavily with "play" money.
Luckily it's not a crime to have poor reading comprehension.
It's not illegal at all unless you live in a state where it's defined as such. Like New York or Washington.
On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote: So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers.
How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task.
Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter.
Are you qualified to assign which tasks are worth their resources?
Yes, we fucking elected them and paid the taxes to give them the resources.
By that logic you would be qualified to build roads, police people and fight fires. So next time you are being robbed or your house is on fire, you should just mosey on over the the police and fire stations to borrow equipment becuase you clearly don't need the trained professionals.
On April 16 2011 10:02 Drowsy wrote:
On April 16 2011 09:24 semantics wrote:
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?
This is a non-issue and the time spent on "dealing" with it could much better be directed almost anywhere else.
That assumes time does not exist and things happen in sequence without having a delay in execution. If i bake a pizza can i not also cook some pasta during the time the pizza is in the oven.
By that logic, my elected officials should spend money on all kinds of shit I don't want them to. They may as well pour money into Unicorn research. Do you know how foolish that sounds? Of course we want the government to spend money on things like building roads, law enforcement, and firefighting. That's a very far cry from launching a crackdown on an online card game.
you say card game but it's a large amount of money they deal with. Also what you say is that "I am always correct do things my way or the highway" If i desire drinking age to be 6 just because i pay the people running the place doesn't make me the soul voice of reason behind how the government handles the legal drinking age.
Meet The Boy Genius Who Just Took Down The Online Poker Industry
The 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 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 made Full Tilt Poker and Poker Stars millions of dollars — and making as much $150,000 a day for himself — but then got even more greedy and started taking them for himself. They sued him, demanding more than $100 million of their own money back.
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 wealth, he was considered a flight risk and denied bail.
Then after a "secret" meeting with prosecutors, he was suddenly out on bail. And now, his former colleagues are the ones facing serious jail time.
Daniel Tzvetkoff knows the operations of these poker site inside and out. He's the one man positioned to give these companies to the U.S. Attorneys on a silver platter. 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, "He 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
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.
On April 16 2011 10:14 enzymezero wrote: A friend told me about this while at was at work. My basic response was this: I have no real sympathy for those who can't access their money or funds. This has been illegal since its existence and you were taking a risk in putting your money into something that could have been seized at any time. I saw a documentary on this on ABC about a year ago and I wised up - I decided not to put any money into pokerstars - where I was playing pretty heavily with "play" money.
On April 16 2011 09:37 sikatrix wrote: cashed out 12k via check on stars, hopefully it gets here and doesn't bounce
I'm in the same boat for 9k via check.
:S :S :S come through canada (even tho this has nothing to do with it)
EDIT: although, I wonder if leaving it in pokerstars might be better. If the check bounces you are kinda screwed forever )
if it bounces you just message support and you get another one sent
Hmm, so is cashing out money equivalent to a bank run? I know little about this but from what I've read it appears to be akin to one, as they won't have any more money if everyone cashes out, right?
Also, this won't affect MightyAtom since his businesses have nothing to do with the illegal companies mentioned in the OP's tl;dr section, right? :O
Most online poker sites separate all of their user's money/winnings from the company's, at least thats what they claim. So theoretically, everyone could withdraw all of their money and they should be able to cover it. Whereas a bank actually does stuff with the money people put in, so its possible for a bank to not be able to cover when every single person wants to withdraw money.
On April 16 2011 10:14 enzymezero wrote: pokerstars - where I was playing pretty heavily with "play" money.
No money in play money, everyone's solid.
Also, anyone seriously debating whether or not poker is a skill game should subscribe to a training site, like DeucesCracked or something, for a month, watch as many videos as possible, and THEN try to form a coherent argument against poker being a skill game.
On April 16 2011 09:37 sikatrix wrote: cashed out 12k via check on stars, hopefully it gets here and doesn't bounce
I'm in the same boat for 9k via check.
:S :S :S come through canada (even tho this has nothing to do with it)
EDIT: although, I wonder if leaving it in pokerstars might be better. If the check bounces you are kinda screwed forever )
if it bounces you just message support and you get another one sent
Hmm, so is cashing out money equivalent to a bank run? I know little about this but from what I've read it appears to be akin to one, as they won't have any more money if everyone cashes out, right?
Also, this won't affect MightyAtom since his businesses have nothing to do with the illegal companies mentioned in the OP's tl;dr section, right? :O
Most online poker sites separate all of their user's money/winnings from the company's, at least thats what they claim. So theoretically, everyone could withdraw all of their money and they should be able to cover it. Whereas a bank actually does stuff with the money people put in, so its possible for a bank to not be able to cover when every single person wants to withdraw money.
Ah, so they don't actually invest it and do secure it :3
That's good, I suppose--hope everyone who has money on one of these online poker sites is able to safely withdraw money if he/she chooses to do so ><
"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.
Yeah, it probably would be gambling if you bet on chess... not sure why that's a surprise.
So any chess tournament where it costs to enter is gambling?
Ah, now that's probably tricky. If it's a tournament with an entry fee, but a pre-set prize, then maybe not. You're just paying an entry fee. Often there's some kind of prize fund supplementing the tournament, from club fees or something. Even if you had to "join the club" to enter the tournament, and all the prize money comes from the "club".
It's different in poker - usually it's a tournament where you pay $50+5 or something, with the $5 as your fee and $50 going into the winnings pot with a payout structure like 60%/30%/10%, that's probably gambling, even if you're playing chess.
I mean, if you go play chess hustlers in the park for money, that's gambling, definitely. That's just "I bet you $50 I can beat you in chess."
I know it's a dumb semantic difference, but it's more about the appearance of it than the logical difference. You can definitely gamble on chess. But most tournaments just aren't going to be treated as "gambling". If millions of people were spending billions of dollars competing in online chess, the law would treat it differently. Sure, some people do. But not at the same level as poker.
Chess has a different cultural situation than cards. It's not rational but it's how people operate.
On April 16 2011 09:37 sikatrix wrote: cashed out 12k via check on stars, hopefully it gets here and doesn't bounce
I'm in the same boat for 9k via check.
:S :S :S come through canada (even tho this has nothing to do with it)
EDIT: although, I wonder if leaving it in pokerstars might be better. If the check bounces you are kinda screwed forever )
if it bounces you just message support and you get another one sent
Hmm, so is cashing out money equivalent to a bank run? I know little about this but from what I've read it appears to be akin to one, as they won't have any more money if everyone cashes out, right?
Also, this won't affect MightyAtom since his businesses have nothing to do with the illegal companies mentioned in the OP's tl;dr section, right? :O
Most online poker sites separate all of their user's money/winnings from the company's, at least thats what they claim. So theoretically, everyone could withdraw all of their money and they should be able to cover it. Whereas a bank actually does stuff with the money people put in, so its possible for a bank to not be able to cover when every single person wants to withdraw money.
Ah, so they don't actually invest it and do secure it :3
That's good, I suppose--hope everyone who has money on one of these online poker sites is able to safely withdraw money if he/she chooses to do so ><
It is far more complicated than that. As I said, leaving a significant sum of money in such a shady legal framework is extremely poor financial management, I cannot believe people would actually do it.
"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.
Yeah, it probably would be gambling if you bet on chess... not sure why that's a surprise.
So any chess tournament where it costs to enter is gambling?
Ah, now that's probably tricky. If it's a tournament with an entry fee, but a pre-set prize, then maybe not. You're just paying an entry fee. Often there's some kind of prize fund supplementing the tournament, from club fees or something. Even if you had to "join the club" to enter the tournament, and all the prize money comes from the "club".
It's different in poker - usually it's a tournament where you pay $50+5 or something, with the $5 as your fee and $50 going into the winnings pot with a payout structure like 60%/30%/10%, that's probably gambling, even if you're playing chess.
I mean, if you go play chess hustlers in the park for money, that's gambling, definitely. That's just "I bet you $50 I can beat you in chess."
I know it's a dumb semantic difference, but it's more about the appearance of it than the logical difference. You can definitely gamble on chess. But most tournaments just aren't going to be treated as "gambling". If millions of people were spending billions of dollars competing in online chess, the law would treat it differently. Sure, some people do. But not at the same level as poker.
Chess has a different cultural situation than cards. It's not rational but it's how people operate.
In chess, you can't raise the stakes during the game. In poker you can.
On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote: So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers.
How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task.
Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter.
Are you qualified to assign which tasks are worth their resources?
Yes, we fucking elected them and paid the taxes to give them the resources.
By that logic you would be qualified to build roads, police people and fight fires. So next time you are being robbed or your house is on fire, you should just mosey on over the the police and fire stations to borrow equipment becuase you clearly don't need the trained professionals.
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?
This is a non-issue and the time spent on "dealing" with it could much better be directed almost anywhere else.
That assumes time does not exist and things happen in sequence without having a delay in execution. If i bake a pizza can i not also cook some pasta during the time the pizza is in the oven.
An elected official has obligations to his constituents. If we elected our firemen we'd certainly have the right to tell them how we want them to fight fires, and they'd have an obligation to listen to us. That being said, they can listen to us and do the opposite anyways. They just won't be re-elected.
There would be no one more qualified to let elected officials know where we want funds distributed to than the people electing them, in any case. The government exists to serve the people, not its own agenda.
On April 16 2011 09:37 sikatrix wrote: cashed out 12k via check on stars, hopefully it gets here and doesn't bounce
I'm in the same boat for 9k via check.
:S :S :S come through canada (even tho this has nothing to do with it)
EDIT: although, I wonder if leaving it in pokerstars might be better. If the check bounces you are kinda screwed forever )
if it bounces you just message support and you get another one sent
Hmm, so is cashing out money equivalent to a bank run? I know little about this but from what I've read it appears to be akin to one, as they won't have any more money if everyone cashes out, right?
Also, this won't affect MightyAtom since his businesses have nothing to do with the illegal companies mentioned in the OP's tl;dr section, right? :O
Most online poker sites separate all of their user's money/winnings from the company's, at least thats what they claim. So theoretically, everyone could withdraw all of their money and they should be able to cover it. Whereas a bank actually does stuff with the money people put in, so its possible for a bank to not be able to cover when every single person wants to withdraw money.
Ah, so they don't actually invest it and do secure it :3
That's good, I suppose--hope everyone who has money on one of these online poker sites is able to safely withdraw money if he/she chooses to do so ><
It is far more complicated than that. As I said, leaving a significant sum of money in such a shady legal framework is extremely poor financial management, I cannot believe people would actually do it.
Oh, okay... Still, for those who make a living off of [online] poker, it really is the only way, I suppose.
"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.
Yeah, it probably would be gambling if you bet on chess... not sure why that's a surprise.
So any chess tournament where it costs to enter is gambling?
Ah, now that's probably tricky. If it's a tournament with an entry fee, but a pre-set prize, then maybe not. You're just paying an entry fee. Often there's some kind of prize fund supplementing the tournament, from club fees or something. Even if you had to "join the club" to enter the tournament, and all the prize money comes from the "club".
It's different in poker - usually it's a tournament where you pay $50+5 or something, with the $5 as your fee and $50 going into the winnings pot with a payout structure like 60%/30%/10%, that's probably gambling, even if you're playing chess.
I mean, if you go play chess hustlers in the park for money, that's gambling, definitely. That's just "I bet you $50 I can beat you in chess."
I know it's a dumb semantic difference, but it's more about the appearance of it than the logical difference. You can definitely gamble on chess. But most tournaments just aren't going to be treated as "gambling". If millions of people were spending billions of dollars competing in online chess, the law would treat it differently. Sure, some people do. But not at the same level as poker.
Chess has a different cultural situation than cards. It's not rational but it's how people operate.
Both the hustling in the park and playing in a tournament with a set tournament prize pool mean that you're risking something of value (your first point in your original post).
On April 16 2011 10:14 enzymezero wrote: A friend told me about this while at was at work. My basic response was this: I have no real sympathy for those who can't access their money or funds. This has been illegal since its existence and you were taking a risk in putting your money into something that could have been seized at any time. I saw a documentary on this on ABC about a year ago and I wised up - I decided not to put any money into pokerstars - where I was playing pretty heavily with "play" money.
Luckily it's not a crime to have poor reading comprehension.
It's not illegal at all unless you live in a state where it's defined as such. Like New York or Washington.
God I wish 2p2 was up.
Speaking of poor reading comprehension, you'll notice I said a friend told me about this while I was at work, eh? So I didn't get a chance to read anything. You have to think that these companies were doing something fraudulent with money anyway, since their businesses were all overseas.
On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote: So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers.
How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task.
Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter.
Are you qualified to assign which tasks are worth their resources?
Yes, we fucking elected them and paid the taxes to give them the resources.
By that logic you would be qualified to build roads, police people and fight fires. So next time you are being robbed or your house is on fire, you should just mosey on over the the police and fire stations to borrow equipment becuase you clearly don't need the trained professionals.
On April 16 2011 10:02 Drowsy wrote:
On April 16 2011 09:24 semantics wrote:
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?
This is a non-issue and the time spent on "dealing" with it could much better be directed almost anywhere else.
That assumes time does not exist and things happen in sequence without having a delay in execution. If i bake a pizza can i not also cook some pasta during the time the pizza is in the oven.
By that logic, my elected officials should spend money on all kinds of shit I don't want them to. They may as well pour money into Unicorn research. Do you know how foolish that sounds? Of course we want the government to spend money on things like building roads, law enforcement, and firefighting. That's a very far cry from launching a crackdown on an online card game.
you say card game but it's a large amount of money they deal with. Also what you say is that "I am always correct do things my way or the highway" If i desire drinking age to be 6 just because i pay the people running the place doesn't make me the soul voice of reason behind how the government handles the legal drinking age.
Meet The Boy Genius Who Just Took Down The Online Poker Industry
The 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 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 made Full Tilt Poker and Poker Stars millions of dollars — and making as much $150,000 a day for himself — but then got even more greedy and started taking them for himself. They sued him, demanding more than $100 million of their own money back.
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 wealth, he was considered a flight risk and denied bail.
Then after a "secret" meeting with prosecutors, he was suddenly out on bail. And now, his former colleagues are the ones facing serious jail time.
Daniel Tzvetkoff knows the operations of these poker site inside and out. He's the one man positioned to give these companies to the U.S. Attorneys on a silver platter. 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, "He 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
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.
That much is obvious, but I think if you put the bong down and stopped getting all philosophical/abstract, you would find that the majority of people would not like the drinking age to be 6, would not like the government to allocate resources toward cracking down on online poker(in light of live poker being peculiarly alive and well), and would still like basic property rights, law enforcement, and fire-fighting.
On April 16 2011 09:37 sikatrix wrote: cashed out 12k via check on stars, hopefully it gets here and doesn't bounce
I'm in the same boat for 9k via check.
:S :S :S come through canada (even tho this has nothing to do with it)
EDIT: although, I wonder if leaving it in pokerstars might be better. If the check bounces you are kinda screwed forever )
if it bounces you just message support and you get another one sent
Hmm, so is cashing out money equivalent to a bank run? I know little about this but from what I've read it appears to be akin to one, as they won't have any more money if everyone cashes out, right?
Also, this won't affect MightyAtom since his businesses have nothing to do with the illegal companies mentioned in the OP's tl;dr section, right? :O
Most online poker sites separate all of their user's money/winnings from the company's, at least thats what they claim. So theoretically, everyone could withdraw all of their money and they should be able to cover it. Whereas a bank actually does stuff with the money people put in, so its possible for a bank to not be able to cover when every single person wants to withdraw money.
Ah, so they don't actually invest it and do secure it :3
That's good, I suppose--hope everyone who has money on one of these online poker sites is able to safely withdraw money if he/she chooses to do so ><
It is far more complicated than that. As I said, leaving a significant sum of money in such a shady legal framework is extremely poor financial management, I cannot believe people would actually do it.
Oh, okay... Still, for those who make a living off of [online] poker, it really is the only way, I suppose.
Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
"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.
Yeah, it probably would be gambling if you bet on chess... not sure why that's a surprise.
So any chess tournament where it costs to enter is gambling?
Ah, now that's probably tricky. If it's a tournament with an entry fee, but a pre-set prize, then maybe not. You're just paying an entry fee. Often there's some kind of prize fund supplementing the tournament, from club fees or something. Even if you had to "join the club" to enter the tournament, and all the prize money comes from the "club".
It's different in poker - usually it's a tournament where you pay $50+5 or something, with the $5 as your fee and $50 going into the winnings pot with a payout structure like 60%/30%/10%, that's probably gambling, even if you're playing chess.
I mean, if you go play chess hustlers in the park for money, that's gambling, definitely. That's just "I bet you $50 I can beat you in chess."
I know it's a dumb semantic difference, but it's more about the appearance of it than the logical difference. You can definitely gamble on chess. But most tournaments just aren't going to be treated as "gambling". If millions of people were spending billions of dollars competing in online chess, the law would treat it differently. Sure, some people do. But not at the same level as poker.
Chess has a different cultural situation than cards. It's not rational but it's how people operate.
Both the hustling in the park and playing in a tournament with a set tournament prize pool mean that you're risking something of value (your first point in your original post).
No difference by the law, right?
Well, you're also getting into areas of legislative intent there. If a prosecution were brought, you could appeal and argue "the legislators never meant to include chess, here, look at the legislative history, look at the committee reports, they never mention chess, plus chess isn't addictive like playing cards or dice" etc.
The idea would be "paying an entry fee" is merely for the "right to play", in the same sense that in a poker tournament, the +5 in your $50+5 is for the right to play - you're not "risking" the +5, you're paying to get in. The $50 is the part you're "risking". The fact that the chess tournament might have a "prize" isn't connected to the "entry fee".
I know it seems dumb but that's the sort of logic they'd use to keep chess tournaments safe - unless they were big enough that they became a serious problem. It's not necessarily strictly logical.
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
By late 2009, after U.S. banks and financial institutions detected and shut down multiple fraudulent bank accounts used by the Poker Companies, SCHEINBERG and BITAR developed a new processing strategy that would not involve lying to banks. PokerStars, FullTilt Poker, and their payment processors persuaded the principals of a few small, local banks facing financial difficulties to engage in such processing in return for multi-million-dollar investments in the banks. For example, in September 2009, ELIE and others approached defendant JOHN CAMPOS, the Vice Chairman of the Board and part-owner of SunFirst Bank, a small, private bank based in Saint George, Utah, about processing Internet poker transactions. While expressing “trepidations," CAMPOS allegedly agreed to process gambling transactions in return for a $10 million investment in SunFirst by ELIE and an associate, which would give them a more than 30 percent ownership stake in the bank. CAMPOS also requested and received a $20,000 “bonus" for his assistance. In an e-mail, one of ELIE’s associates boasted that they had “purchased" SunFirst and that they “were looking to purchase" “a grand total of 3 or 4 banks" to process payments.
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
I may never see the tens of thousands of dollars that I have. This is beyond absurd.
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
Playing online poker was not and is not illegal. It is illegal for banks/credit card companies to process them to offshore gambling sites reflecting with sports betting and casino games based entirely on luck.
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong."
On April 16 2011 10:14 enzymezero wrote: pokerstars - where I was playing pretty heavily with "play" money.
No money in play money, everyone's solid.
Also, anyone seriously debating whether or not poker is a skill game should subscribe to a training site, like DeucesCracked or something, for a month, watch as many videos as possible, and THEN try to form a coherent argument against poker being a skill game.
It's not possible.
i guess signing up for these sites is not a smart thing to do now. Maybe only for the 7 day free trial to remember the "glory days" of online poker.
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
Playing online poker was not and is not illegal. It is illegal for banks/credit card companies to process them to offshore gambling sites reflecting with sports betting and casino games based entirely on luck.
I never claimed it was illegal, I do not even care whether it is or not mate, it is irrelevant to my argument. I simply stated that leaving a considerable amount of money in the hands of a poker website and under such a shady legal framework is extremely poor financial management. It is not what you do with your money if you want to keep them safe.
Edit: just to state, once again, that I sympathize with people who are affected by this. It is awful to potentially lose tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and I wish you good luck in retrieving your money, but to a certain extent and, I am sure, unwillingly, you asked for it. Be more careful with what you have (which really is the lesson here).
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong."
Also "ruining lives" in some cases.
It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives.
But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong."
Also "ruining lives" in some cases.
It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives.
But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
I'm glad whatever service you provide to society is so good that you can stand on that high horse.
Are you seriously going to take that childish angle?
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong."
Also "ruining lives" in some cases.
It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives.
But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
Half society does nothing "productive" in absolute terms. They were making money on a highly competitive market against people freely willing to risk their money on a skill game with high variance. Under your narrow perception, korean progamers don't do anything "productive" aswell. Guess what, gamblers are "paying" for entetainment aswell as people do to watch progamers. The only kind of human beings that do not deserve respect are those who try to live by stealing from others, be it big companies with illegal practices or people trying to use government as a way to take other's property masking it as "equality".
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong."
Also "ruining lives" in some cases.
It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives.
But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
They may not do anything like building a highway like your construction workers, or your teachers teaching 5 year olds how to count to ten. But professional poker players provide an entertainment to other people. They provide the ability to have the adrenaline rush to other people who want to risk their few dollars.
They may not provide research or anything useful to the community (but what do movies and actors do? atheletes? How are they any different? Where you are literally allowed to sit down and play with these people in their professional field. There's no way you would be able to put on some ice skates and join the Washington Capitals during their hockey season. They just won't allow it.
Poker is a game where you can play with famous people in their choice of profession.
It is similar to daytrading in the sense you are working at home. But you cant compete with a high class day trader in a social atmosphere like poker.
But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
Much like starcraft pros... o wait.
And before you say starcraft pros are entertainers, so are poker players. Phil Ivey has like 1000 times the fan base of any US Starcraft player and tons of people follow the results of big online tournaments, watch videos of online pros, etc just like SC2.
How hostile much of TL is to poker just blows my mind.
Pokerstrategy which would not exist without online poker is sponsoring the TSL FFS.
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
Playing online poker was not and is not illegal. It is illegal for banks/credit card companies to process them to offshore gambling sites reflecting with sports betting and casino games based entirely on luck.
You're still giving your money to a company that's engaged in illegal action by hosting online poker, to say nothing of their financial actions. It's not fair that people are going to lose their money, but anyone paying attention should have been aware of the risk.
For anyone that cares, 2p2 seems to be back up for the time being.
And since when does "doing something productive for society" even matter in the US? Isn't that the point of democracy and capitalism?
Not feeling sorry for the people really hit by this just because they don't "contribute" to society is pretty harsh, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the situation.
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong."
Also "ruining lives" in some cases.
It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives.
But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
How does one be a productive member of society? One could make the case that everyone is productive in one way or another.
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
Playing online poker was not and is not illegal. It is illegal for banks/credit card companies to process them to offshore gambling sites reflecting with sports betting and casino games based entirely on luck.
You're still giving your money to a company that's engaged in illegal action by hosting online poker, to say nothing of their financial actions. It's not fair that people are going to lose their money, but anyone paying attention should have been aware of the risk.
the risk that brick and mortar (read: las vegas) push for legislation to trample online competition through legislature. blame the 'free market'
On April 16 2011 10:14 enzymezero wrote: A friend told me about this while at was at work. My basic response was this: I have no real sympathy for those who can't access their money or funds. This has been illegal since its existence and you were taking a risk in putting your money into something that could have been seized at any time. I saw a documentary on this on ABC about a year ago and I wised up - I decided not to put any money into pokerstars - where I was playing pretty heavily with "play" money.
Luckily it's not a crime to have poor reading comprehension.
It's not illegal at all unless you live in a state where it's defined as such. Like New York or Washington.
God I wish 2p2 was up.
Who cares, the point is that it's illegal to run these sites in the US, so you're stupid if you hand over large amounts of money to people engaging in illegal activity, whether it's legal for you to play or not. The sites are not legal. They simply circumvent the system, and authorities have been ignoring it. That is, up until now. I'm not just talking about the payment processing thing..the act of online gambling is illegal in the US, regardless of anything else.
Anybody who plays poker is well aware of these facts (if you aren't, I doubt you were making any money playing poker anyway..lol).
On April 16 2011 10:14 enzymezero wrote: A friend told me about this while at was at work. My basic response was this: I have no real sympathy for those who can't access their money or funds. This has been illegal since its existence and you were taking a risk in putting your money into something that could have been seized at any time. I saw a documentary on this on ABC about a year ago and I wised up - I decided not to put any money into pokerstars - where I was playing pretty heavily with "play" money.
Luckily it's not a crime to have poor reading comprehension.
It's not illegal at all unless you live in a state where it's defined as such. Like New York or Washington.
God I wish 2p2 was up.
Who cares, the point is that it's illegal to run these sites in the US, so you're stupid if you hand over large amounts of money to people engaging in illegal activity, whether it's legal for you to play or not. The sites are not legal. They simply circumvent the system, and authorities have been ignoring it. That is, up until now.
Anybody who plays poker is well aware of these facts (if you aren't, I doubt you were making any money playing poker anyway..lol).
Proof - > what just happened
anytime you say 'illegal' it should be in quotes imo.
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
Playing online poker was not and is not illegal. It is illegal for banks/credit card companies to process them to offshore gambling sites reflecting with sports betting and casino games based entirely on luck.
You're still giving your money to a company that's engaged in illegal action by hosting online poker, to say nothing of their financial actions. It's not fair that people are going to lose their money, but anyone paying attention should have been aware of the risk.
No one had any idea that they were performing any illegal acts beside those engaged in them personally. If Amazon got hijacked by the FBI for insider trading or over-charing peoples credit cards by a penny per purchase for instance, no one would know. (bad example, but still relevant in the same idea no one knew FTP was making fake companies to give me what I wanted which on my end is completely legal)
If anyone knew FTP and PStars were engaging in illegal activity no one would have played there. (Much the same reason why UltimateBet/Absolute had a MUCH smaller player pool because they had super users / the phil helmuth hand scandal)
Glad I only have a bankroll on partypoker right now after having withdrawn my other bankrolls last week (enjoying the incredible amounts of fish on party right now :D)
Wow, really can't believe this happened. People like Dwan, Ivey, and Negreanu have millions of dollars on these sites, and to hear that it's all been poofed away is kind of scary...
It also makes me kind of thankful that I didn't pursue online poker as much as I had planned to this year, but still, wow. Interested to see how this fiasco develops over the upcoming weeks.
On April 16 2011 11:19 vlaric wrote: Wow, really can't believe this happened. People like Dwan, Ivey, and Negreanu have millions of dollars on these sites, and to hear that it's all been poofed away is kind of scary...
It also makes me kind of thankful that I didn't pursue online poker as much as I had planned to this year, but still, wow. Interested to see how this fiasco develops over the upcoming weeks.
Those guys won't lose their money. They will be the first people to get payed. Negative publicity from them = catastrophe for the site.
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
Playing online poker was not and is not illegal. It is illegal for banks/credit card companies to process them to offshore gambling sites reflecting with sports betting and casino games based entirely on luck.
You're still giving your money to a company that's engaged in illegal action by hosting online poker, to say nothing of their financial actions. It's not fair that people are going to lose their money, but anyone paying attention should have been aware of the risk.
No one had any idea that they were performing any illegal acts beside those engaged in them personally. If Amazon got hijacked by the FBI for insider trading or over-charing peoples credit cards by a penny per purchase for instance, no one would know. (bad example, but still relevant in the same idea no one knew FTP was making fake companies to give me what I wanted which on my end is completely legal)
If anyone knew FTP and PStars were engaging in illegal activity no one would have played there. (Much the same reason why UltimateBet/Absolute had a MUCH smaller player pool because they had super users / the phil helmuth hand scandal)
I am in the same boat as you, but that's not true. If you followed the legislation whatsoever it was evident from the moment UIGEA went into effect that by paying our withdrawals someone was engaging in an illegal activity, either the site (deceiving the banks) or the bank (not complying with UIGEA).
I'm not saying this isn't ludicrous on the governments part and that UIGEA is a huge steaming pile of shit, along with public smoking bans, social security and everything else the government has done since FDR was sworn in, but to any regular player paying attention it should have been clear that some legal funny business was afoot.
"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.
Yeah, it probably would be gambling if you bet on chess... not sure why that's a surprise.
So any chess tournament where it costs to enter is gambling?
Ah, now that's probably tricky. If it's a tournament with an entry fee, but a pre-set prize, then maybe not. You're just paying an entry fee. Often there's some kind of prize fund supplementing the tournament, from club fees or something. Even if you had to "join the club" to enter the tournament, and all the prize money comes from the "club".
It's different in poker - usually it's a tournament where you pay $50+5 or something, with the $5 as your fee and $50 going into the winnings pot with a payout structure like 60%/30%/10%, that's probably gambling, even if you're playing chess.
I mean, if you go play chess hustlers in the park for money, that's gambling, definitely. That's just "I bet you $50 I can beat you in chess."
I know it's a dumb semantic difference, but it's more about the appearance of it than the logical difference. You can definitely gamble on chess. But most tournaments just aren't going to be treated as "gambling". If millions of people were spending billions of dollars competing in online chess, the law would treat it differently. Sure, some people do. But not at the same level as poker.
Chess has a different cultural situation than cards. It's not rational but it's how people operate.
In chess, you can't raise the stakes during the game. In poker you can.
You cannot raise the stakes during a game of poker. When you sit down at a cash game, you are staking all of the money you buy into that game with, and when you enter a tournament, you are staking the amount of money that the tournament costs to enter. There is no situation were you can choose to raise the stake mid-hand.
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong."
Also "ruining lives" in some cases.
It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives.
But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
They may not provide research or anything useful to the community (but what do movies and actors do? atheletes? How are they any different? Where you are literally allowed to sit down and play with these people in their professional field. There's no way you would be able to put on some ice skates and join the Washington Capitals during their hockey season. They just won't allow it.
Poker is a game where you can play with famous people in their choice of profession.
It is similar to daytrading in the sense you are working at home. But you cant compete with a high class day trader in a social atmosphere like poker.
Firstly, <3 all the hate. These forums are awesome.
Second, I don't think you are making a fair comparison. The stars who are providing entertainment to the masses, Phil Ivey, Tom Dwan, etc. etc., even probably lesser known people like Isildur, luckychewie, balugawhale, etc. are not going broke over this. Phil Ivey probably loses more money playing craps than he is losing from this shit. The people whose "lives are being ruined" are random people who grind 30k a year. They're not entertaining anyone.
It's unfortunate that they're going to lose their bankroll, but it is also unfortunate that they felt that poker was their best way to make a living, and it's probably for the better that they're forced to do something else.
Also, comparing poker to day trading isn't really accurate. The stock market (at least in theory) provides a legitimate service to businesses, unlike poker.
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong."
Also "ruining lives" in some cases.
It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives.
But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
They may not provide research or anything useful to the community (but what do movies and actors do? atheletes? How are they any different? Where you are literally allowed to sit down and play with these people in their professional field. There's no way you would be able to put on some ice skates and join the Washington Capitals during their hockey season. They just won't allow it.
Poker is a game where you can play with famous people in their choice of profession.
It is similar to daytrading in the sense you are working at home. But you cant compete with a high class day trader in a social atmosphere like poker.
Firstly, <3 all the hate. These forums are awesome.
Second, I don't think you are making a fair comparison. The stars who are providing entertainment to the masses, Phil Ivey, Tom Dwan, etc. etc., even probably lesser known people like Isildur, luckychewie, balugawhale, etc. are not going broke over this. Phil Ivey probably loses more money playing craps than he is losing from this shit. The people whose "lives are being ruined" are random people who grind 30k a year. They're not entertaining anyone.
It's unfortunate that they're going to lose their bankroll, but it is also unfortunate that they felt that poker was their best way to make a living, and it's probably for the better that they're forced to do something else.
Also, comparing poker to day trading isn't really accurate. The stock market (at least in theory) provides a legitimate service to businesses, unlike poker.
When people play poker some of their money goes to the sites, the sites have employees. The money the poker players play with is helping people stay in work. Please tell me how that doesn't help society?
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong."
Also "ruining lives" in some cases.
It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives.
But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
They may not provide research or anything useful to the community (but what do movies and actors do? atheletes? How are they any different? Where you are literally allowed to sit down and play with these people in their professional field. There's no way you would be able to put on some ice skates and join the Washington Capitals during their hockey season. They just won't allow it.
Poker is a game where you can play with famous people in their choice of profession.
It is similar to daytrading in the sense you are working at home. But you cant compete with a high class day trader in a social atmosphere like poker.
Firstly, <3 all the hate. These forums are awesome.
Second, I don't think you are making a fair comparison. The stars who are providing entertainment to the masses, Phil Ivey, Tom Dwan, etc. etc., even probably lesser known people like Isildur, luckychewie, balugawhale, etc. are not going broke over this. Phil Ivey probably loses more money playing craps than he is losing from this shit. The people whose "lives are being ruined" are random people who grind 30k a year. They're not entertaining anyone.
It's unfortunate that they're going to lose their bankroll, but it is also unfortunate that they felt that poker was their best way to make a living, and it's probably for the better that they're forced to do something else.
Also, comparing poker to day trading isn't really accurate. The stock market (at least in theory) provides a legitimate service to businesses, unlike poker.
That's bullshit. Random grinders provide entertaiment aswell when you play against them. U don't have any chance to play most known guys unless u have tons of cash or u are really good/lucky at poker and won some random event.
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong."
Also "ruining lives" in some cases.
It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives.
But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
They may not provide research or anything useful to the community (but what do movies and actors do? atheletes? How are they any different? Where you are literally allowed to sit down and play with these people in their professional field. There's no way you would be able to put on some ice skates and join the Washington Capitals during their hockey season. They just won't allow it.
Poker is a game where you can play with famous people in their choice of profession.
It is similar to daytrading in the sense you are working at home. But you cant compete with a high class day trader in a social atmosphere like poker.
It's unfortunate that they're going to lose their bankroll, but it is also unfortunate that they felt that poker was their best way to make a living, and it's probably for the better that they're forced to do something else.
How does this make any sense at all?
If someone wants to grind out 30k a year at smallstakes, who are you to say that it's better that they're forced to do something else?
Why is it unfortunate that someone chooses poker as a way to make a living?
How is it any less legit than someone choosing baseball or basketball to make a living?
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong."
Also "ruining lives" in some cases.
It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives.
But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
They may not provide research or anything useful to the community (but what do movies and actors do? atheletes? How are they any different? Where you are literally allowed to sit down and play with these people in their professional field. There's no way you would be able to put on some ice skates and join the Washington Capitals during their hockey season. They just won't allow it.
Poker is a game where you can play with famous people in their choice of profession.
It is similar to daytrading in the sense you are working at home. But you cant compete with a high class day trader in a social atmosphere like poker.
Firstly, <3 all the hate. These forums are awesome.
Second, I don't think you are making a fair comparison. The stars who are providing entertainment to the masses, Phil Ivey, Tom Dwan, etc. etc., even probably lesser known people like Isildur, luckychewie, balugawhale, etc. are not going broke over this. Phil Ivey probably loses more money playing craps than he is losing from this shit. The people whose "lives are being ruined" are random people who grind 30k a year. They're not entertaining anyone.
It's unfortunate that they're going to lose their bankroll, but it is also unfortunate that they felt that poker was their best way to make a living, and it's probably for the better that they're forced to do something else.
Also, comparing poker to day trading isn't really accurate. The stock market (at least in theory) provides a legitimate service to businesses, unlike poker.
That's bullshit. Random grinders provide entertaiment aswell when you play against them. U don't have any chance to play most known guys unless u have tons of cash or u are really good/lucky at poker and won some random event.
The stock market provides a legitimate service to businesses? Yes. So does poker.
Anybody who plays poker is well aware of these facts (if you aren't, I doubt you were making any money playing poker anyway..lol).
This is also false.
Nobody was ever going to get into trouble playing online poker, whether it was illegal to play or not. The point is, you don't give your money to people with questionable "legality". Ya know? Because something like this happened.
Do you even play poker? You ever notice that they don't advertise the fact that you can play with real money? It's explicitly stated in every poker advertisement: "This is not a gambling website. You play with fake money." HMMMMm. I think maybe they are a little concerned about the legality of it, don'tchathink?
And you are willing going to give your money to someone who advertises their business like that? LOL. Yeah, goodbye $$$$. What's that saying ..about a fool and his money?
Oh, but right. "This is false. I don't know where you got this information, but you are misinformed."
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong."
Also "ruining lives" in some cases.
It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives.
But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
They may not provide research or anything useful to the community (but what do movies and actors do? atheletes? How are they any different? Where you are literally allowed to sit down and play with these people in their professional field. There's no way you would be able to put on some ice skates and join the Washington Capitals during their hockey season. They just won't allow it.
Poker is a game where you can play with famous people in their choice of profession.
It is similar to daytrading in the sense you are working at home. But you cant compete with a high class day trader in a social atmosphere like poker.
Firstly, <3 all the hate. These forums are awesome.
Second, I don't think you are making a fair comparison. The stars who are providing entertainment to the masses, Phil Ivey, Tom Dwan, etc. etc., even probably lesser known people like Isildur, luckychewie, balugawhale, etc. are not going broke over this. Phil Ivey probably loses more money playing craps than he is losing from this shit. The people whose "lives are being ruined" are random people who grind 30k a year. They're not entertaining anyone.
It's unfortunate that they're going to lose their bankroll, but it is also unfortunate that they felt that poker was their best way to make a living, and it's probably for the better that they're forced to do something else.
Also, comparing poker to day trading isn't really accurate. The stock market (at least in theory) provides a legitimate service to businesses, unlike poker.
The bottom line is this: you either believe each individual has a fundamental right to his life and his property and to do whatever he sees fit with either, or you do not. You, apparently, do not.
If a poker player plays in europe does the US governemnt get a cut of that prize pool? It's not a US winning so what would it count as?
The problem is this case will go on for years in court and will in all probability fall there are issues such as you are a US citizen and play in A European Server, Or how about if you win 100k one tournament and lose 100k in another, you actually lost more because in the US your winnings are taxed not your losses.
On April 16 2011 11:14 applejuice wrote: the act of online gambling is illegal in the US, regardless of anything else.
This is false. I don't know where you got this information, but you are misinformed.
Anybody who plays poker is well aware of these facts (if you aren't, I doubt you were making any money playing poker anyway..lol).
This is also false.
Nobody was ever going to get into trouble playing online poker, whether it was illegal to play or not. The point is, you don't give your money to people with questionable "legality". Ya know? Because something like this happened.
Do you even play poker? You ever notice that they don't advertise the fact that you can play with real money? It's explicitly stated in every poker advertisement: "This is not a gambling website. You play with fake money." HMMMMm. I think maybe they are a little concerned about the legality of it, don'tchathink?
And you are willing going to give your money to someone who advertises their business like that? LOL. Yeah, goodbye $$$$. What's that saying ..about a fool and his money?
Oh, but right. "This is false. I don't know where you got this information, but you are misinformed."
There was never anything questionably legal about Pokerstars or FT.
They absolutely advertise everywhere that you can play with real money on their sites. Don't tell me you've never seen those ridiculous "I call your $600 and match you another $600 deposit bonus blah blah" ads with Phil Ivey? Do you even play poker, sir?
A fool and his money? If you say so, but honestly, you're coming across as the fool here.
Maybe you should do a little research into these sites before making generalized statements about "legality" and such.
Also, try not to forget that for the hundreds of thousands of European players, there was never anything illegal about Stars or FT. Nothing, not a single thing. Not even the payment processing, which is what this whole thing is about.
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong."
Also "ruining lives" in some cases.
It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives.
But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
They may not provide research or anything useful to the community (but what do movies and actors do? atheletes? How are they any different? Where you are literally allowed to sit down and play with these people in their professional field. There's no way you would be able to put on some ice skates and join the Washington Capitals during their hockey season. They just won't allow it.
Poker is a game where you can play with famous people in their choice of profession.
It is similar to daytrading in the sense you are working at home. But you cant compete with a high class day trader in a social atmosphere like poker.
Firstly, <3 all the hate. These forums are awesome.
Second, I don't think you are making a fair comparison. The stars who are providing entertainment to the masses, Phil Ivey, Tom Dwan, etc. etc., even probably lesser known people like Isildur, luckychewie, balugawhale, etc. are not going broke over this. Phil Ivey probably loses more money playing craps than he is losing from this shit. The people whose "lives are being ruined" are random people who grind 30k a year. They're not entertaining anyone.
It's unfortunate that they're going to lose their bankroll, but it is also unfortunate that they felt that poker was their best way to make a living, and it's probably for the better that they're forced to do something else.
Also, comparing poker to day trading isn't really accurate. The stock market (at least in theory) provides a legitimate service to businesses, unlike poker.
The bottom line is this: you either believe each individual has a fundamental right to his life and his property and to do whatever he sees fit with either, or you do not. You, apparently, do not.
Edited for grammar.
You misunderstand.
I agree that people have a fundamental right to do what they want with their property.
I also have a fundamental right to think less of them if they play poker for a living rather than do something more productive.
Just because I think that people should be allowed to do what they want doesn't mean that I will hold the same opinion of everyone regardless of the choices they make.
Sucks. Friend was a recreational player and had 4k left on there. Hopefully he can withdraw it somehow...
On April 16 2011 11:45 PJA wrote:I also have a fundamental right to think less of them if they play poker for a living rather than do something more productive.
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong."
Also "ruining lives" in some cases.
It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives.
But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
They may not provide research or anything useful to the community (but what do movies and actors do? atheletes? How are they any different? Where you are literally allowed to sit down and play with these people in their professional field. There's no way you would be able to put on some ice skates and join the Washington Capitals during their hockey season. They just won't allow it.
Poker is a game where you can play with famous people in their choice of profession.
It is similar to daytrading in the sense you are working at home. But you cant compete with a high class day trader in a social atmosphere like poker.
Firstly, <3 all the hate. These forums are awesome.
Second, I don't think you are making a fair comparison. The stars who are providing entertainment to the masses, Phil Ivey, Tom Dwan, etc. etc., even probably lesser known people like Isildur, luckychewie, balugawhale, etc. are not going broke over this. Phil Ivey probably loses more money playing craps than he is losing from this shit. The people whose "lives are being ruined" are random people who grind 30k a year. They're not entertaining anyone.
It's unfortunate that they're going to lose their bankroll, but it is also unfortunate that they felt that poker was their best way to make a living, and it's probably for the better that they're forced to do something else.
Also, comparing poker to day trading isn't really accurate. The stock market (at least in theory) provides a legitimate service to businesses, unlike poker.
The bottom line is this: you either believe each individual has a fundamental right to his life and his property and to do whatever he sees fit with either, or you do not. You, apparently, do not.
Edited for grammar.
You misunderstand.
I agree that people have a fundamental right to do what they want with their property.
I also have a fundamental right to think less of them if they play poker for a living rather than do something more productive.
Just because I think that people should be allowed to do what they want doesn't mean that I will hold the same opinion of everyone regardless of the choices they make.
Absolutely, but if you do believe they have that right, then you should be outraged that it is being denied them.
It's the same reason bans on smoking in private establishments outrage me, even though I abhor smoking and would prefer a smoke-free bar.
On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote: Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong."
Also "ruining lives" in some cases.
It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives.
But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
They may not provide research or anything useful to the community (but what do movies and actors do? atheletes? How are they any different? Where you are literally allowed to sit down and play with these people in their professional field. There's no way you would be able to put on some ice skates and join the Washington Capitals during their hockey season. They just won't allow it.
Poker is a game where you can play with famous people in their choice of profession.
It is similar to daytrading in the sense you are working at home. But you cant compete with a high class day trader in a social atmosphere like poker.
Firstly, <3 all the hate. These forums are awesome.
Second, I don't think you are making a fair comparison. The stars who are providing entertainment to the masses, Phil Ivey, Tom Dwan, etc. etc., even probably lesser known people like Isildur, luckychewie, balugawhale, etc. are not going broke over this. Phil Ivey probably loses more money playing craps than he is losing from this shit. The people whose "lives are being ruined" are random people who grind 30k a year. They're not entertaining anyone.
It's unfortunate that they're going to lose their bankroll, but it is also unfortunate that they felt that poker was their best way to make a living, and it's probably for the better that they're forced to do something else.
Also, comparing poker to day trading isn't really accurate. The stock market (at least in theory) provides a legitimate service to businesses, unlike poker.
The bottom line is this: you either believe each individual has a fundamental right to his life and his property and to do whatever he sees fit with either, or you do not. You, apparently, do not.
Edited for grammar.
You misunderstand.
I agree that people have a fundamental right to do what they want with their property.
I also have a fundamental right to think less of them if they play poker for a living rather than do something more productive.
Just because I think that people should be allowed to do what they want doesn't mean that I will hold the same opinion of everyone regardless of the choices they make.
Absolutely, but if you do believe they have that right, then you should be outraged that it is being denied them.
It's the same reason bans on smoking in private establishments outrage me, even though I abhor smoking and would prefer a smoke-free bar.
Except the two cases aren't even remotely similar. The poker sites are being seized for blatantly lying about their activities to banks, and probably avoiding taxes and other charges in the process.
If anything, poker players should be pissed off at the shady business model used by poker sites, not the government.
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong."
Also "ruining lives" in some cases.
It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives.
But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
They may not provide research or anything useful to the community (but what do movies and actors do? atheletes? How are they any different? Where you are literally allowed to sit down and play with these people in their professional field. There's no way you would be able to put on some ice skates and join the Washington Capitals during their hockey season. They just won't allow it.
Poker is a game where you can play with famous people in their choice of profession.
It is similar to daytrading in the sense you are working at home. But you cant compete with a high class day trader in a social atmosphere like poker.
Firstly, <3 all the hate. These forums are awesome.
Second, I don't think you are making a fair comparison. The stars who are providing entertainment to the masses, Phil Ivey, Tom Dwan, etc. etc., even probably lesser known people like Isildur, luckychewie, balugawhale, etc. are not going broke over this. Phil Ivey probably loses more money playing craps than he is losing from this shit. The people whose "lives are being ruined" are random people who grind 30k a year. They're not entertaining anyone.
It's unfortunate that they're going to lose their bankroll, but it is also unfortunate that they felt that poker was their best way to make a living, and it's probably for the better that they're forced to do something else.
Also, comparing poker to day trading isn't really accurate. The stock market (at least in theory) provides a legitimate service to businesses, unlike poker.
The bottom line is this: you either believe each individual has a fundamental right to his life and his property and to do whatever he sees fit with either, or you do not. You, apparently, do not.
Edited for grammar.
You misunderstand.
I agree that people have a fundamental right to do what they want with their property.
I also have a fundamental right to think less of them if they play poker for a living rather than do something more productive.
Just because I think that people should be allowed to do what they want doesn't mean that I will hold the same opinion of everyone regardless of the choices they make.
Absolutely, but if you do believe they have that right, then you should be outraged that it is being denied them.
It's the same reason bans on smoking in private establishments outrage me, even though I abhor smoking and would prefer a smoke-free bar.
Except the two cases aren't even remotely similar. The poker sites are being seized for blatantly lying about their activities to banks, and probably avoiding taxes and other charges in the process.
If anything, poker players should be pissed off at the shady business model used by poker sites, not the government.
If anything poker players should be pissed that the poker sites had to go through so much trouble and break laws just to allow its customers to play online poker.
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson."
That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact.
You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong."
Also "ruining lives" in some cases.
It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives.
But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
They may not provide research or anything useful to the community (but what do movies and actors do? atheletes? How are they any different? Where you are literally allowed to sit down and play with these people in their professional field. There's no way you would be able to put on some ice skates and join the Washington Capitals during their hockey season. They just won't allow it.
Poker is a game where you can play with famous people in their choice of profession.
It is similar to daytrading in the sense you are working at home. But you cant compete with a high class day trader in a social atmosphere like poker.
Firstly, <3 all the hate. These forums are awesome.
Second, I don't think you are making a fair comparison. The stars who are providing entertainment to the masses, Phil Ivey, Tom Dwan, etc. etc., even probably lesser known people like Isildur, luckychewie, balugawhale, etc. are not going broke over this. Phil Ivey probably loses more money playing craps than he is losing from this shit. The people whose "lives are being ruined" are random people who grind 30k a year. They're not entertaining anyone.
It's unfortunate that they're going to lose their bankroll, but it is also unfortunate that they felt that poker was their best way to make a living, and it's probably for the better that they're forced to do something else.
Also, comparing poker to day trading isn't really accurate. The stock market (at least in theory) provides a legitimate service to businesses, unlike poker.
The bottom line is this: you either believe each individual has a fundamental right to his life and his property and to do whatever he sees fit with either, or you do not. You, apparently, do not.
Edited for grammar.
You misunderstand.
I agree that people have a fundamental right to do what they want with their property.
I also have a fundamental right to think less of them if they play poker for a living rather than do something more productive.
Just because I think that people should be allowed to do what they want doesn't mean that I will hold the same opinion of everyone regardless of the choices they make.
Absolutely, but if you do believe they have that right, then you should be outraged that it is being denied them.
It's the same reason bans on smoking in private establishments outrage me, even though I abhor smoking and would prefer a smoke-free bar.
Except the two cases aren't even remotely similar. The poker sites are being seized for blatantly lying about their activities to banks, and probably avoiding taxes and other charges in the process.
If anything, poker players should be pissed off at the shady business model used by poker sites, not the government.
Not at all, the sites only did that because the United States government decided it was illegal for someone to decide how to spend their money and time. Was what they did technically illegal? Yes. Did they steal from anyone? No. They were merely avoiding a law that shouldn't have existed in the first place, and it outrages me that it was passed by my government.
Poker players should be angry with the government and only the government.
On April 16 2011 06:59 Jibba wrote: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
Bull, man. The UIGEA is the cause of this "lawbreaking", and it's not only constitutionally very freaking questionable, but also in violation of international treaty. It's nonsense in the first place, and those of us in the US who have done well at poker are grateful they've been making it happen for us.
Itsn't Rootgaming sponsored by Pokerstar? Will they lost the sponsorship? Pretty sad to see this after they try hard to get some sponsors.
And for the people who have thousand of dollars tie up in these sites, my heartfelt condolences. Hopefully you will be able to recover part of the money, eventually
My close buddy has almost 20k tied up atm. I'm pretty sure it's gone, and although I feel for him, I just have to say that he should have seen this coming. If one was to just analyze the commercials that PokerStars and Full Tilt have been circulating in the U.S. for quite some time now, any reasonable person could have discerned that they were breaking quite a few laws. In addition, if you have ever played online (which I have), individuals should notice how they quite CLEARLY break laws when they process deposits / withdrawals. Ever notice how the name of the deposit is usually from a completely different entity or name than the site?
On April 16 2011 11:45 jeparie wrote: There was never anything questionably legal about Pokerstars or FT.
They absolutely advertise everywhere that you can play with real money on their sites. Don't tell me you've never seen those ridiculous "I call your $600 and match you another $600 deposit bonus blah blah" ads with Phil Ivey? Do you even play poker, sir?
A fool and his money? If you say so, but honestly, you're coming across as the fool here.
Maybe you should do a little research into these sites before making generalized statements about "legality" and such.
Of course there was. The fact that when UIGEA passed in the first place should have been reason enough - especially when other sites like PartyPoker and Pacific Poker took it way more seriously and blocked US players entirely. Not surprisingly, those sites are still up and running right now. Me, and a lot of other people, quit when PP pulled out of the US (ok, partly because PartyPoker was the softest game around, but also because it was obvious that the government wasn't going to ignore online poker).
And they don't advertise "everywhere" about real money games. I've you've ever seen a commercial on ESPN, FTP, AP, and PS were always very careful about advertising for their ".net" site and not their ".com" site. The ".net" sites were all play money games. Of course, on the internet it's a different story because they thought they could get away with it. Didn't work out that way.
Edit: hell, just google "not a gambling site". There's tons and tons of people asking "wait how is this not a gambling site" and people constantly explaining the ".net" versus ".com" difference.
Also, try not to forget that for the hundreds of thousands of European players, there was never anything illegal about Stars or FT. Nothing, not a single thing. Not even the payment processing, which is what this whole thing is about.
Again, try reading before posting pls
Perhaps you'd like to read the press release before posting. This is not just about "payment processing". If you actually read the press release in the very first post, you'll see that AP, FTP, and PS are being charged with:
1. Conspiracy to Violate Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) 2. Violation of Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) 3. Operation of Illegal Gambling Business 4. Committing Bank Fraud and Wire Fraud 5. Money Laundering Conspiracy
This whole "it's just about payment processing argument" is false. It is illegal to operate an internet poker site in the US. Yes, there is also lots of other stuff involving their financial transactions with US banks (namely SunFirst Bank). But it's also about the illegal operation of a poker site.
Go read the press release for yourself if you haven't already:
I do feel extra bad for non-US players, since this is about the companies' legal issues in a different jurisdiction. That said, that's how the world works now. It's not uncommon to lose money because of the political or legal decisions in an entirely different country. It sucks but it happens. I hope people can find alternative sources of income.
On April 16 2011 06:59 Jibba wrote: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
Bull, man. The UIGEA is the cause of this "lawbreaking", and it's not only constitutionally very freaking questionable, but also in violation of international treaty. It's nonsense in the first place, and those of us in the US who have done well at poker are grateful they've been making it happen for us.
It is in no way Constitutionally questionable. We're talking about international commerce here, which is one of the most basic functions the federal government is empowered to regulate:
The Congress shall have Power [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States
I'd also like to know what treaty UIGEA allegedly violates. I've never heard that before so I'm genuinely interested.
Those of you who had more than 10k tied up in online poker sites: what the fuck were you thinking? I know players who refuse to use those sites at all because they view them as insecure and prone to corruption. If you somehow get your money back for god's sakes take the lesson and don't keep so much liquid there.
On April 16 2011 12:44 Kar98 wrote: Does this mean the TSL will continue or not?
TSL will more than likely be fine, as they are sponsored by a poker strategy site, and not a poker site. Even then despite being a strategy and educational site, pokerstrategy.com has always denied US customers, so we werent their base customers anyway. The industry as a whole will take a hit, without the US, but I think it is safe to say foreign sites are fine for now. Especially one such as pokerstrategy that doesnt offer play.
Meh PS is in a lose-lose situation if they declare that the sky is falling because everyone will just cash out their money and they'll stop playing on the site, which means less immediate profits if they do survive this. So I'm not really sure if I can believe them when they say that it is "business as usual" for non-us players. But yeah hopefully it is true. And hopefully the rumors that PS is going to shut down permanently are unfounded.
On April 16 2011 12:55 UniversalSnip wrote: Those of you who had more than 10k tied up in online poker sites: what the fuck were you thinking? I know players who refuse to use those sites at all because they view them as insecure and prone to corruption. If you somehow get your money back for god's sakes take the lesson and don't keep so much liquid there.
Because to play high stakes you have to have a large bankroll
On April 16 2011 12:55 UniversalSnip wrote: Those of you who had more than 10k tied up in online poker sites: what the fuck were you thinking? I know players who refuse to use those sites at all because they view them as insecure and prone to corruption. If you somehow get your money back for god's sakes take the lesson and don't keep so much liquid there.
Its quite simple. For starters, most good regs started with 50-200 bucks and turned them into 10k or more. 2nd, poker is a high variance game and you need a big bankroll compared to the stake you play to avoid ruin when you run bad (and you are a long term winning player). Also, the higher u play, the lower ur edge/higher variance, so you need even more bi's relative to the stake.
For example, a simple br management (some people use more agressive/less agressive bankroll management, but this kinda standard): stake / bank roll required nl10 - 200 bucks nl25 - 600 bucks nl50 - 1250 bucks nl100 - 3k nl200 - 10k nl600 - 60k nl1k - 100k
I have 6k on full tilt and I'm not optimistic about getting it back. The situation really sucks, and I've felt sick to my stomach since first reading this thread while at work earlier today (2+2 is blocked there, if it wasn't for tl I wouldn't of known until I got home and started trying to play). Hopefully everyone who has money tied up can get it back, but its hard to think positively about it today. On the flip side, I now have a lot more time to play & watch starcraft.
look online gambling was always in a gray area for US citizens. but it still sucks for money that you earned from other consenting adults is gonna get taken away.
i would personally never have racked up a balance, but it still really sucks for the people that did. and the laws are silly when lotteries and vegas are still legal. 6k? holy shit dude i would be so pissed.
On April 16 2011 12:55 UniversalSnip wrote: Those of you who had more than 10k tied up in online poker sites: what the fuck were you thinking? I know players who refuse to use those sites at all because they view them as insecure and prone to corruption. If you somehow get your money back for god's sakes take the lesson and don't keep so much liquid there.
Its quite simple. For starters, most good regs started with 50-200 bucks and turned them into 10k or more. 2nd, poker is a high variance game and you need a big bankroll compared to the stake you play to avoid ruin when you run bad (and you are a long term winning player). Also, the higher u play, the lower ur edge/higher variance, so you need even more bi's relative to the stake.
For example, a simple br management (some people use more agressive/less agressive bankroll management, but this kinda standard): stake / bank roll required nl10 - 200 bucks nl25 - 600 bucks nl50 - 1250 bucks nl100 - 3k nl200 - 10k nl600 - 60k nl1k - 100k
micromanage your money. There should not be so many people with large amounts of cash just sitting in their system, it's simply insane to trust them with your money.
On April 16 2011 12:55 UniversalSnip wrote: Those of you who had more than 10k tied up in online poker sites: what the fuck were you thinking? I know players who refuse to use those sites at all because they view them as insecure and prone to corruption. If you somehow get your money back for god's sakes take the lesson and don't keep so much liquid there.
no offense but poker players are much better at assessing risk/reward situations than the average person. As long as a poker player is consistently cashing out, losing your online roll isnt that bad of a loss if you have a good income off poker
On April 16 2011 12:55 UniversalSnip wrote: Those of you who had more than 10k tied up in online poker sites: what the fuck were you thinking? I know players who refuse to use those sites at all because they view them as insecure and prone to corruption. If you somehow get your money back for god's sakes take the lesson and don't keep so much liquid there.
Its quite simple. For starters, most good regs started with 50-200 bucks and turned them into 10k or more. 2nd, poker is a high variance game and you need a big bankroll compared to the stake you play to avoid ruin when you run bad (and you are a long term winning player). Also, the higher u play, the lower ur edge/higher variance, so you need even more bi's relative to the stake.
For example, a simple br management (some people use more agressive/less agressive bankroll management, but this kinda standard): stake / bank roll required nl10 - 200 bucks nl25 - 600 bucks nl50 - 1250 bucks nl100 - 3k nl200 - 10k nl600 - 60k nl1k - 100k
micromanage your money. There should not be so many people with large amounts of cash just sitting in their system, it's simply insane to trust them with your money.
It is not insane to trust a company that has been around for over a decade doing international business and handles at the very minimum thousands of transactions per day.
It is insane to play high stakes without the proper bank roll because then it is truly gambling.
That said there are not a ton of people that play as a living playing high stakes.
On April 16 2011 13:41 ammeL wrote: So does this mean anyone who was under 21 and used PokerStars or AbsolutePoker would get fined 250,000?
Or does this just mean anyone who had money on an account just loses all that?
The legal gambling age in US is 18.
We don't know what's going to happen to our money until we have more information. Most of us are planning for the worst though.
On April 16 2011 12:55 UniversalSnip wrote: Those of you who had more than 10k tied up in online poker sites: what the fuck were you thinking? I know players who refuse to use those sites at all because they view them as insecure and prone to corruption. If you somehow get your money back for god's sakes take the lesson and don't keep so much liquid there.
Its quite simple. For starters, most good regs started with 50-200 bucks and turned them into 10k or more. 2nd, poker is a high variance game and you need a big bankroll compared to the stake you play to avoid ruin when you run bad (and you are a long term winning player). Also, the higher u play, the lower ur edge/higher variance, so you need even more bi's relative to the stake.
For example, a simple br management (some people use more agressive/less agressive bankroll management, but this kinda standard): stake / bank roll required nl10 - 200 bucks nl25 - 600 bucks nl50 - 1250 bucks nl100 - 3k nl200 - 10k nl600 - 60k nl1k - 100k
micromanage your money. There should not be so many people with large amounts of cash just sitting in their system, it's simply insane to trust them with your money.
Right. But I'm curious - even if you were underage, they can't come crawling to your door, can they? It seems like this is just against the actual companies - PokerStars, AbsolutePoker, etc.
On April 16 2011 13:47 ammeL wrote: Right. But I'm curious - even if you were underage, they can't come crawling to your door, can they? It seems like this is just against the actual companies - PokerStars, AbsolutePoker, etc.
If they do find someone gambling under age you can be prosecuted, but this particular case is against the compains/owners of the companies not the players. More specifically it is about the way they interacted with the banks to allow Americans to deposit/withdraw money.
So essentially, these big name sites used another alias that would appear on an American's bank statement. Because, terms like 'Poker' are banned in most US banking systems so such a withdrawal/deposit would never go through. But, these big companies renamed the name of the transaction to something else, which is what the Feds are after.
And since these sites are being shut down (at least on the US side), the money that American players had in their accounts are gone. But it really has nothing to do with players who played previously, etc. It basically just sucks for people who currently have money in their accounts.
Im Canadian, and I was able to withdraw my whole bankroll. Im not sure it was necessary but i did it for safety reasons. At least until things calm down and I am convinced pokerstars.eu will honor all the bankrolls.
On April 16 2011 14:05 ammeL wrote: So the issue is basically between the companies and the feds.
And that primary issue creates a problem for the players: what will happen to their money
Yep.
Also for the people who played to make a living... what the fuck now. I'm confident thousands of people are now out of jobs because Americans cannot play on these sites for the foreseeable future (read: months if not years).
On April 16 2011 12:55 UniversalSnip wrote: Those of you who had more than 10k tied up in online poker sites: what the fuck were you thinking? I know players who refuse to use those sites at all because they view them as insecure and prone to corruption. If you somehow get your money back for god's sakes take the lesson and don't keep so much liquid there.
Its quite simple. For starters, most good regs started with 50-200 bucks and turned them into 10k or more. 2nd, poker is a high variance game and you need a big bankroll compared to the stake you play to avoid ruin when you run bad (and you are a long term winning player). Also, the higher u play, the lower ur edge/higher variance, so you need even more bi's relative to the stake.
For example, a simple br management (some people use more agressive/less agressive bankroll management, but this kinda standard): stake / bank roll required nl10 - 200 bucks nl25 - 600 bucks nl50 - 1250 bucks nl100 - 3k nl200 - 10k nl600 - 60k nl1k - 100k
micromanage your money. There should not be so many people with large amounts of cash just sitting in their system, it's simply insane to trust them with your money.
It is not insane to trust a company that has been around for over a decade doing international business and handles at the very minimum thousands of transactions per day.
It is insane to play high stakes without the proper bank roll because then it is truly gambling.
That said there are not a ton of people that play as a living playing high stakes.
On April 16 2011 13:41 ammeL wrote: So does this mean anyone who was under 21 and used PokerStars or AbsolutePoker would get fined 250,000?
Or does this just mean anyone who had money on an account just loses all that?
The legal gambling age in US is 18.
We don't know what's going to happen to our money until we have more information. Most of us are planning for the worst though.
He's not saying play high stakes without the proper bankroll.
He's saying have the majority of your bankroll in a bank, and have, say, 5 buyins on FTP.
Note: don't shoot the messenger kthx. Just clarifying on what I thought ought to be his obvious implication, rather than your assumption that he meant don't play with a legit bankroll.
Cashed out my poker account (not that I have much money there, but it's a bit more than I put in so happyface). Glad I saw this cause I haven't played in awhile ^_^ I'd hate to get my money stuck.
On April 16 2011 12:55 UniversalSnip wrote: Those of you who had more than 10k tied up in online poker sites: what the fuck were you thinking? I know players who refuse to use those sites at all because they view them as insecure and prone to corruption. If you somehow get your money back for god's sakes take the lesson and don't keep so much liquid there.
Its quite simple. For starters, most good regs started with 50-200 bucks and turned them into 10k or more. 2nd, poker is a high variance game and you need a big bankroll compared to the stake you play to avoid ruin when you run bad (and you are a long term winning player). Also, the higher u play, the lower ur edge/higher variance, so you need even more bi's relative to the stake.
For example, a simple br management (some people use more agressive/less agressive bankroll management, but this kinda standard): stake / bank roll required nl10 - 200 bucks nl25 - 600 bucks nl50 - 1250 bucks nl100 - 3k nl200 - 10k nl600 - 60k nl1k - 100k
micromanage your money. There should not be so many people with large amounts of cash just sitting in their system, it's simply insane to trust them with your money.
It is not insane to trust a company that has been around for over a decade doing international business and handles at the very minimum thousands of transactions per day.
It is insane to play high stakes without the proper bank roll because then it is truly gambling.
That said there are not a ton of people that play as a living playing high stakes.
On April 16 2011 13:41 ammeL wrote: So does this mean anyone who was under 21 and used PokerStars or AbsolutePoker would get fined 250,000?
Or does this just mean anyone who had money on an account just loses all that?
The legal gambling age in US is 18.
We don't know what's going to happen to our money until we have more information. Most of us are planning for the worst though.
He's not saying play high stakes without the proper bankroll.
He's saying have the majority of your bankroll in a bank, and have, say, 5 buyins on FTP.
Most good players are playing at least 8 tables at once, if not 12+, and of course you'll need money to rebuy if you lose money on any tables. Plus it can be a pain to constantly deposit/withdraw, especially in the US.
On April 16 2011 14:18 Hurricane wrote: Eh, seems retarded to not have 40+ buy in's for your stake online when having -10+ buy in swings is pretty standard at higher stakes.
I would tend to agree that it isn't feasible. OTOH, if you analyzed it from a "what would happen if FTP shut down and I lost X money" versus the opportunity cost of micromanaging your money, perhaps you could find some equilibrium.
On April 16 2011 14:18 Hurricane wrote: Eh, seems retarded to not have 40+ buy in's for your stake online when having -10+ buy in swings is pretty standard at higher stakes.
I would tend to agree that it isn't feasible. OTOH, if you analyzed it from a "what would happen if FTP shut down and I lost X money" versus the opportunity cost of micromanaging your money, perhaps you could find some equilibrium.
Tbh up to this point I tought my funds at ps were safer than some banks here (and most in argentina/bolivia/venezuela)
Yeah I know what your saying, but you also have to look at how sudden this is and how reliable pokerstars and fulltilt have been over the past decade. There was no reason to believe that something like this would happen. Yes there was the UIGEA and it was a bit sketchy, but it has been years since it was introduced and nothing has happened so it didn't seem like the US was going to actually enforce it. Couple that with a few senators/congressmen trying to get a bill passed to make online poker legal and regulate it, which has been making slow but consistent progress over the past year or two, and it seemed more like the UIGEA was just a place holder to keep the companies in line while the US could agree on a way to legalize and regulate it.
Then we wake up one day and the FBI has seized all accounts with the three top corporations in the US and all of us have no idea what the fuck just happened.
EDIT: gotunks summed it up pretty concisely. I just felt the need to elaborate. I'm confident most poker players would agree as well that we felt ps/ftp was as safe or safer than most banks.
On April 16 2011 14:20 ShadowDrgn wrote: Plus it can be a pain to constantly deposit/withdraw, especially in the US.
You're limited to one withdrawal per day and you can't withdraw until 48 hours after your last deposit so you wouldn't really be able hop your funds around at all unless you only played one or two days of the week (at least for Pokerstars, I'd assume policies are uniform or at least vastly similar).
On April 16 2011 03:56 where wrote: oh what the fuck is this. The government is that desperate for money that they are trying to steal from online gambling sites? What about those mortgage backed securities, CDOs and those other institutionalized gambling forms? Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, AIG too difficult of targets? Do we really need an online gaming lobby?
"How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug gangs" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs Is Wachovia "too profitable to fail"? Or is it because the drug cartels have organized weaponry and might fight back, unlike online poker players?
On April 16 2011 12:55 UniversalSnip wrote: Those of you who had more than 10k tied up in online poker sites: what the fuck were you thinking? I know players who refuse to use those sites at all because they view them as insecure and prone to corruption. If you somehow get your money back for god's sakes take the lesson and don't keep so much liquid there.
Its quite simple. For starters, most good regs started with 50-200 bucks and turned them into 10k or more. 2nd, poker is a high variance game and you need a big bankroll compared to the stake you play to avoid ruin when you run bad (and you are a long term winning player). Also, the higher u play, the lower ur edge/higher variance, so you need even more bi's relative to the stake.
For example, a simple br management (some people use more agressive/less agressive bankroll management, but this kinda standard): stake / bank roll required nl10 - 200 bucks nl25 - 600 bucks nl50 - 1250 bucks nl100 - 3k nl200 - 10k nl600 - 60k nl1k - 100k
micromanage your money. There should not be so many people with large amounts of cash just sitting in their system, it's simply insane to trust them with your money.
It is not insane to trust a company that has been around for over a decade doing international business and handles at the very minimum thousands of transactions per day.
It is insane to play high stakes without the proper bank roll because then it is truly gambling.
That said there are not a ton of people that play as a living playing high stakes.
On April 16 2011 13:41 ammeL wrote: So does this mean anyone who was under 21 and used PokerStars or AbsolutePoker would get fined 250,000?
Or does this just mean anyone who had money on an account just loses all that?
The legal gambling age in US is 18.
We don't know what's going to happen to our money until we have more information. Most of us are planning for the worst though.
He's not saying play high stakes without the proper bankroll.
He's saying have the majority of your bankroll in a bank, and have, say, 5 buyins on FTP.
Note: don't shoot the messenger kthx. Just clarifying on what I thought ought to be his obvious implication, rather than your assumption that he meant don't play with a legit bankroll.
if you want to make any kind of money in poker you need to play with 40+ buy ins at midstakes, and even more at high stakes.
Really shitty situation. Lots of panic, speculation and misguided conclusions. Going to wait a bit, let the dust settle and not make any rash decisions. Hopefully this will become more clear in the next few days.
On April 16 2011 12:55 UniversalSnip wrote: Those of you who had more than 10k tied up in online poker sites: what the fuck were you thinking? I know players who refuse to use those sites at all because they view them as insecure and prone to corruption. If you somehow get your money back for god's sakes take the lesson and don't keep so much liquid there.
Its quite simple. For starters, most good regs started with 50-200 bucks and turned them into 10k or more. 2nd, poker is a high variance game and you need a big bankroll compared to the stake you play to avoid ruin when you run bad (and you are a long term winning player). Also, the higher u play, the lower ur edge/higher variance, so you need even more bi's relative to the stake.
For example, a simple br management (some people use more agressive/less agressive bankroll management, but this kinda standard): stake / bank roll required nl10 - 200 bucks nl25 - 600 bucks nl50 - 1250 bucks nl100 - 3k nl200 - 10k nl600 - 60k nl1k - 100k
micromanage your money. There should not be so many people with large amounts of cash just sitting in their system, it's simply insane to trust them with your money.
It is not insane to trust a company that has been around for over a decade doing international business and handles at the very minimum thousands of transactions per day.
It is insane to play high stakes without the proper bank roll because then it is truly gambling.
That said there are not a ton of people that play as a living playing high stakes.
On April 16 2011 13:41 ammeL wrote: So does this mean anyone who was under 21 and used PokerStars or AbsolutePoker would get fined 250,000?
Or does this just mean anyone who had money on an account just loses all that?
The legal gambling age in US is 18.
We don't know what's going to happen to our money until we have more information. Most of us are planning for the worst though.
He's not saying play high stakes without the proper bankroll.
He's saying have the majority of your bankroll in a bank, and have, say, 5 buyins on FTP.
Note: don't shoot the messenger kthx. Just clarifying on what I thought ought to be his obvious implication, rather than your assumption that he meant don't play with a legit bankroll.
if you want to make any kind of money in poker you need to play with 40+ buy ins at midstakes, and even more at high stakes.
I think you should re-read what the guy above you said, you can have 40+ buyins at midstakes, and have 5 buyins at the site, and 35 in the bank, and have your money be "safe" that being said. Anyone who says you should not have your money on pokerstars\fulltilt because of corruption\scamming\ the risk of them some how hijacking your money obviously have absolutely no clue at all what they are talking about and should be treated in a simmilar manner to someone who are deliberately trolling (e.g ignored.)
There are lots of reasons not to constantly be withdrawing/depositing. There can often be small fees\backdraws to withdrawing/depositing(hitting your rakeback etc or messing with bonuses also.) So if you have to withdraw everytime you go above 5 buyins that could easily be a problem. Secondly Most people play 5+ tables. Alot play 10+ tables, some people even play 24 tables. Good luck doing that with 5 buyins. Last but not least, for a lot of players tilt can be a huge problem, and I can easily imagine it being more tilting to lose all of your online roll in a day and having to re deposit, than losing 10% of it and just seeing a minor flucutation, even though you know the money is in the bank the psychological aspect is still present. The only reason to not have all your roll on an online poker site is because you could have the money invested elsewhere\have it making interest in a bank or whatever. But that wont amount to much unless you are playing at the realrealhigh stakes anyway (where I know most players do not have all of their bankroll online)
Pretty sure the money of the american players will get back to them somehow. If it were to not get back to them though, it would be 10000000000000% the fault of the FBI/US government, not pstars\ftp.
"Serves you right" is a pretty harsh attitude for a bunch of TL'ers to have. I know Fayth is a pretty good poster on TL and he commented earlier that he stands to lose $75,000. Whether they should have seen it coming or not don't you guys have any sympathy for a fellow TL'er?
It's also cool to see all these reassurances from PokerStars. Dunno whether they're genuine or just good public relations but its a damn good way of showing online gambling as legitimate and professional and not shady underground KGB associations ala Rounders.
Why are people acting like the US players are never going to see the money they had on the accounts again? Seems like completely unwarranted to me, though I can see why people with several k on the sites that they now do not have access too are worried, I see a lot of people acting like it is now 100% gone. Is there something I am missing?
fyi (I play poker while in school for added income, like 50-70k/mo hands).
you at TL should take this very seriously, poker sites/players are a large source of money, and if you expect things like TSL to keep happening, think again in the wake of this.
On April 16 2011 15:42 Consolidate wrote: This is very entertaining.
I can't say I feel much sympathy for the people who might lose their money.
You sound intelligent
You sound facetious.
Poker for money, as with all gambling, contributes nothing to society(not that that matters really) and is a waste of young people's competative talents.
The law was there for all to see -pokerstars thought the law was unenforceable, apparently they were wrong.
You took a risk not many financially responsible people would.
On April 16 2011 15:42 Consolidate wrote: This is very entertaining.
I can't say I feel much sympathy for the people who might lose their money.
You sound intelligent
You sound facetious.
Poker for money, as with all gambling, contributes nothing to society(not that that matters really) and is a waste of young people's competative talents.
The law was there for all to see -pokerstars thought the law was unenforceable, apparently they were wrong.
You took a risk not many financially responsible people would.
According to you flawed logic, starcraft is "a waste of young people's competative talents" because it "contributes nothing to society" (or as much as poker i believe) . What are you doing on this site again?
On April 16 2011 15:42 Consolidate wrote: This is very entertaining.
I can't say I feel much sympathy for the people who might lose their money.
You sound intelligent
You sound facetious.
Poker for money, as with all gambling, contributes nothing to society(not that that matters really) and is a waste of young people's competative talents.
The law was there for all to see -pokerstars thought the law was unenforceable, apparently they were wrong.
You took a risk not many financially responsible people would.
as long as you pay taxes you contribute to society, it's kind of pointless to judge any one profession over another in terms of its contributions to society
On April 16 2011 15:42 Consolidate wrote: This is very entertaining.
I can't say I feel much sympathy for the people who might lose their money.
You sound intelligent
You sound facetious.
Poker for money, as with all gambling, contributes nothing to society(not that that matters really) and is a waste of young people's competative talents.
The law was there for all to see -pokerstars thought the law was unenforceable, apparently they were wrong.
You took a risk not many financially responsible people would.
You sound like an unsympathetic fagt.
Gaming, web-surfing, hanging out with friends, and having fun in general contributes nothing to society. But I bet you still do all of it. fagt.
The law wasn't there for all to see, it wasn't enforced immediately, and might still be unenforceable now in court, apparently you just assume it's enforceable. Thanks Mr. Harvard law.
People always take risks. Financially responsible people take risks too. Just more socially acceptable ones (buying a home, shares). Except this wasn't trading on some no name site run underground by the KGB, fagt.
So summary: This may have cost alot of good, normal people something beyond what you can fathom because, generally speaking, you're a fagt.
On April 16 2011 15:42 Consolidate wrote: This is very entertaining.
I can't say I feel much sympathy for the people who might lose their money.
You sound intelligent
You sound facetious.
Poker for money, as with all gambling, contributes nothing to society(not that that matters really) and is a waste of young people's competative talents.
The law was there for all to see -pokerstars thought the law was unenforceable, apparently they were wrong.
You took a risk not many financially responsible people would.
On April 16 2011 15:42 Consolidate wrote: This is very entertaining.
I can't say I feel much sympathy for the people who might lose their money.
You sound intelligent
You sound facetious.
Poker for money, as with all gambling, contributes nothing to society(not that that matters really) and is a waste of young people's competative talents.
The law was there for all to see -pokerstars thought the law was unenforceable, apparently they were wrong.
You took a risk not many financially responsible people would.
as long as you pay taxes you contribute to society, it's kind of pointless to judge any one profession over another in terms of its contributions to society
What? Even ignoring opinions about poker, it's evident to anyone with half a brain that some professions contribute more to society than others.
Dangit now i will be evicted from my apartment and will have to move under a bridge. oh well time to sell crack now instead. whos with me? online poker poker players will take over the dope game!
On April 16 2011 15:42 Consolidate wrote: This is very entertaining.
I can't say I feel much sympathy for the people who might lose their money.
You sound intelligent
You sound facetious.
Poker for money, as with all gambling, contributes nothing to society(not that that matters really) and is a waste of young people's competative talents.
The law was there for all to see -pokerstars thought the law was unenforceable, apparently they were wrong.
You took a risk not many financially responsible people would.
as long as you pay taxes you contribute to society, it's kind of pointless to judge any one profession over another in terms of its contributions to society
What? Even ignoring opinions about poker, it's evident to anyone with half a brain that some professions contribute more to society than others.
On April 16 2011 15:42 Consolidate wrote: This is very entertaining.
I can't say I feel much sympathy for the people who might lose their money.
You sound intelligent
You sound facetious.
Poker for money, as with all gambling, contributes nothing to society(not that that matters really) and is a waste of young people's competative talents.
The law was there for all to see -pokerstars thought the law was unenforceable, apparently they were wrong.
You took a risk not many financially responsible people would.
as long as you pay taxes you contribute to society, it's kind of pointless to judge any one profession over another in terms of its contributions to society
What? Even ignoring opinions about poker, it's evident to anyone with half a brain that some professions contribute more to society than others.
he wasn't saying that at all
Well if he's not saying that then he's saying "it doesn't matter whether or not a profession contributes to society," which would be completely pointless given that the person he quoted even stated "(not that is matters)."
I've been playing poker for years and it is truly unfortunate that this has happened with the Online sites. I've been playing on PokerStars since the site first was brought up. As I'm seeing with most posts there seems to be a misconception about what is happening. I'm from the US and Online Poker is NOT illegal and never has been.
The UIGEA act was targeted at Banks to prevent them from approving transactions to offshore gaming sites. Not to mention the only reason it passed was because it was piggybacked onto the Safe Port Act. This FBI investigation has more to do with the practices of the company and not about the legality of it for US players.
The game of Poker is defined as a game of skill and not random chance, which is why it is not considered illegal. Unfortunately there is Politicians and Big Brother governement who thinks they know what is best for us and that everyone will become addicted and go broke which is why we don't see any US based sites, among other reasons I'm sure.
It sucks because I really enjoy the game and the convenience of being able to play whenever I choose. Hopefully the government will wake up and Regulate it so they can get their tax money and we can go back to playing the game we love.
On April 16 2011 14:26 Hurricane wrote: Yeah I know what your saying, but you also have to look at how sudden this is and how reliable pokerstars and fulltilt have been over the past decade. There was no reason to believe that something like this would happen. Yes there was the UIGEA and it was a bit sketchy, but it has been years since it was introduced and nothing has happened so it didn't seem like the US was going to actually enforce it. Couple that with a few senators/congressmen trying to get a bill passed to make online poker legal and regulate it, which has been making slow but consistent progress over the past year or two, and it seemed more like the UIGEA was just a place holder to keep the companies in line while the US could agree on a way to legalize and regulate it.
Then we wake up one day and the FBI has seized all accounts with the three top corporations in the US and all of us have no idea what the fuck just happened.
EDIT: gotunks summed it up pretty concisely. I just felt the need to elaborate. I'm confident most poker players would agree as well that we felt ps/ftp was as safe or safer than most banks.
sorry to say this, but if you honestly believed that an online poker site is safer than a us government insured bank because they've never failed in ten years that makes you a sucker. This is the same kind of reasoning that has people exploding all the time trying to play stocks
On April 16 2011 16:09 Masada714 wrote: I've been playing poker for years and it is truly unfortunate that this has happened with the Online sites. I've been playing on PokerStars since the site first was brought up. As I'm seeing with most posts there seems to be a misconception about what is happening. I'm from the US and Online Poker is NOT illegal and never has been.
The UIGEA act was targeted at Banks to prevent them from approving transactions to offshore gaming sites. Not to mention the only reason it passed was because it was piggybacked onto the Safe Port Act. This FBI investigation has more to do with the practices of the company and not about the legality of it for US players.
The game of Poker is defined as a game of skill and not random chance, which is why it is not considered illegal. Unfortunately there is Politicians and Big Brother governement who thinks they know what is best for us and that everyone will become addicted and go broke which is why we don't see any US based sites, among other reasons I'm sure.
It sucks because I really enjoy the game and the convenience of being able to play whenever I choose. Hopefully the government will wake up and Regulate it so they can get their tax money and we can go back to playing the game we love.
The writing was on the fucking wall dude.
The big charge here is money laundering which is what all of these sites had to resort to in order to disguise the payments to and from banks.
On April 16 2011 14:26 Hurricane wrote: Yeah I know what your saying, but you also have to look at how sudden this is and how reliable pokerstars and fulltilt have been over the past decade. There was no reason to believe that something like this would happen. Yes there was the UIGEA and it was a bit sketchy, but it has been years since it was introduced and nothing has happened so it didn't seem like the US was going to actually enforce it. Couple that with a few senators/congressmen trying to get a bill passed to make online poker legal and regulate it, which has been making slow but consistent progress over the past year or two, and it seemed more like the UIGEA was just a place holder to keep the companies in line while the US could agree on a way to legalize and regulate it.
Then we wake up one day and the FBI has seized all accounts with the three top corporations in the US and all of us have no idea what the fuck just happened.
EDIT: gotunks summed it up pretty concisely. I just felt the need to elaborate. I'm confident most poker players would agree as well that we felt ps/ftp was as safe or safer than most banks.
sorry to say this, but if you honestly believed that an online poker site is safer than a us government insured bank because they've never failed in ten years that makes you a sucker. This is the same kind of reasoning that has people exploding all the time trying to play stocks
Why? PS has a huge cash flow and all players money is supposed to be backed on 0% risk funds. They relly heavily on their image and trustworthiness to run a ridicously sucessfull business so it is on their best interest to keep it that way. Banks, on the other hand...
On April 16 2011 14:26 Hurricane wrote: Yeah I know what your saying, but you also have to look at how sudden this is and how reliable pokerstars and fulltilt have been over the past decade. There was no reason to believe that something like this would happen. Yes there was the UIGEA and it was a bit sketchy, but it has been years since it was introduced and nothing has happened so it didn't seem like the US was going to actually enforce it. Couple that with a few senators/congressmen trying to get a bill passed to make online poker legal and regulate it, which has been making slow but consistent progress over the past year or two, and it seemed more like the UIGEA was just a place holder to keep the companies in line while the US could agree on a way to legalize and regulate it.
Then we wake up one day and the FBI has seized all accounts with the three top corporations in the US and all of us have no idea what the fuck just happened.
EDIT: gotunks summed it up pretty concisely. I just felt the need to elaborate. I'm confident most poker players would agree as well that we felt ps/ftp was as safe or safer than most banks.
sorry to say this, but if you honestly believed that an online poker site is safer than a us government insured bank because they've never failed in ten years that makes you a sucker. This is the same kind of reasoning that has people exploding all the time trying to play stocks
Why? PS has a huge cash flow and all players money is supposed to be backed on 0% risk funds. They relly heavily on their image and trustworthiness to run a ridicously sucessfull business so it is on their best interest to keep it that way. Banks, on the other hand...
Are insured by the US Federal Government for up to $100,000...
Wait, you aren't really trying to argue that poker sites are more reputable than major banks, are you? Haha.
The standard deposit insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category.
I honestly do not know why you keep arguing this. To even think that any of the poker sites' capital equals one of the major financial firms is laughable. Even combined I doubt they'll come close.
On April 16 2011 14:26 Hurricane wrote: Yeah I know what your saying, but you also have to look at how sudden this is and how reliable pokerstars and fulltilt have been over the past decade. There was no reason to believe that something like this would happen. Yes there was the UIGEA and it was a bit sketchy, but it has been years since it was introduced and nothing has happened so it didn't seem like the US was going to actually enforce it. Couple that with a few senators/congressmen trying to get a bill passed to make online poker legal and regulate it, which has been making slow but consistent progress over the past year or two, and it seemed more like the UIGEA was just a place holder to keep the companies in line while the US could agree on a way to legalize and regulate it.
Then we wake up one day and the FBI has seized all accounts with the three top corporations in the US and all of us have no idea what the fuck just happened.
EDIT: gotunks summed it up pretty concisely. I just felt the need to elaborate. I'm confident most poker players would agree as well that we felt ps/ftp was as safe or safer than most banks.
sorry to say this, but if you honestly believed that an online poker site is safer than a us government insured bank because they've never failed in ten years that makes you a sucker. This is the same kind of reasoning that has people exploding all the time trying to play stocks
Why? PS has a huge cash flow and all players money is supposed to be backed on 0% risk funds. They relly heavily on their image and trustworthiness to run a ridicously sucessfull business so it is on their best interest to keep it that way. Banks, on the other hand...
Because a US backed bank is insured by the US government for all of your money up to 250K. you literally cannot lose it. And banks really are operating on an entirely different scale than Pokerstars. Seriously this is a losing aurgument. Incase you were wondering JPMorgan and Chase, and Bank of America both have assets in excess of 2 TRILLION dollars at year end of 2010.http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/nicweb/top50form.aspx Im not sure if it has reverted back, but it was 100k, then during the financial crisis the US upped it to 250K to calm people down. It might of reverted at this point
On April 16 2011 14:26 Hurricane wrote: Yeah I know what your saying, but you also have to look at how sudden this is and how reliable pokerstars and fulltilt have been over the past decade. There was no reason to believe that something like this would happen. Yes there was the UIGEA and it was a bit sketchy, but it has been years since it was introduced and nothing has happened so it didn't seem like the US was going to actually enforce it. Couple that with a few senators/congressmen trying to get a bill passed to make online poker legal and regulate it, which has been making slow but consistent progress over the past year or two, and it seemed more like the UIGEA was just a place holder to keep the companies in line while the US could agree on a way to legalize and regulate it.
Then we wake up one day and the FBI has seized all accounts with the three top corporations in the US and all of us have no idea what the fuck just happened.
EDIT: gotunks summed it up pretty concisely. I just felt the need to elaborate. I'm confident most poker players would agree as well that we felt ps/ftp was as safe or safer than most banks.
sorry to say this, but if you honestly believed that an online poker site is safer than a us government insured bank because they've never failed in ten years that makes you a sucker. This is the same kind of reasoning that has people exploding all the time trying to play stocks
Why? PS has a huge cash flow and all players money is supposed to be backed on 0% risk funds. They relly heavily on their image and trustworthiness to run a ridicously sucessfull business so it is on their best interest to keep it that way. Banks, on the other hand...
Because a US backed bank is insured by the US government for all of your money up to 250K. you literally cannot lose it.
To all of the above. Ok, first poster put 100k and nothing else, was just asking. 250k for each person seems pretty safe. On the other hand, it is not the same on latin america. I'd say Chilean banks are really safe but i'd keep money under my pillow if I lived in Argentina.
The standard deposit insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category.
I honestly do not know why you keep arguing this. To even think that any of the poker sites' capital equals one of the major financial firms is laughable. Even combined I doubt they'll come close.
You must not watch poker or play online poker at all.. Am i right? 250k isn't even 1st place in some online poker tounrys
I am extremely confused by this. I live in Canada, where online gambling is completely legal, I am being refused access to FTP, which I have money on. When I go on FTP's site, I get the legal message. When linking the site to a friend who is IN the US, he sees a working website? Also when trying to link him to the image itself, it does not load for him. Can someone please fucking explain this shit? Why does this affect me?
Edit: When trying to access the site through a proxy server it works fine? What the hell.
This is the stupidest crap ever. The U.S. should be worried about how easy it is to get sketchy drugs within our borders. Or maybe be worried about the war they are in. But no they do this kind of stuff.
The standard deposit insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category.
I honestly do not know why you keep arguing this. To even think that any of the poker sites' capital equals one of the major financial firms is laughable. Even combined I doubt they'll come close.
You must not watch poker or play online poker at all.. Am i right? 250k isn't even 1st place in some online poker tounrys
Not to call you an idiot. But that is 250k insurance per account, when there are millions of accounts per bank. To even think that ALL the poker sites in the WORLD would manage to put together the trillions in capital to match even ONE of the major financial firms; is laughable.
Anyways, end that argument please, because banks are making multi-billions everyday placing bets so large that every single poker player in the world would crap their pants to see at a table... take for example currency trading, banks make thousands of billion dollar snap trades per day in order to make tiny percentages in their favor... they are the ultimate gamblers, the ultimate guys who have the skill and know the odds. They make any poker player look like a kid betting with quarters... and they rarely lose, and never ever get cleaned.
The standard deposit insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category.
I honestly do not know why you keep arguing this. To even think that any of the poker sites' capital equals one of the major financial firms is laughable. Even combined I doubt they'll come close.
You must not watch poker or play online poker at all.. Am i right? 250k isn't even 1st place in some online poker tounrys
Not to call you an idiot. But that is 250k insurance per account, when there are millions of accounts per bank. To even think that ALL the poker sites in the WORLD would manage to put together the trillions in capital to match even ONE of the major financial firms; is laughable.
Anyways, end that argument please, because banks are making multi-billions everyday placing bets so large that every single poker player in the world would crap their pants to see at a table... take for example currency trading, banks make thousands of billion dollar snap trades per day in order to make tiny percentages in their favor... they are the ultimate gamblers, the ultimate guys who have the skill and know the odds. They make any poker player look like a kid betting with quarters... and they rarely lose, and never ever get cleaned.
Long-Term Capital Management called, they'd like to unclean themselves.
The standard deposit insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category.
I honestly do not know why you keep arguing this. To even think that any of the poker sites' capital equals one of the major financial firms is laughable. Even combined I doubt they'll come close.
You must not watch poker or play online poker at all.. Am i right? 250k isn't even 1st place in some online poker tounrys
Not to call you an idiot. But that is 250k insurance per account, when there are millions of accounts per bank. To even think that ALL the poker sites in the WORLD would manage to put together the trillions in capital to match even ONE of the major financial firms; is laughable.
Anyways, end that argument please, because banks are making multi-billions everyday placing bets so large that every single poker player in the world would crap their pants to see at a table... take for example currency trading, banks make thousands of billion dollar snap trades per day in order to make tiny percentages in their favor... they are the ultimate gamblers, the ultimate guys who have the skill and know the odds. They make any poker player look like a kid betting with quarters... and they rarely lose, and never ever get cleaned.
Long-Term Capital Management called, they'd like to unclean themselves.
Even they didn't get cleaned. Other banks bought it up at lowered prices, and it apparently ran for a profit the following year...
The standard deposit insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category.
I honestly do not know why you keep arguing this. To even think that any of the poker sites' capital equals one of the major financial firms is laughable. Even combined I doubt they'll come close.
You must not watch poker or play online poker at all.. Am i right? 250k isn't even 1st place in some online poker tounrys
Uhhh no, you're completely wrong. You bring up watching poker on TV? Lol. Geez, I have a feeling I have more poker experience than you.
250k isn't insurance for the banks. It's insurance for each depositor. So if we use poker site terms, that's for each USER instead of what you're probably thinking as it being for the entire site. For example, if you had 200k on Pokerstars and I had 200k on Pokerstars, we'd both get all of our money back if pokerstars was a FDIC insured bank. In fact, if you also had 250k on Fulltilt, 250k on UB, and 250k on Pokerstars and all were FDIC insured banks, the government would pay you 750k if they all went under.
Sure it doesn't help if you have millions on deposit, but it sure as hell dampens the blow for 99.9% of people, doesn't it?
Honestly, I feel many of you fail to comprehend how giant the global financial system really is. There is a ton of money in the global poker industry, but the financial system IS money. But I have no idea why the hell we are still talking about this.
Even though PokerStr is sponsoring TSL3, the money could be escrowed in a now locked or frozen acc
If something is locked or frozen, by us terms you can pretty much say byebye to that money forever
For me the verdict will be on monday, clearly the agreement that MB has with FTP to credit acc's instantly is void atm, and i will only get the money in my acc once it actually clears from one of FTP's real accounts (which will happen only on weekdays), and will only happen if its from a non frozen account, despite the fact i'm one of the lucky few who was allowed to send a transaction order because i acted fast
Either way at usual we are simply at the mercy of the fed
Lets say the poker sites are brought back up again. You cant rly think that the sites have the available funds to pay out when everyone is trying to withdraw their bank rolls because of fear of losing the money. It will be the 1930s depression all over again, every player rushing to get their money out again.
While what You say Klogon is technicaly true, the truth is much more complicated. If some of the major banks would go bankrupt at the same time i highly doubt all their clints would get their money back. There are few reason for this:
1)Major banks going bankrupt at the same time means crisis, huge crisis. The government has a lot on its shoulders and belive me giving money back to customers isnt first on the "to do list".
2)While in most of the devloped countries theres a special fund, set in order to pay the money back to customers of bankrupt banks, the sad fact is, that this fund usually covers only 10-15% of total bank deposits (not sure how it looks in US though).
3)Even if the money is given back, very often it takes a long of time, or it is payed in government bonds, again meaning your money is frozen for a long time.
Ps. I am not defending the notion that pokersites capitalization is similiar to those of banks, it seems absurd. But again i never cheked it, so who knows. I supppose it may be possible that total capitalization of ALL poker sites is similiar to this of ONE large bank, but i am kinda guessing here.
On April 16 2011 16:43 -Archangel- wrote: Lol. There goes TSL3. I doubt TL got the prize money in advance.
It's good to see people don't read anything.
TSL is sponsored by PokerStrategy.com, not PokerStars or any online cardroom.
see people not thinking
they just print money with magic
its not like they make their money for referrals and kickback
They partner with a lot more rooms than just PS and FTP. Afaik they never even offered those no deposit bonuses for american citizens and PS will probably continue operations outside of the US.
So they're cracking down on online poker but the wall street casino and derivatives bubble is still open for business? Big banks bet on this casino and if they lose the taxpayer bails them out.
One rule for the financial elite another for the rest of us schmucks (I don't gamble online but don't have a problem with it per-se and believe the government should stay out of internet issues)
On liquidpoker there was a link to a financial news network vid where they said the gov wants 3 bilion $ from those sites. Assuming it's combined shouldn't they pay like 1 bilion each since i'm fairly sure they have it? (wikipedia says in 2009 and 2010 pokerstars earned 1.4 bilion $ a year). I don't play poker but this sucks for people that do and have money on those sites. Best of luck guys !
Is there any risk for legal action towards the players?
From that FBI poster: "For the persons engaged in the business of betting or wagering, it is also a federal crime to knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling, credit, electronic fund transfers, or checks."
I'm not into all the legal mumbo jumbo, but doesn't that sound like they're saying the players (within their jurisdiction) are on their radar too? I haven't seen this discussed yet in this thread.
From what i understand there peoples money on Pokerstars and FTP are secure, which is good. Still...It really amazes me how they can try to fucking take peoples money like that, disgusting.
also LOL at Consolidate. 'Cause I'm sure I'm wasting my time not contributing to society by going to school and getting in debt for a job that I'll make 50k a year at instead of making 300k a year instantly. Yea son, take my money cuz i'm making a financially irresponsible decision ROFL.
On April 16 2011 20:43 MrTortoise wrote: Now can the right wing religious folken with their moral high ground please go and live in another country for a significant period of time.
You realise this is nothing to do with right wing religious nuts and everything to do with the US governments intention of eventually making the internet in the USA more like the Chinese internet right?
On April 16 2011 18:31 BrTarolg wrote: Even though PokerStr is sponsoring TSL3, the money could be escrowed in a now locked or frozen acc
Pokerstrategy.com is the TSL3 sponsor, a training and educational site that does no gambling.
can i suggest a mod just edit that into the op, seeing as it was posted almost every page now, and this thread is becoming a bit confusing of a read.
On April 16 2011 19:53 switchdev wrote: Is there any risk for legal action towards the players?
From that FBI poster: "For the persons engaged in the business of betting or wagering, it is also a federal crime to knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling, credit, electronic fund transfers, or checks."
I'm not into all the legal mumbo jumbo, but doesn't that sound like they're saying the players (within their jurisdiction) are on their radar too? I haven't seen this discussed yet in this thread.
from the sounds of that poster i would say yes. only time will tell really, but i was never aware of any law pertaining to internet poker or games of skill. in some areas of the US it was already proven in court to be a game of a skill. Though i wouldnt worry about this to much until the big case involving the sites is actually done.
On April 16 2011 18:38 ZeGzoR wrote: Lets say the poker sites are brought back up again. You cant rly think that the sites have the available funds to pay out when everyone is trying to withdraw their bank rolls because of fear of losing the money. It will be the 1930s depression all over again, every player rushing to get their money out again.
Actually yes, they do. Legit poker sites keep deposits separate from their own funds.
On April 16 2011 18:38 ZeGzoR wrote: Lets say the poker sites are brought back up again. You cant rly think that the sites have the available funds to pay out when everyone is trying to withdraw their bank rolls because of fear of losing the money. It will be the 1930s depression all over again, every player rushing to get their money out again.
Actually yes, they do. Legit poker sites keep deposits separate from their own funds.
Yes but let's take pokerstars for example. They claim to keep customers' money segregated and handled by a third party financial institution. But which institution is it? Where is it based? What kind of account is the money kept in? What are the terms between pokerstars and this institution? Are the accounts in customers' names?
Just out of curiosity, Full Tilt Poker run a local tournament at my local pub ($10 buy in), with all these alegations going around and now I can't sign into Full Tilt Poker, does this mean that the local tournament will also be shut down?
On April 16 2011 22:36 Kar98 wrote: Just out of curiosity, Full Tilt Poker run a local tournament at my local pub ($10 buy in), with all these alegations going around and now I can't sign into Full Tilt Poker, does this mean that the local tournament will also be shut down?
who knows. but if it's a local thing i think your fine. but don't be disappointed if it doesnt run
On April 16 2011 20:16 BMM wrote: your safe if you live outside of the US from what i've heard! stars have confirmed
on 2+2, a pokerstars community manager(?) also responded to a question regarding if this notice implies US player funds are also okay. The answer was yes.
On April 16 2011 22:36 Kar98 wrote: Just out of curiosity, Full Tilt Poker run a local tournament at my local pub ($10 buy in), with all these alegations going around and now I can't sign into Full Tilt Poker, does this mean that the local tournament will also be shut down?
if they were running a live event they probably were legal in that area. However if FT withdraws from the US, they more than likely will stop live operations as well.
Wondering if pokerstars will keep running things like the north american poker tour at casinos any more..
5-6 days ago deposited 900ish in 2 increments into pokerstars to send them to my bank account due to laziness of filling the neteller requirements for bank withdrawal yesterday when i understood about this i cashed out back to neteller around that time (00:00 KST) the whole amount and they got back there almost instantly
According to the indictments, the Justice Department froze about 75 bank accounts belonging to the three websites. The exact amount of money in each account and who that money actually belongs is not known at this time. It will probably take a thorough accounting of each company's records to know exactly where it should be allocated.
2. It's going to be a long time before we do
So once the criminal and civil cases are resolved and all the accounting is sorted out, players will likely be able get their money back... but that could be a long, long time from now.
According to the indictments, the Justice Department froze about 75 bank accounts belonging to the three websites. The exact amount of money in each account and who that money actually belongs is not known at this time. It will probably take a thorough accounting of each company's records to know exactly where it should be allocated.
So once the criminal and civil cases are resolved and all the accounting is sorted out, players will likely be able get their money back... but that could be a long, long time from now.
The standard deposit insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category.
I honestly do not know why you keep arguing this. To even think that any of the poker sites' capital equals one of the major financial firms is laughable. Even combined I doubt they'll come close.
You must not watch poker or play online poker at all.. Am i right? 250k isn't even 1st place in some online poker tounrys
Uhhh no, you're completely wrong. You bring up watching poker on TV? Lol. Geez, I have a feeling I have more poker experience than you.
250k isn't insurance for the banks. It's insurance for each depositor. So if we use poker site terms, that's for each USER instead of what you're probably thinking as it being for the entire site. For example, if you had 200k on Pokerstars and I had 200k on Pokerstars, we'd both get all of our money back if pokerstars was a FDIC insured bank. In fact, if you also had 250k on Fulltilt, 250k on UB, and 250k on Pokerstars and all were FDIC insured banks, the government would pay you 750k if they all went under.
Sure it doesn't help if you have millions on deposit, but it sure as hell dampens the blow for 99.9% of people, doesn't it?
Honestly, I feel many of you fail to comprehend how giant the global financial system really is. There is a ton of money in the global poker industry, but the financial system IS money. But I have no idea why the hell we are still talking about this.
Klogan is correct, we have something similar in Canada. Its call teh CIDC, it insures up to 100,000 for each type of account (bank accounts, term investments, ect). Its designed to protect against insolvency, so if a bank goes under and theres a major cash run, 90% of people will still get their money back from the government. Anybody with over that balance on deposit might lose anythiung above the 100k. It doesnt necessarily mean they will, but its a possibility.
Its a guarantee on your current money, not a a potential prize pool. Online poker is by no means even close to the size or security of the financial system.
ie. RBC is Canadas largest bank, and has about 726 Billion dollars in Assets. There are 4 other major banks in Canada the lowest with 350 billion. (Thats larger than the GDP of 90% of countries).
RBC is about the 30th biggest bank in the world, American Banks like JP morgan and Bank of america have over 2 trillion in assets. They are literally to big to fail (see government bailouts). If they werent bailed out the financial system of the US economy would have collapsed. Pokerstars was worth maybe 3-4 billion? Not even a comparison so I dont see why you would even argue that.
On April 16 2011 20:43 MrTortoise wrote: All gambling is is investing money with a probability of a return of some uncertain amount.
YOU GAMBLE EVERYTIME YOU BUY BREAD.
any form of transaction with uncertantity is gambling
due to heisenbergs uncertainty principle EVERYTHING is gambling and has to be tret using probability.
This happened at the turn of the 1900's
I hope you enjoyed your history and maths lesson.
Now can the right wing religious folken with their moral high ground please go and live in another country for a significant period of time.
"In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured."
That has nothing to do with "everything is uncertain." Just because you saw something called an uncertainty principle doesn't mean it means that. You should maybe look up what you're referencing before referencing it... Some of us actually know what these things mean.
On April 16 2011 20:43 MrTortoise wrote: All gambling is is investing money with a probability of a return of some uncertain amount.
YOU GAMBLE EVERYTIME YOU BUY BREAD.
any form of transaction with uncertantity is gambling
due to heisenbergs uncertainty principle EVERYTHING is gambling and has to be tret using probability.
This happened at the turn of the 1900's
I hope you enjoyed your history and maths lesson.
Now can the right wing religious folken with their moral high ground please go and live in another country for a significant period of time.
"In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured."
That has nothing to do with "everything is uncertain." Just because you saw something called an uncertainty principle doesn't mean it means that. You should maybe look up what you're referencing before referencing it... Some of us actually know what these things mean.
So, Heisenberg was pull over by a police officer and the officer ask him, "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replied, "No but I know exactly where I am."
But pretty much +1 to the above post. Heisenberg was not talking about fiscal transactions or risk management.
Plus to the earlier post, if you honestly think going all in on poker is less risky then going to buy a loaf of bread from your local market. Then wow, I don't even know where to start with that... I'm sorry your local market has a read on you, and keeps getting your money and their bread. Guess shopping isn't for everyone.
On April 17 2011 07:33 GeeseHoward wrote: Plus to the earlier post, if you honestly think going all in on poker is less risky then going to buy a loaf of bread from your local market. Then wow, I don't even know where to start with that... I'm sorry your local market has a read on you, and keeps getting your money and their bread. Guess shopping isn't for everyone.
He didn't say it was "as risky" or "more risky" than poker. But there is risk.
You buy a loaf of bread, you're banking on the fact that it won't go bad before you can use it. Or that it's not already bad and you just can't see that. The chance that it's bad might only be .05%, but that's a risk. The level of risk doesn't mean anything about the fact a risk is there.
So I guess you're just bad at reading? Or you're the type that see's "chance of bad weather" in the forecast and you tornado proof your house? No need to overreact man.
On April 16 2011 19:53 switchdev wrote: Is there any risk for legal action towards the players?
From that FBI poster: "For the persons engaged in the business of betting or wagering, it is also a federal crime to knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling, credit, electronic fund transfers, or checks."
I'm not into all the legal mumbo jumbo, but doesn't that sound like they're saying the players (within their jurisdiction) are on their radar too? I haven't seen this discussed yet in this thread.
I don't think the players really have anything to worry about. This whole case is primarily about the companies doing illegal things. It's a case against the companies, not the players.
The only issue the players have to worry about is: will they get their money back or not and if they do, when will that day come (if it ever comes)?
On April 17 2011 07:33 GeeseHoward wrote: Plus to the earlier post, if you honestly think going all in on poker is less risky then going to buy a loaf of bread from your local market. Then wow, I don't even know where to start with that... I'm sorry your local market has a read on you, and keeps getting your money and their bread. Guess shopping isn't for everyone.
He didn't say it was "as risky" or "more risky" than poker. But there is risk.
You buy a loaf of bread, you're banking on the fact that it won't go bad before you can use it. Or that it's not already bad and you just can't see that. The chance that it's bad might only be .05%, but that's a risk. The level of risk doesn't mean anything about the fact a risk is there.
So I guess you're just bad at reading? Or you're the type that see's "chance of bad weather" in the forecast and you tornado proof your house? No need to overreact man.
Why are you defending an obvious fallacy?
Poker involves risk, everything involves risk, ergo, since poker is gambling, everything is gambling.
On April 17 2011 07:33 GeeseHoward wrote: Plus to the earlier post, if you honestly think going all in on poker is less risky then going to buy a loaf of bread from your local market. Then wow, I don't even know where to start with that... I'm sorry your local market has a read on you, and keeps getting your money and their bread. Guess shopping isn't for everyone.
He didn't say it was "as risky" or "more risky" than poker. But there is risk.
You buy a loaf of bread, you're banking on the fact that it won't go bad before you can use it. Or that it's not already bad and you just can't see that. The chance that it's bad might only be .05%, but that's a risk. The level of risk doesn't mean anything about the fact a risk is there.
So I guess you're just bad at reading? Or you're the type that see's "chance of bad weather" in the forecast and you tornado proof your house? No need to overreact man.
Why are you defending an obvious fallacy?
Poker involves risk, everything involves risk, ergo, since poker is gambling, everything is gambling.
Are you really defending this argument?
Just as you can look both ways before crossing the road you can also practice good bankroll management and choose your limits appropriately. Poker is considerably less risky than pretty much everything else you do in life because its just a game. Some people play above their limits but equally some people refuse to wear seatbelts, end of the day you can't force people to make smart choices.
On April 17 2011 07:48 sermokala wrote: wow felt really really bad if poker strategy got taken down as well big heart poker stratagey for this awesome starleauge
This has nothing to do with PokerStrategy.com, despite them sharing the PS acronym with Poker Stars. :p
It does show you why they don't accept US members though!
On April 17 2011 07:48 sermokala wrote: wow felt really really bad if poker strategy got taken down as well big heart poker stratagey for this awesome starleauge
This has nothing to do with PokerStrategy.com, despite them sharing the PS acronym with Poker Stars. :p
It does show you why they don't accept US members though!
not really, if they dont literally do the gambling, why cant we look at the educational stuff anyway? there isnt any law about learning about games of skill, even if they are a gray area. the only issue is that site gives bonuses to sites that accept EU only players.
im still looking for a good free poker strategy site that just has a bunch of stuff to learn from and is free, without the complete this test earn $50 to a EU pokersite lol.(meaning they dont allow US players) Even without online poker i still like to play live games.
Though in all honesty i never understood why Poker is a gray area anyway.
On April 17 2011 08:20 xZiGGY wrote: So long, and thanks for all the fish? :S
On April 17 2011 07:33 GeeseHoward wrote: Plus to the earlier post, if you honestly think going all in on poker is less risky then going to buy a loaf of bread from your local market. Then wow, I don't even know where to start with that... I'm sorry your local market has a read on you, and keeps getting your money and their bread. Guess shopping isn't for everyone.
He didn't say it was "as risky" or "more risky" than poker. But there is risk.
You buy a loaf of bread, you're banking on the fact that it won't go bad before you can use it. Or that it's not already bad and you just can't see that. The chance that it's bad might only be .05%, but that's a risk. The level of risk doesn't mean anything about the fact a risk is there.
So I guess you're just bad at reading? Or you're the type that see's "chance of bad weather" in the forecast and you tornado proof your house? No need to overreact man.
Why are you defending an obvious fallacy?
Poker involves risk, everything involves risk, ergo, since poker is gambling, everything is gambling.
Are you really defending this argument?
Just as you can look both ways before crossing the road you can also practice good bankroll management and choose your limits appropriately. Poker is considerably less risky than pretty much everything else you do in life because its just a game. Some people play above their limits but equally some people refuse to wear seatbelts, end of the day you can't force people to make smart choices.
The big risk is, of course, playing online poker when it's illegal
Poker is considerably less risky than pretty much everything else you do in life because its just a game. Some people play above their limits but equally some people refuse to wear seatbelts, end of the day you can't force people to make smart choices.
Pretty sure safety belt wearing, car seats and a number of other safety based regulations do indeed exist and aren't being decried as mass government overreach.
On April 17 2011 10:09 sikyon wrote: The big risk is, of course, playing online poker when it's illegal
Are you sure about this? This what some dude from the PPA has to say:
"The phrase "in the business of betting and wagering" has been around since the 1960's Wire Act and has been interpreted many times by Federal Courts. It has NEVER been applied to a mere player. The cases that discuss its meaning all center around just how much more than a mere player a defendant has to be in order for the phrase to apply.
At a House Committee hearing a few years ago the DOJ USA for Missouri admitted that mere poker players were not in violation of any Federal Law."
Poker is considerably less risky than pretty much everything else you do in life because its just a game. Some people play above their limits but equally some people refuse to wear seatbelts, end of the day you can't force people to make smart choices.
Pretty sure safety belt wearing, car seats and a number of other safety based regulations do indeed exist and aren't being decried as mass government overreach.
I decry them as government overreach.
On topic: I hope that they legalize online poker play, but I certainly don't understand what issues are at stake in all of this. Obviously the majority of people just want a way to win money from other individuals who they could otherwise not meet.
Poker is considerably less risky than pretty much everything else you do in life because its just a game. Some people play above their limits but equally some people refuse to wear seatbelts, end of the day you can't force people to make smart choices.
Pretty sure safety belt wearing, car seats and a number of other safety based regulations do indeed exist and aren't being decried as mass government overreach.
But they don't make it illegal to drive just because some people don't wear seatbelts. That's the point.
On April 17 2011 10:09 sikyon wrote: The big risk is, of course, playing online poker when it's illegal
Are you sure about this? This what some dude from the PPA has to say:
"The phrase "in the business of betting and wagering" has been around since the 1960's Wire Act and has been interpreted many times by Federal Courts. It has NEVER been applied to a mere player. The cases that discuss its meaning all center around just how much more than a mere player a defendant has to be in order for the phrase to apply.
At a House Committee hearing a few years ago the DOJ USA for Missouri admitted that mere poker players were not in violation of any Federal Law."
Even if the risk to your person is low in terms of going to jail, as we can see there is a substantial risk that the businesses which run these operations may be targetted.
Poker is considerably less risky than pretty much everything else you do in life because its just a game. Some people play above their limits but equally some people refuse to wear seatbelts, end of the day you can't force people to make smart choices.
Pretty sure safety belt wearing, car seats and a number of other safety based regulations do indeed exist and aren't being decried as mass government overreach.
But they don't make it illegal to drive just because some people don't wear seatbelts. That's the point.
the flaw of the seat belt argument is that there is no downside to wearing the seatbelt. A seat belt is a safety feature, not a form of income or recreational activity.
Poker is considerably less risky than pretty much everything else you do in life because its just a game. Some people play above their limits but equally some people refuse to wear seatbelts, end of the day you can't force people to make smart choices.
Pretty sure safety belt wearing, car seats and a number of other safety based regulations do indeed exist and aren't being decried as mass government overreach.
I decry them as government overreach.
On topic: I hope that they legalize online poker play, but I certainly don't understand what issues are at stake in all of this. Obviously the majority of people just want a way to win money from other individuals who they could otherwise not meet.
I liked being able to play poker at affordable rates, Ie extremely low stakes, freerolls. Which i have no where else to play these. The Minimum buy in at the nearest casinos is to expensive. And they dont run tournament type events often,Plus i just dont like cash games to much. but there is 0 competition to that casino so they do whatever they want, and charge whatever they want in rake...
Poker is considerably less risky than pretty much everything else you do in life because its just a game. Some people play above their limits but equally some people refuse to wear seatbelts, end of the day you can't force people to make smart choices.
Pretty sure safety belt wearing, car seats and a number of other safety based regulations do indeed exist and aren't being decried as mass government overreach.
But they don't make it illegal to drive just because some people don't wear seatbelts. That's the point.
And it's also not illegal to play poker, even for money; it's just restricted. Just like driving with respect to wearing a seatbelt.
On April 17 2011 07:33 GeeseHoward wrote: Plus to the earlier post, if you honestly think going all in on poker is less risky then going to buy a loaf of bread from your local market. Then wow, I don't even know where to start with that... I'm sorry your local market has a read on you, and keeps getting your money and their bread. Guess shopping isn't for everyone.
He didn't say it was "as risky" or "more risky" than poker. But there is risk.
You buy a loaf of bread, you're banking on the fact that it won't go bad before you can use it. Or that it's not already bad and you just can't see that. The chance that it's bad might only be .05%, but that's a risk. The level of risk doesn't mean anything about the fact a risk is there.
So I guess you're just bad at reading? Or you're the type that see's "chance of bad weather" in the forecast and you tornado proof your house? No need to overreact man.
This is just stupid. If you buy a bad loaf of bread you can return it or even sue. There is virtually no risk for the consumer.
On April 17 2011 07:33 GeeseHoward wrote: Plus to the earlier post, if you honestly think going all in on poker is less risky then going to buy a loaf of bread from your local market. Then wow, I don't even know where to start with that... I'm sorry your local market has a read on you, and keeps getting your money and their bread. Guess shopping isn't for everyone.
He didn't say it was "as risky" or "more risky" than poker. But there is risk.
You buy a loaf of bread, you're banking on the fact that it won't go bad before you can use it. Or that it's not already bad and you just can't see that. The chance that it's bad might only be .05%, but that's a risk. The level of risk doesn't mean anything about the fact a risk is there.
So I guess you're just bad at reading? Or you're the type that see's "chance of bad weather" in the forecast and you tornado proof your house? No need to overreact man.
This is just stupid. If you buy a bad loaf of bread you can return it or even sue. There is virtually no risk for the consumer.
no but you could get into a car crash on the way to buy that loaf of bread. or you could drop it in a puddle.. or any other potential random occurrence involved in buying that loaf of bread.
its a sad day Im glad i stopped playing a year or two ago sad though i made some good money. It will be back one way or another though. Wayyyyy too much money to made
My condolences to those who most likely lost money due to those sites being shut down by the Fed. I saw that some people had thousands of dollars on those sites... Yikes, that's gotta hurt. That could have been living expenses for at least a few months. Yikes.
On April 16 2011 04:07 StarStruck wrote: It's just one of the risks you take by doing it. :/
No it really isn't. Don't make it sound like it's the poker players' fault for losing the money.
This is not something anyone could have ever foreseen. Ever. There were maybe like a few thousand people in the whole world who knew what was going on.
Say you get struck by a meteor playing golf. That is not one of the risks of playing golf.
I think I just lost my £400 for my euro trip then.
While I sympathize with the players who lost money, I think "meteor while playing golf" is a bit over-dramatic.
The fact is online poker has always been a grey area, whether it was the passage of the UIGEA in 2006 or just the sites themselves having problems with cheating and shills.
A lot of you are probably too young to remember this but online poker has been on the government's radar for almost a decade. It was always a question of WHEN the "meteor" would hit, not IF.
That said there was no telling when. It sucks that it happened now, but it was inevitable.
Online gambling is only a gray area in the US. Pretty sure it's legal anywhere else in the world.
On April 16 2011 04:07 StarStruck wrote: It's just one of the risks you take by doing it. :/
No it really isn't. Don't make it sound like it's the poker players' fault for losing the money.
This is not something anyone could have ever foreseen. Ever. There were maybe like a few thousand people in the whole world who knew what was going on.
Say you get struck by a meteor playing golf. That is not one of the risks of playing golf.
I think I just lost my £400 for my euro trip then.
While I sympathize with the players who lost money, I think "meteor while playing golf" is a bit over-dramatic.
The fact is online poker has always been a grey area, whether it was the passage of the UIGEA in 2006 or just the sites themselves having problems with cheating and shills.
A lot of you are probably too young to remember this but online poker has been on the government's radar for almost a decade. It was always a question of WHEN the "meteor" would hit, not IF.
That said there was no telling when. It sucks that it happened now, but it was inevitable.
Online gambling is only a gray area in the US. Pretty sure it's legal anywhere else in the world.
I disagree with what the US is doing. It is none of their business if one gambles, only if they don't pay taxes which is why this is coming about even though it is under the guise of people aren't responsible with money.
What will most likely happen. Loopholes for certain people to get their money out. Anyone from the US is screwed most likely in all situations because you were breaking the law. Other countries if the US can get hold of the poker site's money will be able to cash out.
So fucking sad that this is one of the US's concerns with all the other shit we're dealing with.
On April 16 2011 04:07 StarStruck wrote: It's just one of the risks you take by doing it. :/
No it really isn't. Don't make it sound like it's the poker players' fault for losing the money.
This is not something anyone could have ever foreseen. Ever. There were maybe like a few thousand people in the whole world who knew what was going on.
Say you get struck by a meteor playing golf. That is not one of the risks of playing golf.
I think I just lost my £400 for my euro trip then.
While I sympathize with the players who lost money, I think "meteor while playing golf" is a bit over-dramatic.
The fact is online poker has always been a grey area, whether it was the passage of the UIGEA in 2006 or just the sites themselves having problems with cheating and shills.
A lot of you are probably too young to remember this but online poker has been on the government's radar for almost a decade. It was always a question of WHEN the "meteor" would hit, not IF.
That said there was no telling when. It sucks that it happened now, but it was inevitable.
Online gambling is only a gray area in the US. Pretty sure it's legal anywhere else in the world.
Example from Germany: lotteries are run by the state. There are a few casinos with a license for gambling. Betting offices need a license. For the licenses there needs to be some kind of proof that minors are protected and I guess there are some rules to do something about gambling addiction.
I remember PartyPoker at first accepted German customers and then for a few years stopped it, because they were notified that poker counts as gambling and they may not accept German customers without a German license. At that time only the special companies that were already running the "offline" casinos could get a license for that. I think I remember PartyPoker only got a license after regulations were changed, possibly because of the EU.
Before regulations were changed to encompass online stuff, it was absolutely a gray area.
Poker is considerably less risky than pretty much everything else you do in life because its just a game. Some people play above their limits but equally some people refuse to wear seatbelts, end of the day you can't force people to make smart choices.
Pretty sure safety belt wearing, car seats and a number of other safety based regulations do indeed exist and aren't being decried as mass government overreach.
But they don't make it illegal to drive just because some people don't wear seatbelts. That's the point.
They kinda do, in Washington its a 1st offense or whatever so they can pull you over for it, and just it. So the can effectively harras you indefinitely or until you have enough tickets that they pull your license....
Well all this will do is create a massive black market for 'underground' poker. I'm sure, that'll be much better for the safety and well-being of consumer's than playing on the internet.
I have my entire roll (3k+) stuck online. poker accounts for 75% of my income (i work full time as a line cook). i am basically completely screwed as i cannot support my lifestyle without poker. I am backed for all my play and thus do not have alot of my own money. However 3k is about 4 months of bills
This is pure bullshit. Politics and economy should never mix. Politics creates problems that wouldn't exists just for their own image. It is easier to improve your popularity with simple concept of "this is bad, this is good" than it is with real work (Not saying they are not also doing the real work). It is also bullshit that FBI can block a website of a non-US company. They should be able to do so only for the internet user of the USA or internationally for website of .us not .com... Now, one thing I am pretty sure, is that money of US players will be safe, incomes not . It is essential for the poker sites integrity that they get the money to their clients no matter what, even if they have penal attack on US ground. The people running the website risk to be banned from USA for the rest of their life but that's about it. No country will probably send them to US for such accusation when you see how hard it is to get a rapist or a killer.
On April 17 2011 18:12 0x64 wrote: This is pure bullshit. Politics and economy should never mix. Politics creates problems that wouldn't exists just for their own image. It is easier to improve your popularity with simple concept of "this is bad, this is good" than it is with real work (Not saying they are not also doing the real work). It is also bullshit that FBI can block a website of a non-US company. They should be able to do so only for the internet user of the USA or internationally for website of .us not .com... Now, one thing I am pretty sure, is that money of US players will be safe, incomes not . It is essential for the poker sites integrity that they get the money to their clients no matter what, even if they have penal attack on US ground. The people running the website risk to be banned from USA for the rest of their life but that's about it. No country will probably send them to US for such accusation when you see how hard it is to get a rapist or a killer.
I doubt that those who have had their money seized will get it back. Just take a look at the Liberty Dollar and all the millions of dollars stolen by the Government. I would not bank on getting that money back.
Why is pokerstrategy blocked in the US then? If it isn't a gambling website it shouldn't be banned correct? Poker on the whole isn't illegal nor is gaining a strategy about playing.
On April 17 2011 18:35 NoobSkills wrote: Why is pokerstrategy blocked in the US then? If it isn't a gambling website it shouldn't be banned correct? Poker on the whole isn't illegal nor is gaining a strategy about playing.
Now, guess who conducts gambling? The State of Washington (You'll find that the Government generally likes to exclude itself from the laws it writes for the rest of us).
On April 17 2011 18:35 NoobSkills wrote: Why is pokerstrategy blocked in the US then? If it isn't a gambling website it shouldn't be banned correct? Poker on the whole isn't illegal nor is gaining a strategy about playing.
Now, guess who conducts gambling? The State of Washington.
That went beyond my point. That knowing about poker isn't illegal aka the strategy website. All state have lotteries which have shit chances and all luck. They reap benefits while prevent people who actually have a brain and realize that playing the lottery is stupid from playing poker.
Oh man, i wasn't that much of a pokerplayer, i played sometimes on pokerstars for fun with small amounts (125dollar my account had) but "thankfully" i lost it all on a losing spree haha otherwise my money would have been gone now.
But this is fucking huge, i know tons of players who play there with different amounts, and they basically just all lost their money.
On April 16 2011 04:07 StarStruck wrote: It's just one of the risks you take by doing it. :/
No it really isn't. Don't make it sound like it's the poker players' fault for losing the money.
This is not something anyone could have ever foreseen. Ever. There were maybe like a few thousand people in the whole world who knew what was going on.
Say you get struck by a meteor playing golf. That is not one of the risks of playing golf.
I think I just lost my £400 for my euro trip then.
Loling at all the people saying "damn gubnamint gettin involved with economies~~!!"
This has nothing to do with economy, it's about law and regulation. While it obviously screws the people who have open accounts on there, it's not like the US government will just take all the money if they find them guilty. You guys are aware what happens when a company goes bankrupt, right? All assets are liquified, and then all creditors are paid out. And while the bigger ones usually get the bigger shares, these companies should be able to meet their debts almost entirely when liquified, considering most of their assets are probably just internet servers and bank accounts. You'd have to look at their balance sheet to be sure. They might even see large fines or jail times, but that'll be on the head of the CEO for gross mismanagement(fraud/illegal business conduct falls under this), allowing the assets of the company to still be turned into liquidity so any outstanding debts can be paid out.
Either way, while the money is frozen now, no one is stealing it from you. You'll probably get a large part - if not all of it - right back.
On April 17 2011 20:18 HoldenR wrote: Loling at all the people saying "damn gubnamint gettin involved with economies~~!!"
This has nothing to do with economy, it's about law and regulation. While it obviously screws the people who have open accounts on there, it's not like the US government will just take all the money if they find them guilty. You guys are aware what happens when a company goes bankrupt, right? All assets are liquified, and then all creditors are paid out. And while the bigger ones usually get the bigger shares, these companies should be able to meet their debts almost entirely when liquified, considering most of their assets are probably just internet servers and bank accounts. You'd have to look at their balance sheet to be sure. They might even see large fines or jail times, but that'll be on the head of the CEO for gross mismanagement(fraud/illegal business conduct falls under this), allowing the assets of the company to still be turned into liquidity so any outstanding debts can be paid out.
Either way, while the money is frozen now, no one is stealing it from you. You'll probably get a large part - if not all of it - right back.
More than likely, the Government will keep the assets as forfeiture for illegal activity. Do they give the investors in any other illegal activity their money back? No. They seize it (aka steal it). I know I am not getting my assets back that were stolen from me by the Government when they illegally confiscated and shut down the Liberty Dollar. Also, I fail to see how a multi-billion dollar industry has *nothing* to do with the economy.
Your post was a giant non-sequitor considering these enterprises are not going bankrupt, they are getting raided & seized for illegal activity.
For all those who had their property stolen, do not expect it back, as it most likely will not be returned.
On April 17 2011 20:18 HoldenR wrote: Loling at all the people saying "damn gubnamint gettin involved with economies~~!!"
This has nothing to do with economy, it's about law and regulation. While it obviously screws the people who have open accounts on there, it's not like the US government will just take all the money if they find them guilty. You guys are aware what happens when a company goes bankrupt, right? All assets are liquified, and then all creditors are paid out. And while the bigger ones usually get the bigger shares, these companies should be able to meet their debts almost entirely when liquified, considering most of their assets are probably just internet servers and bank accounts. You'd have to look at their balance sheet to be sure. They might even see large fines or jail times, but that'll be on the head of the CEO for gross mismanagement(fraud/illegal business conduct falls under this), allowing the assets of the company to still be turned into liquidity so any outstanding debts can be paid out.
Either way, while the money is frozen now, no one is stealing it from you. You'll probably get a large part - if not all of it - right back.
More than likely, the Government will keep the assets as forfeiture for illegal activity. Do they give the investors in any other illegal activity their money back? No. They seize it (aka steal it). I know I am not getting my assets back that were stolen from me by the Government when they illegally confiscated and shut down the Liberty Dollar. Also, I fail to see how a multi-billion dollar industry has *nothing* to do with the economy.
Your post was a giant non-sequitor considering these enterprises are not going bankrupt, they are getting raided & seized for illegal activity.
For all those who had their property stolen, do not expect it back, as it most likely will not be returned.
I would be very surprised if they kept their money in any place the United States can grab it. A poker site is only as good as their reputation, they make silly amounts of money through rake but if anyone doubted the security of their bankroll they'd instantly cash out. The result is they have a massive incentive to absolutely guarantee players' bankrolls.
Q: Is my money safe with PokerStars? A: Since beginning operations in 2001, PokerStars has conducted many millions of deposit, cashout, and transfer transactions for our players. In all cases we have, and will continue to, use legitimate and safe transaction methods which have been tested for safety and security.
Additionally, PokerStars player funds and account balances are held in separate accounts at a leading European bank, and are not used for any operational expenses. Such an arrangement ensures we can at all times fulfill any financial obligations to our players, and provides further reassurance that player funds are always secure with PokerStars.
On April 17 2011 20:18 HoldenR wrote: Loling at all the people saying "damn gubnamint gettin involved with economies~~!!"
This has nothing to do with economy, it's about law and regulation. While it obviously screws the people who have open accounts on there, it's not like the US government will just take all the money if they find them guilty. You guys are aware what happens when a company goes bankrupt, right? All assets are liquified, and then all creditors are paid out. And while the bigger ones usually get the bigger shares, these companies should be able to meet their debts almost entirely when liquified, considering most of their assets are probably just internet servers and bank accounts. You'd have to look at their balance sheet to be sure. They might even see large fines or jail times, but that'll be on the head of the CEO for gross mismanagement(fraud/illegal business conduct falls under this), allowing the assets of the company to still be turned into liquidity so any outstanding debts can be paid out.
Either way, while the money is frozen now, no one is stealing it from you. You'll probably get a large part - if not all of it - right back.
More than likely, the Government will keep the assets as forfeiture for illegal activity. Do they give the investors in any other illegal activity their money back? No. They seize it (aka steal it). I know I am not getting my assets back that were stolen from me by the Government when they illegally confiscated and shut down the Liberty Dollar. Also, I fail to see how a multi-billion dollar industry has *nothing* to do with the economy.
Your post was a giant non-sequitor considering these enterprises are not going bankrupt, they are getting raided & seized for illegal activity.
For all those who had their property stolen, do not expect it back, as it most likely will not be returned.
I would be very surprised if they kept their money in any place the United States can grab it. A poker site is only as good as their reputation, they make silly amounts of money through rake but if anyone doubted the security of their bankroll they'd instantly cash out. The result is they have a massive incentive to absolutely guarantee players' bankrolls.
Q: Is my money safe with PokerStars? A: Since beginning operations in 2001, PokerStars has conducted many millions of deposit, cashout, and transfer transactions for our players. In all cases we have, and will continue to, use legitimate and safe transaction methods which have been tested for safety and security.
Additionally, PokerStars player funds and account balances are held in separate accounts at a leading European bank, and are not used for any operational expenses. Such an arrangement ensures we can at all times fulfill any financial obligations to our players, and provides further reassurance that player funds are always secure with PokerStars.
I hope this to be the case, however, since Americans are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government they will more than likely not allow your property to be returned since the act was conducted under their jurisdiction. That is the most likely outcome.
On April 17 2011 20:37 phil.ipp wrote: yeah, and if they all go to jail, its obviously really important to them if the users get the money back.
wake up people.
Stars is based on the Isle of Man, very much outside the jurisdiction of the US government. The money is kept in a bank in Europe and the majority of money in that bank is entirely legal, belonging to poker players from all around the world where online poker is legal. The only person with the code to which money belongs to who is pokerstars. The money is, imo, completely safe. Poker sites will live on because the US has no power over them and while they live there is nothing more important to them than making sure those cashouts get processed.
On April 16 2011 20:25 DooMeR wrote: GOOD NEW GUYS. PS just gave me a call. they are calling up SNEs and supernovas right now to let them know that their money is fine(talking about US players, i was assured that other countries its business as usual). And that apparently there will be means for cashing out when the week starts again. Thats pretty much the jist of it but it was very reassuring also proving why PS has always been the best poker site by a mile. Ask any long time SN or SNE and you will hear about how well they have been treated.
On April 17 2011 20:37 phil.ipp wrote: yeah, and if they all go to jail, its obviously really important to them if the users get the money back.
wake up people.
Stars is based on the Isle of Man, very much outside the jurisdiction of the US government. The money is kept in a bank in Europe and the majority of money in that bank is entirely legal, belonging to poker players from all around the world where online poker is legal. The only person with the code to which money belongs to who is pokerstars. The money is, imo, completely safe. Poker sites will live on because the US has no power over them and while they live there is nothing more important to them than making sure those cashouts get processed.
Yes, they are indeed outside the jurisdiction of the USG, however, citizens of the US are under the jurisdiction of the USG. The same reason they seize the property of those who engage in drug enterprises, who have money sent to them from outside the US. Once the money enters the US it falls under US jurisdiction. Also, it is USG policy through the IRS that essentially, wherever a US citizen is, the Government has jurisdiction thereof. If these companies are charged with illegal activities (online gambling is illegal in the US), the outcome will most likely be forfeiture.
This allowed me to open full tilt, but I could not get the connection to the secure server to cash out.
2 - Do the following: ------------------------------- 1. Start -> type "notepad" at the place where you can search. 2. Right-click notepad 3. Click "Run as administrator" 4. Click OK if y 'which opens a popup 5. File -> Open 6. Open c: \ windows \ system32 \ drivers \ etc \ hosts 7. Add this line at the end of this file:
91.211.97.17 cashier.fulltiltpoker.com
8. Close your browser 9. Go on fulltilt
You should now be able to reach the transfers etc windows.
They[the poker sites] have not being asked to forfeit that money given to them for gambling. There's no mention of seizing all assets or forcing the businesses to cease operations completely — unless that becomes necessary to pay their $3 billion in sought penalties.
In 2007, a similar case was brought against Netteller, an online payment processor that was also accused of working with gambling sites. They eventually reached a settlement with the government, paid fines, and stayed in business, and (as far as we can tell) most of their customers did get their money back.
I imagine the political fallout from this will be big. There must be millions of Americans with money online. I guess we will just have to wait and see.
This allowed me to open full tilt, but I could not get the connection to the secure server to cash out.
2 - Do the following: ------------------------------- 1. Start -> type "notepad" at the place where you can search. 2. Right-click notepad 3. Click "Run as administrator" 4. Click OK if y 'which opens a popup 5. File -> Open 6. Open c: \ windows \ system32 \ drivers \ etc \ hosts 7. Add this line at the end of this file:
91.211.97.17 cashier.fulltiltpoker.com
8. Close your browser 9. Go on fulltilt
You should now be able to reach the transfers etc windows.
I wouldn't trust this until you get official confirmation from the actual site. Sending your information to some arbitrary IP and downloading a client from what seems like an unofficial site. Be careful.
On April 17 2011 20:37 phil.ipp wrote: yeah, and if they all go to jail, its obviously really important to them if the users get the money back.
wake up people.
Stars is based on the Isle of Man, very much outside the jurisdiction of the US government. The money is kept in a bank in Europe and the majority of money in that bank is entirely legal, belonging to poker players from all around the world where online poker is legal. The only person with the code to which money belongs to who is pokerstars. The money is, imo, completely safe. Poker sites will live on because the US has no power over them and while they live there is nothing more important to them than making sure those cashouts get processed.
On April 17 2011 20:37 phil.ipp wrote: yeah, and if they all go to jail, its obviously really important to them if the users get the money back.
wake up people.
Stars is based on the Isle of Man, very much outside the jurisdiction of the US government. The money is kept in a bank in Europe and the majority of money in that bank is entirely legal, belonging to poker players from all around the world where online poker is legal. The only person with the code to which money belongs to who is pokerstars. The money is, imo, completely safe. Poker sites will live on because the US has no power over them and while they live there is nothing more important to them than making sure those cashouts get processed.
But the issue is not if these websites have the money - I am sure they do. The question is how US customers gambling illegally will be able to retrieve those funds. That's how the entire crackdown occurred - banks were illegally processing transactions for the websites. If the strategies and the bribes the poker websites have been using get shut down, then how are you going to get a check issued to you when you want to cash out? What bank is going to process such a transaction if it is apparent that you are using it to illegally transfer funds in relation to online gambling?
On April 18 2011 07:11 Gositerran wrote: i believe this isnt only in usa since i live in mexico and i cant acces any of those websites perhaps some states of canada / mexico too?
The sites were taken down, but they moved their websites to the following.
There are a few websites, Cake poker and Carbon poker I think. I wouldn't really risk trying to play online poker if I was living in the US right now. Give it a few weeks or months to see where it is at.
A lot of sites will claim to cater to US players, but what makes their banking special to get around this? Also if they get busted they probably don't have the capital the big two have to stay afloat.
This allowed me to open full tilt, but I could not get the connection to the secure server to cash out.
2 - Do the following: ------------------------------- 1. Start -> type "notepad" at the place where you can search. 2. Right-click notepad 3. Click "Run as administrator" 4. Click OK if y 'which opens a popup 5. File -> Open 6. Open c: \ windows \ system32 \ drivers \ etc \ hosts 7. Add this line at the end of this file:
91.211.97.17 cashier.fulltiltpoker.com
8. Close your browser 9. Go on fulltilt
You should now be able to reach the transfers etc windows.
I wouldn't trust this until you get official confirmation from the actual site. Sending your information to some arbitrary IP and downloading a client from what seems like an unofficial site. Be careful.
The IP is legit, dns records for cashier.fulltiltpoker.co.uk point to 91.211.97.17 , all it looks like it's doing is tricking your computer to go to cashier.fulltiltpoker.co.uk instead of cashier.fulltiltpoker.com (which is down for obvious reasons)
This allowed me to open full tilt, but I could not get the connection to the secure server to cash out.
2 - Do the following: ------------------------------- 1. Start -> type "notepad" at the place where you can search. 2. Right-click notepad 3. Click "Run as administrator" 4. Click OK if y 'which opens a popup 5. File -> Open 6. Open c: \ windows \ system32 \ drivers \ etc \ hosts 7. Add this line at the end of this file:
91.211.97.17 cashier.fulltiltpoker.com
8. Close your browser 9. Go on fulltilt
You should now be able to reach the transfers etc windows.
I wouldn't trust this until you get official confirmation from the actual site. Sending your information to some arbitrary IP and downloading a client from what seems like an unofficial site. Be careful.
The IP is legit, dns records for cashier.fulltiltpoker.co.uk point to 91.211.97.17 , all it looks like it's doing is tricking your computer to go to cashier.fulltiltpoker.co.uk instead of cashier.fulltiltpoker.com (which is down for obvious reasons)
that's correct. hosts file entries take precedence over dns lookup, so it's basically an override.
I have not had the time to read every post in this thread but i saw on SOURCE that everybodys funds are safe although it may take some time to get your money back.
Anyone who wants to help the poker community should take a little time to visit the link below. It only takes a minute or so to send letters to the President, Attorney General, and Congress. Calling during the day would also be useful.
I had 6k frozen on full tilt. I don't know when (or if) I will get that money back, but I'm going to do what I can to raise hell with my representatives in the mean time. I strongly encourage everyone else to do the same, even if you don't play yourself. After all, a lot of poker money seems to find its way into e-sports, it would be a shame if that dried up.
I have a question that isnt worth its own thread so I'll ask it here (hope it's ok): What site would you recommend me to start playing on? I'm from Europe and I have never played online poker before. My 1st step was of course pokerstrategy via TL reference, now I'm wondering where to put my initial 50$. I guess pokestars.eu or partypoker?
As a person who was just recently(this weekend) going to deposit money into pokerstars, are all accounts frozen? Even international accounts? Or is this seizure of accounts merely for the illegal-gambling american accounts.
On April 20 2011 04:33 Khyrandor wrote: I have a question that isnt worth its own thread so I'll ask it here (hope it's ok): What site would you recommend me to start playing on? I'm from Europe and I have never played online poker before. My 1st step was of course pokerstrategy via TL reference, now I'm wondering where to put my initial 50$. I guess pokestars.eu or partypoker?
Partypoker might be a safer bet right now, but it's probably not a good time to start. As far as I know Partypoker never allowed US citizens, which should make it safe to use that room. Rooms that did allow for US citizens should maybe avoided for now to see how all this pans out.
Apparently the Feds aren't looking to hurt the actual players at all, and contend that the poker companies freezing player accounts was a move that was not forced on the companies themselves.
This confuses me as to what the Feds are actually looking to do with this online poker thing. Do they want to stop online gambling? Do they acknowledge the industry and not wish to harm US players but wish to target people from outside the US doing this kind of business? Was it a bank crackdown?
It's just unfortunate there isn't much of a movement among the high stakes pro scene to do something about this. I get that pros with a stake in the ownership of a poker site like Lederer or Jesus probably would be better advised not to speak out, but there's no reason why guys like Gus or Ivey couldn't. Especially with their livelihood on the line - sure they play live, but it's indisputable that you can't make up nearly the volume by playing live compared to online, which evens out some of the downswings/breakeven stretches that you inevitably experience with playing poker.
On April 16 2011 19:53 switchdev wrote: Is there any risk for legal action towards the players?
From that FBI poster: "For the persons engaged in the business of betting or wagering, it is also a federal crime to knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling, credit, electronic fund transfers, or checks."
I'm not into all the legal mumbo jumbo, but doesn't that sound like they're saying the players (within their jurisdiction) are on their radar too? I haven't seen this discussed yet in this thread.
Pretty sure the DoJ already said they're not taking action towards individual players (don't have the source handy sorry), but only aimed at the laundering of the site owners.
On April 21 2011 03:39 esperanto wrote: What was illegal with these poker-sites? Could anyone explain it again? Is it online-gambling in general in the US or just some tax-stuff?
it has to do with the unlawful internet gambling enforcement act which boils down to the fact that US banks cannot knowingly accept payments which are used to fund online gambling sites (it didn't mention poker specifically which is why some people have problems with it - the language is intentionally vague as is with most laws).
these big sites knew that straight up, a bank would not accept a transfer that's supposed to head to Pokerstars, Full Tilt, etc. to circumvent this, they set up dummy companies that sell fairly innocuous services/goods like golf balls, flowers or whatever. the payment is routed to these dummy companies instead which the US banks have no problems accepting, but they do so without knowledge that the money goes to offshore poker sites.
the US government catches wind of this, by using undercovers to probe these dummy companies and find out that the customer support on the other end is actually from the poker sites, hence these money laundering charges.
to the best of my understanding this is the bone that the US govt has to pick with online poker. none of these charges are directed at individual players, although of course by restricting the money flow between the US banks and poker sites, it affects the players.
Federal prosecutors in Manhattan may have declared war against the world’s biggest online poker companies, but the two sides are working together to return funds belonging to U.S. players.
Under an agreement announced today, the government will allow PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker to use their web sites to facilitate the withdrawal of U.S. players’ funds held in accounts with the companies. The five-page domain-name use agreements with PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker will also let the poker companies continue to use their domain names to offer for-money online poker games to players outside the U.S. In return the world’s two biggest online poker companies have agreed not to facilitate for-money poker games for U.S. players and to let an independent monitor verify their compliance with the deal.
Federal prosecutors in Manhattan may have declared war against the world’s biggest online poker companies, but the two sides are working together to return funds belonging to U.S. players.
Under an agreement announced today, the government will allow PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker to use their web sites to facilitate the withdrawal of U.S. players’ funds held in accounts with the companies. The five-page domain-name use agreements with PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker will also let the poker companies continue to use their domain names to offer for-money online poker games to players outside the U.S. In return the world’s two biggest online poker companies have agreed not to facilitate for-money poker games for U.S. players and to let an independent monitor verify their compliance with the deal.
That's a relief to know that the we will get our money back at least.
I am someone "in the know" with this stuff and maybe can offer some help. I grunched the thread pretty quickly, but I feel like I've used TL a lot and haven't given a ton back, and I can help here. There's some misinformation in this thread from my quick glance at it.
So if you guys have any questions about what is going on, let me know ITT and I'll reply the best I can. I am "karak2p2" from the Quadjacks show if anyone has been watching that in the past few days.
Does this effect any sponsors to starcraft 2 teams that are poker sites? Like ROOTgaming is a NA team, but the U.S isn't allowed to play online poker on Pokerstars anymore, so does root still have that sponsor?
Full Tilt's Gaming License suspended. The client is unreachable atm so you cannot obviously go to play or withdraw any money.
The Alderney Gambling Control Commission (AGCC) has suspended Full Tilt’s licences, requiring the poker room to suspend all operations from the jurisdiction with immediate effect.
The AGCC said in a statement this morning: “The decision to suspend these licenses follows a special investigation prompted by the indictments unsealed by US Attorney General’s Office in the Southern District of New York on 15th April 2011, during which grounds were found to indicate that these licensees and their business associates were operating contrary to Alderney legislation."
Sigh. The article says that the trial will happen on the 27th of July :| So won't be able to touch my funds until then and even then it's not guaranteed to be given back.
EPT![[image loading]](http://pokerstars.com/banner7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/9rpzD.jpg)
.
.
![[image loading]](http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/4da896d7ccd1d5a30d130000/daniel-tzvetkoff-online-poker-fbi.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/1947/effs.png)
![[image loading]](http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w300/Kevmath/pokerstarsstatement.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/3514/craft.jpg)
