I'll be displaying some favorite videos.....from time to time
Leave comments....
~Wc
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Gambling Law Professor, I. Nelson Rose Interprets Finalized UIGEA Regulations
It took 66 pages of fine print. But in the end the federal regulators charged with making regulations to enforce the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (“UIGEA”) simply gave up. They were supposed to make rules forcing financial institutions to identify and block money transfers for unlawful Internet gambling transactions. But they were defeated by the difficulty of defining what was unlawful and the impossibility of tracking individual transactions. So they told credit card companies to come up with some additional code numbers for gambling transactions and everyone else can basically continue to do what they are now doing – oh, and financial institutions have to send a notice to all their clients telling them not to be involved in illegal gambling.
How it affects US players
Only a very few online poker players will be affected. Anyone who uses paper checks, wire transfers, foreign bank credit cards, or overseas payment processors to load, reload or cash out can continue to do so. The only players who might face some difficulties are those using U.S. bank debit cards or U.S. money transfer firms like Western Union.
Brief review of the UIGEA
As is well-known by now, the new regulations are the result of a bill rammed through Congress in 2006 by then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-TN), without being read. It called for the impossible: The United States Treasury and Federal Reserve Board, in consultation with the Department of Justice, were told to make regulations requiring payment processors to identify and block restricted unlawful Internet gambling transactions.
Unfortunately for these federal agencies, the UIGEA does not defines what is unlawful. Whether a particular transaction is illegal depends upon the particular facts and whether it violates some other federal, state and possibly even tribal law. As the agencies themselves admit, they do not have the resources or ability to make that determination. So, in their proposed regulations, the agencies put the burden on the banks.
The proposal was met with ridicule. If the federal government could not determine whether a particular transaction involved illegal gambling, how was a bank employee supposed to make that determination? This was particularly ridiculous since banks do not know what is being bought with a credit card or money wire transfer.
Agencies give in, not much changes
The agencies, in their final rule, gave in. Except for calling for additional code numbers for credit card transactions, the regulations expressly tell financial institutions to not spend any time looking at individual transactions. And they make it clear that any money sent to an individual, even by a gambling site, is not a “restricted transaction” under the statute or regulations.
It's not a crime to gamble online
I have received emails from online poker players worried that they might be violating the UIGEA. The statute does create a new crime, being a gambling business that accepts money for an illegal transaction. But by its own terms it does not apply to individual bettors. And the regulations, which only apply to financial institutions, now make it clear that payment processors should not waste their time checking on where money is sent by individuals, and money received by individuals is not even covered by the UIGEA.
Federal Reserve smartens up
Why not require banks to see if their patrons are wiring money to illegal overseas gaming operators? The agencies admitted “there are no reasonably practical steps that a U.S. participant [financial institution] could take to prevent their consumer customers from sending restricted transactions cross-border.” They thought about requiring banks to ask their customers, “Are you sending money for illegal Internet gambling?” But someone at Treasury or the Federal Reserve had the brains to realize that the answer the banks were going to get would always be “No.”
The final rule becomes effective January 19, 2009. If there is any doubt that this is one of those last minute regulations being pushed through by the Bush White House, look at the date. When Barack Obama is sworn in as president the next day he may or may not be able to undo these regs.
Banks and credit card companies are required to put some new procedures into place. They have until December 1, 2009. The original proposed regs would have impacted 253,368 small businesses and an unknown number of large companies. The final rule has been so cut back that only 12,267 small businesses, or less than five percent of the original estimated number, are subject to the regulations. Although very few companies will spend much time with these new regulations, it’s still an enormous waste of time. The agencies estimated that the recordkeeping burden on financial institutions “to develop and establish the policies and procedures required by the Act and this final rule” will add up to “approximately one million hours.”
The federal agencies still put the burden on the financial institutions to do “due diligence.” But what this means is banks have to do the same amount of “know your client” work with new commercial customers that they now do to prevent money laundering: basically ask the company owners what their business is and do a little checking to confirm they are telling the truth. If the new commercial customer proves it is not in the gambling business, there’s nothing more to do. If it is in the gambling business, the bank then has to ask it for its state license. The new rule says that getting a license is enough, because it is up to the states to regulate the Internet gambling operation of their licensees.
Of course, the only operators there are in the U.S. at present who have licenses are parimutuel betting outlets. Some state lotteries also use the Internet, but they are deemed to be automatically O.K. because they are a part of state government. If California or any other state authorizes Internet poker, financial institutions will be able to do business with those online poker rooms, because they will have state licenses.
There aren’t a whole lot of illegal gambling websites operating out of the U.S., so the new rule will have almost no impact.
What about licensed and unlicensed poker rooms and others overseas? If there are any left with direct business relationships with U.S. banks – and I doubt that there are – they will have to start using foreign banks, like every other foreign operator. American banks are not expected to ask their foreign respondent banks about their commercial customers.
What's really interesting
The most interesting part of the new rule, for me, is that unlicensed Internet gaming operators can set up business relations with U.S. financial institutions, if the operators “provide a reasoned legal opinion that it does not engage in restricted transactions.” That means if I, as a licensed attorney and an expert on gaming law, give a legal opinion that a gambling operator is not violating federal or state laws, that should be good enough.
This is important for games, including poker, that have free alternative means of entry or are otherwise lacking in consideration. It would also cover contests that are primarily skill – including poker tournaments.
The federal agencies went out of their way to say that they don’t believe that poker involves enough skill to take it out of the definition of gambling under the UIGEA. They declared that there are two separate standards. A lottery or other drawing involves a “bet or wager” only if winning is predominantly subject to chance. But, a “game subject to chance” can still be gambling “even if chance is not the predominant factor in the outcome of a game, but was still a significant factor.”
Of course even if a poker tournament or other game involves some element of chance, it would only fall under the UIGEA if it violated some other federal or state laws. I have given legal opinions, and will undoubtedly now give more, that games that are predominantly skill are legal under federal law and the laws of most of the states.
Credit Card deposit changes for US players
The one change that will affect online operators, and therefore players, is the addition of new transaction codes for credit card companies. For illegal and gray market operators, including overseas Internet poker sites, there is probably going to be little change. Credit card companies already have a merchant code for gambling, 7995, and American banks already refuse to let their credit cards be used for 7995 purchases.
Overseas banks are not subject to the UIGEA. The agencies admit companies issuing cards in other countries are not about to ask their merchants if they are illegally taking bets from Americans.
Conclusion and "Legal Gambling"
But the bright spot for this new rule is that it calls for new credit card codes for legal online gaming. U.S. licensed parimutuel outlets that do Advanced Deposit Wagering should lobby for their own special code with Visa, MasterCard, American Express, etc., so that banks will know that this is a legal form of online gaming. Gambling that is conducted on Indian land pursuant to federal and tribal laws is also legal and should get a code number. There should be additional codes created for other forms of gambling, including games of skill and games with free alternative means of entry. These all would be limited to operators who are licensed or have obtained “a reasoned legal opinion” that they are not involved in unlawful Internet gambling transactions. American banks should then feel free to allow their credit cards to be used for these legal Internet gaming.
© Copyright 2008, Professor I Nelson Rose. Professor I Nelson Rose is recognized as one of the world’s leading experts on gambling law.
How it affects US players
Only a very few online poker players will be affected. Anyone who uses paper checks, wire transfers, foreign bank credit cards, or overseas payment processors to load, reload or cash out can continue to do so. The only players who might face some difficulties are those using U.S. bank debit cards or U.S. money transfer firms like Western Union.
Brief review of the UIGEA
As is well-known by now, the new regulations are the result of a bill rammed through Congress in 2006 by then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-TN), without being read. It called for the impossible: The United States Treasury and Federal Reserve Board, in consultation with the Department of Justice, were told to make regulations requiring payment processors to identify and block restricted unlawful Internet gambling transactions.
Unfortunately for these federal agencies, the UIGEA does not defines what is unlawful. Whether a particular transaction is illegal depends upon the particular facts and whether it violates some other federal, state and possibly even tribal law. As the agencies themselves admit, they do not have the resources or ability to make that determination. So, in their proposed regulations, the agencies put the burden on the banks.
The proposal was met with ridicule. If the federal government could not determine whether a particular transaction involved illegal gambling, how was a bank employee supposed to make that determination? This was particularly ridiculous since banks do not know what is being bought with a credit card or money wire transfer.
Agencies give in, not much changes
The agencies, in their final rule, gave in. Except for calling for additional code numbers for credit card transactions, the regulations expressly tell financial institutions to not spend any time looking at individual transactions. And they make it clear that any money sent to an individual, even by a gambling site, is not a “restricted transaction” under the statute or regulations.
It's not a crime to gamble online
I have received emails from online poker players worried that they might be violating the UIGEA. The statute does create a new crime, being a gambling business that accepts money for an illegal transaction. But by its own terms it does not apply to individual bettors. And the regulations, which only apply to financial institutions, now make it clear that payment processors should not waste their time checking on where money is sent by individuals, and money received by individuals is not even covered by the UIGEA.
Federal Reserve smartens up
Why not require banks to see if their patrons are wiring money to illegal overseas gaming operators? The agencies admitted “there are no reasonably practical steps that a U.S. participant [financial institution] could take to prevent their consumer customers from sending restricted transactions cross-border.” They thought about requiring banks to ask their customers, “Are you sending money for illegal Internet gambling?” But someone at Treasury or the Federal Reserve had the brains to realize that the answer the banks were going to get would always be “No.”
The final rule becomes effective January 19, 2009. If there is any doubt that this is one of those last minute regulations being pushed through by the Bush White House, look at the date. When Barack Obama is sworn in as president the next day he may or may not be able to undo these regs.
Banks and credit card companies are required to put some new procedures into place. They have until December 1, 2009. The original proposed regs would have impacted 253,368 small businesses and an unknown number of large companies. The final rule has been so cut back that only 12,267 small businesses, or less than five percent of the original estimated number, are subject to the regulations. Although very few companies will spend much time with these new regulations, it’s still an enormous waste of time. The agencies estimated that the recordkeeping burden on financial institutions “to develop and establish the policies and procedures required by the Act and this final rule” will add up to “approximately one million hours.”
The federal agencies still put the burden on the financial institutions to do “due diligence.” But what this means is banks have to do the same amount of “know your client” work with new commercial customers that they now do to prevent money laundering: basically ask the company owners what their business is and do a little checking to confirm they are telling the truth. If the new commercial customer proves it is not in the gambling business, there’s nothing more to do. If it is in the gambling business, the bank then has to ask it for its state license. The new rule says that getting a license is enough, because it is up to the states to regulate the Internet gambling operation of their licensees.
Of course, the only operators there are in the U.S. at present who have licenses are parimutuel betting outlets. Some state lotteries also use the Internet, but they are deemed to be automatically O.K. because they are a part of state government. If California or any other state authorizes Internet poker, financial institutions will be able to do business with those online poker rooms, because they will have state licenses.
There aren’t a whole lot of illegal gambling websites operating out of the U.S., so the new rule will have almost no impact.
What about licensed and unlicensed poker rooms and others overseas? If there are any left with direct business relationships with U.S. banks – and I doubt that there are – they will have to start using foreign banks, like every other foreign operator. American banks are not expected to ask their foreign respondent banks about their commercial customers.
What's really interesting
The most interesting part of the new rule, for me, is that unlicensed Internet gaming operators can set up business relations with U.S. financial institutions, if the operators “provide a reasoned legal opinion that it does not engage in restricted transactions.” That means if I, as a licensed attorney and an expert on gaming law, give a legal opinion that a gambling operator is not violating federal or state laws, that should be good enough.
This is important for games, including poker, that have free alternative means of entry or are otherwise lacking in consideration. It would also cover contests that are primarily skill – including poker tournaments.
The federal agencies went out of their way to say that they don’t believe that poker involves enough skill to take it out of the definition of gambling under the UIGEA. They declared that there are two separate standards. A lottery or other drawing involves a “bet or wager” only if winning is predominantly subject to chance. But, a “game subject to chance” can still be gambling “even if chance is not the predominant factor in the outcome of a game, but was still a significant factor.”
Of course even if a poker tournament or other game involves some element of chance, it would only fall under the UIGEA if it violated some other federal or state laws. I have given legal opinions, and will undoubtedly now give more, that games that are predominantly skill are legal under federal law and the laws of most of the states.
Credit Card deposit changes for US players
The one change that will affect online operators, and therefore players, is the addition of new transaction codes for credit card companies. For illegal and gray market operators, including overseas Internet poker sites, there is probably going to be little change. Credit card companies already have a merchant code for gambling, 7995, and American banks already refuse to let their credit cards be used for 7995 purchases.
Overseas banks are not subject to the UIGEA. The agencies admit companies issuing cards in other countries are not about to ask their merchants if they are illegally taking bets from Americans.
Conclusion and "Legal Gambling"
But the bright spot for this new rule is that it calls for new credit card codes for legal online gaming. U.S. licensed parimutuel outlets that do Advanced Deposit Wagering should lobby for their own special code with Visa, MasterCard, American Express, etc., so that banks will know that this is a legal form of online gaming. Gambling that is conducted on Indian land pursuant to federal and tribal laws is also legal and should get a code number. There should be additional codes created for other forms of gambling, including games of skill and games with free alternative means of entry. These all would be limited to operators who are licensed or have obtained “a reasoned legal opinion” that they are not involved in unlawful Internet gambling transactions. American banks should then feel free to allow their credit cards to be used for these legal Internet gaming.
© Copyright 2008, Professor I Nelson Rose. Professor I Nelson Rose is recognized as one of the world’s leading experts on gambling law.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
UIGEA Won't Go Away...We May All Be Fucked!
BR: $35,123 ($40,000)
Yes, the Fed has published final rules set to go into effect the day before President Barack Obama takes office. Yes, he is a noted poker player. Yes, were this any other time in history, he would likely rule favorably and move to repeal the UIGEA (the Unlawful Intertnet Gambling Enforcement Act). And while "Yes we can" was his famous campaign mantra, it's time for a reality check.
Otherwise, you risk, as a Delta Airlines representative said politely but firmly to a whining, disgruntled business traveler within earshot one day, "Sir, right now there are only two people on this planet who care where your luggage is and one of us is rapidly losing interest!"
At the end of the day, repealing UIGEA is priority number 1,342 on a growing list of crises the incoming president and Democratic administration will face in 64 days' time. While this decision will be driven by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Sen. Ron Paul (R-TX), Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Republican Sen. John McCain, intense lobbying by the industry could show a high level of economic insensitivity. A lack of restraint right now could backfire badly. A line such as, "Gee, I'm sorry you've lost your house and your job but GambleHereNOW.net will gladly double your initial deposit through the end of the year," might not hit the right sensory acuity notes even on Capitol Hill, a place known for being out of tune and out of step.
In articles this morning it is clear the incoming President faces crises on multiple fronts. Two wars, economic meltdown, banks and an automotive industry on life support, massive job losses, zero consumer confidence, retailers bracing for their worst year ever and one can perhaps see why it's hard to find credible support for repealing UIGEA without staff laughing themselves silly on the other end of the phone.
Barney Frank is a shrewd man. His office knows UIGEA was a stupid 11th-hour inclusion in the Safe Ports Act. No one even read it. No one reads final bills on the Hill (not even the Patriot Act), especially those rushed close to adjournment. And even if they had, it was not a "white hot"-enough button to vote against the rest of the bill. Frank and Ron Paul tried to repeal it last year without success. Now Frank has a bill sitting in committee waiting for the new Congress that will at least give Internet gaming its day in court.
And let's have a bit of cold-water reality here. It's only been two weeks since the election and President-elect Obama still has two months before taking control. In the interim he must fill thousands of positions and get ready to govern.
So take a deep cleansing breath, step back from the keyboard (and the hyperbole) and let's review what might happen?
Members of the transition team either laugh out loud or question my sanity, usually with the not-for-attribution quote, "We're in the midst of an economic meltdown and you're checking the pulse for a gambling bill?!?!" (The punctuation is my addition.)
Here's what we're dealing with and what's likely to happen, since I do keep an ear to the ground and the only state electoral vote I missed 12 days ago was Missouri, where votes are still being counted with a narrow 5,000-vote majority for McCain and only NBC has declared it. You might want to listen…
My "Fairy Godmother" Scenario
1. An omnibus bill on or about January 24 or 25, 2009 will sail through both houses of Congress. It will contain language invoking the CRA Act of 1996 and overturn dozens of rules, executive orders and signing statements from the outgoing administration that changed the intent of laws passed by Congress. The priorities, though, will be banking, deregulation and the environment. There is a less than 50% chance the final UIGEA federal rules will be included because it is not on that white-hot list.
2. If that language is included, and since Barney Frank has had his own bill eliminating UIGEA sitting in committee for fear of a Senate filibuster, that will emerge from beneath the radar and online poker players could be back in business by the mid-summer.
Rationale: The CRA Act has teeth and the Dems will use it. Many are still smarting from when then-new Vice President Dick Cheney played this game on January 20th, 2001. As Barton Gelman wrote in Angler, The Shadow Presidency of Dick Cheney, "One of his first assignments to his staff was a fast-track review of Bill Clinton's departing orders. That would have been a routine step sooner or later but Cheney had the savvy to call a halt to operations at the Government Printing Office. Not many aides would have thought of it but Cheney knew regulations have no force unless they are published in The Federal Register. Some of Clinton's orders signed during his final hours as President, never made it. The same went for end of term appointments to government jobs. At Cheney's urging, Bush ordered a hiring freeze that covered everyone whose paperwork was incomplete."
The Democrats want payback and yet will move carefully and prudently. Look for Fed Reserve rules to be an 11th-hour addition if they make it at all.
More Likely Scenario: Half a Loaf
The second version of Frank's bill comes out of committee, passes and a conference group of Fed Governors slowly and carefully re-jigger the existing rules during late 2009 on into 2010 to create an online gaming and taxing authority.
The courts will play a role in deciding the future of poker with their previously issued skill-vs.-gambling rulings winning out, and it is a long, slow process. In the end we will have a regulated and US-taxed online gaming world where myriad international holding companies are then forced to become more transparent and operate US-based, taxed and regulated subsidiaries in order to play.
Many are worried about US protectionism. This market will be too good for any of them to pass up. Like that Delta business passenger, they will whine and grumble, but will know when to shut up because that will remain the price to play or fly today.
Denis Campbell is a contributor on politics and business to the BBC, Huffington Post and several UK and US based magazines, newspapers and e-magazines. He publishes the daily e-magazine Vadimus Post (vadimuspost.com). He lives with his wife and kids, writing from a 200-year-old, historic 600-acre sheep farm overlooking the Glamorgan Heritage Coast in South Wales.
Yes, the Fed has published final rules set to go into effect the day before President Barack Obama takes office. Yes, he is a noted poker player. Yes, were this any other time in history, he would likely rule favorably and move to repeal the UIGEA (the Unlawful Intertnet Gambling Enforcement Act). And while "Yes we can" was his famous campaign mantra, it's time for a reality check.
Otherwise, you risk, as a Delta Airlines representative said politely but firmly to a whining, disgruntled business traveler within earshot one day, "Sir, right now there are only two people on this planet who care where your luggage is and one of us is rapidly losing interest!"
At the end of the day, repealing UIGEA is priority number 1,342 on a growing list of crises the incoming president and Democratic administration will face in 64 days' time. While this decision will be driven by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Sen. Ron Paul (R-TX), Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Republican Sen. John McCain, intense lobbying by the industry could show a high level of economic insensitivity. A lack of restraint right now could backfire badly. A line such as, "Gee, I'm sorry you've lost your house and your job but GambleHereNOW.net will gladly double your initial deposit through the end of the year," might not hit the right sensory acuity notes even on Capitol Hill, a place known for being out of tune and out of step.
In articles this morning it is clear the incoming President faces crises on multiple fronts. Two wars, economic meltdown, banks and an automotive industry on life support, massive job losses, zero consumer confidence, retailers bracing for their worst year ever and one can perhaps see why it's hard to find credible support for repealing UIGEA without staff laughing themselves silly on the other end of the phone.
Barney Frank is a shrewd man. His office knows UIGEA was a stupid 11th-hour inclusion in the Safe Ports Act. No one even read it. No one reads final bills on the Hill (not even the Patriot Act), especially those rushed close to adjournment. And even if they had, it was not a "white hot"-enough button to vote against the rest of the bill. Frank and Ron Paul tried to repeal it last year without success. Now Frank has a bill sitting in committee waiting for the new Congress that will at least give Internet gaming its day in court.
And let's have a bit of cold-water reality here. It's only been two weeks since the election and President-elect Obama still has two months before taking control. In the interim he must fill thousands of positions and get ready to govern.
So take a deep cleansing breath, step back from the keyboard (and the hyperbole) and let's review what might happen?
Members of the transition team either laugh out loud or question my sanity, usually with the not-for-attribution quote, "We're in the midst of an economic meltdown and you're checking the pulse for a gambling bill?!?!" (The punctuation is my addition.)
Here's what we're dealing with and what's likely to happen, since I do keep an ear to the ground and the only state electoral vote I missed 12 days ago was Missouri, where votes are still being counted with a narrow 5,000-vote majority for McCain and only NBC has declared it. You might want to listen…
My "Fairy Godmother" Scenario
1. An omnibus bill on or about January 24 or 25, 2009 will sail through both houses of Congress. It will contain language invoking the CRA Act of 1996 and overturn dozens of rules, executive orders and signing statements from the outgoing administration that changed the intent of laws passed by Congress. The priorities, though, will be banking, deregulation and the environment. There is a less than 50% chance the final UIGEA federal rules will be included because it is not on that white-hot list.
2. If that language is included, and since Barney Frank has had his own bill eliminating UIGEA sitting in committee for fear of a Senate filibuster, that will emerge from beneath the radar and online poker players could be back in business by the mid-summer.
Rationale: The CRA Act has teeth and the Dems will use it. Many are still smarting from when then-new Vice President Dick Cheney played this game on January 20th, 2001. As Barton Gelman wrote in Angler, The Shadow Presidency of Dick Cheney, "One of his first assignments to his staff was a fast-track review of Bill Clinton's departing orders. That would have been a routine step sooner or later but Cheney had the savvy to call a halt to operations at the Government Printing Office. Not many aides would have thought of it but Cheney knew regulations have no force unless they are published in The Federal Register. Some of Clinton's orders signed during his final hours as President, never made it. The same went for end of term appointments to government jobs. At Cheney's urging, Bush ordered a hiring freeze that covered everyone whose paperwork was incomplete."
The Democrats want payback and yet will move carefully and prudently. Look for Fed Reserve rules to be an 11th-hour addition if they make it at all.
More Likely Scenario: Half a Loaf
The second version of Frank's bill comes out of committee, passes and a conference group of Fed Governors slowly and carefully re-jigger the existing rules during late 2009 on into 2010 to create an online gaming and taxing authority.
The courts will play a role in deciding the future of poker with their previously issued skill-vs.-gambling rulings winning out, and it is a long, slow process. In the end we will have a regulated and US-taxed online gaming world where myriad international holding companies are then forced to become more transparent and operate US-based, taxed and regulated subsidiaries in order to play.
Many are worried about US protectionism. This market will be too good for any of them to pass up. Like that Delta business passenger, they will whine and grumble, but will know when to shut up because that will remain the price to play or fly today.
Denis Campbell is a contributor on politics and business to the BBC, Huffington Post and several UK and US based magazines, newspapers and e-magazines. He publishes the daily e-magazine Vadimus Post (vadimuspost.com). He lives with his wife and kids, writing from a 200-year-old, historic 600-acre sheep farm overlooking the Glamorgan Heritage Coast in South Wales.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
UIGEA GO THE FUCK AWAY!
November 12, 2008
by author Haley Hintze
by author Haley Hintze
In a highly controversial move pushed through in the waning days of the Bush administration, officials at the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve today formally published rules and procedures as called for by the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA).The regulations, set to go into effect on Jan. 19, 2009, one day before President-elect Barack Obama will take the oath of office, call in general for a "due diligence" approach in blocking the flow of funds from would-be gamblers to online sites. Poker, as expected, was not granted any form of exemption under the rules, despite the urgings of a few dozen poker players as the rules were being drafted. Banks, payment processors and other affected institutions are expected to comply with the measure by December 1, 2009.
The dense, 66-page document consists of exacting language that is open to multiple interpretations, as evidenced by the first 50 pages being explanatory definitions before the publishing of the rule itself. One example is a parsing of the difference between games "subject to chance" and "predominantly subject to chance," as part of the argument put forth by Treasury as to why poker and other skill games are, in the eyes of the government, expected to be covered by the law. Previously noted exemptions for horseracing and fantasy-sports leagues remained intact.
While the body of the rule's publication is still being worked through by industry experts, a few points were clear at first read. Among those signature points:
• Blocking of transactions under the UIGEA will be attempted in one direction only, that of prospective players to online sites. Payments – such as cashing out from a site – back to customers will not be blocked. The differentiation is an effort to choke off the profitability for sites who attempt to take in player funds.
• "Unlawful Internet gambling" remains undefined under the statute as published; instead, the law defers to the existing morass of state and other laws defining gambling. Of perhaps greater importance is that by doing so, the rule attempts to transform Internet-based gambling into a "states rights" issue, in a manner similar to the ongoing attempt by the Commonwealth of Kentucky to seize Internet domains it believes competes with its signature horseracing industry. As defined in the published rules: "The Agencies believe that the Act's restrictions apply only to transactions that are unlawful under applicable U.S. Federal or State law. The Act's definition of 'unlawful Internet gambling' clearly states that it refers to a bet or wager that 'is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal land in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or otherwise made.'"
• The published rules significantly revised upward the financial estimates for implementing the rules, despite rewriting some portions of the rules in a way to eliminate many smaller banking and payment-processing entities. Costs for initial implementation now are estimated at a million man-hours and $88 million, with maintenance quickly jumping that total over $100 million.
• Payment-processing services such as Western Union will receive an exemption for payments made from their physical offices; the rules as published instead vall for the blocking of payments made over the Internet through such services.
Calls from officials such as Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) to avoid formalizing the UIGEA regulations were summarily ignored with the publication. In fact, one passage in the rules openly defied the claims made by Frank and others that the rules as published place too much pressure and unfunded responsibility on an already stressed financial system, by stating, in effect, that savings to credit-card companies on gambling-related chargebacks more than offsets the expense. "This funds flow interdiction," according to the explanation, "is designed not only to inhibit the accumulation of consumer debt but also to reduce debt collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry. Treasury believes that the reduction of debt collection problems through the final rule's funds flow interdiction process will yield important benefits for insured depository institutions and consumers given the recent turmoil in the financial markets that is causing liquidity problems for insured depository institutions and constraining the availability of consumer credit." The Treasury also cited "other benefits," declaring that "the final rule could restrict excesses related to unlawful Internet gambling by underage or compulsive gamblers."
Reaction to the rules' publication was widespread, with hundreds of news outlets picking up the story in the first couple of hours following the document's appearance on the US Treasury site. US Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), an outspoken critic of the UIGEA since its inception, was quoted by the Las Vegas Sun as follows: "These rules place an unfair burden on banks and other businesses that will now be forced to play the role of law enforcement. Instead of making the situation better, these regulations will only create chaos, huge headaches and high costs for all those involved. I am appalled that at a time when our nation faces the worst economic crisis we have seen in 70 years, President Bush remains obsessed with a regulation that will only harm the financial services sector."
The Washington, DC-based Poker Player's Alliance also issued a statement condemning the rules' finalization, but gave no indication as to future plans. According to PPA Chairman Alfonse D'Amato, "The PPA remains optimistic that the new Administration and the new Congress will recognize the failures of UIGEA and will act swiftly in the New Year to overturn this flawed policy."
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
RELIVING (BLACK) OCTOBER 365 DAYS LATER
BR: $27,354 + (Cashouts =$40,000)
The last 365 days were a lesson in tolerance, humility, and patience for me. It was self inflicted for being stupid enough to disregard bankroll rules.
I didn't deposit $1.00 onto Bodog in the last 365 days ( of course I have been depositing monthly for the bottomless bonus, but then I cash it out and redeposit it over and over.) I suffered playing the lower limits for a reason. Here's the reason: NEVER ABUSE YOUR BANKROLL! That's a very important rule. In fact I believe it is poker's MOST IMPORTANT RULE!
So I slummed it up in the lower games for most of a year. Now that's over I can push full steam ahead onto bigger and better games. I am happy that I re-won my entire $40,000 starting bank roll. I have done this by cashing out little by little over the last year. Total cash outs from 10/01/2007 - 10/01/2008 ~ $43,000. I know that's not some crazy amount, but keep in mind this was at playing low stakes 95% of the year ( this is not including my live play which I will not meld in with my online play.)
I am most certain that I will not obtain my $300,000 goal in the allotted time on the counter, but I am curious to see how close I can get.
The amount shown at the top of almost every post will either be in green (denoting profit) or red (loss). Also any cash outs I make from my bank roll ( "BR" ), will be placed in parenthesis next to my current BR total. So to start off this post I placed $40,000 right next to my BR to count the 40k BR I originally started with.
I'm free-rolling once again! I hope I can make the 1/2 way mark by the time the counter ends!
~Wc
The last 365 days were a lesson in tolerance, humility, and patience for me. It was self inflicted for being stupid enough to disregard bankroll rules.
I didn't deposit $1.00 onto Bodog in the last 365 days ( of course I have been depositing monthly for the bottomless bonus, but then I cash it out and redeposit it over and over.) I suffered playing the lower limits for a reason. Here's the reason: NEVER ABUSE YOUR BANKROLL! That's a very important rule. In fact I believe it is poker's MOST IMPORTANT RULE!
So I slummed it up in the lower games for most of a year. Now that's over I can push full steam ahead onto bigger and better games. I am happy that I re-won my entire $40,000 starting bank roll. I have done this by cashing out little by little over the last year. Total cash outs from 10/01/2007 - 10/01/2008 ~ $43,000. I know that's not some crazy amount, but keep in mind this was at playing low stakes 95% of the year ( this is not including my live play which I will not meld in with my online play.)
I am most certain that I will not obtain my $300,000 goal in the allotted time on the counter, but I am curious to see how close I can get.
The amount shown at the top of almost every post will either be in green (denoting profit) or red (loss). Also any cash outs I make from my bank roll ( "BR" ), will be placed in parenthesis next to my current BR total. So to start off this post I placed $40,000 right next to my BR to count the 40k BR I originally started with.
I'm free-rolling once again! I hope I can make the 1/2 way mark by the time the counter ends!
~Wc
Friday, November 7, 2008
NEW ARCADE OF THE MONTH "WAR ON TERRORISM 2"
Hey I have a thing for shooting games....especially flash shooting games!
If you want a different genre or have any suggestions leave a comment.
Let me know how you like this one.......kill those bastards!
This will run for the next ~30 days roughly. ENJOY!
~Wc
If you want a different genre or have any suggestions leave a comment.
Let me know how you like this one.......kill those bastards!
This will run for the next ~30 days roughly. ENJOY!
~Wc
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
BERATING FISH......IS IT ALWAYS WRONG?
BR: $11,526
I was asked this question by another regular I greatly respect when then game broke in the chat box of a 2-4 NLHE game last night on bodog:
" Why do you insult the fish?"
I knew his question meant PLEASE DON"T INSULT THE FISH! IT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE GAME!
My response was " I only insult certain fish."
This even followed me into the 2+2 forums.....today.....
I want to elaborate on this debate over berating fish in your poker games online. I know the common belief here is " LEAVE THE DAMN FISH ALONE!" Overall this view is totally correct. When in doubt leave the poor donkey alone. Let him enjoy himself going broke to 5 other blood-thirsty regs. Of course he has no idea that they are seated around him plotting against him.
I do insult bad players ( AKA donkeys, fish, tards, ZOMBIES! <-----"WarCrimes coined it first!) quite frequently it may seem to many regulars I play with daily at bodog. Is it polite? Fuck no.... The thing is I have berating down to a SCIENCE. I know which donkeys are fair game to thrash verbally and which ones will pack up and leave a game, taking there soon to be lost stack with them.
In all honesty I believe no one can remember a time when I have chased a fish out of a game with my verbal assaults. If so please post a comment about it.
There are two types of fish one can run across in a poker game.
1) Fish who enjoys playing poker for fun. He knows he sucks, but he likes to play. He sets aside an amount to play (lose) with, and he expects to lose it eventually.
2) Fish who ACTUALLY thinks he is a pro! This is the fish that will say FU after sucking out on you. Or will start insults flying first at others at the table; not even necessarily you. He may be just a rude fucker. We have all run across them before.
Fish #1 should under no circumstance ever be mocked, insulted, preached to, coached on quality of play, or anything that remotely diminishes his FUN. This Fish will pick up and leave. THAT's BAD FOR POKER!
Fish #2, on the other hand, is usually/sometimes a "BAD" losing regular*cough*PRINGLEFOOT *cough*or just a loud mouth punk that just starts right in after a bad beat saying " Yeah how'd you like that river? FU".....or it can be a bad player that feels like he needs to tell other players how bad they play. This type of fish IS the type you can UNLEASH VERBAL WAR ON! In fact it is more profitable to verbally insult these guys rather than ignore them. Here are a few reasons why....
1) They get spiteful and try to play every hand your in and outplay/suckout on you. This is a GOOD thing.
2) They start concentrating on chatting back at you than actually playing "good" poker. Another good thing for you.
3) They may even search the tables when they log on to play in the future to come HUNT YOU! Who doesn't want to be stalked by FISH????
In closing INSULTING fish has to be done with care. You have to be able to differentiate between which is which otherwise you will end up costing yourself and MORE IMPORTANTLY THE POKER COMMUNITY as a whole a lot of $$$$$$.
~Wc
I was asked this question by another regular I greatly respect when then game broke in the chat box of a 2-4 NLHE game last night on bodog:
" Why do you insult the fish?"
I knew his question meant PLEASE DON"T INSULT THE FISH! IT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE GAME!
My response was " I only insult certain fish."
This even followed me into the 2+2 forums.....today.....
I want to elaborate on this debate over berating fish in your poker games online. I know the common belief here is " LEAVE THE DAMN FISH ALONE!" Overall this view is totally correct. When in doubt leave the poor donkey alone. Let him enjoy himself going broke to 5 other blood-thirsty regs. Of course he has no idea that they are seated around him plotting against him.
I do insult bad players ( AKA donkeys, fish, tards, ZOMBIES! <-----"WarCrimes coined it first!) quite frequently it may seem to many regulars I play with daily at bodog. Is it polite? Fuck no.... The thing is I have berating down to a SCIENCE. I know which donkeys are fair game to thrash verbally and which ones will pack up and leave a game, taking there soon to be lost stack with them.
In all honesty I believe no one can remember a time when I have chased a fish out of a game with my verbal assaults. If so please post a comment about it.
There are two types of fish one can run across in a poker game.
1) Fish who enjoys playing poker for fun. He knows he sucks, but he likes to play. He sets aside an amount to play (lose) with, and he expects to lose it eventually.
2) Fish who ACTUALLY thinks he is a pro! This is the fish that will say FU after sucking out on you. Or will start insults flying first at others at the table; not even necessarily you. He may be just a rude fucker. We have all run across them before.
Fish #1 should under no circumstance ever be mocked, insulted, preached to, coached on quality of play, or anything that remotely diminishes his FUN. This Fish will pick up and leave. THAT's BAD FOR POKER!
Fish #2, on the other hand, is usually/sometimes a "BAD" losing regular*cough*PRINGLEFOOT *cough*or just a loud mouth punk that just starts right in after a bad beat saying " Yeah how'd you like that river? FU".....or it can be a bad player that feels like he needs to tell other players how bad they play. This type of fish IS the type you can UNLEASH VERBAL WAR ON! In fact it is more profitable to verbally insult these guys rather than ignore them. Here are a few reasons why....
1) They get spiteful and try to play every hand your in and outplay/suckout on you. This is a GOOD thing.
2) They start concentrating on chatting back at you than actually playing "good" poker. Another good thing for you.
3) They may even search the tables when they log on to play in the future to come HUNT YOU! Who doesn't want to be stalked by FISH????
In closing INSULTING fish has to be done with care. You have to be able to differentiate between which is which otherwise you will end up costing yourself and MORE IMPORTANTLY THE POKER COMMUNITY as a whole a lot of $$$$$$.
~Wc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
