ITH Poker Forum

[Piscivorous]

It's approaching two years since we had our heads lopped off by Congress and their goody-two-shoes sledgehammer known as the UIGEA.

Here are my observations:

1. Moving money around is a PITA and in some instances near impossible. For some sites I have to wait for a paper check to arrive, although a few of my sites like Poker Host, Poker.com [Carbon Poker], Poker4Ever and Walker Poker [which picked up my Wingows account] have moved to PIC-Club giving me an in and out. Bodog, however, still requires paper check.
2. Full Tilt and Poker Stars have forged ahead as the top two sites in terms of traffic, continuing to cater to American players. Sites like Bodog with it's funding problems are maintaining a decent player base, but a majority are non-American. Cake is growing and the Prima sites which allow some American play are still viable.
3. The share-holder sites, PartyGaming, iPoker, OnGame, just to name a few, still refuse American customers.

My question is, why are the big shareholder driven sites still refusing us? Do they really fear the DoJ that much? I wonder just how many Americans own stock of Party, OnGame and iPoker and keep the American market at arms length to protect themselves.

My initial gut reaction to the UIGEA was that these sites were/are afraid of the DoJ, but made a panic-induced pull-out of the American market that they may still be regretting to this day. There was big talk of opening up Central and Eastern Europe as well as the Pacific Rim. Problem is, if you look at a lot of these site's T&Cs you see a slew of these same countries banned from participating in bonus programs, VIP programs or simply disallowed from using the site. This can't be a good thing for these sites. Although we've had our share of abusers here in America, it's nothing compared to some of the schemes that have wreaked havoc on Party, the Cryptos, OnGame and iPoker where whole communities have taken up scamming those sites.

Just spit-balling here. Any thoughts?

[Stew21]

Considering the political landscape change coming in Nov. the UIGEA might not have much life left in it.

People are fed up with the Republicans, and even if they win the White House, they'll lose enough seats in the Senate to allow reps Frank and Paul to get their proposal through.

Wishful thinking anyway.

[nukeduke]

Wishful thinking anyway.

Yep.

Although spear headed by Repubs, this was a joint venture.

Pisc - the problem with the publicly traded sites is that they risk de-listing if they break the so-called law. I wouldn't rule out the chance that some of them may accept us yanks again with a change in the DOJ. Probably wishful thinking too.

[ResumeMan]

Agree with Nuke. Although it's unlikely the Dems would have made a point of pushing UIGEA through if they were able to make the decision, I doubt that they'll be eager to take the moralists' heat that would be required to actually repeal it.

That said, an Obama DoJ could well formally de-prioritize it, giving us at least some breathing room.

[Piscivorous]

Although spear headed by Repubs, this was a joint venture.

Indeed. Both of my Senators, Boxer and Feinstein are ultra-liberal as were most of the CA Reps in Congress. Oddly enough my Representative George Miller {D-CA] voted against.

Pisc - the problem with the publicly traded sites is that they risk de-listing if they break the so-called law. I wouldn't rule out the chance that some of them may accept us yanks again with a change in the DOJ. Probably wishful thinking too.

Can they be de-listed on exchanges outside the jurisdiction of the DoJ? None, IIRC, are listed in the US and are listed in various exchanges like London and Stockholm.

[Stew21]

ResumeMan, iirc the only way that Frist got the UIGEA passed in the first place was by attach it to a port security bill.

Although I have been told that I'm losing my mind.

[ResumeMan]

That's correct. But even though it couldn't have passed on its own, I would imagine that repealing it would set the "family values" crowd screaming, and would leave a lot of congresscritters reluctant. I think it's a lot easier to block something you think is dumb than it is to repeal a law that already exists, even if you think it's dumb.

Basically, I think most dems would be fairly indifferent about this law, and most Republicans would be more strongly in favor of keeping it in place, so I just don't see this becoming a priority of the next Congress (or Prez).

[badboywes]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that by the end of the year 2110 online Poker will be regulated by the federal Gov. and there will be a Gold rush of fish at these new sites. I say new because I don't think allot of the current sites will be allowed to have Americans play on them unless there willing to go threw a bunch of BS and the smaller sites will not do what is Required.

FTP,PS and maybe a couple others will do what is required but the rest will either faze out from lack of traffic or stay the way they curently are. what I am proclaiming is a fresh new regulated online poker World that at the moment not many of us can imagine.

Yeah I know wishful thinking but when it happens you can say you herd it here from me first.

[the_hawk]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that by the end of the year 2110

That's a pretty big, comfy limb there...

[Stew21]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that by the end of the year 2110

That's a pretty big, comfy limb there...

I'm gonna stick around just to find out.

[pusaqall]

These are the things in the past. A lot has been changed since then and will definitely be prevented if something came close.