the poker chips are down!

andyandy · 11th July 2006, 02:07 PM

breaking news.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5171034.stm

Quote:

The US House of Representatives has backed a bill which aims to rein in online gambling.
The bill aims to limit internet gaming by making it illegal for US-based banks and credit card firms to make payments to online gambling sites.

Is it likely to pass the senate?

Any ramifications for the UK?

seems kinda draconian to me.....after all the online gaming industry is hugely popular - and has a $6billion US turnover....

Cleon · 11th July 2006, 02:13 PM

Dammit, I hope this doesn't pass.

I like playing online poker. And no, I don't spend gazillions of dollars. I play penny-blind Hold 'Em. I play 2-3 times a week, at worst break even, and generally enjoy myself.

Hagrok · 11th July 2006, 02:28 PM

So the gambling sites use non-descript front companies to take payment. Banks couldn't possibly know every company that's a front for a gambling company.

Once again our lawmakers haven't taken 30 seconds to think carefully about an issue.

andyandy · 11th July 2006, 02:36 PM

well....BBC reckon it's not likely to pass this time in the senate (not enough time apparently) - and the shares in party poker havent dived, so the city mustn't be too worried either...

Luke T. · 11th July 2006, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Online gambling sites are unfair, unregulated competition for regulated gambling sites whose operators undergo background checks to reduce the likelihood of criminal involvement.
Players at online gambling sites have no recourse if they are cheated. Players at legal casinos or card rooms can go to the gambling commission.

Link

Hagrok · 11th July 2006, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Luke T.

Link

True enough; doesn't mean that this particular legislation would be effective however.

I'm actually not sure what could be done since a lot of those gambling sites are run over seas. Any ideas?

Luke T. · 11th July 2006, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Hagrok

True enough; doesn't mean that this particular legislation would be effective however.

I'm actually not sure what could be done since a lot of those gambling sites are run over seas. Any ideas?

I am against regulation of the internet just on general principles.

This legislation appears to move beyond the internet and into the bank vault.

Yeah. Ways will be found around it. You can bet on it - D'oh!

Hagrok · 11th July 2006, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Luke T.

I am against regulation of the internet just on general principles.

This legislation appears to move beyond the internet and into the bank vault.

Yeah. Ways will be found around it. You can bet on it - D'oh!

I suppose we could just cut all those cables that lead over seas, and shoot down all the comm sats...

Cleon · 11th July 2006, 03:05 PM

Just taking a shot at Luke's quote:

Quote:

Online gambling sites are unfair,

Of course they're unfair! They're gambling sites! Every single regulated gambling site is unfair, too.

Quote:

unregulated competition for regulated gambling sites

Oh, no! Competition! Whatever shall we do??!?!

Quote:

whose operators undergo background checks to reduce the likelihood of criminal involvement.

And is there a shred of evidence that the criminal involvement in, say, PokerStars.net is greater than that involved in your average Atlantic City casino?

Quote:

Players at online gambling sites have no recourse if they are cheated.

Of course we do. It's called fraud, and it's illegal.

Quote:

Players at legal casinos or card rooms can go to the gambling commission.

And players at Pokerstars can go through the FBI. Of course, since everything is on the table (literally) at a place like Pokerstars, you can see what's going on, and if the house is cheating it becomes very, very obvious very, very quickly.

What silly logic. It's like saying that since, you can be mugged walking in the bad areas of town, we should ban walking down the street.

Art Vandelay · 11th July 2006, 06:52 PM

I don't see what's to stop Americans from simply having an non-US-based bank transfer the funds.

Originally Posted by Hagrok

I'm actually not sure what could be done since a lot of those gambling sites are run over seas. Any ideas?

I take it you meant "overseas"?

Originally Posted by Cleon

Of course we do. It's called fraud, and it's illegal.

But the US doesn't really have jurisdiction.

Quote:

And players at Pokerstars can go through the FBI.

Besides the issue of jurisdiction, there's the fact that a victim would have to admit to engaging in criminal activity.

Cleon · 11th July 2006, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

But the US doesn't really have jurisdiction.

Actually, they do, because the companies in question are doing business in the United States. This is similar to why the FBI has jurisdiction over Nigerian 419 scams--they might originate from overseas, but they're doing business in the good ol' US of A--which makes it FBI business if someone is scammed.

Quote:

Besides the issue of jurisdiction, there's the fact that a victim would have to admit to engaging in criminal activity.

It is not currently illegal for a person to gamble online, except in a handful of states (and in that case, the FBI definitely doesn't have jurisdiction).

Ziggurat · 11th July 2006, 07:21 PM

Front companies can indeed be used to take payments, but it's not that simple. Gambling sites would not be able to extend credit to players using US-based credit cards, because even if the player agrees to charges, they don't have to actually pay up, because it's illegal for their credit card company to do so, so they can just point out what the charges were really for to their credit card company after running up a big bill. Sites can't operate profitably with that kind of risk.

There are ways around this, such as using non-US bank accounts and credit cards as intermediaries, so this can't really cut things off. But it does make things much more difficult, because a lot of potential players probably aren't willing to jump through those hoops.

Anti_Hypeman · 11th July 2006, 07:23 PM

If somebody wants to flush money down the toilet thats their business.

Cleon · 11th July 2006, 07:38 PM

Here's a question; this bill seems preoccupied with credit cards, but how would this affect ACH transfers? As far as I am aware--and granted, I am not well versed in the finer points of international commerce--there is nothing stopping a foreign bank from making an ACH withdrawal from your checking account. I know many sites already have that as a funding option.

Ryokan · 11th July 2006, 08:10 PM

This has already been done in Norway - you can't use a credit card on online poker sites.

I don't play online poker, but still... Who the hell are parliament to decide what I do with my money?!?!

Art Vandelay · 11th July 2006, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

Actually, they do, because the companies in question are doing business in the United States.

That's rather shaky legal ground. If someone in France calls me up and orders something, am I doing business in France?

Quote:

This is similar to why the FBI has jurisdiction over Nigerian 419 scams--they might originate from overseas, but they're doing business in the good ol' US of A--which makes it FBI business if someone is scammed.

The FBI can collect information on anyone they want. But they can't enter Nigeria without permission, they can't arrest anyone in Nigeria, they can't issue supoenas, they can't extradite Nigerians, etc. So any "jurisdiction" is largely theoretical, as it is in gambling. I suppose that if you can get the scammer to enter the US, the FBI might be able to do something, but other than that, the FBI is just going to put it all in a file and that's it.

Quote:

It is not currently illegal for a person to gamble online, except in a handful of states (and in that case, the FBI definitely doesn't have jurisdiction).

I very much doubt that. Other than Nevada and perhaps Neew Jersey, I don't know of any state where it's legal to gamble.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Front companies can indeed be used to take payments, but it's not that simple. Gambling sites would not be able to extend credit to players using US-based credit cards, because even if the player agrees to charges, they don't have to actually pay up, because it's illegal for their credit card company to do so, so they can just point out what the charges were really for to their credit card company after running up a big bill. Sites can't operate profitably with that kind of risk.

Hmm. Could they still mess up someone's credit rating? I was thinking it would be a debit system.

Originally Posted by Cleon

Here's a question; this bill seems preoccupied with credit cards, but how would this affect ACH transfers? As far as I am aware--and granted, I am not well versed in the finer points of international commerce--there is nothing stopping a foreign bank from making an ACH withdrawal from your checking account.

Er... do you mean "other than they need your permission"? Or do I need to put my money under the mattress?

shemp · 11th July 2006, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by Anti_Hypeman

If somebody wants to flush money down the toilet thats their business.

If anyone should wish to do this, please do it at my house. I have a septic system and can recover the money from the tank. (Though I will have to launder it before I spend it.)

Cleon · 12th July 2006, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

That's rather shaky legal ground. If someone in France calls me up and orders something, am I doing business in France?

The FBI can collect information on anyone they want. But they can't enter Nigeria without permission, they can't arrest anyone in Nigeria, they can't issue supoenas, they can't extradite Nigerians, etc. So any "jurisdiction" is largely theoretical, as it is in gambling. I suppose that if you can get the scammer to enter the US, the FBI might be able to do something, but other than that, the FBI is just going to put it all in a file and that's it.

True, but it is their case--and I was mistaken, it's not the FBI, it's the Department of the Treasury, specifically the Secret Service. They are the ones who investigate the case and work with Nigerian (or whoever) authorities to have the culprits tried and/or extradited.

Quote:

I very much doubt that. Other than Nevada and perhaps Neew Jersey, I don't know of any state where it's legal to gamble.

<pedantic>It's legal to gamble in every state that has a lottery and allows stock trading.

</pedantic>

As far as I'm aware, the prohibition on gambling is usually the operation of gambling sites, not the actual act itself. I see, upon googling, that this is not the case in Georgia, where the act of gambling is a misdemeanor. However, South Carolina does not penalize the act of gambling, nor does New York, California (I think--man, that's one convoluted piece of legislation), or Maryland (interesting--MD specifically bans a Basque game called Jai Alai for some reason).

However, my point about jurisdiction stands; it is not the job of the SS (or FBI) to enforce state laws, especially misdemeanors.

But many states have legal gambling these days--whether via Native American casinos, or site licenses. My home state of Pennsylvania has authorized the creation of several casino licenses across the state, and is currently hacking through the process of their allocation (Pittsburgh is already talking about using the tax revenue to partially fund a new venue for the Penguins). A number of states allow Riverboat gambling. Branson, Missouri is considered the poor man's Vegas (and is also home to the #1 victim of the USSR's collapse).

Quote:

Er... do you mean "other than they need your permission"? Or do I need to put my money under the mattress?

Well, yes, of course. Technically, if they have your routing & account number, they can do it anyway, but, well, see info about 419 scams above.

Luke T. · 12th July 2006, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

I very much doubt that. Other than Nevada and perhaps Neew Jersey, I don't know of any state where it's legal to gamble.

Let's see. Here in Oregon we have casinos. And there are casinos in Mississippi. Remember the news reports of one being lifted and dropped in the middle of a highway during Hurricane Katrina? And the world's largest casino is in Connecticut...

senorpogo · 12th July 2006, 12:32 PM

A surprisingly detailed analysis of HR 4477 from Cardplayer magazine.

http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/15416

Art Vandelay · 12th July 2006, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

<pedantic>It's legal to gamble in every state that has a lottery and allows stock trading.

</pedantic>

The stock market is not gambling.

Quote:

As far as I'm aware, the prohibition on gambling is usually the operation of gambling sites, not the actual act itself.

But if you're gambling, then you're paying someone to operate a gambling site, which means that you can be charged with solicitation.

Quote:

However, my point about jurisdiction stands; it is not the job of the SS (or FBI) to enforce state laws, especially misdemeanors.

There's still going to be reluctance for the vitctims to tell them about it, and investigating claims that people have been ripped off while engaging in criminal activity is probably not going to have a high priority. I'm not even sure that itcounts as fraud if the purported deal is illegal.

Cleon · 12th July 2006, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

The stock market is not gambling.

It most certainly is--any investment is a gamble. But this is something for a different thread.

Quote:

But if you're gambling, then you're paying someone to operate a gambling site, which means that you can be charged with solicitation.

Read the site I linked to. The laws, which vary wiiiiidely from state to state, spell out rather specifically if/when a gambler can be charged and in what circumstances. In quite a few states, the gambler is not charged with anything. At most, it's a misdemeanor. We're not talking about paying a guy for kiddie porn or solicitation of murder, here.

Quote:

There's still going to be reluctance for the vitctims to tell them about it,

This is true, but this is also applicable to 419 scams, which prey on people's gullibility and greed.

Quote:

and investigating claims that people have been ripped off while engaging in criminal activity is probably not going to have a high priority.
I'm not even sure that itcounts as fraud if the purported deal is illegal.

It's neither illegal nor criminal as far as the Feds are concerned. The legality of the act of gambling is solely a state (small "s") issue.

Art Vandelay · 12th July 2006, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

It most certainly is--any investment is a gamble.

So is an investment in Federal Reserve Notes a gamble? Or is this a special sort of logic that only applies to the stock market?

Quote:

It's neither illegal nor criminal as far as the Feds are concerned. The legality of the act of gambling is solely a state (small "s") issue.

So if a prostitute goes to the FBI and says a client refuses to pay up, will they get involved?

mrfreeze · 12th July 2006, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

I very much doubt that. Other than Nevada and perhaps Neew Jersey, I don't know of any state where it's legal to gamble.

We have 3 or 4 casinos here in Michigan. More in the UP, and one going in within the next 2 years right down the street from me. Nice places, although I only have gone on my birthday with someone else's money.

Cleon · 12th July 2006, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

So is an investment in Federal Reserve Notes a gamble? Or is this a special sort of logic that only applies to the stock market?

Yes, but one with a very low risk of loss. But as I said, this is a topic for another thread.

Quote:

So if a prostitute goes to the FBI and says a client refuses to pay up, will they get involved?

No, because it's not their jurisdiction (unless it occurs across state lines).

geni · 12th July 2006, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

So is an investment in Federal Reserve Notes a gamble?

Yup. Generaly a wider basket of currencies would be recomened in order to minimise risk. If you had held than money in say pounds for the last year you would have done somwhat better.

Art Vandelay · 12th July 2006, 10:39 PM

It seems to me that to say that something is a gamble is to imply that there is a non-gamble alternative. Owning both FRN and stocks makes for a more diversified portfolio, and is therefore less of a gamble than just holding FRN.

geni · 13th July 2006, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

It seems to me that to say that something is a gamble is to imply that there is a non-gamble alternative. Owning both FRN and stocks makes for a more diversified portfolio, and is therefore less of a gamble than just holding FRN.

No since anything likely to take out FRN will take out stocks as well and you throw in all the extra risks of stocks. To reduce risks you would try to hold a wider basket of currencies (stuff like the swiss frank is generaly stable).

andyandy · 13th July 2006, 01:32 AM

It does raise the interesting question, what is gambling?
Poker is a game of skill insofar as a skilfull player will always expect to make money in the long run - just as a skilfull market trader will always expect to make monet in the city. In the long run then are these events "uncertain"? I'd say that a skillful poker player is more "certain" of making profit in the long run - as market collapse could take down any trader....
so is it really "gambling"?
It's a bet, but the outcome isn't uncertain in the long run....so it's neither "game of chance" or a "risk".......more like an investment

Quote:

To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest.
To play a game of chance for stakes.
To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gamble

shemp · 13th July 2006, 06:47 AM

I have long understood poker to be more a game of skill than of chance. I would hope that the Supreme Court would see it that way if and when a legal case pertaining to this question comes to pass. (Then again, considering some of their asinine decisions, betting on such a decision is probably a game of chance.)

Cleon · 13th July 2006, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by shemp

I have long understood poker to be more a game of skill than of chance. I would hope that the Supreme Court would see it that way if and when a legal case pertaining to this question comes to pass. (Then again, considering some of their asinine decisions, betting on such a decision is probably a game of chance.)

It's a little bit of both, really. Being able to read people is definitely a skill. Knowing the odds is definitely a skill. However, like any game, even if you're an ace (har!) at both of those, there's still chance involved. Really, poker is about risk management more than anything else. You might have pocket Aces with another one on the table, but if there are four clubs sitting out there including the Ace, chances are pretty damn good someone out there has the flush--and your trio of Aces won't beat that.

But with something like Poker or Blackjack, there is quite a bit of skill involved, unlike something like roullette or craps, which are pure chance. (And not very good chance, either.)

andyandy · 13th July 2006, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by Cleon

It's a little bit of both, really. Being able to read people is definitely a skill. Knowing the odds is definitely a skill. However, like any game, even if you're an ace (har!) at both of those, there's still chance involved. Really, poker is about risk management more than anything else. You might have pocket Aces with another one on the table, but if there are four clubs sitting out there including the Ace, chances are pretty damn good someone out there has the flush--and your trio of Aces won't beat that.

But with something like Poker or Blackjack, there is quite a bit of skill involved, unlike something like roullette or craps, which are pure chance. (And not very good chance, either.)

true, there's luck in the short term....but if you're consistantly playing against poorer players, then there's no "luck" long term....
If you're better than your opponents then you can expect an average of between 2BB - 10BB / 100 hands profit.....

Cleon · 13th July 2006, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by andyandy

true, there's luck in the short term....but if you're consistantly playing against poorer players, then there's no "luck" long term....
If you're better than your opponents then you can expect an average of between 2BB - 10BB / 100 hands profit.....

Sure, that's the way the numbers play out. But you're not always playing against poorer players--that's another gamble.

Then again, a good player can recognize when he's outclassed and will (hopefully) walk away.

Again, it's all risk management.

andyandy · 13th July 2006, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Cleon

Sure, that's the way the numbers play out. But you're not always playing against poorer players--that's another gamble.

Then again, a good player can recognize when he's outclassed and will (hopefully) walk away.

Again, it's all risk management.

yeah fair enough

I stick to .10 and .25 tables, so the level's not too high.....

the old mantra "if you can't spot the fish at the table, then it's you" works well enough to warn you when you should leave...

Cleon · 13th July 2006, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by andyandy

yeah fair enough

I stick to .10 and .25 tables, so the level's not too high.....

the old mantra "if you can't spot the fish at the table, then it's you" works well enough to warn you when you should leave...

No kidding. I usually don't even go that high--I stick to the micro (.01/.02-cent blinds) tables at Pokerstars, with an occasional tournament. Of course, I suck at the tourneys--I always wind up getting too impatient, which kills me.

I make no pretense of ever trying to make a living at this. I just have fun with it. Thanks, Congress, for protecting me from having a good time.

shemp · 13th July 2006, 09:50 AM

So maybe we should outlaw golf. Many players are so bad, getting the ball in the hole is little more than a game of chance for them. OUTLAW GOLF AND PROTECT INNOCENT GRASS AND SHRUBBERY!!!

Cleon · 13th July 2006, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by shemp

So maybe we should outlaw golf. Many players are so bad, getting the ball in the hole is little more than a game of chance for them.

Yes, but then you'd have to deal with corporate commerce coming to a grinding halt. And what would Congress do if golf was banned? They might have to actually work for their money.

Quote:

OUTLAW GOLF AND PROTECT INNOCENT GRASS AND SHRUBBERY!!!

For the shrubbery! Ni! Ni! Ni!

shemp · 13th July 2006, 10:06 AM

Quote:

And what would Congress do if golf was banned?

They could play poker.

Cleon · 13th July 2006, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by shemp

They could play poker.

...Which would be 10X more fiscally responsible than what they do with our money now.

shemp · 13th July 2006, 12:04 PM

Hell, taking our tax money and putting it all on one spin of the roulette wheel would be 10X more fiscally responsible than what they do with it now.

11th July 2006, 02:07 PM	#1
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,190	the poker chips are down! breaking news..... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5171034.stm Quote: The US House of Representatives has backed a bill which aims to rein in online gambling. The bill aims to limit internet gaming by making it illegal for US-based banks and credit card firms to make payments to online gambling sites. Is it likely to pass the senate? Any ramifications for the UK? seems kinda draconian to me.....after all the online gaming industry is hugely popular - and has a $6billion US turnover....
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

11th July 2006, 02:13 PM	#2
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,506	Dammit, I hope this doesn't pass. I like playing online poker. And no, I don't spend gazillions of dollars. I play penny-blind Hold 'Em. I play 2-3 times a week, at worst break even, and generally enjoy myself.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

11th July 2006, 02:28 PM	#3
Hagrok Muse Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: ABQ, NM, USA Posts: 904	So the gambling sites use non-descript front companies to take payment. Banks couldn't possibly know every company that's a front for a gambling company. Once again our lawmakers haven't taken 30 seconds to think carefully about an issue.
	__________________ Indecision may or may not be my problem...

11th July 2006, 02:36 PM	#4
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,190	well....BBC reckon it's not likely to pass this time in the senate (not enough time apparently) - and the shares in party poker havent dived, so the city mustn't be too worried either...
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

11th July 2006, 02:44 PM	#5
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759	Quote: Online gambling sites are unfair, unregulated competition for regulated gambling sites whose operators undergo background checks to reduce the likelihood of criminal involvement. Players at online gambling sites have no recourse if they are cheated. Players at legal casinos or card rooms can go to the gambling commission. Link
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759

11th July 2006, 02:47 PM	#6
Hagrok Muse Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: ABQ, NM, USA Posts: 904	Originally Posted by Luke T. Link True enough; doesn't mean that this particular legislation would be effective however. I'm actually not sure what could be done since a lot of those gambling sites are run over seas. Any ideas?
	__________________ Indecision may or may not be my problem...

11th July 2006, 02:57 PM	#7
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759	Originally Posted by Hagrok True enough; doesn't mean that this particular legislation would be effective however. I'm actually not sure what could be done since a lot of those gambling sites are run over seas. Any ideas? I am against regulation of the internet just on general principles. This legislation appears to move beyond the internet and into the bank vault. Yeah. Ways will be found around it. You can bet on it - D'oh!
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759

11th July 2006, 03:00 PM	#8
Hagrok Muse Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: ABQ, NM, USA Posts: 904	Originally Posted by Luke T. I am against regulation of the internet just on general principles. This legislation appears to move beyond the internet and into the bank vault. Yeah. Ways will be found around it. You can bet on it - D'oh! I suppose we could just cut all those cables that lead over seas, and shoot down all the comm sats...
	__________________ Indecision may or may not be my problem...

11th July 2006, 03:05 PM	#9
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,506	Just taking a shot at Luke's quote: Quote: Online gambling sites are unfair, Of course they're unfair! They're gambling sites! Every single regulated gambling site is unfair, too. Quote: unregulated competition for regulated gambling sites Oh, no! Competition! Whatever shall we do??!?! Quote: whose operators undergo background checks to reduce the likelihood of criminal involvement. And is there a shred of evidence that the criminal involvement in, say, PokerStars.net is greater than that involved in your average Atlantic City casino? Quote: Players at online gambling sites have no recourse if they are cheated. Of course we do. It's called fraud, and it's illegal. Quote: Players at legal casinos or card rooms can go to the gambling commission. And players at Pokerstars can go through the FBI. Of course, since everything is on the table (literally) at a place like Pokerstars, you can see what's going on, and if the house is cheating it becomes very, very obvious very, very quickly. What silly logic. It's like saying that since, you can be mugged walking in the bad areas of town, we should ban walking down the street.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

11th July 2006, 06:52 PM	#10
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	I don't see what's to stop Americans from simply having an non-US-based bank transfer the funds. Originally Posted by Hagrok I'm actually not sure what could be done since a lot of those gambling sites are run over seas. Any ideas? I take it you meant "overseas"? Originally Posted by Cleon Of course we do. It's called fraud, and it's illegal. But the US doesn't really have jurisdiction. Quote: And players at Pokerstars can go through the FBI. Besides the issue of jurisdiction, there's the fact that a victim would have to admit to engaging in criminal activity.

11th July 2006, 07:11 PM	#11
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,506	Originally Posted by Art Vandelay But the US doesn't really have jurisdiction. Actually, they do, because the companies in question are doing business in the United States. This is similar to why the FBI has jurisdiction over Nigerian 419 scams--they might originate from overseas, but they're doing business in the good ol' US of A--which makes it FBI business if someone is scammed. Quote: Besides the issue of jurisdiction, there's the fact that a victim would have to admit to engaging in criminal activity. It is not currently illegal for a person to gamble online, except in a handful of states (and in that case, the FBI definitely doesn't have jurisdiction).
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

11th July 2006, 07:21 PM	#12
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,180	Front companies can indeed be used to take payments, but it's not that simple. Gambling sites would not be able to extend credit to players using US-based credit cards, because even if the player agrees to charges, they don't have to actually pay up, because it's illegal for their credit card company to do so, so they can just point out what the charges were really for to their credit card company after running up a big bill. Sites can't operate profitably with that kind of risk. There are ways around this, such as using non-US bank accounts and credit cards as intermediaries, so this can't really cut things off. But it does make things much more difficult, because a lot of potential players probably aren't willing to jump through those hoops.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

11th July 2006, 07:23 PM	#13
Anti_Hypeman Death Dealing Doom Machine Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,011	If somebody wants to flush money down the toilet thats their business.

11th July 2006, 07:38 PM	#14
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,506	Here's a question; this bill seems preoccupied with credit cards, but how would this affect ACH transfers? As far as I am aware--and granted, I am not well versed in the finer points of international commerce--there is nothing stopping a foreign bank from making an ACH withdrawal from your checking account. I know many sites already have that as a funding option.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

11th July 2006, 08:10 PM	#15
Ryokan Insert something funny here Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norway Posts: 8,175	This has already been done in Norway - you can't use a credit card on online poker sites. I don't play online poker, but still... Who the hell are parliament to decide what I do with my money?!?!

11th July 2006, 09:12 PM	#16
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by Cleon Actually, they do, because the companies in question are doing business in the United States. That's rather shaky legal ground. If someone in France calls me up and orders something, am I doing business in France? Quote: This is similar to why the FBI has jurisdiction over Nigerian 419 scams--they might originate from overseas, but they're doing business in the good ol' US of A--which makes it FBI business if someone is scammed. The FBI can collect information on anyone they want. But they can't enter Nigeria without permission, they can't arrest anyone in Nigeria, they can't issue supoenas, they can't extradite Nigerians, etc. So any "jurisdiction" is largely theoretical, as it is in gambling. I suppose that if you can get the scammer to enter the US, the FBI might be able to do something, but other than that, the FBI is just going to put it all in a file and that's it. Quote: It is not currently illegal for a person to gamble online, except in a handful of states (and in that case, the FBI definitely doesn't have jurisdiction). I very much doubt that. Other than Nevada and perhaps Neew Jersey, I don't know of any state where it's legal to gamble. Originally Posted by Ziggurat Front companies can indeed be used to take payments, but it's not that simple. Gambling sites would not be able to extend credit to players using US-based credit cards, because even if the player agrees to charges, they don't have to actually pay up, because it's illegal for their credit card company to do so, so they can just point out what the charges were really for to their credit card company after running up a big bill. Sites can't operate profitably with that kind of risk. Hmm. Could they still mess up someone's credit rating? I was thinking it would be a debit system. Originally Posted by Cleon Here's a question; this bill seems preoccupied with credit cards, but how would this affect ACH transfers? As far as I am aware--and granted, I am not well versed in the finer points of international commerce--there is nothing stopping a foreign bank from making an ACH withdrawal from your checking account. Er... do you mean "other than they need your permission"? Or do I need to put my money under the mattress?

11th July 2006, 09:57 PM	#17
shemp Timothy, Timothy, where on earth did you go? Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: trapped in a cave-in with Joe Posts: 12,884	Originally Posted by Anti_Hypeman If somebody wants to flush money down the toilet thats their business. If anyone should wish to do this, please do it at my house. I have a septic system and can recover the money from the tank. (Though I will have to launder it before I spend it.)
	__________________ Church on Sunday, sleep and nod Tryin' to duck the wrath of God Preacher's fillin' us with fright Tryin' to tell us what he thinks is right He really got to be some kind of nut (I can't use it!) Tryin' to make it real - compared to what?

12th July 2006, 07:36 AM	#18
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,506	Originally Posted by Art Vandelay That's rather shaky legal ground. If someone in France calls me up and orders something, am I doing business in France? The FBI can collect information on anyone they want. But they can't enter Nigeria without permission, they can't arrest anyone in Nigeria, they can't issue supoenas, they can't extradite Nigerians, etc. So any "jurisdiction" is largely theoretical, as it is in gambling. I suppose that if you can get the scammer to enter the US, the FBI might be able to do something, but other than that, the FBI is just going to put it all in a file and that's it. True, but it is their case--and I was mistaken, it's not the FBI, it's the Department of the Treasury, specifically the Secret Service. They are the ones who investigate the case and work with Nigerian (or whoever) authorities to have the culprits tried and/or extradited. Quote: I very much doubt that. Other than Nevada and perhaps Neew Jersey, I don't know of any state where it's legal to gamble. <pedantic>It's legal to gamble in every state that has a lottery and allows stock trading. </pedantic> As far as I'm aware, the prohibition on gambling is usually the operation of gambling sites, not the actual act itself. I see, upon googling, that this is not the case in Georgia, where the act of gambling is a misdemeanor. However, South Carolina does not penalize the act of gambling, nor does New York, California (I think--man, that's one convoluted piece of legislation), or Maryland (interesting--MD specifically bans a Basque game called Jai Alai for some reason). However, my point about jurisdiction stands; it is not the job of the SS (or FBI) to enforce state laws, especially misdemeanors. But many states have legal gambling these days--whether via Native American casinos, or site licenses. My home state of Pennsylvania has authorized the creation of several casino licenses across the state, and is currently hacking through the process of their allocation (Pittsburgh is already talking about using the tax revenue to partially fund a new venue for the Penguins). A number of states allow Riverboat gambling. Branson, Missouri is considered the poor man's Vegas (and is also home to the #1 victim of the USSR's collapse). Quote: Er... do you mean "other than they need your permission"? Or do I need to put my money under the mattress? Well, yes, of course. Technically, if they have your routing & account number, they can do it anyway, but, well, see info about 419 scams above.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

12th July 2006, 07:57 AM	#19
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759	Originally Posted by Art Vandelay I very much doubt that. Other than Nevada and perhaps Neew Jersey, I don't know of any state where it's legal to gamble. Let's see. Here in Oregon we have casinos. And there are casinos in Mississippi. Remember the news reports of one being lifted and dropped in the middle of a highway during Hurricane Katrina? And the world's largest casino is in Connecticut...
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,759

12th July 2006, 12:32 PM	#20
senorpogo Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 2,094	A surprisingly detailed analysis of HR 4477 from Cardplayer magazine. http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/15416

12th July 2006, 01:12 PM	#21
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by Cleon <pedantic>It's legal to gamble in every state that has a lottery and allows stock trading. </pedantic> The stock market is not gambling. Quote: As far as I'm aware, the prohibition on gambling is usually the operation of gambling sites, not the actual act itself. But if you're gambling, then you're paying someone to operate a gambling site, which means that you can be charged with solicitation. Quote: However, my point about jurisdiction stands; it is not the job of the SS (or FBI) to enforce state laws, especially misdemeanors. There's still going to be reluctance for the vitctims to tell them about it, and investigating claims that people have been ripped off while engaging in criminal activity is probably not going to have a high priority. I'm not even sure that itcounts as fraud if the purported deal is illegal.

12th July 2006, 02:00 PM	#22
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,506	Originally Posted by Art Vandelay The stock market is not gambling. It most certainly is--any investment is a gamble. But this is something for a different thread. Quote: But if you're gambling, then you're paying someone to operate a gambling site, which means that you can be charged with solicitation. Read the site I linked to. The laws, which vary wiiiiidely from state to state, spell out rather specifically if/when a gambler can be charged and in what circumstances. In quite a few states, the gambler is not charged with anything. At most, it's a misdemeanor. We're not talking about paying a guy for kiddie porn or solicitation of murder, here. Quote: There's still going to be reluctance for the vitctims to tell them about it, This is true, but this is also applicable to 419 scams, which prey on people's gullibility and greed. Quote: and investigating claims that people have been ripped off while engaging in criminal activity is probably not going to have a high priority. I'm not even sure that itcounts as fraud if the purported deal is illegal. It's neither illegal nor criminal as far as the Feds are concerned. The legality of the act of gambling is solely a state (small "s") issue.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

12th July 2006, 05:10 PM	#23
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by Cleon It most certainly is--any investment is a gamble. So is an investment in Federal Reserve Notes a gamble? Or is this a special sort of logic that only applies to the stock market? Quote: It's neither illegal nor criminal as far as the Feds are concerned. The legality of the act of gambling is solely a state (small "s") issue. So if a prostitute goes to the FBI and says a client refuses to pay up, will they get involved?

12th July 2006, 05:41 PM	#24
mrfreeze Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Outside of Detroit Posts: 425	Originally Posted by Art Vandelay I very much doubt that. Other than Nevada and perhaps Neew Jersey, I don't know of any state where it's legal to gamble. We have 3 or 4 casinos here in Michigan. More in the UP, and one going in within the next 2 years right down the street from me. Nice places, although I only have gone on my birthday with someone else's money.

12th July 2006, 06:14 PM	#25
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,506	Originally Posted by Art Vandelay So is an investment in Federal Reserve Notes a gamble? Or is this a special sort of logic that only applies to the stock market? Yes, but one with a very low risk of loss. But as I said, this is a topic for another thread. Quote: So if a prostitute goes to the FBI and says a client refuses to pay up, will they get involved? No, because it's not their jurisdiction (unless it occurs across state lines).
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

12th July 2006, 06:38 PM	#26
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,555	Originally Posted by Art Vandelay So is an investment in Federal Reserve Notes a gamble? Yup. Generaly a wider basket of currencies would be recomened in order to minimise risk. If you had held than money in say pounds for the last year you would have done somwhat better.

12th July 2006, 10:39 PM	#27
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	It seems to me that to say that something is a gamble is to imply that there is a non-gamble alternative. Owning both FRN and stocks makes for a more diversified portfolio, and is therefore less of a gamble than just holding FRN.

13th July 2006, 12:40 AM	#28
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,555	Originally Posted by Art Vandelay It seems to me that to say that something is a gamble is to imply that there is a non-gamble alternative. Owning both FRN and stocks makes for a more diversified portfolio, and is therefore less of a gamble than just holding FRN. No since anything likely to take out FRN will take out stocks as well and you throw in all the extra risks of stocks. To reduce risks you would try to hold a wider basket of currencies (stuff like the swiss frank is generaly stable).

13th July 2006, 01:32 AM	#29
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,190	It does raise the interesting question, what is gambling? Poker is a game of skill insofar as a skilfull player will always expect to make money in the long run - just as a skilfull market trader will always expect to make monet in the city. In the long run then are these events "uncertain"? I'd say that a skillful poker player is more "certain" of making profit in the long run - as market collapse could take down any trader.... so is it really "gambling"? It's a bet, but the outcome isn't uncertain in the long run....so it's neither "game of chance" or a "risk".......more like an investment Quote: To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest. To play a game of chance for stakes. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gamble
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

13th July 2006, 06:47 AM	#30
shemp Timothy, Timothy, where on earth did you go? Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: trapped in a cave-in with Joe Posts: 12,884	I have long understood poker to be more a game of skill than of chance. I would hope that the Supreme Court would see it that way if and when a legal case pertaining to this question comes to pass. (Then again, considering some of their asinine decisions, betting on such a decision is probably a game of chance.)
	__________________ Church on Sunday, sleep and nod Tryin' to duck the wrath of God Preacher's fillin' us with fright Tryin' to tell us what he thinks is right He really got to be some kind of nut (I can't use it!) Tryin' to make it real - compared to what?

13th July 2006, 07:12 AM	#31
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,506	Originally Posted by shemp I have long understood poker to be more a game of skill than of chance. I would hope that the Supreme Court would see it that way if and when a legal case pertaining to this question comes to pass. (Then again, considering some of their asinine decisions, betting on such a decision is probably a game of chance.) It's a little bit of both, really. Being able to read people is definitely a skill. Knowing the odds is definitely a skill. However, like any game, even if you're an ace (har!) at both of those, there's still chance involved. Really, poker is about risk management more than anything else. You might have pocket Aces with another one on the table, but if there are four clubs sitting out there including the Ace, chances are pretty damn good someone out there has the flush--and your trio of Aces won't beat that. But with something like Poker or Blackjack, there is quite a bit of skill involved, unlike something like roullette or craps, which are pure chance. (And not very good chance, either.)
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

13th July 2006, 07:38 AM	#32
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,190	Originally Posted by Cleon It's a little bit of both, really. Being able to read people is definitely a skill. Knowing the odds is definitely a skill. However, like any game, even if you're an ace (har!) at both of those, there's still chance involved. Really, poker is about risk management more than anything else. You might have pocket Aces with another one on the table, but if there are four clubs sitting out there including the Ace, chances are pretty damn good someone out there has the flush--and your trio of Aces won't beat that. But with something like Poker or Blackjack, there is quite a bit of skill involved, unlike something like roullette or craps, which are pure chance. (And not very good chance, either.) true, there's luck in the short term....but if you're consistantly playing against poorer players, then there's no "luck" long term.... If you're better than your opponents then you can expect an average of between 2BB - 10BB / 100 hands profit.....
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

13th July 2006, 07:42 AM	#33
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,506	Originally Posted by andyandy true, there's luck in the short term....but if you're consistantly playing against poorer players, then there's no "luck" long term.... If you're better than your opponents then you can expect an average of between 2BB - 10BB / 100 hands profit..... Sure, that's the way the numbers play out. But you're not always playing against poorer players--that's another gamble. Then again, a good player can recognize when he's outclassed and will (hopefully) walk away. Again, it's all risk management.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich

13th July 2006, 07:47 AM	#34
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,190	Originally Posted by Cleon Sure, that's the way the numbers play out. But you're not always playing against poorer players--that's another gamble. Then again, a good player can recognize when he's outclassed and will (hopefully) walk away. Again, it's all risk management. yeah fair enough I stick to .10 and .25 tables, so the level's not too high..... the old mantra "if you can't spot the fish at the table, then it's you" works well enough to warn you when you should leave...
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks." Last edited by andyandy; 13th July 2006 at 08:02 AM.

13th July 2006, 08:15 AM	#35
Cleon King of the Pod People Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 20,506	Originally Posted by andyandy yeah fair enough I stick to .10 and .25 tables, so the level's not too high..... the old mantra "if you can't spot the fish at the table, then it's you" works well enough to warn you when you should leave... No kidding. I usually don't even go that high--I stick to the micro (.01/.02-cent blinds) tables at Pokerstars, with an occasional tournament. Of course, I suck at the tourneys--I always wind up getting too impatient, which kills me. I make no pretense of ever trying to make a living at this. I just have fun with it. Thanks, Congress, for protecting me from having a good time.
	__________________ "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich