PokerStars confirms it will not pull out of U.S. market
Jay
Now that Stars is sticking with U.S. customers, will the others (Party
etc...) change their mind?
If they don't Stars will become a monster in terms of # of players.
This should make for great game selection, Tournament prize pools.
LOOKS LIKE ALL THE FISH WILL BE IN ONE GIANT POND !!
_______________________________________________________________________________
Dear PokerStars Player,
We received an email from you during the last two weeks inquiring about
PokerStars' position with regards to the recently enacted Internet
Gambling
Act.
PokerStars has received extensive expert advice from within and outside
the U.
S. which concluded that these provisions do not alter the U.S. legal
situation
with respect to online poker. Furthermore it is important to emphasize
that
the Act does not in any way prohibit you from playing online poker.
Therefore, our business continues as before - open to players worldwide
including the US. You may play on our site as you did prior to the Act.
PokerStars believes that poker is a game of skill enjoyed by millions
of
players and we remain committed to providing you a safe and fun
environment in
which to play. We value your loyalty to PokerStars, and look forward to
continuing to serve you with the best online poker experience, as we
have for
the past five years, six billion hands, and 40 million tournaments.
PokerStars Management
kidpokerthetool
their servers and "take them out".
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Harkness
kidpokerthetool wrote:
> Poker Stars is rigged to the tits. I say the American govt. should just find
> their servers and "take them out".
It's generally not a good idea to either bomb or invade countries
which are your military allies and trading partners. Of course, I
wouldn't put anything past President Cheney.
John Harkness
kidpokerthetool
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Howard Beale
Why bomb/invade? Use the Delta Force:
http://students.engr.scu.edu/~jabraham/specwar/specops/us/delta/delta1grey.jpg
Howard Beale
-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
lawh...@hiwaay.net
and directors of Pokerstars, (after duly consulting with legal
counsel), have decided to go ahead and defy the new U.S. law by
continuing to offer on-line poker to - and accept deposits from - their
U.S. customers. At the same time, Party Poker, the industry leader,
(also acting on the advice of legal counsel), has decided to withdraw
from the U.S. market. The folks who run PartyGaming, (the parent
company that owns Party Poker), have apparently decided that there is
too much risk involved by enticing a lawsuit from the United States
government. The folks who own and run Pokerstars have apparently
decided that such a risk is acceptable. They can't both be right.
I'm not sure about the details of ownership, (i.e. PartyGaming is a
publicly traded company while I'm not sure who owns Pokerstars), but
differences in legal status and ownership may have dictated the
different decisions that these two companies have reached. One things
for sure: The folks who own and run Pokerstars are taking a big chance
by appearing to defy the new U.S. law - or maybe they're running a nice
little "bluff" on their customers to try and keep deposits coming in
right up to the last minute ...
Alan C. Lawhon
Huntsville, Alabama
Up Front Poker
Fully agree with till the last minute
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Harkness
Howard Beale wrote:
> On Oct 12 2006 8:34 AM, Harkness wrote:
>
> > kidpokerthetool wrote:
> > > Poker Stars is rigged to the tits. I say the American govt. should just
> find
> > > their servers and "take them out".
> >
> > It's generally not a good idea to either bomb or invade countries
> > which are your military allies and trading partners. Of course, I
> > wouldn't put anything past President Cheney.
> >
> > John Harkness
>
>
> Why bomb/invade? Use the Delta Force:
>
That would qualify as invasion.
John Harkness
Harkness
lawh...@HiWAAY.net wrote:
> We've got an interesting "all-in" type situation here. The management
> and directors of Pokerstars, (after duly consulting with legal
> counsel), have decided to go ahead and defy the new U.S. law by
> continuing to offer on-line poker to - and accept deposits from - their
> U.S. customers. At the same time, Party Poker, the industry leader,
> (also acting on the advice of legal counsel), has decided to withdraw
> from the U.S. market. The folks who run PartyGaming, (the parent
> company that owns Party Poker), have apparently decided that there is
> too much risk involved by enticing a lawsuit from the United States
> government. The folks who own and run Pokerstars have apparently
> decided that such a risk is acceptable. They can't both be right.
>
> I'm not sure about the details of ownership, (i.e. PartyGaming is a
> publicly traded company while I'm not sure who owns Pokerstars), but
> differences in legal status and ownership may have dictated the
> different decisions that these two companies have reached. One things
> for sure: The folks who own and run Pokerstars are taking a big chance
> by appearing to defy the new U.S. law - or maybe they're running a nice
> little "bluff" on their customers to try and keep deposits coming in
> right up to the last minute ...
>
> Alan C. Lawhon
> Huntsville, Alabama
Pokerstars is privately held.
Just some speculation here...
The downside is the possiblity of some sort of international legal
action.
The upside is to gain customers who feel abandoned by the Party and
the other rooms that have left their American players high and dry.
The downwards risk is that the Fed and the banks actually come up with
a way to block EFTs -- like Neteller and others aren't working on ways
to conceal themselves in cyberterms. (I was talking to a friend who
does bank IT, and his note is the banks are not at all happy about this
-- it's expensive to implement, will require constant monitoring and
upgrades to be genuinely effective and will piss off their customers.)
The counterbalance is that the bill could simply be a bunch of
boilerplate that Frist will use as a proof of his moral bonafides and
that, if the GOP loses control of Congress in November, the gov will
have much bigger fish to fry than online poker.
Two other thoughts.
It's very hard to put toothpaste back in the tube.
The actual engineers are generally three steps ahead of the social
engineers.
One more.
Booze and drugs.
Prohibition is *such* a successful way to deal with perceived social
problems.
John Harkness
Dano
Stars servers!!!
"kidpokerthetool" <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1160663455$886...@recpoker.com...
Death Rowe
"I reserve the right to change my mind."
RMHisCOOL
What law (in effect now) exactly is anybody breaking? If online poker's
illegal, then it has been for a few years. In which case you're a degenerate
criminal.
Rory
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Vermeer
news:1160667636.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>> _________ Dear PokerStars Player,
see: http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_law/article/1446
snippet:
"Online Poker Is Not Illegal
Even though the Attorney General’s office has publicly taken the position
that the 1961 Wire Act forbids online poker, in 10 years they have not
put their money where their mouth is. Why? The judiciary (that is, the
interpreting body) has already held that the 1961 Wire Act doesn’t speak
to poker. It only applies to sports betting.
The case in point to which I refer is “In Re Mastercard International,”
decided by District Court Judge Stanwood R. Duvall, Jr. in 2001. Among
other issues, Judge Duval was faced with the question of whether the Wire
Act applied to online gambling. The posture of the case was interesting
because many deadbeat gamblers attempted to avoid online gambling debts
they had incurred by alleging that the money they owed their credit card
companies amounted to illegal gambling debts in violation of the Wire
Act. As a matter of fact, there were so many similar suits filed by so
many gamblers who did not want to pay their losses that the lower court
consolidated 33 such similar charges.
Judge Duvall ruled that the Wire Act only prohibited wagering on sports
events and he dismissed all 33 cases, noting that “Comparing the face of
the Wire Act and the history surrounding its enactment with the recently
proposed legislation, it becomes more certain that the Wire Act's
prohibition of gambling activities is restricted to the types of events
enumerated in the statute, sporting events or contests.” In other words,
online poker was not within the reach of the Wire Act’s prohibition. The
District Court of Appeal agreed with Duvall’s ruling that the 1961 Wire
Act does not apply to online poker.
I must mention one caveat. District courts are permitted to disagree with
one another until the Supreme Court steps in. However, in this case Judge
Duvall’s reasoning is so sound that it is close to irrefutable. There is
a well established body of law regarding statutory construction and Judge
Duvall followed the procedure to a tee."
So it seems that dedicated poker sites are NOT violating any law.
Sportsbetting is the only problem.
--
*********
Vermeer
*********