Did you know Online Poker may not be covered in the recent US Gambling Laws?

[Full House]

There is a rumour that many of the online Poker Companies are looking at the US Gambling Laws in great detail.

There is specultion that the small print may exempt Poker, because the laws refer to "games of chance". Lawyers are trying to argue that Poker is a game of skill, not chance, and as such online Poker Sites which take money from the US may not be illegal after all.

It will take a brave Company to take on the US State department, but if one company is successful in a challenge then it will be back to normal for Online Poker.

Fingers crossed.

[Royal Flush]

If there is a possibility that the law may exempt Online Poker, in error, rather than intentionally, then there may be life for US Online Poker after all.

These Laws have been going through Congress for years, but I am not sure why it is only now that the US Authorities have decided to be so heavy handed?

Is this a way of safe guarding the Vagas Gaming Community, or are they really trying to protect the public?

[kelkat]

Believe me, if someone is about to lose a lot of money then the lawyers will be glad to take some of it to find the loop holes in whatever laws congress tries to pass.

[Mika Ollila]

This is good reading on the subject:

Published on: Thursday Oct 05, 2006
Legal Landscape of Online Gaming Has Not Changed
Analysis From CardPlayer's Legal Counsel

[winningedge]

Does any one else find it interesting that seems some of the biggest sites are the ones issuing statments that they are goign to close up shop, while some of the smaller ones are staying open?

[Mika Ollila]

Does any one else find it interesting that seems some of the biggest sites are the ones issuing statments that they are goign to close up shop, while some of the smaller ones are staying open?

These big sites are publicly listed companies, who have a liability to their stockholders. The offshore companies do not have to be so careful on their statements or actions. The law has no jurisdiction over them.

[Royal Flush]

You are spot on with your comments mollila.

If these companies where to keep on trading in the US (even if their were a chance of beating the ban) they risk the chance of Lawsuits from shareholders if it was to go wrong.

It is different for the smaller private Companies who are "playing" with there own money. They may need to be good "buffers" when playing the US Government.

[Avian]

You also have to remember that big sites have a decent international following too, and they will most likely be able to survive this. They just have to build up a better international database. The little companies depend on U.S. traffic though, so they have more of a reason to fight.

[sub-zero]

I think the whole thing stinks. Who cares if someone of legal age wants to get online and play poker. This legal crap just sucks.

I'd rather see them start banning porn sites. Poker serves a better purpose than someone paying to look at naked chicks all day online...that is more addicting and danderous than poker is.

[Avian]

True, that is the enigma that is the United States government. They have no problem with porn, alcohol, tobacco, or corruption, but gambling.... That's a big problem.

[pokerwhiz]

The key word in your argument is "paying". This isn't about morality. It's all about money. Our government is pissed off they haven't cashed in on the poker/casino craze. MGM Grand and Harrah's are waiting on the sidelines to open up "legal" online sites, and willing to pay their taxes.

This was a political move by the conservatives in this country to gain votes in three weeks in the election. I would be willing to bet (if I had a website to legally bet on), this will have a better outcome that we currently see.

Mollila's point about answering to stockholders is truly valid. However, Party Poker and other similar companies will be sorry they took such a dramatic approach. PokerStars and FullTilt will pick up a "shxxload" (self censored) of players who will not return to blocked out sites. I'm one of them.

[pokerwhiz]

This is one time they may not have to "challenge" the government. Most lawyers say the law is filled with both loopholes, and so ambiguous that it was probably written by either Bush or Gore, and not even spell checked.,

[ladygirl99]

The key word in your argument is "paying". This isn't about morality. It's all about money. Our government is pissed off they haven't cashed in on the poker/casino craze. MGM Grand and Harrah's are waiting on the sidelines to open up "legal" online sites, and willing to pay their taxes.

This was a political move by the conservatives in this country to gain votes in three weeks in the election. I would be willing to bet (if I had a website to legally bet on), this will have a better outcome that we currently see.

Mollila's point about answering to stockholders is truly valid. However, Party Poker and other similar companies will be sorry they took such a dramatic approach. PokerStars and FullTilt will pick up a "shxxload" (self censored) of players who will not return to blocked out sites. I'm one of them.

And also that online gambling is hurting landbased casinos and they have deep pockets with the folks in Washington. It is because many people don't want to travel many hours to a casino either where they can play at home. But you right any fool can see that the goverment is trying to banned online gambling is all about not getting piece of the pie. I don't understand why they can't regulated like they do with tobacco, alcohol, and everyone wins?