Poker Sites Banning US players....

Ok, kind of a list, feel free to post yours below and ill edit as i go.


The following sites do NOT allow US players.


Pacific Poker
William Hill
LittleWoods
Ladbrokes

I apologise for the language, but HOLY SH!T THIS IS BAD!!!


http://www.londonstockexchange.com/L...926&source=RNS

Ugh, that pains my head. The stupidity of PartyGaming that is. What they fail to realize is the very low % of players that use credit cards and direct bank deposits. So, dont expect most sites to go this way...I hope...

The key staple for US (other than all of us being locked out of the sites like a bunch of LEPERS) will be Neteller and how they act and are classified.

After all, Neteller is not just for gambling. It's for good proper US approved fun... (****).

Looks like we missed the boat on this stock play.

Party Gaming is down 62% at this moment based on that decision by the board. I am not sure how the London Stock Exchange tracks insider trading, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit to see that the board members "insiders" were selling Party HEAVILY over the last month and week... before making this decision, that shafts the remaining share holders.

I'll see what I can dig up on details of this, but it wouldn't be surprising in the least.

Inside info - Neteller are currently getting ready to become a bank

More inside info - UK partgaming is DOWN DOWN DOWN

ohhhh ****.

From Nollan:


I do not believe most of the members here quite understand the degree of damage this new legislation will have upon the online gambling industry -- inclduing sports wagering, poker, and affiliated businesses such as XXXXXX, et. al.

Before I comment upon this legislation and its detrimental impacts, first I should disclose that I have been involved in the poker business for more than a decade. I was and am the Media Director for the World Series of Poker. I was, until yesterday, the Director of Communications for PokerStars.com -- the second-largest online poker site in the world. I resigned my position based on legal advice. In 2004, I was the Editor of a sports betting magazine published by SportingBet USA. I also served as a guest handicapper here at XXXXXXXX for four years. Please note that the opinions expressed here are not those of the World Series of Poker, PokerStars.com, or anyone else I have been affiliated with. They are my own.

Once this bill is signed into law (possibly as early as Wednesday, Oct. 4), it becomes effective immediately. This is why 888, PartyGaming, and others are suspending US operations, effective immediately. News has already been released that .COM (money) poker games will not be available to US residents. However, .NET (free) games will continue uninterupted.

I expect this to have a ripple afffect across the entire industry. Most of the larger poker sites, and likely offshore sportsbooks as well, will be forced to block wagers from US residents. Otherwise, all operators/employees are subject to arrest and prosecution if they enter US territory. Those here and elsewhere who have stated this new law "only applies to financial transactions" have a narrow and tragically misguided view of the legislation. It essentially makes any employee or agent of the offshore site a criminal under US law -- UNLESS they block transactions from US residents. In short, an executive from an offshore sportsbook could enter the US and not fear arrest, provided that company is not doing business inside the United States.

Hence, the impetous is on the sites themselves to shut down US operations and links to US clients. I expect that most of the larger sportsbooks and poker sites will follow this trend for a few reasons which follow:

1. First, many of the larger, more established compnaies will take a long-term strategic view. They will decide it is better to operate within the law, rather than break it. This is especially true for public companies subject to gaming law and regulations, such as Party, 888, etc.

2. Companies which comply with US law now will be in a better position to re-enter the US market, provided online gamlbing is eventually legalized.

3. While profits will decline in the short-term, these companies will be forced to expand into new markets (Asia, Latin America, and so forth) or perish. Those companies with diversified products (non-US sports on the betting menu, for example) will be in better position to make the adjustment.

4. I expect a number of rogue sites to pop up and circumvent the law. Clearly, some sites will emerge and take the risk of accepting US wagers because of great potential profit. Sadly, I expect some of these rogue sites will be poorly run and mismanaged and scandal will result, which impacts the entire industry, and this makes legaliztion in the US even more difficult.

5. I expect that most of the majors in the sports betting market will continue to operate through the end of football season (the most profitable time of the year) and use the 270-day enforcement discussion period as a grey area which can be exploited to their advantage. However, as arrests and prosecutions continue to make news (Caruthers, Dicks, etc.) some of the majors will be forced to confront the prospect of blocking US traffic. I also expect US officials to put pressure on some governments such as Costa Rica, Antigua, and others to regulate their own sportsbooks, in the manner that the US government is involved in drug policy in counties like Mexico, Columbia, and so forth.

6. I predict that most of the majors will conduct themselves in a professional manner, by refunding deposits and paying (winning) players upon request. More to the point, I am not withdrawing my money from any poker or sports betting account at this time. However, those sites which openly violate US law will risk eventually being targeted in international court. I admit to having less knowledge on this issue than any other. But I do not fear that well-established sportsbooks will run away with money. I can say with absolute certainty that the big poker sites will act in good faith. I think I know this industry well enough to express this confidence.

As to the impacts on poker and sportsbetting, this new law is going to be DEVASTATING. Especially for poker.

Consider that:

A. If poker sites cannot accept deposits from US players, that will kill 70-80 percent of the overall market. The question becomes -- is there eanough of a remaining market and enough contributing players in smaller markets to sustain operations and expansion? Perhaps. But it will take years, if not a decade to return to what has been the golden age of poker.

B. Online poker sites and sportsbooks will no longer be able to advertise (.COM-related services) inside the US. Media outlets will simply refuse to accept the ads. This includes print, television, and radio. Consider the implications. Thousands of new players were signing up daily at various sites. All of that vanishes. Sports gambling is less-relaint on advertising. However, the loss of the US market will force unforeseen changes in how these businesses are run, esepcially those companies that have multiple-gamling related products, such as BoDog, Paradise, etc.

C. Online betting sites will likely not be able to post banner ads and links to gaming sites, especially those based inside the US. "Aiding and abetting" laws could result in arest and prosecution for those who provide links to US residents. Poker magazines, online betting forums, and even MadJacks could suffer. I remain uncertain as to how severe this impact will be, especially at MadJacks. But for the hundreds of poker sites/sports sties and blogs out there that are dependent upon online poker and sportsbook advertising, many will go out of business. Once again, this might not seem a big issue to everyone, but these are the pioneers who are bringing in new poker players and sports bettors and when they dry up, the market skrinks and everyone is adversely affected.

D. Many sites use what are called affiliates. Persons who are affiliates and live inside the US will now be subject to arrest and prosecution, particualrly those who do not block financial transactions from the US.

E. The celebrity poker culture around star poker players will diminish. One poker site is heavily branded to many big names. Now, these players will no longer be able to promote their sites inside the US. Hence, their value and stature diminishes.

F. Big events like the World Series of Poker, which attract meany players and great inteerst from online poker sites, could decline in size for the first time in history. I am most sensitive to commenting upon this event because I still have a longstanding association with the WSOP. However, anyone who looks at the situation must conclude that the WSOP and major poker tournaments will be hurt by this new law.

G. Online gaming sponsorships of various products and services will decline. For instance, Golden Palace ads in boxing arenas, NBA stadiums, and on halftime shows will diminish, if not end completely. PartyPoker ads that are seen regularly on TV, on all stations, will fade away. Millions in advertising revenue will be lost by media companies (which begs the question (why were they not fighting this legislation?)

Keep in mind that these points are off the top of my head. I do not pretend to have a legal background. They are simply personal points of view and speculation as to the impacts of this new law.

Finally, there were some here and elsewhere who said not to worry, that the law would never pass, and so forth. Now, we see what happens when we remain complacent and passive. Aside from this being an outrageous violation of personal freedoms and privacy in this country, I view this issue as largely symbolic of the decline of civil liberties in recent years, and an eerie warning of what is to come. It brings to mind a bumper sticker I saw recently, "If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention."


Nolan Dalla
Las Vegas, NV

a lawyer i know wrote this....... id read it


An Analysis of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006

Introduction: For background purposes, I am a practicing attorney and an adjunct law professor. However, while I have years of experience reviewing and interpreting statutory law, it should be noted that this is not an exact science. People can (and do) interpret statutes in different ways and, consequently, people will react in different ways. So, while I may believe that this statute is not applicable and not enforceable against certain people and/or entities, those people or entitles may have the opposite reaction.

Summary of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (the “Act”): the following is my summary of the Act.

§5361. Congressional findings and purpose: this section gives a brief description of the findings of Congress (ie, that gambling is bad, but not all types) and that new mechanisms are needed to enforce gambling laws on the Internet.

§5362. Definitions: this section provides definitions for certain terms used throughout the statute (there are approximately 16 pages of definitions). There are some important definitions to point out.

First, the definition of “bet or wager” means the staking or risking of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon the understanding that someone will receiving something of value in the event of a certain outcome. I’ve read a number of articles and posts on how poker could be exempt from this because it is not a game of chance but is rather a game of skill. Unfortunately, they did not write this definition to simply include “games of chance” rather they wrote it to include games “subject to chance.” I think we can all agree that a great deal of poker is subject to skill, however, there is an element of poker that is “subject to chance.” So, I don’t believe the skill vs. chance argument is going to be very helpful due to the way the definition was written.

The definition of being in the “business of betting or wagering” is not defined, however, financial institutions and ISPs are expressly excluded from the definition.

“Unlawful Internet gambling” is defined and means “to place, receive, or otherwise knowingly transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law…” So, this comes down to your state law, since there is case law that states that “the Federal act [is] not intended to be applicable to isolated acts of individuals not engaged in the business of wagering since its purpose is to curb the activities of the professional gamblers.” I checked Florida law and it is illegal here. However, it’s important to point out that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 does not make it illegal for an individual citizen of the United States to place a bet or wager over the Internet.

The definition of “restricted transactions” is also important and means any transaction or transmittal involving any credit, funds, instruments or proceeds to a business involved in betting or wagering over the Internet.

§5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for unlawful Internet gambling: this is the meat of the statute and reads in pertinent part: No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in connection with the participation of another person in unlawful Internet gambling – (1) credit or the proceeds of credit (ie, credit cards), (2) EFTs or similar means, (3) checks, drafts or similar instruments, or (4) the proceeds of any other form of financial transaction.

That’s it. That’s the meat of this statute. So, basically it makes it illegal for a business engaged in betting or wagering to accept funds from a person in the United States. Some important points… first, as I said above, the Act does not make it illegal for an individual citizen of the United States to place a bet or wager over the Internet. Of course, in most states this is already illegal, just not enforced. Second, any gaming company or poker site not residing in the United States is not subject to the provisions of this law as the U.S. Congress has no jurisdiction over entities in foreign lands.

§5364. Policies and procedures to identify and prevent restricted transactions: this section requires that the executive branch, before the end of the 270 period after enactment, promulgate regulations that will require financial institutions to block/prevent payments to any business engaged in betting or wagering over the Internet. So, basically, any financial institution based in the United States must put a policy in place that will prevent any customer from sending funds to any business engaged in betting or wagering over the Internet. As it currently stands, most U.S. financial institutions already prevent people from making a direct deposit to an Internet gambling site. This should not prevent someone from making a transfer of funds from their U.S. bank account to a service like Neteller simply because (1) Neteller is not engaged in the business of betting or wagering, and (2) Neteller is an off-shore entity and therefore the U.S. government has no means in which to force them to reveal where money is being deposited after it reaches a Neteller account.

§5365. Civil remedies: the important part of this section, in my opinion, is the part that allows a U.S. District Attorney (or a States’ Attorney) to file for injunctive relief against “any person to prevent or restrain a restricted transaction.” This is where, I think, the government might be able to go after someone involved in the affiliate program of an on-line poker site. An argument could be made that an affiliate is facilitating a restricted transaction and therefore the D.A. could file for injunctive relief because doing so would prevent and/or restrain a restricted transaction. Remember though, we’re talking about civil remedies and injunctive relief here, an affiliate cannot be jailed or fined under this section, they can just be prevented from remaining an affiliate. I think this would also apply to someone that endorses a real money poker site and possibly someone that provides links via a website to a real money poker site, although that’s a stretch.

This section also allows for injunctive relief against ISPs to force them to remove or disable access to an online site violating §5363, or a hypertext link to an online site violating such section, that resides on a computer server that such service controls or operates. So, for an injunction to block an ISP from allowing access to an online site that violates §5363 to be valid, the violating site (ie, a poker site) would have to reside on the server of the ISP. I highly doubt that PokerStars or UB or Bodog reside on Comcast, or Bell South or any other ISP’s server. Quite frankly, I’m shocked at how this section was written. Why include the requirement that the violating site reside on the server of the ISP? This is a head-scratcher for me.

Lastly, this section does not allow a D.A. or State’s Attorney to seek injunctive relief against a financial transaction provider.

§5366. Criminal penalties: anyone who violates §5363 (remember, that only means someone in the business of betting or wagering, not an individual player) shall be fined, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

§5367. Circumventions prohibited: this section basically holds that an ISP or financial institution that actually runs its own betting or wagering site will not be exempt from the Act even thought there are stated exemptions for those entities in the Act.

Sec. 803. Internet Gambling in or Through Foreign Jurisdictions: this section basically instructs the executive branch to try to encourage cooperation by foreign governments in identifying whether Internet gambling operations are being used for money laundering, corruption or other crimes and to have them share information that might help with the enforcement of this Act (of course, they aren’t required to do so).

So, that’s the Act in a nutshell. From my perspective the important points are as follows:

1. The Act does not make it illegal for an individual residing in the United States to place a bet or wager over the Internet;

2. Poker sites and entities like Neteller that are not based in the United States are not within the jurisdiction of the Act;

3. The Act does not appear to include a mechanism that would prevent EFTs from an entity like Neteller to/from a U.S. bank;

4. The Act does not appear to include a mechanism that would force an ISP to block its customers from accessing an on-line real money poker site, unless that site resided on the server of the ISP; and

5. Due to the language of §5365, I would be leery of being an affiliate or endorser of a real money poker site and I would also be leery of hosting a site that links to such sites. However, it is important to remember that an affiliate or endorser or someone that links to a poker site would only be subject to an injunction and not criminal penalties.

Like I said before, I honestly don’t think this should cause the end of real money on-line poker for U.S. players. However, a lot of what happens next is going to depend on the reaction of the various poker sites. Here’s hoping that they use reason and rational thought to guide their reactions.

DISCLAIMER: You should not construe the above as being legal advice and should not act in any way in reliance on the above. Always consult a lawyer before taking any action which you believe may violate the law.