Online Gambling Ban Passes--Horseracing Exempt--For Now

[Pace Cap'n]

Attached as a rider to a Port Security bill, legislation was passed banning the funding of any wagering account from any bank or financial institution in the U.S. Horseracing is currently exempt from this enactment.

Previously the Justice Department has held that the exclusion of racing from such a ban is unconstitutional. This new law is sure to be protested on the basis of constitutionality. At this time no one but poker players and a few sports bettors seem to be concerned, and only the poker players made a concerted effort against the passage. It is entirely possible that internet horseplayers are gambling on borrowed time.

Hopefully the racing establishment will remain vigilant and protect this last bastion of wagering freedom from further assault.

[TravisVOX]

So people cannot play poker anymore?

[Pace Cap'n]

The bill did not outlaw online poker. It does prohibit sending any money to an online poker site from the United States.

Should you win and withdraw your money, you can't get back in.

If you are currently funded, you could keep playing but there is some doubt about withdrawal methods that may or may not be available after the signing of the bill, which could come as early as Tuesday.

Again, poker has not been declared illegal but the means of financing have.

U.S. banks were the biggest holdouts against this legislation, as the burden of enforcment apparently falls on them.

[Bala]

additional resources;


http://www.online-casinos.com/news/news2970.asp


http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=74727


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000166.html


http://www.eog.com/news/index.aspx?id=9320


_________________
OutSource congress.

[robert99]

I told you, you should have paid your tea taxes :p

[depalma13]

It's impossible to stop the funding of online poker. It is legal in the US to use a third party sytem to pay for goods or services over seas. The US government just insured sites like firepay are going to make a mint.

[Pace Cap'n]

It has been legal, but it is no longer legal.

Sites like Firepay are already making a mint. The problem now is, how will one be able to send money to Firepay, Neteller, etc. Credit cards, bank transfers, personal checks, and wire transfers are now prohibited. Some believe, though it is not for certain, that banks will not be allowed to process incoming transfers from such third-party sites.

[JimG]

Will this bill keep people in USA from using gambling sites such as Pinnacle, keeping in mind they have gambling on just about everything?

I think it is important to know how 3rd party sites (Neteller, etc.) are going to be treated under this legislation by US banks.

[Pace Cap'n]

Those are currently the $64,000 questions.

[MitchS]

Posted by Pace Cap'n

Sites like Firepay are already making a mint. The problem now is, how will one be able to send money to Firepay, Neteller, etc. Credit cards, bank transfers, personal checks, and wire transfers are now prohibited. Some believe, though it is not for certain, that banks will not be allowed to process incoming transfers from such third-party sites.

I'm an online Poker player and I just don't see how the'll be able to police all this. People also use 3rd party applications ie.. firepay, neteller etc to pay for good and services within the US as well.

[Pace Cap'n]

At present, it appears they are going to rely on the banks for enforcement.

The banks aren't happy.

[TravisVOX]

So, my bank is not allowed to accept a payment via Neteller? Is this how I see it? What if I'm not gambling?

[Pace Cap'n]

So, my bank is not allowed to accept a payment via Neteller? Is this how I see it? What if I'm not gambling?

At this time they can accept payment. Whether they can in the near future remains to be seen.

[TravisVOX]

I've tried to do some reading on the topic, including the articles posted above. It just seems to me that something is going to fall through. To me, this is a bill married to old-school America and denying the 21st century times. We can sit in our chairs in the living room now and bet, and unfortunately the government will not be able to control that. It seems as though the shifting of money ticks the gov't off because they don't get their slice. Who knows...

[Pace Cap'n]

I've tried to do some reading on the topic, including the articles posted above. It just seems to me that something is going to fall through. To me, this is a bill married to old-school America and denying the 21st century times. We can sit in our chairs in the living room now and bet, and unfortunately the government will not be able to control that. It seems as though the shifting of money ticks the gov't off because they don't get their slice. Who knows...

You got that right!

[Bala]

I told you, you should have paid your tea taxes :p
:lol: Although you made a grave mistake. The British East India Company should have ruled the early colonies.


_________________
OutSource congress.

OutSource House of Lords.

[Robert Fischer]

Interested in how this will play out. I am sure the US banks are not happy.

[PlanB]

The Banks have been caught in the cookie jar on too many transactions
recently so they're like humbled altar boys.

[DeadCrab]

I believe that the banking industry supports this bill because online gamblers are at high risk to not make good on their debts and the credit card company gets stuck.

It was the banks who initially refused to allow payment to gambling sites, after a couple of cases where they got stiffed under the premise that gambling debts are generally not enforcable.

[PlanB]

umm, yeah gambling was a "sickness" ---

[PaceAdvantage]

Hasn't it been next to impossible (for a LONG time now) to fund ANY sort of online gambling site (whether onshore or offshore) with a credit card?

The banks had this problem covered (gambling online with CC) without the gov't intrusion.

[TravisVOX]

I'm anxious to see how all these places react... the Pinnacle's, TCBets etc. of the world. Because with this, aren't they out of business?

[Pace Cap'n]

Another question that will likely be addressed in the forthcoming regulations is the role of ISP's in the new gambling landscape.

Will they be required to deny access to forbidden sites? Stay tuned.

[Pace Cap'n]

The mainstream media has finally taken note... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061002/bs_nm/leisure_partygaming_dc;_ylt=Auf_U9Xryk6vrK0vSRMe1A YEtbAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBhZDJjOXUyBHNlYwNtdm5ld3M-)

Party Poker to suspend U.S. operations upon signing of the bill...

[BIG49010]

You can get around most of the ISP issues, I wonder about wire-transfers to and from the nettellers, moneybookers or the racebooks themselves.

[Valuist]

Hasn't it been next to impossible (for a LONG time now) to fund ANY sort of online gambling site (whether onshore or offshore) with a credit card?

The banks had this problem covered (gambling online with CC) without the gov't intrusion.

That's correct. I remember trying to fund my Canbet account in 2003 and wasn't able to use my Visa card thanks to Citibank.

[classhandicapper]

You can get around most of the ISP issues, I wonder about wire-transfers to and from the nettellers, moneybookers or the racebooks themselves.

Theoretically, you can use Neteller for transactions other than funding gambling sites. So I can't see how they can restrict funding and withdrawing money from Neteller. What they may do is pressure Neteller into being unwilling to fund gambling sites (and vice versa).

[cj]

Theoretically, you can use Neteller for transactions other than funding gambling sites. So I can't see how they can restrict funding and withdrawing money from Neteller. What they may do is pressure Neteller into being unwilling to fund gambling sites (and vice versa).

No way Neteller will ever go for that, they'd go broke.

[garyoz]

Before the web, off-shore sportsbooks like Bowmans did transactions through money orders and made payouts through checks either mailed or express mailed to clients. It seems that this ban means that banks can't accept checks from offshore sites? That seems impossible to enforce, particularly since there can be third party payers.

According to what I heard, this bill was attached to the Port Security Bill at the insistence of Majority Leader Bill Frist. Either more moral police or big time contributions.

[Valuist]

I think people are selling the offshores short. The offshores are usually several steps ahead of the morons known as politicians. As far as I've heard, Western Union is still allowable. And when you Western Union money to them, it goes to a third party, not directly to the offshore.

[classhandicapper]

No way Neteller will ever go for that, they'd go broke.

They absolutely won't want to. The percentage of their business funding poker sites etc... has to be huge.

The thing is, if all the sports books and poker sites based outside the US are slowly barring US players (the list is growing daily and will get larger when the bill is signed tomorrow - Party Poker has already said they will bar US players), there must be a reason

I'm not a legal expert and don't even know or understand all the details of the bill, but if all these large pubic companies are going along, there must be a reason. What would make Neteller different, other than their non-gambling business masking the true purpose of most of their accounts?

Note: I used own a bunch of shares of Neteller, made a really nice score, and then dumped the whole position when the talk of an online gambling ban got a little more serious. (I made way more betting that others would gamble than I made gambling myself :lol: )

[Valuist]

I think the real big offshores, the Pinnacles, the WSEXs, and BetCRIS's of the world, won't do anything. They still handle considerable money without the U.S.

I hope we don't have to read the phrase "but this won't impact horse racing" anymore. It certainly impacts anyone who wants to have a choice.

[trigger]

http://www.gambling911.com/NETeller-100206.html

[cj]

Sometimes, with all the problems this country has, it really pisses me off that the politicians making the laws I've spent 21.5 years defending have nothing better to worry about. Why spend so much time on this when we all know any legislation passed will be easily circumvented shortly after it passes, or even before?

We have cities which are drug infested and average over a murder a day, a war in Iraq, countless homeless people, etc., etc. But yet, playing horses or online poker is somehow more important to tackle? Where is the logic in all of this?

[classhandicapper]

Sometimes, with all the problems this country has, it really pisses me off that the politicians making the laws I've spent 21.5 years defending have nothing better to worry about. Why spend so much time on this when we all know any legislation passed will be easily circumvented shortly after it passes, or even before?

We have cities which are drug infested and average over a murder a day, a war in Iraq, countless homeless people, etc., etc. But yet, playing horses or online poker is somehow more important to tackle? Where is the logic in all of this?

I agree with you.

I understand the downsides of gambling though. Let's face it, the vast majority of people are not blessed with the combination of brain power, dedication, and self control required to win at any of these games. Casual gaming isn't a big problem, but lots of people get destroyed by more serious gambling. I'm not sure how you balance personal freedom, which I value extremely highly, with the knowledge that lots of people are losing their shirts.

I play some poker also. I'm not great at it, but I'm smart enough to play at a level where I have an edge. I see people in my games that are horrible players. They lose money so rapidly, I actually feel guilty about participating in the game and winning some of it. I used to get the same feeling when I played pool for money and someone I could kill at the game asked me to play for money. I used to say no.

There is something much less personal about horseracing.

Anyway I agree with you.

[Valuist]

I agree with you.

I understand the downsides of gambling though. Let's face it, the vast majority of people are not blessed with the combination of brain power, dedication, and self control required to win at any of these games. Casual gaming isn't a big problem, but lots of people get destroyed by more serious gambling. I'm not sure how you balance personal freedom, which I value extremely highly, with the knowledge that lots of people are losing their shirts.

I play some poker also. I'm not great at it, but I'm smart enough to play at a level where I have an edge. I see people in my games that are horrible players. They lose money so rapidly, I actually feel guilty about participating in the game and winning some of it. I used to get the same feeling when I played pool for money and someone I could kill at the game asked me to play for money. I used to say no.

There is something much less personal about horseracing.

Anyway I agree with you.

Whether the people are skilled gamblers isn't the point. Its about freedom of choice. Nobody is being held at gunpoint to gamble. Those who are anti-gambling don't have to take part. But who are they to take rights away from others?

[classhandicapper]

Whether the people are skilled gamblers isn't the point. Its about freedom of choice. Nobody is being held at gunpoint to gamble. Those who are anti-gambling don't have to take part. But who are they to take rights away from others?

I agree with you totally.

I simply understand the thinking of people that try to protect others from themselves and from people that are willing to take advantage of them.

My politics differ (I consider myself a libertarian), but I don't think the anti-gamblers etc.... are irrational. I just disagree with their methods.

[Topcat]

One banking friend said that the banks were pleased at the legisltation as they have been stiffed too many times over gambling. Says they have a high percetnage of people declaring bankruptcy over gambling debts and defaulting on loan payments-says it is one of the leading causes of default. I don't think moist of us on the iboard can imagine gambling to that extent-essentially betting their house.

[alysheba88]

Hasn't it been next to impossible (for a LONG time now) to fund ANY sort of online gambling site (whether onshore or offshore) with a credit card?

The banks had this problem covered (gambling online with CC) without the gov't intrusion.

Not true. Some still take credit card and its very easy to send money directly from your bank account. There are all kinds of pay processing companies around to serve as the middleman. Your charge will not show up under xyz sportsbook but something innocuous.

I am assuming it will not be the case going forward

[rrbauer]

Attached as a rider to a Port Security bill, legislation was passed banning the funding of any wagering account from any bank or financial institution in the U.S. Horseracing is currently exempt from this enactment.

Previously the Justice Department has held that the exclusion of racing from such a ban is unconstitutional. This new law is sure to be protested on the basis of constitutionality. At this time no one but poker players and a few sports bettors seem to be concerned, and only the poker players made a concerted effort against the passage. It is entirely possible that internet horseplayers are gambling on borrowed time.

Hopefully the racing establishment will remain vigilant and protect this last bastion of wagering freedom from further assault.


This legislation leaves open the question of how the Justice Department interprets the application of the wire act to horse race account betting.

[rrbauer]

The bill did not outlaw online poker. It does prohibit sending any money to an online poker site from the United States.

Should you win and withdraw your money, you can't get back in.

If you are currently funded, you could keep playing but there is some doubt about withdrawal methods that may or may not be available after the signing of the bill, which could come as early as Tuesday.

Again, poker has not been declared illegal but the means of financing have.

U.S. banks were the biggest holdouts against this legislation, as the burden of enforcment apparently falls on them.

After the legislation is enacted, the Attorney General has up to 270 days to identify and document what transactions are going to be considered illegal to provide guidelines for the financial insititutions.

[Valuist]

One banking friend said that the banks were pleased at the legisltation as they have been stiffed too many times over gambling. Says they have a high percetnage of people declaring bankruptcy over gambling debts and defaulting on loan payments-says it is one of the leading causes of default. I don't think moist of us on the iboard can imagine gambling to that extent-essentially betting their house.

I'm not sure how many will be pleased. I understand that it will be up to the banks to police this. Not everyone who uses NetTeller is using it for gambling transactions. They are going to have more work to do.

[finfan]

I have an account at EHorse and I emailed them today and asked if they will still be doing business in the US. Here is their response:

Mark,

Our position will not change. We will still accept US clients.

Thanks,

Shay


BTW I transferred all my $$ into their new betting exchange. This looks like it can be very good. If you're good at picking out false or vulnerable faves, I should think you can do well.

[ryesteve]

Says they have a high percetnage of people declaring bankruptcy over gambling debts
Sorry, but this is complete and utter nonsense... the vast majority (over 90%) of personal bankruptcies are due to either job loss, divorce or medical expenses.

[bigmack]

BTW I transferred all my $$ into their new betting exchange. This looks like it can be very good. If you're good at picking out false or vulnerable faves, I should think you can do well.
Where the h -e double hockey sticks is the exchange found on the site?

[finfan]

Where the h -e double hockey sticks is the exchange found on the site? Go here

https://www.ehorsex.com/

[Valuist]

I saw on another site that Pinnacle plans to continue to do business w/U.S. customers, and would be working on an alternative method for deposits and withdrawals. From what I understand, the only companies that will comply with this law are the publicly traded companies.

[Indulto]

Originally posted by classhandicapper(1)
I agree with you.

I understand the downsides of gambling though. Let's face it, the vast majority of people are not blessed with the combination of brain power, dedication, and self control required to win at any of these games. Casual gaming isn't a big problem, but lots of people get destroyed by more serious gambling. I'm not sure how you balance personal freedom, which I value extremely highly, with the knowledge that lots of people are losing their shirts.

I play some poker also. I'm not great at it, but I'm smart enough to play at a level where I have an edge. I see people in my games that are horrible players. They lose money so rapidly, I actually feel guilty about participating in the game and winning some of it. I used to get the same feeling when I played pool for money and someone I could kill at the game asked me to play for money. I used to say no.

There is something much less personal about horseracing.

Anyway I agree with you.Originally posted by classhandicapper(2)
I agree with you totally.

I simply understand the thinking of people that try to protect others from themselves and from people that are willing to take advantage of them.

My politics differ (I consider myself a libertarian), but I don't think the anti-gamblers etc.... are irrational. I just disagree with their methods.CH,
I’ve long admired your willingness to discuss concepts in forums where they are unpopular. ;)

As a product of a misspent youth, my passionate pursuit of profits from pool, poker, and ponies precluded proper dedication to education more popular among parents. :D However, it exposed me first-hand to some frightening aspects of gambling addiction that -- upon reflection -- appeared to approach the severity of other more sympathy-inducing psychological afflictions, as well as that of drug addiction. :(

While I doubt that jockeys and mutuel clerks would agree that horse racing is a less personal way of taking other people’s money, you are to be commended for understanding that not all anti-gambling advocates are making moral judgments about our pastime any more than MADD is about alcohol consumption.

IMO morality-based opposition to gambling falls into the “protect people against themselves” category, but concern for the debilitating effects on families (not unlike those of Alzheimer’s Disease) by socially-conscious people willing to deal with the problem should be applauded as protecting people against abuse by others.

I support the State of New York’s efforts to maintain awareness of -- and provide treatment for -- problems in this area, but I agree with Steven Crist that players alone should not have to fund such programs. I disagree with Crist and Beyer, though, that credit cards are always appropriate vehicles for funding gambling transactions; even for adults.

Back in the bad old days, you always had to show your money up front because when it came to fiscal responsibility, there were frequent failure programs whose penalties could be physical as well as personal. ;)

[traveler]

One banking friend said that the banks were pleased at the legisltation as they have been stiffed too many times over gambling. Says they have a high percetnage of people declaring bankruptcy over gambling debts and defaulting on loan payments-says it is one of the leading causes of default. I don't think moist of us on the iboard can imagine gambling to that extent-essentially betting their house.
Steve is right. I too work in banking and heve never seen anyone declare bankruptcy over gambling debts. I am sure it happens but a very small percentage. I do see automated payments clearing over the last few years from poker sites that never used to occur and they are third-party billed. It's just the same old story, gambling is illegal unless the govt. can collect taxes. It's the same with border security, I go to Canada a fair amount and the only thing they ask you about is if you have any booze or smokes you're bringing back - don't want to miss their taxes.

[classhandicapper]

CH,
I’ve long admired your willingness to discuss concepts in forums where they are unpopular. ;)

Some people would not agree with you.

I'm a contrarian, what can I tell you. ;)

[Valuist]

I thought the Republican party was all about NOT interfering in people's lives, yet they are the ones who got this bill started. So how do the conservatives who bet online spin this? Never, ever vote for McCain or Frist.

[Indulto]

Some people would not agree with you.

I'm a contrarian, what can I tell you. ;)Well, for starters, how can a place "pool player" promote himself as a contrarian? ;)

[Pace Cap'n]

Could we please keep this thread on topic?

[Indulto]

... I too work in banking and heve never seen anyone declare bankruptcy over gambling debts.Why should anyone declare bankruptcy over gambling debts if they can be legally dismissed without doing so?

It seems to me that if addictive or excessive gambling on games of chance were a factor in a bankruptcy, related transactions would NOT appear in the filer's credit history.

IMO there are two common aspects of risk-taking commonly associated with -- and which contribute to -- terminal personal financial irresponsibility:

1) By purchasing non-essential, non-durables on credit without the immediate ability to pay for them, the consumer is gambling that his financial situation will improve before it gets worse.

2) By soliciting business from people who have no credit history (e.g., students), individuals who are proven credit risks, or those who are already in debt beyond what appears to be reasonable -- the credit card companies are gambling they won't get burned.

[Zman179]

I wonder what JustRalph's opinion on this is.

[linrom1]

They absolutely won't want to. The percentage of their business funding poker sites etc... has to be huge.

The thing is, if all the sports books and poker sites based outside the US are slowly barring US players (the list is growing daily and will get larger when the bill is signed tomorrow - Party Poker has already said they will bar US players), there must be a reason

I'm not a legal expert and don't even know or understand all the details of the bill, but if all these large pubic companies are going along, there must be a reason. What would make Neteller different, other than their non-gambling business masking the true purpose of most of their accounts?

Note: I used own a bunch of shares of Neteller, made a really nice score, and then dumped the whole position when the talk of an online gambling ban got a little more serious. (I made way more betting that others would gamble than I made gambling myself :lol: )

I think that this pretty much means that all foreign-based on-line gambling outfits will bar US Residents. The fact that this is now going to be US Federal law will also give US legal leverage in WTO. This will likely lead to all those Caribbean based sites to be legally bound to follow US laws and, US would be free to impose sanctions against those countries that don't. I think that past WTO rulings stated that foreign companies were unable to follow various US State laws because they were not uniform.

Youbet stock was up 10% today, although there is a possibility that banks might not also honor its checking and wire transactions.

[Valuist]

I think that this pretty much means that all foreign-based on-line gambling outfits will bar US Residents. The fact that this is now going to be US Federal law will also give US legal leverage in WTO. This will likely lead to all those Caribbean based sites to be legally bound to follow US laws and, US would be free to impose sanctions against those countries that don't. I think that past WTO rulings stated that foreign companies were unable to follow various US State laws because they were not uniform.

Youbet stock was up 10% today, although there is a possibility that banks might not also honor its checking and wire transactions.

Privately held offshore books will not give in. They have no shareholders to report to, and in no way are bound by U.S. law. The WTO has twice ruled against the U.S. in cases involving Central America countries operating offshore betting books. Just because "we" make it law, doesn't mean its the right way. Seems awfully narcissistic to think that way.

[rrbauer]

I saw on another site that Pinnacle plans to continue to do business w/U.S. customers, and would be working on an alternative method for deposits and withdrawals. From what I understand, the only companies that will comply with this law are the publicly traded companies.

The issue is not whether or not the sports books, horse books, poker sites, etc. will comply. If they are beyond the arm of U.S. law they won't comply.
But, the U.S. financial institutions will comply and there is the rub. Aside from sending/receiving checks in the mail or via courier, money transfer just got tougher.

I might add that Bush isn't expected to sign this for a couple of weeks and then there is a "ramp up" period before it goes into effect.

[garyoz]

After the legislation is enacted, the Attorney General has up to 270 days to identify and document what transactions are going to be considered illegal to provide guidelines for the financial insititutions.

Today's Wall Street Journal had an article indicating that banks would not be held legally liable if they are unable to enforce the ban. The Journal also indicated that the consensus view is that online gamblers will find a way around the ban. The Financial Times is predicting a wave of mergers in the industry and the potential acquisition of the companies by large U.S. gaming interests now that what is legal and illegal has been better defined. Finally, the Journal said if some companies stop doing business in the U.S. others will pop up to fill the void.

Can't link to the articles. They are all subscription based.

[Valuist]

IMO, who this will effect the most is the casual poker player or the guy who wants to bet a few football games a month. They'll either stop or play locally. Anyone who is a serious player will not be deterred by minor inconveniences.

[Stevie Belmont]

I like the way Bush stuck into a home land security bill. What a bunch of morons.

[MitchS]

Posted by: Valuist

IMO, who this will effect the most is the casual poker player or the guy who wants to bet a few football games a month. They'll either stop or play locally. Anyone who is a serious player will not be deterred by minor inconveniences.

Absolutlely..The serious player, (I'm talking about the on-line poker players) it's just a minor inconvenence. Actually the time it will take for banks and CC company to implement such detection measures will be some time. Then theres the 3rd partys such as Neteller and others. Neteller's an offshore company that does transactions for all sorts of businesses not just gambling. Its not using a CC or a bank. IMHO neteller's policys won't change at least for the near future. Poker rooms themselves, that are traded on the markets are starting to shut out US citizens, but thats just a few of the 100's of rooms available. The problem for the experienced non swayed players that will continue to play is new blood coming into the rooms, THE FISHES where they make most of there money from ;) .

Mitch

[Robert Fischer]

Anyone have experience with foreign banking accounts, how this ban affects them, and what special taxes/fees are involved?



Canadian banks come to mind as a "safe" location. Canada isn't a huge inconvenience should a trip in person ever become necessary. Seems foreign banking can be done via the net or phone.

[kid4rilla]

It is certain that this bill is targeting all of the 3rd party providers that are used to fund "unlawful" gaming. Although any injunction from the US can be completely ignored by offshore providers such as NetTeller, I expect that they will cooperate in some fashion with the US govt. in the future.

If the 3rd party provider will allow for their accounts funded through US bank accounts to deposit into "unlawful" wagering sites, I could see them being treated in the same fashion as the sites themselves. US banks can no longer fund that 3rd party provider account, until they cooperate in some fashion. I completely expect it.

The NetTellers of the world will be taking an unavoidable hit on this one.

I'm taking the bulk of my cash out of every site I play on.

How about the affiliate sites based in the US? Especially those who take royalties from the action they filter through. Not a good week for those particular webmasters.

[kid4rilla]

Posted by: Valuist

The problem for the experienced non swayed players that will continue to play is new blood coming into the rooms, THE FISHES where they make most of there money from ;) .

Mitch

This is so true. Even Saturday nights might start looking like Monday afternoons. Still better than brick-and-mortar hunting.

[Bruddah]

I play poker in Casinos. All this will do is funnel more of those "fish" into my nets. Talking about "tells" with this new electronic group of players. None of them know when, or how to act in a real poker game. You hear the dealer repeatedly having to prompt them with " sir, it's your action". They have no clue when to act without an electronic prompt. They have no skills at reading the other players. They think you play a "Limit" game the same way you play "No Limit". They are a bunch of young fish filling the nets. However, some will survive and become sharks,...MAYBE! :D :kiss: :D

[Valuist]

It is certain that this bill is targeting all of the 3rd party providers that are used to fund "unlawful" gaming. Although any injunction from the US can be completely ignored by offshore providers such as NetTeller, I expect that they will cooperate in some fashion with the US govt. in the future.

If the 3rd party provider will allow for their accounts funded through US bank accounts to deposit into "unlawful" wagering sites, I could see them being treated in the same fashion as the sites themselves. US banks can no longer fund that 3rd party provider account, until they cooperate in some fashion. I completely expect it.

The NetTellers of the world will be taking an unavoidable hit on this one.

I'm taking the bulk of my cash out of every site I play on.

How about the affiliate sites based in the US? Especially those who take royalties from the action they filter through. Not a good week for those particular webmasters.

You are going on the assumption that the Feds are going to aggressively pursue this, which I don't believe they will. It will cost too much money and they are fighting a losing battle. With all the problems in the country right now, they have bigger problems to worry about.

[Topcat]

Steve is right. I too work in banking and heve never seen anyone declare bankruptcy over gambling debts. I am sure it happens but a very small percentage. I do see automated payments clearing over the last few years from poker sites that never used to occur and they are third-party billed. It's just the same old story, gambling is illegal unless the govt. can collect taxes. It's the same with border security, I go to Canada a fair amount and the only thing they ask you about is if you have any booze or smokes you're bringing back - don't want to miss their taxes.

Well you may have to realzie that people don't circle gamling when fillign out forms for bankruptcy or loan default but it is a cause and it is what drove this bill. I'm not sure what area or level of banking you work in so maybe you don't read the Federal Reserve Reports but they have cited gambling as a cause of bankruptcy. Let me just quote from the report St. Louis Board

"Compulsive gambling is increasingly being blamed for the rising tide of bankruptcies,..."

To me the issue is one of personal responsibility or lack of-nobody forces someone to gamble.

But on Gambler's Anonymous it is replete with stories of people defaulting on payments due to gambling. GA pushed hard for this bill-and used their hundreds of disaster stories to lobby for it-here is a sample of quotes:

"I am addicted to Internet casinos. I lost thousands in the last week and now have a huge credit card bill.
Jay 28 February 2006

"I’m 23 and have done the exact same thing as yourself this past few months. I’ve built up huge debts because of online casinos. Baz "

"I’ve lost a six-figure sum on Internet gambling over the last 3 years. Every time I bet I know it’s just an illusion. I’m not stupid. I can see clearly what I’m doing. I’m now divorced. I lost a 5-bedroom luxury house in the process, but still have a chance to make a good life with what money I have left"


"Hi, I borrow money to gamble. The problem I have now is that I have left myself with a very huge amount of debts. I lied to banks to get loans for car and lost it. Now there is no way that I can pay any of my debts back. I am worried that if I declare myself bankrupt, the court might ask me what I have done with the money. Will I be in trouble if they find out that I gambled the money away? As my debts are too high I have no choice but to declare bankruptcy, but what if they ask me what I did with the money? Who can help me? "Dan 10 February 2006

"Hi Dan. Don’t worry about how you spent the money you’re not the first to gamble to bankruptcy and you won’t be the last. Take care and good luck. Bankruptcy will help!"

Geez even sugget bankruptcy as a way out !

[kid4rilla]

But online is much more inviting to the beginner. The admonishment from the dealers and possible riducule from the seasoned players is just what the online fish can avoid.

I'm sure you treat em nice when they show up....so they will come back. You can shear a sheep 1000 times, but you can only skin 'em once. :ThmbUp:

[Bruddah]

TALKING ABOUT THE SLOW EDUCATION OFTHE YOUNG. You pay for your education. I did mine 40+ years ago. However, these kids are really PAYING for it, when PLAYING on line. They are being sheared over and over and still not learning the basic skills. Sure they know the ranking of the hands, but Poker is much more. There is more collusion on line, among certain groups, than a Caribbean retreat, for oil industry executives. If you don't believe this, then you are either one of the conspirators or, you are one of the fish. I know of it, and have seen the boiler room operations, of some of these "on line groups". College campuses now have many groups attempting to be the computer gang "Sharks". In the beginning of internet poker, it used to be just the old pros with a new revenue source. Now the kids have caught up. However, they still are fish when playing in Casinos. because they don't know the very basic of skills.

No thanks, I will either win or loose in a live brick and mortar joint.

[44PACE]

Horse racing is exempt from this bill, does this mean that everytime that I make a bank transfer with Youbet that my bank teller will understand this exemption.
Horseplayers know that horse racing sites such as xpressbet are for betting on horses but banks may see them as internet gambling sites and stop or not accept the transfer of funds.

[MikeDee]

It is so ironic

The American public is so responsible that they can buy any number of guns because they would never shoot their friends, neighbors or school children.

Americans can be trusted to buy as much liquor as they want because they would never get all liquored up and jump in their car and kill themselves or someone else.

Of course responsible Americans should be allowed to smoke where ever they want because they would never smoke so much as the endanger their health or the health of others with their second hand smoke.

And finally Americans are very responsible when it comes to gambling in casinos, at race tracks, buying state sponsored lottery tickets and going to church sponsored gambling events. They would never gamble more then they can afford at these legalized gaming venues.

But Americans simply are not responsible enough to handle Internet gambling so the government, must protect us from this heinous activity.

We can all sleep better tonight knowing our leaders are watching out for us.

[rrbauer]

What this bill does is create a new "void" which will be filled by a new class of business enterprise. The enterprise will be a non-U.S. third-party proxy agency that will take deposits from U.S. players and either make bets for them directly; or, more likely, open "anonymous" accounts and provide the U.S. players the login ID and password for the account. They will charge a fee for their service and so long as it's not exorbitant they will suceed. A few will hoodwink their customers (this always happens!) out of some money which we will hear about at this board (as we always do!). And, the beat goes on!

Brits, Aussies and Canooks are you paying attention?

[Valuist]

44Pace-

It won't matter to your bank teller whether the money came from Youbet or NetTeller. The banks fought this bill because they didn't want the added hassle. Even with a wire transfer directly from Pinnacle, I believe it doesn't say anywhere that its from a licensed sportsbook.

[rrbauer]

It is so ironic

The American public is so responsible that they can buy any number of guns because they would never shoot their friends, neighbors or school children.

Americans can be trusted to buy as much liquor as they want because they would never get all liquored up and jump in their car and kill themselves or someone else.

Of course responsible Americans should be allowed to smoke where ever they want because they would never smoke so much as the endanger their health or the health of others with their second hand smoke.

And finally Americans are very responsible when it comes to gambling in casinos, at race tracks, buying state sponsored lottery tickets and going to church sponsored gambling events. They would never gamble more then they can afford at these legalized gaming venues.

But Americans simply are not responsible enough to handle Internet gambling so the government, must protect us from this heinous activity.

We can all sleep better tonight knowing our leaders are watching out for us.

Well put.
It goes way beyond irony, Mike. It is the classic paradox of being funny, but making you want to cry; of being sad, but making you want to laugh.

[linrom1]

I think that some of you are looking at this issue through rose-colored glasses. It is going to be very simple for financial institutions to implement this law. All they have to do is block access to their banking services, which they’re already doing anytime when you want to restrict third party access to your own checking account! So how difficult can it be to restrict several thousand of on-line establishments? Credit card companies already refuse to accept charges from businesses profiled as engaged in gambling activities whether the gaming business is legal or illegal.

It is also going to very simple for third parties like Neteller to block funds transfer to any client that they choose, since businesses must sign partnership agreements in order to be in their client network. It’s not going to be very difficult to revoke such agreements since they are now illegal. This law is also going to open up the Pandora’s box on issues dealing with legality of gambling debts. As US citizen, you will no longer be obligated to honor any on-line gambling debts. Under such circumstances, any business that advances funds for gambling purposes to US citizens will have no recourse period. Even with horse racing exception, I never understood how cash advances for wagering on horse racing were enforceable in the first place since they’re loans and ALL loans made for gambling purposes are not enforceable even where gambling is legal?

As far as private sites that want to skirt the law, if they do business with US citizens, US authorities will apply pressures on countries where those shops are domiciled and request extradition of principals to US for prosecution. With the passage of this law, WTO Court has no alternative but to accept legality of US law. The Court has already ruled on this issue in the past stating that if US passes anti-online gambling bill, the WTO Court will accept it.

You can’t open a foreign checking account without disclosing that to the IRS. If you do so, you’ll likely expose yourself not only to IRS audits but probably draw interest from office of Homeland Security. Ownership of foreign credit cards will single you for known tax evasion practices and put scrutiny on your activities. Foreign banks already provide that information to US authorities.

While I do not play on-line poker or other casino games, I am attempting to figure out what impact this law will have on horse racing in US, as there is a possibility that funding of any on-line account might not be possible even in US.

[Valuist]

It is going to be very simple for financial institutions to implement this law.

Not according to the professor who specializes in gambling law in the link I posted in the NetTeller thread. Banks are not thrilled by this law and are not well equipped to enforce it, other than credit card transactions. This is what he said:

"The Act allows the federal government to exempt transactions where it would be impractical to require identifying and blocking. This obviously applies to paper checks. Banks have no way now of reading who the payee is on paper checks and cannot be expected to go into that business. Banks tried to defeat this bill, not because they cared about their patrons' privacy, but they knew it would cost them billions of dollars to set up systems to read checks."

[Suff]

Even though you see it over and over, in virtually every industry, it still boggles the mind. How an industry, with the Govt. in their back pocket, manages to make laws for no earthly reason except to stifle competition.

Here's Harrahs, who is the Brick-n-Mortar king of Poker.....getting a $15 Billion dollar buy out offer the day the law pass's. This is legalized organized crime....that is all it is.

Forget Internet freedom, and free market issues that we hear about all the time.....

I heard today that this law will take 7 Billion...that is Billion with a B, out of online casino's backside....and into guess where?

published on: Monday Oct 02, 2006
Poker Giant Harrah's Gets Buyout Bid

$15.1 Billion Offer for Harrah's Entertainment
While the world watches the legal happenings in the online gaming world, the land-based casinos continue to flourish. Harrah’s Entertainment announced that it received a buyout bid of $15.1 billion from private equity firms Apollo Management and Texas Pacific Group.

News of the possible buyout sent Harrah’s stock prices through the roof, increasing the value to $75.95 in midday trading on the New York Stock Exchange. The private equities groups have offered $81 per share, a 22 percent premium over Harrah’s closing stock on Friday




I used to bet horses & Greyhounds with a Bookmaker at a Bar on Winter Hill. One day I asked him to take a college basketball game and he whispered...."I'll take it but don't tell xxxxx, because I'm not supposed to take games up here...only the street number and Horse racing......

This is the same thing. :confused: what can you do? :confused:

[PaceAdvantage]

I think everyone is missing a very important point here. You all talk as if it is your right to gamble over the Internet on games such as poker, blackjack and other casino games.

The fact is, in most states in the US, it is ILLEGAL for you to be doing so, and has been even before this congressional ruling. Right or wrong?

Even in states that have legalized casino gambling (not taking into account Indian casinos, I think there are only two, Nevada and New Jersey), it is illegal for you to wager over the Internet on casino games of chance (and poker).

The fact is, ANY of us who have EVER wagered on ANYTHING over the Internet (with the exception of US-based horse racing sites) were breaking SOME sort of law (be it state or federal), well before Congress stepped in to make it tougher on us all.....

Right or wrong?

The real head scratcher here is that GAMBLING laws were ALWAYS left up to the individual STATES to enact and enforce. Why is the federal government stepping into a traditional state issue (again!)?

[46zilzal]

a few years back a couple of banks in Pennsylvania (I think) tried to tell their patrons that they could not draw funds from their account IF it was going to be wagered. Imagine that, they are telling you how to use your own money?

[JustRalph]

a few years back a couple of banks in Pennsylvania (I think) tried to tell their patrons that they could not draw funds from their account IF it was going to be wagered. Imagine that, they are telling you how to use your own money?

yeah, kind of like Taxes..................

[Pace Cap'n]

The real head scratcher here is that GAMBLING laws were ALWAYS left up to the individual STATES to enact and enforce. Why is the federal government stepping into a traditional state issue (again!)?

It is my understanding that there is a provision in the new bill whereby a state
could legalize internet gambling for IN-STATE wagering only.

[Valuist]

As far as private sites that want to skirt the law, if they do business with US citizens, US authorities will apply pressures on countries where those shops are domiciled and request extradition of principals to US for prosecution. With the passage of this law, WTO Court has no alternative but to accept legality of US law. The Court has already ruled on this issue in the past stating that if US passes anti-online gambling bill, the WTO Court will accept it.



According to this article, that isn't likely:


http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/news_story/1435?class=PokerNews

[rrbauer]

This is off the top of my head and any legal experts, please weigh in.

One of the reasons that banks stopped offering credit-card cash advances to Non U. S. companies was tied to some court actions that found extending credit for the known purpose of gambling might result in non-enforcement when it came to collecting those credit-card debts. And, if the banks couldn't determine if the recepient of the cash advance was not engaged in a gambling business that they wouldn't approve the transaction.

Fast forward to this new legislation: If specific companies are named in legislation or the process used to support that legislation, doesn't that make the legislation punitive? And, as such, it is unconstitutional.

Any legal help on this?

[thoroughbred]

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article1800652.ece

[rrbauer]

I think everyone is missing a very important point here. You all talk as if it is your right to gamble over the Internet on games such as poker, blackjack and other casino games.

The fact is, in most states in the US, it is ILLEGAL for you to be doing so, and has been even before this congressional ruling. Right or wrong?

Even in states that have legalized casino gambling (not taking into account Indian casinos, I think there are only two, Nevada and New Jersey), it is illegal for you to wager over the Internet on casino games of chance (and poker).

The fact is, ANY of us who have EVER wagered on ANYTHING over the Internet (with the exception of US-based horse racing sites) were breaking SOME sort of law (be it state or federal), well before Congress stepped in to make it tougher on us all.....

Right or wrong?

The real head scratcher here is that GAMBLING laws were ALWAYS left up to the individual STATES to enact and enforce. Why is the federal government stepping into a traditional state issue (again!)?


OK, PA you're making some pretty grandiose statements, labeling them as "fact" and not citing any specific laws. So, I'll make a few of my own:
Where gambling laws are concerned, who those laws apply to is open to interpretation. And, the application of those laws where enforcement is concerned has always been made to the people taking the bets and not to those people making the bets.

Cite one case where a gambler has been prosecuted for making a bet.

[cj's dad]

The reason banks are opposed is there no financial gain for them to realize; as a matter of fact, it will cost them $$$

[GMB@BP]

I have done tons of reading

There is very little way the banks can monitor this. How does a bank tell if a E check comes from a sale on Ebay or from an offshore account?

You can use Neteller for a variety of services, all of which are very legal. How does the bank decipher the difference? Obviously I have concerns and have removed my money accordingly, but I have no idea how this plays out.

[Tom]

The real head scratcher here is that GAMBLING laws were ALWAYS left up to the individual STATES to enact and enforce. Why is the federal government stepping into a traditional state issue (again!)?

No mystery here - they are doing this so they don't have to tackle REAL issues. With all going on in the world, it is dispeicable that there pathetic excuses for leaders area even talking about this. A pox on them all - curse them to HELL,

[rgustafson]

"Laws to supress tend to strengthen what they would prohibit. This is the fine point on which all the legal professions of history have based their job security."

Frank Herebert from Chapterhouse Dune

[podonne]

Seems to me that the WTO is our best friend here; this is a fews lines of text from a referenced articles:

"Antigua claimed that the US systematically violated the WTO’s General Agreement of Trade in Services (GATS) by trying to stop its residents from using services offered by companies located in Antigua.
It took a year, but the WTO ruled in Antigua’s favor and struck down the US’s appeals in 2005, writing that US had adopted "measures" that interfered with its obligation to provide free trade in betting and gambling services with Antigua and Barbuda."

Since there are alot of online gambling companies registered in London, this might prompt England to file a complaint with the WTO on the same grounds. England would be alot harder to ignore than Antigua.

Of course, this might be just posturing by the Republicans. The article above mentioned that part of the US arguments were on moral grounds, and the republicans like to stand for moral issues. Coincidence this is just before the elections? GWB passes it before the election, brags to conservative america that they are upholding moral values, and the WTO won't do anything until after the elections are over.

(Full Disclosure, I am a republican and have been politicaly active in the party.)

[podonne]

From the act itself:

‘‘(ii) the bet or wager and the method by which

the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise

made is expressly authorized by and placed in accordance

with the laws of such State, and the State law

or regulations include—

‘‘(I) age and location verification requirements

reasonably designed to block access to minors"


So a state could bypass the entire act if they wanted to, but only to state residents
Link to the entire bill: Fun stuff starts on page 69
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h4954enr.txt.pdf

[podonne]

Also interesting is the method described for blocking it: not text based by reciever as has been commented on in this thread:


allow the payment system and any person involved

in the payment system to identify restricted transactions

by means of codes in authorization messages or by other

means;

[Topcat]

After reading this thread it occurs to me that horseplayers as a group are
pretty passive when it comes to impacting change in regard to horse racing.

I know there are some exceptions on here but If you check with your congressional representative you may find like I did that regardless of party affiliation they were bombarded by people for the bill e.g. Gambler's Anonymous (see my previous post), Indian Casinos (in my State they are now one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party)- and they didn't receive any emails, letters or phone calls -NADA not a one from individuals objecting to the bill (and sheepishly I have to say that includes me). This wasn't the highest profile bill but most bills receive a lot of pro and con. This was all pro and no con. I've checked before and BTW most congressional offices are very accessible and they will gladly tell you info like this.

I think this is the same reason the take-out is so high and rebates so rare. We are MIA.

We really need a lobbying group for horse racing wagers. State horse racing boards do not represent our best interest.

[PaceAdvantage]

OK, PA you're making some pretty grandiose statements, labeling them as "fact" and not citing any specific laws. So, I'll make a few of my own:
Where gambling laws are concerned, who those laws apply to is open to interpretation. And, the application of those laws where enforcement is concerned has always been made to the people taking the bets and not to those people making the bets.

Cite one case where a gambler has been prosecuted for making a bet.

Not sure if I actually tried to pass this off as fact, as multiple times I asked the following question "Right or wrong?" I believe that implies that I am asking for confirmation of what I believe to be correct, thus admitting that I am not 100% certain.

If you live in a state that has outlawed all forms of casino gambling, how can it technically be legal for you to boot up your computer and start betting on blackjack at PartyPoker? You are sitting there in a state that has outlawed all forms of casino gambling, betting on blackjack!

Just because nobody has been prosecuted, doesn't mean it isn't technically illegal. Right or wrong?

[MikeDee]

Government bodies always go harder after the providers of illegal goods and services rather then the customers. So I don't think that individuals have to worry so much about getting collared.

The real potential for real financial harm to the individual is agreeing to hold harmless and indemnification of the 3rd party transaction companies. Like the one the netteller has come up with. If you agree to these and they get fined for processing your illegal transaction, you are agreeing to pick up the tab for them. This could be very expensive for you, we're talking thousands of dollars here.

[cj's dad]

Sometimes, with all the problems this country has, it really pisses me off that the politicians making the laws I've spent 21.5 years defending have nothing better to worry about. Why spend so much time on this when we all know any legislation passed will be easily circumvented shortly after it passes, or even before?

We have cities which are drug infested and average over a murder a day, a war in Iraq, countless homeless people, etc., etc. But yet, playing horses or online poker is somehow more important to tackle? Where is the logic in all of this?

It is the govt's contention that one of the major reasons to make net casino gambling more difficult is that off shore gambling profits have been traced to terrorist funding.

[ryesteve]

It is the govt's contention that one of the major reasons to make net casino gambling more difficult is that off shore gambling profits have been traced to terrorist funding.
Yes, Costa Rica is a hotbed of Islamic radicalism... :rolleyes:

But this contention shouldn't be surprising... the gov't seems to be able to link anything and everything to terrorism.

[MikeDee]

Couldn't agree more Steve.

Makes perfect sense to me hit a couple of supers in costa rica and then transfer the money to the states to fund terrorists activities.

[Suff]

Making behavior Illegal in order to keep money in law abiding hands has been marvelously effective with drugs.

[alysheba88]

I think everyone is missing a very important point here. You all talk as if it is your right to gamble over the Internet on games such as poker, blackjack and other casino games.

The fact is, in most states in the US, it is ILLEGAL for you to be doing so, and has been even before this congressional ruling. Right or wrong?

Even in states that have legalized casino gambling (not taking into account Indian casinos, I think there are only two, Nevada and New Jersey), it is illegal for you to wager over the Internet on casino games of chance (and poker).

The fact is, ANY of us who have EVER wagered on ANYTHING over the Internet (with the exception of US-based horse racing sites) were breaking SOME sort of law (be it state or federal), well before Congress stepped in to make it tougher on us all.....

Right or wrong?

The real head scratcher here is that GAMBLING laws were ALWAYS left up to the individual STATES to enact and enforce. Why is the federal government stepping into a traditional state issue (again!)?

Are you 100% it is illegal to wager? If so please provide source data. It is my understanding that Nevada, California and Louisiana have specific laws on the book against online betting. No other state does that I am aware of. Be careful here because many get this issue confused. It is not betting or bettors that are being targeted here. Nor do laws get in to that issue. It is bet providers

[alysheba88]

My understanding is this: (probably wrong ;) )

Some states have laws that specifically permit online gambling within the us for Horse racing.

Some states don't have laws (like Ohio) one way or the other so most on-line sites accept wagers from these states but some do not.

Some states have laws that expressly forbid on line gambling on horse racing sites. So none of the on line sites will take wagers from them.

No states, as far as I know, permit on line casino or poker type gambling on line.

It is against federal law to have a off shore wagering account and to wager off shore via the Internet.


I cant emphasize enough the massive difference between " no states permits" and "in all states its illegal". It may seem like wordplay, like much of the law, but there is a huge difference between saying someone doesnt permit something that saying they ban it

[MikeDee]

I found this site. It has quite a bit of information on the laws associated with gambling

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/

[rrbauer]

After reading this thread it occurs to me that horseplayers as a group are
pretty passive when it comes to impacting change in regard to horse racing.

I know there are some exceptions on here but If you check with your congressional representative you may find like I did that regardless of party affiliation they were bombarded by people for the bill e.g. Gambler's Anonymous (see my previous post), Indian Casinos (in my State they are now one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party)- and they didn't receive any emails, letters or phone calls -NADA not a one from individuals objecting to the bill (and sheepishly I have to say that includes me). This wasn't the highest profile bill but most bills receive a lot of pro and con. This was all pro and no con. I've checked before and BTW most congressional offices are very accessible and they will gladly tell you info like this.

I think this is the same reason the take-out is so high and rebates so rare. We are MIA.

We really need a lobbying group for horse racing wagers. State horse racing boards do not represent our best interest.

As you point out, we are our worst enemy. Nobody is an advocate for horseplayers, including horseplayers!

And, don't think that the power structure for the game doesn't recognize that.

[alysheba88]

As you point out, we are our worst enemy. Nobody is an advocate for horseplayers, including horseplayers!

And, don't think that the power structure for the game doesn't recognize that.

Absolutely correct

[44PACE]

Yes, Costa Rica is a hotbed of Islamic radicalism... :rolleyes:

But this contention shouldn't be surprising... the gov't seems to be able to link anything and everything to terrorism.


The terrorists will now have to get a cut of the beads and pottery sales.

[PaceAdvantage]

Are you 100% it is illegal to wager? If so please provide source data. It is my understanding that Nevada, California and Louisiana have specific laws on the book against online betting. No other state does that I am aware of. Be careful here because many get this issue confused. It is not betting or bettors that are being targeted here. Nor do laws get in to that issue. It is bet providers

No, I'm not 100% sure. And I wasn't trying to imply that bettors will be targeted here.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps it is perfectly legal to wager on casino games over the internet.

I may be under the mistaken impression that local state laws that forbid the RUNNING of illegal casinos also forbid the wagering on such games.

[rrbauer]

This may have been posted elsewhere but here's the link if you're interested.

http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/columns/2006_act.htm

[Pell Mell]

I bet off shore as of now but I might not mind using you-bet or brisbet if they would be allowed.

However, when I lived in NJ I couldn't set up an account with you-bet because internet betting is illegal in NJ although they are supposed to be setting up their own online betting system.

One other question, how would they regulate debit card transactions or the use of cashier checks sent by fed-ex which is accepted by pinnacle?

[Pell Mell]

One other item I forgot to mention concerning the controls of every aspect of our lives from gambling to fatty foods, etc. I really think the Nazis had nicer uniforms.