Online Gaming

The European Parliament's Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee will meet next week in Brussels to consider a draft report which seeks a European Parliament Resolution on 'the integrity of online gambling'. The report is clearly not favorable to online gaming and online poker. And although the report is not binding on future Commission action, the report reasserts all of the negatives used by opponents of online gaming and freedom of the internet. Once again we are to be protected from ourselves.

There is a separate political issue involved here that does not get much press and that is the EU Commission and the European Court of Justice are overwhelmed with gaming cases. Every country wants to assert it sovereign rights over gambling issues and every other country wants everyone else to honor those local and jingoistic regulations. Unfortunately, the EU was established, at least in part, to lower such lower tariffs and trade laws but with gambling there is the miasma of the moral and social order to be considered.

Rather than seek to revolve issues of regulation and fair business practices, the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee has chosen to go with the reactionary position of prohibition.

"Member States have a legitimate interest in monitoring and regulating their gambling markets in order to protect consumers against addiction, fraud, money-laundering and fixed games as well as to protect the culturally-built funding structures which finance sports activities and other social causes," and "underlines that online gambling operators should comply with the legislation of the Member State in which they provide their services."

The report goes on site the nebulous fears of all prohibitionists:

"Online gambling is likely to give rise to risks to consumers and that Member States may therefore legitimately restrict the freedom to provide online gambling services in order to protect consumers."

Fortunately, the EU Parliament tends to act in the best interest of the whole of the EU populations, whereas the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee tends to put forward the interests of individual member states, many of which seek to retain their own national gaming monopolies.

Online gaming continues to be the single largest unresolved issue before the EU Commission with no real signs of any movement towards an open market solution at this time.

Cindy Skrzycki writes a regular business column for Bloomberg Business News. This article comes from the Washington Post and was issued in a section called "Regulators". Her headline was "Internet Gaming Rules Face Long Odds"

It's not easy making rules for a U.S. law intended to deter illegal Internet gambling by choking off the flow of funds to offshore sites. That's because no one seems to agree on what the law covers.

Officials at the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve found that out after sifting through more than 200 comments from banks, gamblers, church groups and members of Congress on recommendations for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. The basic sentiment was that their Oct. 4 proposal, which depends on financial institution enforcement, won't work.

The outcome will affect 23 million online gamblers, some 2,500 Internet sites and the growth of an industry with an estimated $15 billion in annual global revenue. The law bars financial institutions from processing payments involving Internet gambling -- with the notable exceptions of Indian gaming, state gaming and horse racing.

"If the federal agencies themselves cannot agree on the law, what hope is there that banks can resolve these confounding legal issues?"

the American Bankers Association said in commenting on a conflict between the Treasury and Justice departments on the legality of betting on horses.

The Washington trade group said the suggested rules are more likely to catch its members in a compliance trap than stop profits from illegal gambling from escaping offshore. The proposal says generally that it covers the making of bets on the Internet that already are illegal under state or federal law. It just doesn't spell out those games of chance.

Banks and other financial institutions would have to make a reasonable effort to stop payments to Internet gambling sites through credit cards, checks or electronic funds transfer. The final rule is overdue, as regulators review the flood of comments.

"This is an issue that there is so much interest in that we don't want to rush," said Jennifer Zuccarelli, a spokeswoman for the Treasury Department.

"We are just trying to hear from everyone."

There are a variety of complaints. Gamblers point to what they see as hypocrisy in the proposal. Why hamper Internet gambling, they argue, when states enthusiastically license casinos, and taking long odds on a state lottery ticket is perfectly legal?

Former senator Alfonse D'Amato, a New York Republican representing the Poker Players Alliance in Washington, told the agencies that its constituency should not even be included because poker is a game of skill, not chance.

"What is legal now?"

Joseph Kelly, a professor of business law at the State University of New York College at Buffalo and an expert in online gambling, said in an interview.

"God only knows."

.

"If you operate in Antigua and take sports bets from the U.S., you are committing a felony,"

he said. On the other hand, sports betting is allowed in Nevada and some other states.

The legal issue is crucial because of conflicting court decisions, differing state laws and applications of older federal laws. Prosecutors and the horse-racing industry have disagreed since 1978 on whether it's legal to bet on horses across state lines. The law said it

"is not intended to resolve any existing disagreements over the horseracing law."

.
Then-Senate Majority Leader and presidential hopeful Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) pushed the bill through Congress just before it adjourned in 2006.

Almost immediately, big players in the industry such as PartyGaming in Gibraltar, which runs the PartyPoker.com and PartyBingo.com Web sites, pulled out of the U.S. market. They had been successful in blocking similar legislation for almost a decade.

"There was a pretty concerted lobbying effort to keep this from happening,"

Susan Schneider, former head of the Interactive Gaming Council, a trade association in Vancouver, B.C., said in an interview.

Antigua, home to some big online gaming sites, objected through the World Trade Organization to the U.S. crackdown on Internet gambling. The WTO ruled in December that the United States must pay the island nation $21 million for violating trade rules.

The online gambling industry and its suppliers fear that the proposal to place the burden on legitimate payment operators will encourage gambling operators to set up fictitious accounts as a way around any rule.

Republican Sens. John E. Sununu (N.H.) and Pete V. Domenici (N.M.) asked regulators to come up with a list of restricted transactions.

Otherwise, they predicted,

"Risk-averse financial institutions will simply choose to block every transaction" that could resemble gambling, "whether legal or not."

Advocates of regulating, taxing and licensing Internet gambling -- as some European countries have done -- think the United States should appoint a federal commission to study those issues.

In the meantime, Frank Fahrenkopf Jr., president and chief executive of the American Gaming Association, said many privately owned offshore sites continue to let Americans wager, win and lose.

"Money is fungible, and it gets to where it wants to go,"

Fahrenkopf said.

"I don't know of prohibition of anything that ever worked."

It is way past time that someone had a few sane words to combat all of those "high moral" opinions being yelped about all over the web. Our topic today: cheating at poker on the internet. By the way I respect your right to find my words insane or at least devoid of morals or standards. I will exercise those same rights when your four letter responses arrive duct taped to the back of turtles. These are opinions, you have the right to hold different ones, which does not make mine any less valid or logical. So here goes:

There is very little real cheating in online poker.

What we have are a bunch of very stupid rules that do not take into consideration either the reality of the internet or the basics of human nature. Time and time again, it has been proven that making rules which have no possibility of being enforced is a fool's errand. We don't need to have this legal and social debate again in the tiny world of online poker. Governments have gone through this redundant exercise for centuries to the same conclusion: If you can't enforce it, don't legislate it. So here are the rules.

If you can see the other players cards; you are a cheat, a crook and a thief.

Because I am in the middle of a rant, I will refrain from any absolute comments on this topic, other than to say that this is the ultimate example of cheating and must be prevented and when it does happen there actually ought to be real punishment.

One player to a hand is a incredibly stupid and unenforceable rule.

Base on the nature of the internet, no rules should be written that cannot be enforced. I had my nephew play my hand for nearly an hour this past Sunday, while I finished cooking dinner. He would call out the cards and I would tell him what to do and in the process he learned a bit about early MTT strategy. Some will say: "Well the intent here was not to cheat." But others claim: "Rules are rules." I agree with the rules are rules people, but they have to be rules for everyone and since certain rules cannot be enforced, they are not rules but suggestions for high moral behavior, which belong in the pulpit and not at the poker table.

Multi-Accounting cannot be prevented with today's technology.

Go to any wired college dorm in the world and you have the ability for multiple player accounts with different ISP tags. Or stay at a certain Las Vegas casino hotel and discover you cannot play on one of the bigger poker websites because several months ago two players in different rooms tried to play the same tournament and now the hotel's ISP is blocked. Same logic as above, if it cannot be monitored and prevented then it should not be a rule. Sorry folks, I know the purists want everyone to play fair but they don't. The only way to catch people and punish them is if they are: a) stupid and allow simply software detection; or b) they talk about it in public. I am OK with punishing the stupid but making honesty a crime seems counter-productive.

Self incrimination is simply speaking the truth.

This brings me to my one solid suggestion: Players shall not be punished based on their own words. You know that thorny issue of self incrimination. Some players admit they have taken over accounts of other players. So they should be punished for telling the truth about what happens in every major tournament every weekend on the net. Why? The truth is that since account sharing cannot be prevented, it should not be illegal.

Yes, I know there are legal arguments against each of my positions. But reason and logic should prevail here not morals or wishin' and hopin'. I would like internet poker to be as fair and level a playing field as live games but that is not possible at this time. Internet gaming creates a different kind of poker with different rules and only rules that recognize the reality of the uniqueness of the internet should even attempt to be enforced.

Show one, show all. Catch one, catch all or leave everyone alone. Why is learning to use poker spy software any less of a skill than learning how to slowplay or bluff? Why..... ah enough, end of rant. I gotta get back to my game, I am leading a tournament and I am in ninth place too.

The nations, city-states, regions and races of the European continent have fought for thousands of years. They have fought over territory, religion, ethnicity, money, freedom and slavery, human rights and the right to control humans. Since 1993, the European Union has attempted to be:

"A political and economic community of twenty-seven member states, located primarily in Europe. The EU comprises a single market created by a system of laws which apply in all member states, guaranteeing the freedom of movement of people, goods, services and capital. It maintains a common trade policy, agricultural and fisheries policies, and a regional development policy. The EU represents its members in the WTO and observes at G8 summits and at the UN. With almost 500 million citizens, the EU generated an estimated 31% share of the world's nominal GDP (US$16.6 trillion) in 2007." [Wikipedia]

.
Some major accomplishments of the EU treaty organization have been:

-the abolition of passport requirements between member nations; although they are now considering fingerprinting all non-EU visitors.

-assigning the exclusive use of the word "chocolate" to a country that exists in the middle of a continent that grows not one single cacao tree.

-a united front for trade negotiations with non-EU members; internal negotiations have not gone so well; which leads us to poker.

Oh right, poker! The EU Internal Markets Commissioner, who is charged with the free flow of trade and products within the European Union is having one hell of a time with regulating or rather de-regulating online gaming. And here you thought the biggest problem was who gets to call their sparkling headache water--champagne.

Below is a current overview of EU members and their non-compliance with the free flow of pot limit poker on the web.

In the continuing and ill-advisted attempt to control the Internet, the new Labour government in Australia is proposing a "Clean Feed." The technically retarded bureaucrats led by prime minister Kevin Rudd are seeking to increase control and censorship of the Internet by regulating Internet Service Providers.

Rudd’s plan is to "require" ISPs to provide “clean feeds” that are free of porn and online gambling sites. Supporters of the plan assure that only sites on a (presumably government authored) blacklist will be blocked, and that citizens can opt-out if they wish.

“The Rudd Government campaigned on a platform promising to speed up Australians’ access to the worldwide web by rolling out broadband around the country, the blacklist enlistment of ISPs would have the opposite effect."

Yet another example of a government with no understanding of personal freedom, much less an technical concept of how the infrastructure of the Internet functions.

Poker players in the United States are getting an opportunity to vote for President this year and perhaps they would like to know how the current contenders really line up on internet poker regulation.

"The right to gamble has never been a pressing issue for most Americans and it may be years before Congress takes up the issue again, some industry experts say legalization is inevitable because of the potential tax revenue now going offshore to a thriving underground economy."

However, who gets into the White House will have an effect on how quickly action is taken. Here is the current analysis of the Las Vegas Journal News on the three leading Democrat candidates.

Hillary Clinton: Supports the industry’s position: to study Internet gambling to see whether it can be fairly regulated so that individuals can safely participate in it and American businesses can compete in the international market.

John Edwards: Opposes legalization, doubting it can be controlled.

Barrack Obama: Worries that the Internet is “a Wild West of illegal activity”; supports a study of Internet gambling and supports regulation to address the worst abuses.

Now since the LVJ News did endorse Clinton, I thought I had better do a little research to be sure the positions stated were actually the case.

I have to say that Edwards has little if anything to say and none of it is pro-poker. Obama actually plays poker but his position is, as stated, very uninformed about the internet in general. Clinton maybe just another "say anything" politician but she is the only Democrat who has been positive about online poker over the long term. If you want a "pure play" vote for Dennis Kucinich, he has no chance of winning but he is pro-poker all the way. Maybe just an old fashion Pro-Poker Protest vote.

The United Kingdom's Gambling Commission (Department of Culture, Media and Sports) has rejected the applications of Antigua & Barbuda and the Kahnawake Reservation Territories to join the White List of approved online gaming sites. To be on the White List means you can advertise in the UK. To be off the White List is well... to be Black Listed.

The colorful administration of Ministry of Doublespeak is simply a WhiteWashed system to ban certain businesses from operating in the UK. Antigua & Barbuda, where over 500 gaming sites operate, thought they had complied with all of the UK requirements. They were, however, reject without comment. The Kahnawakes host over 50% of the worldwide gaming operations and they are now looking into:

"Possible recourses against the UK under Article 20 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples."

Sometimes you just have to take your hat off to some of the ways that governments dream up to mess with our lives. Today we offer a salute to the government of Finland for a brilliant example of creative governance.

We all know that many countries want to control (tax) online gaming revenues, which generally means they want their citizens to only gamble on their state controlled sites. The problem with that is, of course, all of these countries have trade agreements and restricting gambling online violations those treaties. So we hear endlessly about Antigua, White Zones, UIGEA, ad nauseum.

The truly innovative regulators from the Finnish Ministry of Health have stepped up with an idea so far ahead of its time that we simply must tip our clown hats to them. They have proposed allowing all Finnish citizens full access to any and all gaming sites online with no restrictions. Oh, except that every citizen of Finland who loses money playing online, would have the right to sue their credit card company or bank for those losses. You see it would be illegal to lose money online. You see gambling, including poker, is a pyramid scheme to move money from the losers to the winners. You gotta love the illogic. Not to mention the sheer creativity of the proposal.

Don't be shocked but Finland has been added to the European Union's list of countries that are currently in dispute over compliance with EU trade and tariff regulations concerning online gaming.

You have to admit, it was creative!

As previously reported, the state of Nevada has been studying the possibility of creating an online gaming portal that would include poker.

"Long before the US Federal government passed the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA), the State of Nevada was looking into the legalization and regulation of online gaming. The Nevada Legislature as early as 2003 tasked the Nevada Gaming Control Board with studying the question of Internet gambling and State regulation."

Nevada regulators funded a study by the International Gaming Institute at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. The recently released report states again that Nevada is clearly the most favorable jurisdiction in the US to make new policy regarding online gaming. The experience of Nevada regulators is by far the most advanced and seasoned in the US.

However, the study also found that barely 3% of Nevada residents actually used gaming sites in the past 12 months. This number, which is much lower than previous studies in other US States, is attributed to the easy access to casino gaming in Nevada.

It was determined that the potential for a profitable online gaming site was simply not supported by the hard numbers when it came to a Nevada residents-only business model. Whether future intiatives involving other States might be more economically feasible was not a question addressed in the UNLV study.

So for now, there will be no Nevada based online poker sites.

Another EU member nation will add poker to its State run gaming site. This time Austria is seeking to control the revenues from online poker.

"Casinos Austria would shortly set up an online virtual poker room on its gambling platform Win2day. Casinos Austria has bought the technology for its new poker offering in Sweden. Casinos Austria would impose a new weekly limit of 800 Euros in bets by an individual as part of its effort to fight addiction to gambling."

As more and more European Union members opt for the State operated gaming sites over free market competition, it is becoming more and more obvious that there will be a boiling point in this trade war that will require the EU as a whole to decide if online gaming is or is not a open trade commodity.

The Balkanization of poker is becoming more and more a real possibility. If this happens everyone will be limited to playing online poker with only members of their own country or cooperative trading nations. The global freedom of the internet may actually meet its first defeat at the hands of governmental controlled poker games.

In a move that is likely to have wide ranging repercussions, the federal government of Germany has moved to place severe restrictions on online poker and other online gaming. In an attempt to protect the state run gaming sites, the German government is attempting to restrict access to non-German poker sites and to force financial institutions to halt activities with these online businesses.

This only adds to the list of countries trying to defeat the international reach of the internet by proposing prohibitionist legislation. In the European Union and neighboring countries, we now see: Germany, Austria, France, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden and Turkey openly restricting internet gaming trade. Several other countries including the Czech Republic and Poland have proposed similar legislation.

There must come a point where the European Union will have to face the realization that its member nations are in a majority when it comes to closing their internet gaming markets. A feat that boggles the sensibilities when it comes to the entire underpinnings of internet commerce.

It amazes nearly everyone in business how economic restrictions could be placed on one relatively small industry (gaming) while virtually every other product and service can be purchased from anywhere on the planet using the internet.

Is online gaming merely the beginning of a global internet trade war?

I have been reading all of the year end poker articles and blogs the past several days. You don't need me to give you another recap of the year in poker, so I thought I would look for the one single event or change that has taken place in poker that was the most significant happening in 2007. My pick:

Around the world, wherever governments have attempted to limit access or prevent access to online poker; wherever this has happened, the games have gotten harder to beat.

Sweden, Turkey, France, United States and the list goes on. Whether the government is attempting to set up there own state controlled gaming site or limiting access to 'foreign' sites or seeking to prohibit gaming completely; the effect is the same. If new players cannot easily establish an account the deposit funds the player pool shrinks and the remaining players get better.

This analysis does not even consider the billions of potential players in Southeast Asia and China, who are effectively prevented from accessing online gaming sites, at least until the governmental agencies (Vietnam for instance) are in place to allowed state controlled poker.

With all the noise about "Free Markets" from the various western governments, the facts demonstrate that morality and greed dominate the various restrictions and, so far, none of them are even 50% effective in stopping players from playing. The real effect has been to prevent new players from joining poker sites and therefore depriving them of their basic human right to be free from governmental interference in their private lives.

Of course part of the learning curve of any game involves some losses, without new players the games get tougher and although that may help you take your game to a higher level. It will also stress your bankroll at times.

The bottom line? Prohibition does not work. It never has, it never will and there are certainly better endeavors for Parliaments, Congresses, Legislatures, Commissions, Agencies and Churches to spend time and taxes on.

This is my favorite time of year because this is the only time of the year when my favorite fictional character gets any honest acknowledgment by the media.

I mean who doesn't love a guy who makes the spirit of the holidays evident to everyone?

Now to all the poker players in the United States, it is well past time that you gave someone a lump of coal in their stocking; so take a look at the following list, if you do not find the name of your Congressperson on that list, then it is well past time to act.

Just click the link below the list and take five minutes to get your poker rights restored.

Oh and I guess if your representative is on the list, you could write them a nice note of thanks but that is so not in my nature.

LIST: 45 co-sponsors of the Frank Bill to repeal the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act, these are the good guys:

There is another online poker cheating story looming on the web and it makes me wonder about gullibility and stupidity. You see people cheat, I hope that doesn't shock you.

Now the Absolute Poker cheating scandal from a few weeks ago was a prime example of dumb cheating. How the hell did those dumbasses think they were going to get away with such obvious cheating at a final table watched by hundreds? Yes, I know some have said that it was a slipped email that gave the game away but really have you seen those hands from the final table; did anyone need more information? Dumb Cheaters.

But it gets worse. Apparently over at Full Tilt a big tournament was won ($197,000 prize) when one player let another play his account. To be accurate they both played the account, it was a tag-team victory. So how did they get caught? Well there are two options:

First, we could believe that the site actually checked the IP log-ins on the account and found that the winner was playing first from Brussels and then from Chicago. If that was the case then Dumb Cheaters! At least be in the same location and use the same computer if you are going to share.

Second possibility; they told others they had cheated. What you say Dumb Cheaters? Yes, and in fact, several poker forums are abuzz with exactly this scenario. One player took over the account of another player during the tournament and after they won the event---they emailed other poker buddies to brag about the win. Damn Dumb Cheaters!!!

Wanna talk about this? Pop over to our new forum, here is the link to the appropriate thread.

While the long term fate of online poker in the United States and other countries around the world awaits the slow and tedious process of governmental regulation.....There is good news for residents of the State of Nevada, including those in Las Vegas. The State of Nevada may be acting to legalize online poker.

Long before the US Federal government passed the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA), the State of Nevada was looking into the legalization and regulation of online gaming. The Nevada Legislature as early as 2003 tasked the Nevada Gaming Control Board with studying the question of Internet gambling and State regulation.

The Gaming Control Board has closely followed the development of software technology to locate and identity all gamblers using internet access to gaming sites; as well as age and identity verification technology. They are as aware as anyone that the necessary computer systems are available to control and regulate online gaming. While the Federal legislative process has dragged over the past year the State legislature has not pursued the idea of legal online gaming in Nevada, at least not until now.

The European Union is a interesting multi-national device. In theory, everyone cooperates to the benefit of all. In reality, each nation state continues to try and get the best deal for themselves and in the process an inferior trade deal for everyone else they are "cooperating" with. Online gaming is a clear example of this struggle and a trade target able to hide behind the screen of social stigma and moral values.

By the way, the "50 Years Together" predominant in all the EU literature these days refers to The Treaty of Rome signed in 1957, which established the European Economic Community (EEC) among France, West Germany, Italy and Benelux (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). The current European Union has 27 members nations.

As far as online gaming cooperation the EU is at odds with most of its members in this area. Some European countries have taken aggressive steps to try to stop private-sector online gambling companies from outside their borders. Not that online is not allowed, it certainly is but it is dominated by State gambling monopolies. While promoting their own gaming products, various states argue the need to block overseas competition under the doubtful pretext to control addiction and money laundering; along with a myriad of "morals" issues.

For all the poker players in California, who want to know what they can do to support online poker freedom. Here is the latest letter I received from Senator Feinstein of California. After reading this if you would like to contact the Senator (whether you live in California or not) here is her email contact information.

Dear Poker Shrink,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

OK, so I said just the other day that the United States governmental agencies had not yet come up with any rules for the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act. Well now they have and so the online gaming picture in the States is now murkier than ever before. Here are some highlights of the proposed regulations.

*Interested parties (the banks, credit card companies and third party clearing houses) have until December 12, 2007 to comment on the proposed rules.

*The rules say absolutely nothing about the individual poker player; only the financial institutions facilitating the transfer of money are regulated.

*Nothing is said about what gaming activities are legal or for that matter illegal.

*It appears that only your bank and the poker websites bank are subject to any legal issues. The whole interwoven system of financial transfers are considered intermediaries and not subject to sanction.

*The exact procedures for implementing the Act are not in the new rules and apparently are going to be left to the financial institutions involved.

The comments about the proposed rules should be very interesting, particularly since the passage of the bill over a year ago, the banks have made it clear that they simply do not have the internal mechanisms in place to enforce the law.

Reminds me of the phrase: What if they wrote a law and nobody enforced it? Not much chance of that with the right wing political climate across the pond.

It has been a year since the US Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act. In that year there has been zero enforcement because there are no actually rules or procedures for enforcement. Sure many companies have left the US market out of fear and business necessity but why exactly would a country like the US want or need to enforce it's laws based on fear and intimidation.

But this is a poker blog not a political forum, so let me just add. I have not been affected by the US ban, except that there are fewer players on several of my favorite sites and I play for seats in poker tournaments not in the US. I like the US but you never know when they will decide to start arresting poker players for using online sites in defiance of their law that has no rules.

Strange way to run a country?

The Gambling Prevalence Study, released in the United Kingdom, has shown a decline in the total number of adults that have participated in some form of gambling within the last twelve months.

Numbers in the report show that 68% of the population, or about 32 million adults, had participated in some form of gambling activity within the past year. This compares to 72% of the UK population 8 years ago.

Only 3% had gambled via the internet on activities such as online poker and casino games, while 4% placed bets with an internet bookmaker.

The UK gambler is mostly likely to be of white ethnicity from a higher income household. In general, gambling was looked upon as more harmful than beneficial but prohibition was rejected over the individual's right to choose their own lifestyle.

Next time you hear a politician or political wonk spouting some anti-poker nonsense, ask them about this scientific study.

A very good article in the Newsday this week came to the conclusion that the United States may have backed itself into a legal corner where either it must:

"Allow Americans to wager online with offshore casinos or ban all Internet gambling - including popular pastimes like fantasy sports leagues and off-track betting on horses."

The problem, of course, is the interlatedness of the US ban and the international trade agreements that, in theory, open markets to everyone in every potential product arena.

The key to this dispute remains Antigua and Barbuda:

"the tiny twin-island nation of 80,000 people in the Caribbean, which could force the United States to reconsider laws prohibiting online wagering with offshore casinos."

The WTO case is essentially over and only a penalty decision is left on the table.

"The organization's credibility is on the line. It can't risk the rap that it aggressively enforces trade rules against small nations but timidly allows the world's economic powerhouse to skate."

Rep. Barney Frank has said of his bill that would basically rescind the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act:

"It's not dead. It's not very active, it depends on whether or not there's support. I don't think there's support for it yet."

Surprisingly, he went added:

"I take it back. If the European Union gets into this Word Trade Organization dispute, that's a lot more pressure."

Just when it looked like the United States was going to buy its way out of the World Trade Organiations rulings based on the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act, another shoe dropped.

Antigua and Barbuda, which won the original WTO ruling, has announced that the $3.4 billion judgment against the US was only the first step. It seems that:

"The $3.4 billion is just what we're entitled to by virtue of them not having complied with the decision."

.
The decision, of course, being the restraint of trade issue when the US closed its cyber-borders to other countries. But it seems there are more damages to be discussed:

"We still have yet to file a claim that addresses the US withdrawal from the 1995 General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) treaty which allows international access to the US online gaming market."

.
Early suggestions are that this second claim will be at least as large as the first, bringing the total claim to over $7 billion. Add that to the European Union $15 billion claim against the US for withdrawing from GATS and it appears that the US may not have enough trade concessions available to support the UIGEA.

It would seem that Goliath may want to rethink the evils of online gaming before the wax in the bald eagle's wings begins to melt from flying too close to the Caribbean sun. (Mixed metaphors courtesy of my freshman 'Myths and Fables' course or was that the 'Introduction for American Politics'?).

Back Door Bush?

It's truly amazing to what lengths politicians will go, simply to maintain a position that has clearly become untenable to sustain. We are talking about the U.S. and its ban of online gaming. This latest analysis comes from the Wall Street Journal.

The Bush administration, pressured by an unfavorable ruling by the World Trade Organization, plans to push for legal changes that could make it easier for European service companies, from engineering firms to law firms and shipping companies, to do business in the U.S., officials say.

The U.S. is required to offer trading partners greater access to the American market because in May it lost a long-running dispute at the World Trade Organization over laws that banned foreign firms from offering Internet gambling services in the U.S.

• The News: The White House plans to push for changes that could make it easier for European service companies to do business in the U.S.
• The Background: After the U.S. banned foreign gambling Web sites, EU trade officials sought compensation for billions of euros in lost income. The U.S. has been in a trade dispute over online gambling since 2003, mainly with Antigua and Barbuda.
• What's Next: EU and U.S. negotiators are working out details of a compensation offer to open some sectors of the U.S. services market to greater foreign competition.Europe's online gambling firms were hit particularly hard and complained to the European Union's executive arm in Brussels. EU trade officials took up the matter with the WTO, seeking compensation for billions of euros in lost income. The EU invoked a rarely used WTO rule that requires a country that closes one market to foreign companies to open others to compensate trading partners.

Congressman Robert Wexler is the latest member of the US Congress to stand up for poker and the right of US poker players to play poker online.

Now I know everytime I write one of these "SPEAK UP" articles, I hear from a few readers who finally take the step and write, call or email their congressman. But I also know how many poker players feel like no one is listening. For those players, please take one minute to read what Congressman Wexler has to say about that issue:

"It's hard to feel a ground swell in Washington over few issues or many issues, it's hard, but the bottom line is there are thousands of poker players in every Congressional district in America. If people who are interested and enjoy playing poker, if one one-hundredth of those people take a small amount of time to contact in one way or another their member of Congress and say, "Hey, Mr. or Mrs. Member of Congress, why in God's name would you vote to prohibit me, an adult, to choose to play whatever game I want to play on the Internet?" The more people engage in the political process in that fashion, the more compelling it will be, and Congress will react. What I think most Americans don't appreciate, letters DO matter to members of Congress. Emails DO matter, form letters, personal letters DO matter, telephone calls do matter. There has been an article or two about this issue. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal, there have been articles on others, and it is just anecdotal. But I got a bigger response from just being in one line in an article about a poker issue than I have in just about any other issue I've been involved in, in my twelve years in Congress."

.
Stand Up Poker Players!

Two Clicks and You Can Make a Difference.

The body that oversees gaming activities in the UK, The Gambling Commission, released a report that the number of adults in Britian who gamble online has increased by over one percent, or roughly 700,000 people, over the last year. Online poker has become one of the most popular forms of gaming in the UK, exceeded only by The National Lottery. Several knowledgeable observers have commented that these numbers seem low based on regional reports from various online gaming operators.

With online poker becoming increasingly popular in the UK, interest in the World Series of Poker Europe next month is sure to draw even more potential online players.

Unfortunately the new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is not a supporter of gaming either on the internet or in casinos. British subjects have only begun to discover what poker players in the US have known for nearly a year:

"Be careful who you elect, they may attempt to impose their morality on you, despite what the Magna Carta says."

Just wanted these numbers out there. I find them suspect and cobbled together but you gotta have a baseline even it its wrong.

"Not surprisingly, online gambling took a big hit last month (October), according to Nielsen/NetRatings, which tracks Web use, traffic to the top 10 Internet gambling sites dropped a staggering 56 percent in October."

Fifty-six percent drop in top 10 Internet gambling sites in October.

Semi-full story

A story in this morning's Des Moines Register (Iowa) has poker players and the PPA claiming their role in dethroning Jim Leach, the author of the UIGEA, from his 15 term incumbency in the Iowa legislature.

"Following the election the poker group commissioned an automated poll of 1,033 voters in the 2nd District, asking how the poker issue influenced their decisions.

Among those who knew about the law, 15 percent said it influenced them to support Loebsack. Another 10 percent said that it influenced them to support Leach.

Online poker advocates contend that was "enough to doom Leach in a race lost by just 5,711 votes."

Read this article in its entirety at The Des Moines Register's website.

Paradise Poker has fired over 75% of its staff in Costa Rica and is, according to inside sources, abandoning its marketing campaign completely. Whether like other online poker sites Paradise will move its focus to Europe and Asia is at this time unknown but word out of Costa Rica is that Paradise may be seeing the writing on the wall and the words seem to spell out...

"Bye Bye"

Can you say Lack of Liquidty? Well Paradise can.....

OK. So technically Ayn Rand is dead. But apparently people still buy a boatload of her books and the institute that bears her name continues her individual-centric philosophy. I have to admit I was never a Rand fan. Somehow celebrating the full stomached in a dog-eat-dog contest seemed a little...well...callous. But to be a good poker player, you have to admit to Rand-esque behavior, otherwise you're just one more fish for the snacking.

In a turn of events that can hardly be a surprise, The Ayn Rand Institute sent out a press release trashing the UIGEA.

I'm beginning to feel for Congressman Barney Frank. Not only does he find he's aligned with conservative Charles Murray relative to the UIGEA - now he has to share a bed with a dead Objectivist biatch.

An interesting and fairly complete look at how the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act is being covered in the mainstream press. This from the Sunday L.A. Times under the sub-header:

"A bet's a bet, so why criminalize online gaming while keeping other kinds perfectly legal?"

Two quotes I found particularly interesting.

"If the distinction between gambling online and offline strikes you as hypocritical, you're not alone. In November 2004, the World Trade Organization ruled that the United States was in violation of international law by making it a crime for Americans to place bets with online bookies parked offshore. Its court ruled that, with legal gambling so prevalent in the U.S., laws barring gambling online with offshore casinos was protectionist and, therefore, a violation of international treaties."

and

"Because Congress hasn't moved to shut down other gambling opportunities in the U.S., attacks on Internet gambling amount to little more than favoring vice that enriches bookmakers at home."

Full Story