Inside the World of PokerBut First, What About Doyle?by Allyn Jaffrey Shulman | Published: Feb 13, 2007 | |
 
|
|---|
First, I will answer the question I received from people in the poker industry this week regarding Doyle Brunson. No, he did not get arrested. When I spoke with him this morning, he laughed and told me that these types of rumors fly about every year. Usually the rumor says he was taken out of a poker game in handcuffs for cheating! Now that's hilarious because he could beat a table even if all the other guys were cheating!
Next, let's talk about what's going on in the world of poker. Although the first online site opened its virtual doors about 12 years ago, there has been very little governmental intervention for most of that time. A few years ago the government issued subpoenas to some media companies without much follow-up. Recently, the government is taking a more proactive role, fumbling around trying to figure out a way to slow down the billion-dollar online gaming industry.
It has been incorrectly reported that the NETELLER arrests were the result of the new law passed at the end of last year. This is inaccurate, because, as I have explained in other articles, the ex post facto law does not permit the government to convict someone of a crime that was not illegal when an act was performed.
The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was not in effect in 2005. If Lawrence resigned in May of 2006 and Lefebvre resigned in December of 2005, they cannot possibly be charged with violating the UIGEA, which wasn't signed by the president until October of 2006. So reports that say the UIGEA is already in full force and effect are inaccurate.
The Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department are required by July 10, 2007, to issue final rules for banks and financial institutions to block attempts to use bank accounts for online gaming.
Although some banks are attempting to comply with the UIGEA now, the concept of controlling a financial institution is incomprehensive. How does a bank know from where a check comes? Let's say an online site has a bank account with 25 signatories, such as Jack Cooper, Joe Smith, John Doe, etc. and then the site sends a check from John Doe to a US citizen who wants to withdraw some winnings. There is no possible way the bank could know that the check originated from an online site.
That notwithstanding, the South Florida Business Journal reported a few days ago that federal authorities have asked Florida banks to pay attention to all Internet gambling and small international wire transfers in an attempt to cut down on alleged "money laundering."
Further, as I write this, there is a convergence of efforts going on both for and against online gaming.
On one hand, the Florida International Bankers Association is meeting today at its annual Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Conference. US bank regulators and bank officials are discussing pending requirements under the UIGEA.
On the other hand, in Turks and Caicos, new, innovative, completely legal ways of sending and receiving funds are being explored. CardPlayer.com will keep you posted on this front.
The Poker Players Alliance is growing rapidly, with great plans for 2007 and a goal of getting a UIGEA poker carve-out passed this year. Although American Gaming Association President Frank Fahrenkopf told me he doesn't think there's a chance for a carve-out, the AGA wants to see a feasibility study conducted to determine the viability of regulating the industry.
While some people in our government seem to be going nuts, reason exists in other places in the world. On the heels of Frist busily sneaking the UIGEA through Congress, the first international summit for online gaming occurred in the UK with an agenda of discussing how to regulate the industry. Culture secretary Tessa Jowell criticized US antigambling legislation, telling delegates from 32 countries that the UK did not support the United States' stance on Internet gambling and was worried that its legislation would create unregulated offshore sites.
The UK position regarding online gambling is imminently reasonable. The UK has stated publicly that it wants online regulations that serve three basic principles: crime-free gaming, protection of the vulnerable, and insuring that citizens can engage in fair betting.
Even tiny Antigua regulates online gaming with great finesse, which includes independent audits and surprise visits to online sites to make sure rules and regulations are being enforced. When I was visiting with members from the Antiguan government a few months back, I learned that representatives from the US went to Antigua to learn from them, evidently to no avail as of yet.
So where do we stand? We are in the unique position of witnessing prohibition all over again. The government simply cannot tell good citizens what to do with their hard-earned money. History has proven that at day's end, good sense will prevail. In a free society, if we want to have a nice cabernet sauvignon after dinner or play some online poker, we should ultimately be protected to do just that. It's just a matter of time.
3 Comments
NutRush
over 2 years ago
Frankly, I'm growing tired with Allyn Jaffrey Shulman's rants on how online poker is safe, and how the government can't regulate it, and how wrong the government is for trying to stop it. I want to play just like everybody else, and as I sit awaiting a large percentage of my net worth to be "unfrozen" in cyberspace, and an equal amount to arrive by check (two weeks and counting now), I cannot help but feel as though I've been bamboozled by the poker pros, "legal experts", and everyone else in the poker community who said not to worry, online poker is not going anywhere, and to continue to trust your money in their sites.
We have been shown repeatedly that the government is finding a way to regulate online poker. It is growing increasingly hard to both withdraw and deposit money, and as we do so, we proceed with no secirity that our money is safe. If Neteller can suddenly shut down and freeze withdrawals, how are we supposed to have confidence in epassporte and MyWebATM (that sounds real legit) and the like? Or are we just suppossed to proceed normally and hope we don't have too much money when the feds come and seize our funds again? Maybe we can find solice is bad weeks now, or even partially hope for them, so we don't have to deal with such debacles.
Allyn Jaffrey Sulman is persistent, but as she continues to defend herself and the claims she has made about the U.S. government and it's role in online poker, reality coninues to show us just how powerful and entity the U.S. govenment is and if they decide something is not good for the American people, they can stop it. What if, while Allyn Jaffrey sips her cabernet and plays the Nightly $150 on Poker Stars, I want to roll up a joint and smoke it? I can't, because the at one point in time, the government decided marijuana wasn't good for me, and it stuck. So too can this stick, and while new problems continue to arise for online poker players, it's about someone said so, rather than the same old song and dance they've been spitting at us since day one.
burrz
over 2 years ago
Lets face it, online gambling will never be legal in the United States as long as money is leaving the country and not subject to tax (see the horse racing exemption from the UIGEA). It has nothing to do with money laundering or funding terrorism that is all just propoganda to make people feel safe within the country. It is all about the billions of dollars United States citizens willingly choose to move off shores into other countries therefore lowering our own economy and the amount of taxable funds. If you want to make online gambling legal you will have to convince the federal and state governments to allow online wagering sites to be set up in the U.S. its that simple.
detroitjunkie
over 2 years ago
First of all Nut Rush, I have no problems lighting up a joint while I am playing online poker - in fact I just did it last night while I was in the process of winning a $50 sit-and-go. You see, the government is trying to stop online gambling the same way they are trying to stop drug use...on a large scale go-after-the-suppliers basis...but what makes the War on Drugs an actual war, is that there are always new suppliers stepping in to take over where the others left off...it's the USA way. Same is to be said about internet gambling...it is too big of a force for any one entity to stop it, there is too much money to be made, and we have already seen replacements for money transfers popping up everywhere. And if you think the USA government cares if you smoke a joint in your house, dude man, you are very paranoid in the first place...the USA doesn't care about Joe Schmo and the fact that he always loses at least $30 on pocket jacks, they are not going to raid his house...can you imagine how silly the scene would be....10 cops busting down the doors to an apartment where a guy is playing a $1 sit-and-go and ligting up a half-er.
Lastly, I and several of my friends have received money from Ultimate Bet through their new check company with-in 3 weeks of the withdrawl (not bad considering the amount of processing is involved each day) and our banks cashed them just fine...the only thing the USA is doing is crushing the big guys and making it a little slower (dryer) for us.
p.s. I do not remember Allyn ever saying the governemnt CANT regulate poker, they can and they should (and I feel she believes this to). We would stand to lose a little less, but at least we would be playing.