Slashdot Mirror


$33 Million In Poker Winnings Seized By US Govt

An anonymous reader writes "A New York Times story reports that, 'Opening a new front in the government's battle against Internet gambling, federal prosecutors have asked four American banks to freeze tens of millions of dollars in payments owed to people who play poker online. ... "It's very aggressive, and I think it's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors," Mr. Rose said. He added that it was not clear what law would cover the seizure of money belonging to poker players, as opposed to the money of the companies involved.' Many players are reporting that their cashout checks have bounced."

5 of 465 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Lame Gov by hedwards · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Actually, that would be a continuation of the policy put forward during the Bush administration years. I know that you like to bash Democrats, but I don't recall President Bush or the Republicans in congress threatening to shut it down.

    The uprising is indeed coming, but to assume that it's going to go in favor of fascism is a huge mistake. The people of America are getting pretty sick of being abused so that corporations and moral interests can take their freedom. If you don't like this sort of policy, then you shouldn't vote for Republicans, end of story. They were the main proponents of banning internet gaming, not the Democrats.

  2. Re:Another reason not to gamble online by nomadic · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    As others have pointed out, poker is not a game which is skewed in the house's favor. The house takes a percentage of every pot, called the rake. In poker players play against one another, and while there is a chance element, chance does not favor anyone in the long run.

    In traditional poker, yes. Where none of the players see each other, one could be playing for the house; wouldn't they rather make the entire pot rather than a small percentage of it?

    Or, you could just rely on the honesty of a fly-by-night, Cayman Islands-based internet company.

  3. Re:Laws, schmores by hedwards · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    That's not true. That was politically motivated, the WTO was hijacked as a way of getting back at the US for foreign policy disagreements.

  4. Re:Lame Gov by CodeBuster · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Honestly, I'll never understand who goes through our governments minds... they do nothing but waste time, thus waste money... and people wonder why this nation is on the verge of collapse

    A problem which the socialists here on Slashdot always attempt to solve with, drum roll please, more government ! They will be disappointed of course, but not before even more damage has been done. Perhaps then you will agree with me that it is time now for all of us, including those in government, to live within our means.

  5. Re:Lame Gov by geekoid · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Becasue it's hard to defend against bombs dropped from 30K feet? Part of defense is also maintaining a good relationship with our neighbors. However it's moot. Libertarians seem to forget that there ideals have failed over, and over, and over again.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect