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."
If you're playing with a real deck, at a real casino. Who knows whats in the virtual deck you're playing with?
Doesn't matter. Your opponents are still other players. Someone always wins every hand - the house never "wins". The house just takes a rake out of every pot.
Now, you could theorize that the house occasionally might grab more rake than it is due, but that would be easy to determine. The only other means of obvious fraud would be for the house to create a 'shill' player.
Your real fear should be collusion between multiple accounts created by the same person or a group of people acting together. That happens all the time.
The persistence of these myths is quite remarkable, and may have something to do with the current legal situation.
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 the long run, the difference in earnings between two players can be attributed to the choices they make. That is why poker is considered a game of skill and many governments have recognized this distinction. Poker is legal in California, for example, because the courts have ruled it to be a game of skill.
What is especially silly about this new legal move is that it rests on very shaky legal ground. The prosecutor has cited the Wire Act, but federal courts have already ruled that the wire act only applies to sports betting. It's also strange timing since the UIGEA which attempts to prevent gambling-related money transfers is scheduled to begin being enforced later this year.
As to the fairness of the games, that could only be ensured and improved with proper regulation. Hopefully the attention brought to this situation by this case will ultimately result in the legality of online poker being clarified. Barney Frank has introduced a bill to legalize and regulate online poker. If this is an issue you support, I urge you to let your congressperson know.
Libertarian shift in the banking industry o_O ?
The libertarians have been the most rabid opponent of the banking system for decades. The banking system is basically a franchise system by the state controlled central bank. The most important factor in banking, the short term interest rate is set by a group of technocrats and politicians, much like the gosplan. Banking is the least libertarian sector in the economy, it is a pillar of the government.
\u262D = \u5350
Ah yes, th fly-by-night internet companies that are listed on the London stock exchange like Party Poker and Poker Stars.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
I work on one of the largest wagering sites in Australia, and a lot of thought and effort is put in to protect the sites against money laundering and other nefarious uses.
Our site is heavily regulated and audited by the Australian state governments, and our system already supports geographic distribution of taxes, based on the location of the account holder. The location of the account holder is verifiable, because we require a 100 point ID check to fully activate an account.
Through proper regulation, and well built systems, issues such as "who gets the tax" and "how can the site be trusted" are solvable, and have already been solved in many countries.
I used to work as a programmer in a large Nevada casino.
The house regularly hires "shills" with good poker playing skills to sit at the table. The shills get a salary and the casino gets their winnings. That is how the house increases it's take
I see no reason why online casinos would not do the same thing.
You are just wrong about this. First, when the poker room hires someone to play to fill tables they are called props, not shills. Anyone familiar with poker would know this. Second, props are paid a small salary from the casino and play with their own money. They keep their winnings and eat their losses. Props have to start games and have to get up when the table is full so that a customer can sit.
The use of props is controlled by the state gaming commissions. You can always ask the dealer if their is a prop at the table.
Some on line poker rooms use props. I know some of the props and can tell you they play with their own money, too.
That is an utterly ridiculous claim. The reason why the WTO ruled against the USA is because it is clearly in breach of its obligations under the treaties. The WTO has held that the USA has the right within the treaties to ban remote gambling, but that they haven't completely banned remote gambling, instead they have restrictions that unfairly discriminate in favour of US-based operators. The USA can resolve the problem either by completely banning remote gambling or by ending the discrimination. There are apparently domestic political difficulties that prevent the USA from following either course, but that is irrelevant in determining whether the USA has adhered to the rules it agreed to be bound by.