Online Poker Players Face Legal Issues

[NVMojo]

they can thank their Repuke pals!

LAS VEGAS (AP) -- With the nightclub Tao swathed in red and black, music pulsated and go-go dancers gyrated on raised platforms along the wall. Everything from the "reserved" signs to the billiard table felt to the models' Chinese-style dresses bore the same label: "bodog.com." The only thing missing was the online gambling site's flamboyant founder, 45-year-old Canadian Calvin Ayre, who was nowhere to be found.

"He'd have girls all around him and he'd be the life of the party," said Ronn Torossian, a publicist and acquaintance familiar with Ayre's celebrating ways.

The billionaire who graced Forbes magazine's March cover decided to make himself scarce after federal authorities arrested David Carruthers, the head of rival Web gambling operator BetOnSports PLC, as Carruthers changed planes at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport on July 16.

A federal judge ordered BetOnSports to stop accepting bets placed from the United States, and prosecutors are seeking the forfeiture of $4.5 billion, plus several cars, recreational vehicles and computers from Carruthers and 10 other people associated with the Costa Rica-based gambling operation.

<b>Around the same time, the U.S. House passed a bill that would ban most Internet gambling. Though the bill's future in the Senate is uncertain, the issue loomed over the World Series of Poker in Las Vegas: Is online poker legal?</b>.

more...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/ONLINE_POKERS_FUTURE?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[BattyDem]

1. This is ridiculous!

If you live in a state where it's illegal to gamble, you can visit Las Vegas, Atlantic City or any Indian reservation casino without facing legal penalties. The owners of those casinos never have to worry about being prosecuted for allowing out-of-state residents to gamble in their establishments.

So what's the difference between visiting those casinos in person and visiting them online? :shrug: The "virtual casino" is based in a place where gambling is legal, so why should the owner be prosecuted for allowing non-resident gamblers when the owner of a physical casino is not? :mad:

Enough with the nanny laws! If tax-paying adults want to gamble at any legal establishment - either physical or virtual - that's their business!!! :grr:

[sgxnk]

3. tell it to WA state DEMOCRATS

washington has a democratic governor and an overwhelmingly democratic legislature

and they were the FIRST STATE IN THE NATION TO BAN ONLINE GAMBLING

yet, all sorts of gambling is legal in this state. does the fact that the legislature gets TAX revenue from casino gambling, and scratch tickets, but NOT internet gambling have anything to do with it?

is it logical to "protect" people from a $1 online poker tournament, but not a casino, where the minimum tournament buyin can be 25X higher?

spare me the blame republicans crap. dems and repubs do the exact same thing WHEN in power

in the state of WA , the dems are in power and in their nannystate way have banned online gambling (first state in the country) as well as smoking in all private businesses and 25 ft from the private businesses

nannystate politicians are just as bad whether or not they are dems or repubs

just ask WA state residents

[BattyDem]

4. I didn't blame any party in my post ...

I just reacted to the situation. In fact, I don't care what side of the aisle they're on - I blame EVERYONE who is a part of this "nanny law" bullshit! :grr:

[sgxnk]

5. i agree with you

way too many authoritarian nannystate idiots in both parties...

[BattyDem]

6. Yep. I'm tired of being treated like a child by my government!

:grr:

[Trillo]

9. Why are you posting substantially the same text twice

in the same thread? You prior post in this thread, #2, appears to have identical content except for the title.

[sgxnk]

2. false - dems just as bad on this issue

washington has a democratic governor and an overwhelmingly democratic legislature

and they were the FIRST STATE IN THE NATION TO BAN ONLINE GAMBLING

yet, all sorts of gambling is legal in this state. does the fact that the legislature gets TAX revenue from casino gambling, and scratch tickets, but NOT internet gambling have anything to do with it?

is it logical to "protect" people from a $1 online poker tournament, but not a casino, where the minimum tournament buyin can be 25X higher?

spare me the blame republicans crap. dems and repubs do the exact same thing WHEN in power

in the state of WA , the dems are in power and in their nannystate way have banned online gambling (first state in the country) as well as smoking in all private businesses and 25 ft from the private businesses

nannystate politicians are just as bad whether or not they are dems or repubs

just ask WA state residents

[w4rma]

7. Sounds like the in-state gambling lobby got what they wanted there.

They wanted an oligopoly over gambling in Washington state.

[sgxnk]

8. i agree

follow the $$$

[Dogmudgeon]

10. I never understood ...

... the appeal of gambling.

The house has the money and the wherewithal to employ the best statisticians to keep the odds solidly in their favor. Where is the thrill in getting your pocket picked by mathematicians?

Playing the stock market -- or any financial market -- has a much better rate of return, and you get to experience the emotional roller coaster as long as you maintain your investment(s). Gambling, in this light, seems to be just a tax on the innumerate.

--p!
Kinda takes the shine off of James Bond, too.

[Solon]

11. Depends on the game played...

Roulette, Slot Machines, etc. don't really appeal to me, however, card games are a different story. To be honest, it has nothing to do with the money, in fact, I "Gamble" with chips, not cash, but playing a good table of poker, or blackjack, is as much skill as luck. I will say that the fun part is beating an opponent, even the House. Those who gamble for MONEY alone are shortsighted I think.

Though, what do I know, I gambled ONCE in my entire life, on one of my friend's 21st Birthday, we all went to a local casino. On that day I was flat broke, so my buddy loaned me 20 bucks, I went straight to the Blackjack table, later that night, I gave him back that 20 bucks, in addition to another 200 dollars I walked out with. Would I do it again? Probably, though its been quite a few years, but I will say this, the rush for me was the fact that the House lost out on 200 bucks, not that I actually got the money. Also, just like in everything, I would do it in moderation, I can't imagine myself actually risking more than 20 bucks at a casino, its a game, and should be treated as such. Those that bet the mortgage of their house or something have a problem, in addition to those that think they will win a million dollars there, to me, its just a game.

[illumn8d]

12. Most of this is poker

And you are playing other players, not the house (unless they have shills). Casinos take a rake off of every pot. Good pokers players have an edge.

Blackjack with a single deck with a good player, the player has an egde against the house, however most casinos now use multiple decks.