Since I play on Party Poker just about everyday, this will really cheese me off if this happens. Online wagering under attack in Congress By NANCY ZUCKERBROD, Associated Press Writer Gamblers who prefer their laptops to blackjack tables won't like what Congress is doing. On Tuesday, the House plans to vote on a bill that would ban credit cards for paying online bets and could padlock gambling Web sites. The legislation would clarify existing law to spell out that it is illegal to gamble online. To enforce that ban, the bill would prohibit credit cards and other payment forms, such as electronic transfers, from being used to settle online wagers. It also would give law enforcement officials the authority to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites. Some opponents of the legislation say policing the Internet is impossible, that it would be better to regulate the $12 billion industry and collect taxes from it. The online gambling industry is based almost entirely outside the United States, though about half its customers live in the U.S. Other critics complain that the bill doesn't cover all forms of gambling. They point to exemptions they say would allow online lotteries and Internet betting on horse racing to flourish. "If you're going to support legislation that is supposed to 'prohibit gambling,' you should not have carve-outs," said Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the conservative Traditional Values Coalition. Other conservative and antigambling groups are supporting the legislation, sponsored by Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Jim Leach, R-Iowa. John Kindt, a business professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who has studied the issue, calls the Internet "the crack cocaine" of gambling. "There are no needle marks. There's no alcohol on the breath. You just click the mouse and lose your house," he said. Congress has considered similar bills several times before. In 2000, disgraced lobbyist Jack Ambramoff led a fierce campaign against it on behalf of an online lottery company. Online lotteries are allowed in the latest bill, largely at the behest of states that increasingly rely on lotteries to augment tax revenues. Pro-sports leagues also like the bill, arguing that Web wagering could hurt the integrity of their sports. The horse racing industry also supports the bill because of the exemption it would get. Betting operators would not be prohibited from any activity allowed under the Internet Horseracing Act. That law written in the 1970s set up rules for interstate betting on racing. It was updated a few years ago to clarify that betting on horse racing over the Internet is allowed. Greg Avioli, chief executive officer of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, said the mention of horse racing in the bill is "a recognition of existing federal law," not a new carve-out. He said the racing industry has a strong future in the digital age and acknowledged the bill would send Internet gamblers to racing sites. "They'd return to the one place they can bet legally," Avioli said. That's what some critics say is unfair. "Somehow we find ourselves in a situation where Congress has gotten in the business of cherry-picking types of gambling," complained Rep. Robert Wexler (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla. Wexler had tried unsuccessfully to include exemptions for dog racing and jai alai, both popular in Florida. The Justice Department has taken a different view on the legality of Internet betting on horse races. In a World Trade Organization case involving Antigua, the department said online betting on horse racing remains illegal under the 1961 Wire Act despite the existence of the more recently passed Interstate Horseracing Act. The department hasn't actively enforced its stance, but observers say it is possible the agency and the racing industry could face off in court in the future. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., is leading support for the ban in the Senate. The issue has so far not been debated in that chamber this year. ___ The bill is H.R.4411 ___ On the Net: House: http://www.house.gov/ link to story
I doubt it will happen....and if it does there will always be ways around it...like pre-paid cards etc....they can fight all the want..
How do you guys who bet for real money on these sites know your're not playing one person or a group of people IMing each other their hold cards; or is the fix too good that you overlook these pitfalls of online gambling? I love poker and have played for free at party poker but these things have always scared about forking over real cash.
if you understand teh game and how/why someone is betting, you can pick up if the game is full of cheats. i'm sure there have been times when i didn't identify two people IMing each other but it's pretty rare i believe. also, the site does it's best to find these cheats b/c it's in the best interest of their game. besides, it's usually the people who lose who scream "rigged".
I agree with this. The sites strictly monitor people that play on the same tables with any frequency in cash games and investigate it quickly. I have been contacted because on a very slow night I ended up playing at 3 different tables with the same player. I don't worry about it too much because I mostly play tournaments and sicne you can't choose what table you sit at in a multi-table toruney it is next to impossible to cheat with another person.
It's a pretty silly bill. 50-60 million Americans play poker regularly so its just another side issue to deflect from the real problems Congress should be concentrating on. If you're really concerned you can contact your local Congressperson or join up with the Texas based Poker PAC: http://www.texaspokerpac.com/join.htm. My understanding is that there is support FOR poker from some pretty diverse interests including poker players, banks, advocates for the disabled and others. As far as collusion goes: it happens in live games so if you play poker for money anywhere you run that risk, but as others have pointed out most of these sites spend a lot of resources tracking players because its in their best interest to stop collusion. This really is an industry where consumer confidence is the key to their billion dollar profits.
me too....i seriously thought you were about to get your fingers or toes chopped off! i play on ub, so this would undoubtedly suck
CRAP! The Bill passed the House quick! The House passed legislation Tuesday that would prevent gamblers from using credit cards to bet online and could block access to gambling Web sites. The legislation would clarify and update current law to spell out that most gambling is illegal online. But there would be exceptions — for state-run lotteries and horse racing — and passage isn't a safe bet in the Senate, where Republican leaders have not considered the measure a high priority. The House voted 317-93 for the bill, which would allow authorities to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites. Critics argued that regulating the $12 billion industry would be better than outlawing it. Said Rep. Barney Frank (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., "Prohibition didn't work for alcohol. It won't work for gambling." The American Gaming Association, the industry's largest lobby, has opposed online gambling in the past but recently backed a study of the feasibility of regulating it. The Internet gambling industry is headquartered almost entirely outside the United States, though about half its customers live in the U.S. Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Jim Leach, R-Iowa sponsored the bill. They successfully beat back an amendment to strip out exemptions in the legislation for the horse racing industry and state lotteries. Goodlatte called that "a poison pill amendment," aimed at defeating the larger bill. Supporters of the measure argued that Internet betting can be addictive and can lead people to lose their savings. Leach said the problem is particularly acute for young people who are frequently on the Internet. "Never before has it been so easy to lose so much money so quickly at such a young age," he said. Rep. Shelley Berkley (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., pushed for removal of the exemptions. She said it was unfair to allow online lotteries and Internet betting on horse racing to flourish while cracking down on other kinds of sports betting, casino games and card games like poker. Supporters of Internet gambling agreed. "They call it a prohibition. It's really Congress picking winners and losers," said Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance, a San Francisco-based group that opposed the bill. Congress has considered similar legislation in the past. In 2000, disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff led a fierce campaign against it on behalf of an online lottery company. Supporters of the bill brought up that history Tuesday and suggested that a vote for the bill was a way to make a statement against Abramoff's influence. However, the lottery exemption wasn't in the bill back in 2000. If it had been, Abramoff's client probably would have backed the bill. Online lotteries are exempted this time around at the behest of states. Under the provision that relates to horse racing, betting operators would not be prohibited from any activity allowed under the Interstate Horseracing Act. That law was written in the 1970s to set up rules for interstate betting on racing. The industry successfully lobbied for legislation several years ago to clarify that horse racing over the Internet is allowed. Greg Avioli, chief executive officer of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, said the mention of horse racing in the bill is merely "a recognition of existing federal law." Avioli said the racing industry has a strong future in the digital age and suggested the bill would send Internet gamblers to racing sites and away from the banned sites. The Justice Department has taken a different view on the legality of Internet betting on horse races. In a World Trade Organization case involving Antigua, the department said online betting on horse racing remains illegal under the 1961 Wire Act despite the existence of the more recently passed, and updated, Interstate Horseracing Act. The department hasn't actively enforced its stance. Like the racing industry, professional sports leagues also like the bill. They argue that Web wagering could hurt the integrity of their sports. Sen. Jon Kyl (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., is leading support for the ban in the Senate. The issue has not been debated in that chamber this year, and the measure hasn't been identified by Senate leaders as a top priority. If the horse provision were stricken from the bill, there's a good chance the measure would run into objections from Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and others from racing states. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060711/ap_on_go_co/internet_gambling I'll take 2 to 1 that the Senate passes it too. That would be a frickin' bad beat!
haven't there been numerous bills that pass easily in the House, yet they don't get passed the Senate? at least that provides some optimism.
what a bunch of BS! please, young people don't lose money to gambling on the internet. they waste their money on clothes, video games, and 20 inch rims for their Ford Escorts.
Stupid, just stupid. I play online every day, so this is kinda annoying. I'm not sure it really affects me, though, as I just deposit the money straight from my bank account. In fact, whenever I've tried to make a deposit with a credit card, all of mine have been denied by the sites. Plus, I don't really have a need to keep depositing. Whenever I cash out, I always leave some money in the account, so I don't have to deposit again. That's one way around it.
hahaha while that is very true, I can attest that online gambling gets a lot of young peoples' money. I've seen it happen to a lot of my friends, and before I got good at online poker, it got plenty of mine, too.
it affects everyone in the US. i don't use CCs either, but they are looking to have your ISP block the gambling sites. no site, no play.
how old are your friends? i'm gonna assume at least 18 and by government standards that's considered adulthood. don't adults have a right ot make up their own minds?
It is much better to have people dealing with bookies and going to low or no security card rooms than to have them dealing with public companies through their computer.