http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/03...e-poker_3.html

Are the Feds Cracking Down On Online Poker?

thx for posting this. Its funny how little we know about what goes on behind the scenes.

 

Originally Posted by Digz

$100 mil in net profit seems pretty lowball

When I read that part too I was like, umm that's gotta be wrong as Im sure they make way more than that!

Am I the only one who thinks party poker laying down like a punk B@%# and pleading guilty could hurt us? Paying 100 million in lobbying and big time lawyers would have to have been a better investment than 300 mil in fines and running.

 

Originally Posted by Niceguy

100mil sounds about right, after paying off the pros, it guys, server costs, customer support, etc.

they get paid? LOL

 

Originally Posted by J0HNS0N757

they get paid? LOL

how do you pay someone that does not exist?

 

Originally Posted by IOnlyNeed1Out

Is his name really Anurag Dikshit???

yup. awesome name, isnt it? lol

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

If it is not too much trouble, please insert the following languange somewhere in your next 1000 page, $1 trillion dollar spending bill:

"The UIGEA is hereby repealed effective immediately."

Respectfully submitted,

Online degens everywhere

Why hasn't the government yet cracked down on the poker firms? One possible explanation is that prosecutors figure they are better off bluffing than having to show their hands before a jury. "The federal government is not going to take any action against them because they would stand a chance of losing it," says Frank Catania, who used to run New Jersey's Division of Gaming Enforcement and now advises online gaming firms.

This makes sense. If the government was confident of it's position it would have taken steps to shut down sites still operating in the US.

 

Originally Posted by lukaluka05

actually when i originally read this i thought the same thing. the laws are so vague that Dikshit could have paid a team of lawyers half that amount and win a stalemate from DOJ. i don't know what that guy or his lawyers were thinking....

Or he could have just told the DOJ to fk off and never enter the US

Yeaaa, I think we really need a poker bill to pass soon, but obv it's been like that for awhile... Once a bill passes, it will never get repealed tho cuz the casinos will actually be for online poker, unlike their current stance... Pass a bill one time !

 

Originally Posted by IOnlyNeed1Out

Is his name really Anurag Dikshit???

Gheyest name ever

Mark my words, online poker in the United States will NEVER be illegal in the same sense that cocaine and murder are illegal. You will never be arrested/fined for playing online poker. Your funds may be seized temporarly like in the past, but that too will pass. They may threaten this or impose that, but there is waaaaaaaaay too much money involved and with stars and FTP being private companies, the DOJ will have such a hard time completely shutting down their operation in the US that the taxpayers or our reps in the govt will put a stop to the battle after seeing how much taxpayer money is going to fighting it vs. the money we would earn by legalizing and taxing it. Not to mention that any real attempt at shutting down the big two will be locked up in court for years before anything concrete is done. Once again, it will NEVER happen.

I am sure you people criticizing party poker have put yourselves in the shoes of its board of directors, because if you had you would have concluded that it would be a great idea to risk other peoples investment in the company; ie: the shareholders, on your desire to prove your point when the alternative is to operate relatively risk free in pretty much the rest of the world.

It is one thing to be responsible for and risk your own capital and it is quite another to be responsible for and risk another persons capital when you are held to certain standards as a fiduciary of that capital.

The first level thinking on this is incredibly weak.

 

Originally Posted by Willywoo

I am sure you people criticizing party poker have put yourselves in the shoes of its board of directors, because if you had you would have concluded that it would be a great idea to risk other peoples investment in the company; ie: the shareholders, on your desire to prove your point when the alternative is to operate relatively risk free in pretty much the rest of the world.

It is one thing to be responsible for and risk your own capital and it is quite another to be responsible for and risk another persons capital when you are held to certain standards as a fiduciary of that capital.

The first level thinking on this is incredibly weak.

They lost the money and shareholders anyway Id rather fight and lose then run and lose. According to forbes PStars makes 500 million in profit thats means Party likely gave up 1.5 - 3 BILLION dollars cash by running their stock also took a big hit as well They should have fought period.