US Players and Casinomeister

[soflat]

Oh darn I was hoping Kengam would grow a backbone and reveal his "evidence" in the EH case soon.

He led people on for weeks but never produced.

 

[The Dude]

I believe you are adressing this in a manner which, due to your influence in the online gaming business, will push the few remaining reputable companies to ban u.s. players.

I seriously doubt any casino will ban all players just so they can come on board here at Casinomeister. Don't forget, more than half of the casinos listed here are already banning all US players. That's not my doing.

I would like to suggest that the Act appears to ban ALL Casino/Poker advertisements so you would probably still not be in total compliance.

Sorry, you are wrong here. If I am not targeting US players with advertisements, and only providing services to them (information, news, PAB, etc.), I'm doing nothing wrong

Perhaps the best approach for ALL of us would be to ban U.S. players from access to the website.

In this manner you will not force business to ban us if they need the exposure you provide them. .

This doesn't make any sense to me at all. Casinomeister is not a marketing site. It's more than a banner fest.

YOU THEN COULD ESTABLISH A U.S. FORUM. WHEN U.S. PLAYERS ENTER THE WEBSITE IN THEIR BROWSER THEY WOULD BE REDIRECTED AND SIGN IN ONLY TO THAT FORUM.

But why?

I believe the approach you have planned to take is doing nothing but assisting the U.S. government in banning freedom of speech. U.S. supreme court has held that books can not be banned. Constitutionally we have a right to information.

There is nothing changed here unless you feel that not being served banners is a violation of your rights. $200 FREE CLICK HERE NOW doesn't do much for me

Also, I believe the issue that should be addressed in court by the internet organizations is that if casinos are complying with the law, advertising on your site is meaningless for U.s. players anyway.

Please ban us not the casinos . your decision to ban them is doing both us and the casinos a disservice.

Sorry, but I don't follow your logic here. It's been a long day...

 

[rowmare]

I believe the approach you have planned to take is doing nothing but assisting the U.S. government in banning freedom of speech. U.S. supreme court has held that books can not be banned. Constitutionally we have a right to information.

That is a very important issue. Americans should consider their eroding freedoms next time they go to the polls. But in no way is it an issue that can be solved by gambling portals - what is happening here is merely another symptom of the erosion of democracy in the U.S.

 

[The Dude]

Maybe there is some confusion here - no one is being redirected or banned from this site (unless they piss me off too much ). So freedom of speech is not an issue.

Also, let's try not to forget, this is not an American focused website - it's a global one, always has been. Everyone is welcome here - even the Bible thumpers.

 

[Rollo]

CM is being smart...

I think yall need to give American webmasters a break. It's easy to snipe if you're not exposed or if you never need to go to the states, but CM's decision was the only smart move an American can make IMO. There's no question that we're subejct to all these nutty laws.

1) What American webmasters do really has no effect on the availablility of casinos to US players. There is no reason European webmasters can't continue promoting them.

2) Most portals don't make anything near (not even close) to what the betting firms make so they are not the ones who rightly should take the heat or, if it comes to that, serve the time. Give me a billion dollars in gaming stock and I'd go on national TV and call GWB a communist, get online and take bets right on Larry King Live. But for what most webmasters make? I removed sites that accept US players, too. I doubt Brian would even have the funds to mount a strong legal defense for something of this magnitude if something were to happen.

3) As Americans, we're simply sitting ducks. The US legal system is an odd one... all it takes is some backwater sheriff to decide he doesn't like the look of the necklace Brian is wearing in his photo and it's a world of problems. Not only can a single court case break you finiancially if you win... God, state prison... I don't even want to mention the cornhole.

Not wanting to break the law of your own country isn't cowardice. If the situation were reversed and it was Britan that passed this law, I'm sure American webmasters wouldn't give a flying f*** and it would be business as usual... but not at home. Too risky.

 

[Pinababy69]

Give me a billion dollars in gaming stock and I'd go on national TV and call GWB a communist, get online and take bets right on Larry King Live.

I'll do that for free, can ya get me some airtime?

 

[Stanford]

Confused

Maybe there is some confusion here - no one is being redirected or banned from this site (unless they piss me off too much ). So freedom of speech is not an issue.

Also, let's try not to forget, this is not an American focused website - it's a global one, always has been. Everyone is welcome here - even the Bible thumpers.

I have read the thread and I am confused.

So are you saying that if Fortune Lounge continues to allow Americans, then they are not listed as accredited on your web site?

If that is true, I don't understand your motive. Why not just put up a banner asking Americans to not sign up through your site?

If it isn't true, I don't know what you are doing.

As far as being of service to your loyal American friends, you would be of better service to ban them completely rather than revoke recommendations of any casinos accepting American trade. That makes you part of the problem a big part.

For one thing, you have no idea if an American is illegal or not. When I cross the border I play under the same ID as when I don't. Under even the most restrictive interpretations I am legal to play in Canada - even though I live in the United States. Therefore to remove a recommendation just because a casino accepts my trade doesn't make any sense to me at all.

I can't believe I am reading this correctly. Am I confused?

Stanford

 

[Stanford]

An alternative for U.S. Players

So, a command decision was made while I was there at the conference: Casinos that accept bets from US based players will not be listed at Casinomeister.

So what does this mean for Casinomeister members who reside in the US? Not too much if you are playing at Casinos not listed here. Unfortunately, you won't have that sense of protection while playing at a "Casinomeister Accredited Casino" since there won't be any at your disposal.

You may need to venture out of your house and check out the local poker room dives in your neighborhood, or anticipate a freaky road-trip to Vegas or some nearby Indian reservation. But if you're looking to join casinos from here, sorry - I can't help you out.

But there are others who will help you out. Consider the Online Forum at Blackjack Forum Online.

Arnold Snyder is a real professional gambler. His information is top notch. He is still open for business and working with casinos who accept American players. He is very pro-active. This from Snyder:

"Every lawyer we have consulted (and we've talked to a number of them now) says that online casino and poker gambling remain legal for players despite this law.
.
And a number of online casinos and poker rooms have been reaffirming their intention to continue to accept US players.
.
Assuming these online casinos and poker rooms stick to this intention, the only problem for US players will be changes in how best to transfer deposits and winnings.
.
I am doing an in-depth article for Blackjack Forum on alternate banking for US online casino and poker players. I am checking out the easiest, safest and cheapest ways to go for low-stakes players, and special services/interest rates available for those who wish to open bigger accounts. I am going through the entire process myself to make sure I cover all the details and can tell players exactly what to expect.
.
Many reputable foreign banks have good online banking services. Some allow you to deposit and withdraw via Paypal.
.
In the meantime, higher-stakes players may want to check out: Micheloud & Cie, an outfit that specializes in opening Swiss bank accounts for you for a fee. You do not have to be a resident of Switzerland. Part of the account-opening process can be done online, but there are also some documents that have to be sent in by snail mail.
.
The Micheloud & Cie fee (approx. $719 U.S.) will probably be too high for many lower-stakes players. You know, they are the middleman and they're offering a service so they want a cut. In the article, I'll provide cheaper ways for players to open accounts directly at banks. I don't expect that opening an account will be much more inconvenient than opening a Neteller account."

Americans are going to have to find a place to continue. And if it isn't going to be here, it might as well be someplace where the proprietor has been engaged in getting the better of conditions for as long as I can remember. Check it out.

Stanford

 

[The Dude]

Thanks for your comments Stanford - please let me explain further: the US laws at the moment are so convoluted that it's difficult to make any sense out of them. There is far too much interpretation going on and not enough concrete explanations on what is right - what is wrong. My main mission is not to make money off of this site, but to provide a viable service to everyone: information, interactivity, news, webcasts, newsletters, entertainment. Thus I am very protective of Casinomeister - it's crucial that I remain within the white area and not pass into the grey. If I have to take a financial hit to remain viable - that's what I will do.

At the moment, all websites that carry advertisements for online casinos/pokerrooms in the states are at risk. It's like all the webmasters are speeding on the highway doing 75. If you get pulled over, what's your excuse? "Well, officer - everyone else was speeding." Tough titty - you're going to get a ticket. I am not willing to take this risk - it's as though Casinomeister is driving a bright red Ferrari going down Interstate five. I'm watching my speed at the moment

This is a very dynamic environment, and nothing is etched in stone. Things change, and I hope to be in a position in the near future to modify the "accredited section" I'm working with a few casinos to do just that. But for now, it's one step at a time.

I still don't understand how banning players from a site like this helps at all. It would be like amputating your leg because you've stubbed your toe.

 

[spearmaster]

Obviously, Casinomeister has to take on all opinions from a legal perspective. If for some reason he is adjudged to have fallen foul of the law, it considerably weakens his ability to provide objective information to people outside the US as well.

Please keep in mind that, while Casinomeister would obviously like to be everything to everyone, it is more sensible for him to take a position that is viable for everyone concerned. By doing so, he is able to ensure that the information here is still accessible to all.

Arnold Snyder, as you point out, is a well-known quantity in his sphere - and he is perfectly entitled to state his opinions and operate his site as he pleases - but his view of the legal situation does not concur with Casinomeister's - so why should Casinomeister be asked to do what he doesn't believe is right?

No matter what, Casinomeister ultimately is the one that must take responsibility for his own actions. It's much easier for us on the other side of the fence to voice opinions which do not have any direct impact on our lives.

 

[Stanford]

Maybe I am still confused

CM, banning players from your forum may not work at least not as well. I suppose if the U.S. player cant complain, then the fact that you are listing the Casino wont matter. I dont suppose there is a way they could just reach the forum without reaching the banner. But I would prefer banning to you leaving the U.S. segment.

The reason I hate to see you abandon a segment of the market is because you have been a regulating force for casino integrity. Its like you, Spear and Jetset are Wyatt, Doc and Morgan in the Wild West of Internet Gaming. Frist and company has shown up at the OK Corral and I dont blame you for wanting to protect yourself but surely there is a way you can do so without abandoning the U.S. market segment.

Perhaps you could list the casino but not the link? Wouldnt this do the same thing as far as protection? In your example it will be like getting pulled over but someone else is driving. Surely you dont think a review and opinion is a violation of the law. If the landscape changes, you will be in a better position to market.

I think the landscape may well change if webmasters, casinos, and web wallets dont panic. The banking lobby isnt happy. And the Christian Right that Frist was trying to woo is disaffected due to FoleyGate and may well sit out the elections. The U.S. poker players may actually be a tipping point and the only way to settle them down is for Regulations to ignore the Web Wallets. All this points to Regulations that will allow Neteller to keep functioning, but we need a regulated marketplace. But it is going to be mute if there arent places to play.

Just by way of example, my state has a plant that processes horses for human consumption. The residents hate it. And last year they finally got a law past that would prohibit the Agriculture Department from spending funds to inspect the plants and so the plants would close. There was much celebration. But the horse processing industry complained and the administration simply told the Ag. Department to charge for the inspections and business goes on as usual. Its all in the implementation.

Internet gaming has always been grey. My state attorney-general insist it is illegal in my state and we ignore him even my friend who worked in the attorney generals office ignored him. But business went on as usual. I expect it might again.

Speer, the point of my discussion about Snyder was only to give American Players some options. We have to go someplace and Snyder will intercede on behalf of players if he is listing the casino. Thats not going to fill the hole you guys leave behind but it is a start. And certainly being proactive in finding funding alternatives is something that will be helpful.

I am glad CM says nothing is written in stone. I am hoping for a creative alternative. But if not, I hope players will post reputable sites that list casinos for Americans so that we can support that segment. Snyders is a good one.

Stanford

 

[liquidsoap]

If the US act went passed and I was not able to gamble ONLINE any more, I would still attend this site. I personally enjoy reading all the winning screen shots and the horror stories of people who don't know any better.

Plus I enjoy waking up everyone morning and reading all these posts.

 

[Tailgun]

Right when we need a site like this the most, CM is joining the others by pulling out of the US market. Very disappointing; the Accredited Casinos list is what brought me here and joining the forums are what enticed me to stay.

I guess I'll have to get used to Blackjack Forum Online and asking questions at Wizard of Odds.

What a shame, Brian. All the work on this good-looking website, well-maintained and professional, and all your work helping keep the industry honest. I sure hope you work this out somehow, someday.

 

[The Dude]

Maybe we need to chill and let everyone ride this out a bit more. I'm not abandoning anyone, and yes, the accredited list will expand I'm sure - and it will be available to most everyone. But jeeze people, it's only been a few days sine the bill was signed - we have a long way to go. The next few weeks - maybe the next couple of months will be a little bumpy. But hell, what do you expect?

I didn't realize some of you came here to click away at the banners - cool

Please bear in mind, the information (news, webcast, newsletter, other items of interest) are still applicable to players from Arizona to Zambia. I hope that this is what you are seeking. Knowledge is power.

 

[spearmaster]

Perhaps you could list the casino but not the link? Wouldn’t this do the same thing as far as protection? In your example it will be like getting pulled over but someone else is driving. Surely you don’t think a review and opinion is a violation of the law. If the landscape changes, you will be in a better position to market.

I actually suggested this same solution to him - in fact, it is the one I am using for my nearly-forgotten site LOL.

However, he is obviously in possession of more information about the potential legal ramifications, seeing as that he went to Barcelona and I didn't

I hope to hear more when I present in Dublin next month - my good friend Joe Kelly will be there and I will have hopefully a more informed opinion from him - but as it stands I certainly can't blame Casinomeister for taking the high road.

Regarding reaching the forums without the banners, this is exactly the solution that Casinomeister is working on. In this way all US players will continue to have full access to information - just without the advertising. In the real world I think this would be a dream come true - unless you happen to enjoy watching TV ads - but here in the online world it clearly seems to have a different meaning.

 

[The Dude]

Admin note:

Kengam's back in. Sorry I lost my cool. I apologize for calling you a twit and an idiot.

 

[The Dude]

The reason I hate to see you abandon a segment of the market is because you have been a regulating force for casino integrity. Its like you, Spear and Jetset are Wyatt, Doc and Morgan in the Wild West of Internet Gaming. Frist and company has shown up at the OK Corral and I dont blame you for wanting to protect yourself but surely there is a way you can do so without abandoning the U.S. market segment.

Look at it this way, I'm on a jungle patrol and headed for a certain objective - let's call this objective "a successful website in the future".

My point man has spotted an enemy ambush up on the road ahead - lying in wait. What am I going to do? Rush the ambush and engage the enemy? Or am I going to back up and regroup?

This is the "back up and regroup phase" At this point I'm gathering intellegence and determining if there are alternative routes to bypass the enemy. It can be done - but it's not going to happen over night. We're still huddled in the jungle - locked and loaded - just give my guys some time to avoid enemy contact - we'll get there

 

[Simmo!]

Kengam's back in. Sorry I lost my cool. I apologize for calling you a twit and an idiot.

LOL. Well, hopefully he apologised for his comment too.

 

[kengam]

thanks Bryan. We may not always agree, but we are on the same side.

 

[jetset]

Hardly a convincing apology for that unnecessary "backbone" comment. Bryan's been man enough to offer an olive branch, what about reciprocating?

 

[spearmaster]

Not to mention certain dubious claims and posts here and elsewhere... and as for being on the same side, you sure don't exhibit any signs of being anything LIKE a teammate.

This is Casinomeister's place and he's free to do as he likes. But even if he no longer takes a dim view of your comments, I still do.

 

[tennis_balls]

i just come here to click on the banner ads so i'm the one that's taking the big hit

 

[spearmaster]

Never you mind - since you live in the UK you may click on banners to your heart's content

 

[Rollo]

Why not continue to list acredited casinos, but just not link to them? I'd guess that's safe ground.

 

[Pinababy69]

Not to mention certain dubious claims and posts here and elsewhere... and as for being on the same side, you sure don't exhibit any signs of being anything LIKE a teammate.

This is Casinomeister's place and he's free to do as he likes. But even if he no longer takes a dim view of your comments, I still do.

Ditto Spear.

 

[babs7262]

Im still confused....someone buy me a brain

There are 50 states in America. Only 13 states are banned from online gambling. What about us 37 states that can still gamble? Can't you just keep the accredited list and put a line like "if you live in the following states (list them here) it is illegal to gamble onlilne

Isnt that just like when your at an adult site or a gambling site and it says "if your under 18, you can't come in" You can have a yes/no with a one of those lil dots that you can check and you can ask.......Are you from one of the states listed above? If they lie and check no...that is on them right?

 

[The Dude]

Like I said, some things take time. It won't happen overnight - but there is a plan. Hang tight.

 

[jetset]

Good op-ed article from NY Times

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[jetset]

And right across the country in the LA Weekly....

Old / Expired Link

 

[Pinababy69]

Good reading Jetset. I just posted a link to another that just came out in Newsweek (in Casino Industry Discussion). Another worth the read. Where was this media attention prior to this bill being signed? Someone should remind these journalists that HR 4411 is still a threat....as is HR 4777 if Goodlatte gets his way.

 

[jetset]

The stories are coming thick 'n fast today...

Old / Expired Link

 

[babs7262]

I went looking

I just floated around at some other sites, they dont have forums and it isnt nearly as cool as this site but I was curious as to what other "advice" places were doing

games and casinos has a site that lists bonuses, good ones, bad ones etc and on the top of the page it has a warning. I couldnt copy it, i wouldnt let me but it said "gambling may be illegal in your state, please be advised that if you live in (states here) you are gambling, it is up to you to find out if your in the jurisdiction that does not allow gambling" Something to that effect, I dont want to write word for word but if you go to gameandcasinos.com you can see how they are still helping US players and covering themselves at the same time

 

[dominique]

It reads like this:

People from thousands of jurisdictions access the internet. It is impossible for us to stay current with the laws of every jurisdiction. Please make sure that any activities you engage in online are legal where you live.

We have reason to believe that it may be illegal to gamble online in: Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, Michigan, New York, New Jersey and Wisconsin. If you live in one of these states, we advise you NOT to gamble online.

GamesandCasino also still has a page that lists Casinos available to people from everywhere.

GamesandCasino is owned by a company in a jurisdiction that licences and welcomes online casinos. I don't own it anymore, nor do I own the company.

That makes for a different situation entirely from Casinomeister.

Because the online gambling community is so international, there are lots and lots of different situations. Each site has to find it's own way through the legal jungle, depending on local and international law. No one wants to run afoul of the law, certainly if the site owner is wearing a striped jumper suit and viewing the world through bars it won't help anyone.

This law is still young and everyone in the gambling community is trying to figure out what exactly it means to them. Give it some time, and things will fall into place. At this stage it is difficult for everyone to find their way, operators, webmasters, players - everyone is trying to find their way as yet.

 

[Simmo!]

One thing intrigues me: I thought online gambling was illegal in Maryland also...but its not in the MG lists. Any ideas why?

 

[dominique]

As far as I know there are a number of states where the law can be interpreted various ways, and the exclusions are based on legal analysis.

I am out of my water there, I don't understand the half of it.

 

[The Dude]

Why not continue to list acredited casinos, but just not link to them? I'd guess that's safe ground.

Here ya go:
Link Removed (Old/Invalid)

 

[Westland Bowl]

One thing intrigues me: I thought online gambling was illegal in Maryland also...but its not in the MG lists. Any ideas why?

Maybe it is, maybe it's not...but let's not help the online casinos by doing their work for them!!

 

[Simmo!]

Here ya go:
Link Removed (Old/Invalid)

You should put a note at the top Bryan with the 11 States that MG casinos restrict

 

[The Dude]

You should put a note at the top Bryan with the 11 States that MG casinos restrict

Done.

 

[Peaceful1]

One thing intrigues me: I thought online gambling was illegal in Maryland also...but its not in the MG lists. Any ideas why?

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! (I hope not anyway...)

 

[lots0]

Every gambling website owner is going to have to decide for themselves what to do in this situation.

I give CM a big hand for attempting to take the high road in all of this.

But to be honest, I had hoped to see most all the American Webmasters ignore this bull shit law and continue to operate like normal. Civil disobedience is a real tool in this battle.

The analogy about driving down the road at 75 mph (In my state 75 mph is the speed limit, because the PEOPLE wanted that way - the government wanted to keep it at 55mph) is the same one I would use to argue the other side of the coin with.

If everyone is driving faster than the government speed limit, then the government is going to be forced to change the speed limit, sooner or later... My State is a perfect example of this.

As for mounting a legal defense, how about the un-constitutionality of this law?

I would also like to mention that I do not believe that this law is a valid law.

There was no debate in congress, no vote in the Senate (as a matter of fact 94 out of 100 Senators never read the Bill and none of 100 Senators or the 435 Congress people had a chance to vote on the specific Bill). So how could this be a valid law... well it just can’t be a valid law and I for one refuse to acknowledge it as a valid law.

The US Constitution is very specific about how a bill becomes a law and it is required that Congress votes on a Bill to either make it a law or not...

 

[Peaceful1]

One thing intrigues me: I thought online gambling was illegal in Maryland also...but its not in the MG lists. Any ideas why?

Just some serious thoughts on this topic (although I'm wondering how Maryland came into play here ), looking over Maryland State Code it does not even ADDRESS Internet gambling (from what I could see). Primary sources of gambling cited and addressed are: bingo halls, antique slot machines, pools.. so what I gather is that these are the traditional laws set and not repealed as such to address Internet gambling (before it even existed). The primary debate here in Maryland has been the ongoing slots debate, to legalize slot machines in Maryland as we do not have them now. And with Maryland being the home of Pimlico and the Preakness, online and telephone betting WIDELY advertised through our local cable companies' channels (and yes, I know..horse racing is an altogether different "carve-out") of this legislation, IMO it may be considered too complex an issue here, and possibly affect Maryland's revenue if its residents become confused by the laws, therefore reluctant to place wagers. This is just speculation of a scenario as to why it has not been addressed here...too much to lose, don't "open a can of worms" unless forced to..type of thing. (sorry for rambling ...lol)

But I guess my point is that this seems to be a State that: #1 You will NEVER get rid of any current type of gambling currently allowed (many protest groups want to rid it altogether in the state, as with other states)..#2 If anything (legislators) are constantly looking for ways to legalize MORE forms of gambling (currently, slots) on a local level, rather than pay attention to or seek out ways to propose new State laws to ban any other forms of gambling (i.e., Internet). IMO Maryland is moreso of a "gambling state"...they are not thinking about their residents and Internet gambling. But, who knows..after the changes in Federal law..but I am not worried about it.

 

[Peaceful1]

Back on topic of this thread (sorry if I veered off)...Bryan, I admire your handling of this situation. I know that this issue had to be a "heated" one (apparently from many in the forum, and I am sure in your other dealings within the industry, in your capacity).

I, (as well as many others) can see that you were acting on the side of caution by making changes to your site, whether one agreed with your decisions or not. Once opinions surfaced, and you were practically bombarded (and understandably so...) with questions, you took the time to thoroughly explain and rationalize the scenario to your forum's posters, readers, and guests. Moreover, you took this into consideration and apparently made every effort (no doubt not without "doing your homework" first) to carefully make safe compromise and take into consideration so many of our suggestions and opinions.

I think that if anyone ever had any doubts about you or your site, or even for someone new looking for an online casino forum, this situation/experience further demonstrates your credibility.

Good job!!

 

[Rollo]

Seconded... don't let the negativity of some get you down. If their asses were in the hot seat, I'm sure they'd have a very different attitiude. Facts are that if someone decided to go after affilaites, this site would almost surely be near the top of the list. Yeah, best to "watch your speed" 4 shizzle

As I posted in another thread https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/rasmussen-reports-on-online-gambling.14655/ it looks like a DEM victory will bring no relief :xxx

(yes, that was a completely gratuitous use of :xxx, I just found it pretty amusing... along with :sniper:, :axeman2:, and of course

 

[Rollo]

I'm with you lots0 but I'm afraid the law is valid, there is nothing unconstitutional about it that I can see, and the senate did vote on it and passed it overwhemingly. I agree it seems a travesty that outside of authors and us that no one likely read it, but if actually reading bills were a requirement, 95% of US legislation would never pass (remember Michael Mooore, the Patriot Act and the Ice cream truck???). No one reads anything, maybe their staff briefs them on important matters, but most legislation is never read by anyone other than it's sponsors and *maybe* some committee members will give it a glance before they give it a yeah or nay. Yes, I was an intern back in the day and I can confirm no one reads shit.

I think the only loopholes at this point are two, and neither very promising...

1) It violates WTO rules (which it clearly does) and 2) "the law doesn't apply to poker, blackjack, et al. becuase there are games of skill agruement".

The former (#1) I think the US will just ignore as no one is in a position to do anything but sling rhetoric... what are a few angry Caribbean nations going to do about it, use their massive economic might to bring trade sanctions against the US? A total joke. Britian, who clearly took the biggest hit, doesn't want a piece of this obviosuly. No official outcry there.

The later (#2) has a long-shot chance, but it's a serious longshot. I think the casino exects should start making major contributions to the ACLU and hope for the best.

Sadly, this crappy law is probably here to stay. It could have been prevented if an huge effort had been made months ago, but I think the law's heals are "digging themselves in" as we speak.

Too many US interests are happy about this law... Vegas casinos, Paypal, the religious right, horse racing and lottery industries, etc...

We're only a deeply divided and disorganized scant 3% of the electorate with no leadership and little financial backing. Until this changes, in their eyes, we're nobody.

 

[Simmo!]

Sadly, this crappy law is probably here to stay. It could have been prevented if an huge effort had been made months ago, but I think the law's heals are "digging themselves in" as we speak.

If that's the case, we ought to be doing something about the "big one" - HR4411 asap the UIGEA is the chicken to HR4411's cock. Up.

 

[lots0]

the senate did vote on it and passed it overwhemingly.

No I am afraid your wrong. Not a single US Senator voted on this Bill, and 96 of the 100 Senators were not even able to read the bill before it was tacked onto the port security bill. A parliamentary trick was used to avoid the Senate Vote.

But your most likely correct, the law is here to stay... Can anyone say war on gambling, kinda like the war on drugs or the war on poverty or the war on crime or the war on prostitution or the war on the middle class...

What has really gotten to me and made me sick in this whole thing is the scummy way most of the casinos are dealing with this. Some of them are acting like this law is a free ticket to steal from americans. This whole thing has really exposed the rotten underbelly of the online gambling business, I am old and I have never seen anything like this in my life... such a huge collection of thieves and scumbags in one business...

If I give up this business, it will be because of the dirty rotten casino managers & owners, not because of some stupid law that most folks are going to ignore, just like the laws about smoking pot or the laws about scratching my ass in public.

 

[amatrine]

Re

Looks like we will be seeing more horse racing affilate sites,lol

Oh can you tear me away!

Not

Ama

 

[happygobrokey]

Why not continue to list acredited casinos, but just not link to them? I'd guess that's safe ground.

not just you rollo, but others here are of this opinion, i chose to quote yours since is was succinctly phrased.

the way i interpret it is that bryan is not sure he CAN ACCREDIT casinos that take US bets, totally aside from whether he links you to them or not. if the casino engages in a practice (be it shafting players on cashouts, taking bets from certain jurisdictions, operating without a licence, etc) that could be injurious to the players, it is bryan's responsibilty not to accredit them.

if bryan continued to accredit casino xyz that accepts US bets, then even without linking to them, he is still indirectly encouraging players to play there, from the US or otherwise. if the casino is subsequently shut down and its assets seized citing the illegality of accepting US bets, then players from all over the world, not just US, will get hurt because of it. and it would be bryan's fault everyone played there, and then especially if he was linking the site, then he might find himself in hot water.

would you encourage lending money to a drug dealer? would you send your kids to school knowing the teacher did time for molestation? bryan can't endorse his followers investing in a place that might be shady, whether the recommendation is direct through links or indirect through mentioning their name.

arguably also by endorsing sites that accept US players, bryan is encouraging US players to use neteller etc to put money into a casino, which may indeed be illegal. in this case, cm would be wilfully blind that his readers are committing these acts in order to gamble. though it's not his fault you went to the casino on your own time and deposited money however you did, by giving the impression that he promotes use of the casino, he incurs some liability when readers from the US choose to perform these acts based on his opinion. by omitting US-friendly casinos, bryan doesn't encourage any US citizens to a) play at casinos, and b) put money in casinos, and he does encourage all of his readers to play at casinos that he is certain are complying with the law.

unfortunately this means he is encouraging his US readers to play at no casinos, this is the residual that makes it seem like he is turning his back on you. but still he offers to mediate disputes for US players that DO CHOOSE to play wherever their bets are taken. so he still wants to help, but he just doesn't want to associate himself with the questionable legal issues regarding facilitation or encouragement of the placing of wagers.

that's my five cents on it. i understand americans' frustration, but realize that just like smoking pot, you are now somewhat of an out-group if you gamble online. considering the clout cm holds, i don't blame him in the least for wanting to exclude himself from liability.

p.s. bryan, in this topic there has been mention of your military service and that your family lives overseas in germany. are the two related, and is there any like "get to know me" thread where interested parties can learn more about bryan bailey the person?

 

[happygobrokey]

But your most likely correct, the law is here to stay... Can anyone say war on gambling, kinda like the war on drugs or the war on poverty or the war on crime or the war on prostitution or the war on the middle class...

what about most importantly, the war on terror