Owners of three of the largest online poker sites — Full Tilt Poker, Pokerstars, and Absolute Poker — were charged with violating the UIGEA by defrauding banks into believing that the shell companies to which online poker money was funneled were legitimate entities.  This obviously is a massive development.  It signals the U.S.’s intent to crack down on online gambling (including poker), its willingness to enforce the UIGEA, and the banks’ opposition to gaming (rather than pushing to repeal the UIGEA).  It also could be a foreshadowing of the closing of the major sites and the federal government’s willingness to oppose intrastate online sites (and certainly the District of Columbia’s recent efforts, since it is subject to federal law).  We all need more time to digest this.  I will be posting more thoughts in the near future.  Stay tuned. 

(Oh, one final thought.  The department of justice does not rush indictments.  This was a case that it had been developing for some time but keeping quiet.  Wonder why they chose now to release the hounds.  The D.C. law?  Bank pressure?  Random coincidence?)

D.C., a federally run entity mired for decades in financial chaos, has decided to test the government;s anti-poker laws.  D.C. is permitting its lottery operator to start an online poker site.  There’s a huge article in the Wall Street Journal.  Check it out!  Sadly, I envision an injunction and long legal battle before the site becomes operational.

Nice to see some PR from a mainstream (well, at least not gambling) site.  Check out this piece from aol on the status of intrastate poker legislation.  Note the underlying current of disdain (perhaps I’m reading something into it that’s not there, but it’s fun to imagine) the article takes when discussing that the Federal government is dragging its heels on reform measure.

Hawaii has one of, if not the, strictest anti-gambling legal policies in the country.  Basically, everything is illegal.  That may change soon.  A bill has made it out of the first round of committees that would classify poker as a game of skill.  Not a game of chance.  The intended effect of this is to make both online and live poker legal in the state.  Presumably, to bring in much needed revenue.  Surf, shrimp trucks, and poker.  Hevean no longer is a ballfield in

[Please excuse my delinquency.  Normally I link to an insightful article on the topic.  Sadly, the internet connection where I am now blocks all "gambling" websites.  And there is no way to tell the error message that poker is not gambling.]

Even I must admit that sometimes other people write good pieces as well.  In that vein, check out this article.  I could have linked to a less informative article on the same main point and written my own analysis.  But this article pretty much sums it up.  No need to reinvent the wheel when you can use your saved time to play a quick 200 hands.

We all clamor for legalized online poker.  Well, at least that’s a safe assumption if you’re reading this site.  So at first blush the news that the Congress is considering a new bill that would legalize and regulate (via licenses) online poker would seem like a great idea.  Heck, even Rep. Barney Frank supports it.  But after looking into the legislation a bit more, I’m not so sure I agree.  Not yet.  There’s a spectrum that ranges from complete no-holds barred, wild wild west online poker to the strict outlawing of even talking about the subject.   The middle is full of proposals that would legalize online poker to some extent.  The key for me is where is the line between what I would accept (not just want) and what I would not.  How much am I willing to sacrifice to get online poker.   I’m pretty sure I’m willing to give up the use of credit cards as a funding mechanism (as the current bill mandates).  I’m even willing to agree to licenses (though that means less competition and innovation — the old capitalism argument).  But what happens if the government limits the number of hours, or times, I can play?  What if the tax rate is 50%.  What if…?  When this internal discussion I’m having ends, I’ll likely side in favor of this new bill.  But it’s getting closer by the day.  And even I, someday soon, may have to put my money where my mouth is — and walk away from the virtual felt.

It’s amazing what a simple change in political administration can do.  In a sharp  departure  from what its predecessor government did when it defended an online gambling law ban to the highest court, the current administration announced yesterday that it will grant licenses for online gaming, including poker.  I love the Dutch.

PokerStars has hired Randall Sayre, a former Nevada Gaming Control Board member, as a gaming consultant. This as a shrew move.  The man certainly has insight into the machinations of the gaming commission, connections that could help get legislation passed, and, perhaps most importantly, a good reputation that PokerStars can trade on should internet poker ever be legalized.  Basically, this is a move to position PokerStars as the lead site (ahem, ahead of Full Tilt Poker) in the presumed race to be a licensed internet provider.

Iowa has taken another step toward becoming the first state to legalize online intrastate poker.  The Iowa legislation has moved out of committee by a 9-6 vote (not exactly overwhelming support though) and now will be heard by the full state Senate.  The fate of the bill likely will not be known for some time, but this is welcomed news after New Jersey’s mildly surprising decision to pull the plug (for now) on its intrastate poker efforts.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed legislation that would have made NJ the first state to legalize intrastate online poker.  He cited “legal and constitutional concerns” and supposedly was concerned with underage gambling and the possibility for back-room illegal gambling halls fronted by a handful of Internet-connected computers to spring up across the state.  Gov. Christie is not known as one to shy away from hard choices or to play partisan politics, but I have to wonder whether talk of him having higher political aspirations coupled with his Republican affiliation influenced his decision.  Another factor could have been the negative effect online poker could have on Atlantic City, given that Gov. Christie’s recently took control of the city and promised to reverse its economic swoon.  Can’t imagine he’d want to do anything to hurt his chances for success with another election to win (assuming he does not run for President that is). 

Regardless, the cause is not over.  The NJ legislature could override the veto or the bill could be re-worked to address Christie’s concerns and re-submitted for consideration (though this takes time).  Or maybe California passes legislation and NJ realized the errors of its ways and reverses course.  Don’t place your bests on this though just yet.