vpFREE2 Forums

XVP: 60 Minutes online poker story

cognoscienti writes:

What did you think was inaccurate?

glee4ever writes:

I am calling your "bet".
List the inaccuracies and outright lie.

···

___________________________________________
Well, without dissecting the whole story (which I'm sure is already being
done on poker blogs everywhere), I'll throw the most obvious inaccuracy / lie
out to you.

Saying that online gambling is illegal in the U.S. is a blanket statement
that is false. Other than perhaps a few local or state jurisdictions, it is NOT
illegal to gamble online in the U.S. Foolhardy, perhaps, but not illegal.
However, it IS illegal for banks to knowingly allow or facilitate money
transfers either into or out of gambling websites from U.S. citizens or residents.
The story blatantly mislead the viewer into thinking that there are 500,000
scofflaws who are gambling online.

- Brian in MI

**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Added comments from a friend:

"I knew the whole story six months ago--even the
names of the perpetrators. Still, for most of America, this will be a
wake-up call concerning all forms of on-line gambling. The discussion
within the industry has seemed to fall into two schools of thought:

1) This is the worst thing that could happen. The reactionists among us
will scream for a total ban because you can be cheated. It's bad for you.
It's immoral to gamble.

2) This is the best thing that can happen. This situation points out the
need for regulation and oversight. If we have online sites that are
licensed by regulatory agencies there is a source for redress in cases like this. And just like most things in life, we can't stop it so let's control it and derive a tax benefit from this.

I'm in the second group.

As far as I can see, the Democrats are in power now and they have seemed to be in favor of acknowledging and taxing on-line gaming (with the express prohibition of sports betting). The only issue will be how it will be taxed. Once again there are two main schools of thought here. Do we tax the individual player? Or, the site operator? If we stay as close to the brick and mortar model, we would tax the profits of the operator--that's where the real money is. Most individual players would either not win or win not much. Trying to get a $100 from fifty million people is costly and not effective. But, getting 6% gaming tax and 38% income tax from a handful of licensed operators would be quite easy."

···

--- On Mon, 12/1/08, Marksalot300@aol.com <Marksalot300@aol.com> wrote:

From: Marksalot300@aol.com <Marksalot300@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: XVP: 60 Minutes online poker story
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 6:06 PM
cognoscienti writes:

What did you think was inaccurate?

glee4ever writes:

I am calling your "bet".
List the inaccuracies and outright lie.
___________________________________________
Well, without dissecting the whole story (which I'm
sure is already being
done on poker blogs everywhere), I'll throw the most
obvious inaccuracy / lie
out to you.

Saying that online gambling is illegal in the U.S. is a
blanket statement
that is false. Other than perhaps a few local or state
jurisdictions, it is NOT
illegal to gamble online in the U.S. Foolhardy, perhaps,
but not illegal.
However, it IS illegal for banks to knowingly allow or
facilitate money
transfers either into or out of gambling websites from
U.S. citizens or residents.
The story blatantly mislead the viewer into thinking that
there are 500,000
scofflaws who are gambling online.

- Brian in MI

**************Life should be easier. So should your
homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Additional information from my friend (lst reply not posted?):

"I knew the whole story six months ago--even the
names of the perpetrators. Still, for most of America, this will be a
wake-up call concerning all forms of on-line gambling. The discussion
within the industry has seemed to fall into two schools of thought:

1) This is the worst thing that could happen. The reactionists among us
will scream for a total ban because you can be cheated. It's bad for you.
It's immoral to gamble.

2) This is the best thing that can happen. This situation points out the
need for regulation and oversight. If we have online sites that are
licensed by regulatory agencies there is a source for redress in cases like this. And just like most things in life, we can't stop it so let's control it and derive a tax benefit from this.

I'm in the second group.

As far as I can see, the Democrats are in power now and they have seemed to be in favor of acknowledging and taxing on-line gaming (with the express prohibition of sports betting). The only issue will be how it will be taxed. Once again there are two main schools of thought here. Do we tax the individual player? Or, the site operator? If we stay as close to the brick and mortar model, we would tax the profits of the operator--that's where the real money is. Most individual players would either not win or win not much. Trying to get a $100 from fifty million people is costly and not effective. But, getting 6% gaming tax and 38% income tax from a handful of licensed operators would be quite easy."

···

--- On Mon, 12/1/08, Marksalot300@aol.com <Marksalot300@aol.com> wrote:

From: Marksalot300@aol.com <Marksalot300@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] Re: XVP: 60 Minutes online poker story
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 6:06 PM
cognoscienti writes:

What did you think was inaccurate?

glee4ever writes:

I am calling your "bet".
List the inaccuracies and outright lie.
___________________________________________
Well, without dissecting the whole story (which I'm
sure is already being
done on poker blogs everywhere), I'll throw the most
obvious inaccuracy / lie
out to you.

Saying that online gambling is illegal in the U.S. is a
blanket statement
that is false. Other than perhaps a few local or state
jurisdictions, it is NOT
illegal to gamble online in the U.S. Foolhardy, perhaps,
but not illegal.
However, it IS illegal for banks to knowingly allow or
facilitate money
transfers either into or out of gambling websites from
U.S. citizens or residents.
The story blatantly mislead the viewer into thinking that
there are 500,000
scofflaws who are gambling online.

- Brian in MI

**************Life should be easier. So should your
homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Saying that online gambling is illegal in the U.S. is a blanket
statement
that is false. Other than perhaps a few local or state jurisdictions,
it is NOT
illegal to gamble online in the U.S. Foolhardy, perhaps, but not
illegal.

Well, every state has laws regulating gambling so it's not unreasonable to
take the position that Internet gambling is in violation of those laws.

However, it IS illegal for banks to knowingly allow or facilitate
money
transfers either into or out of gambling websites from U.S. citizens
or residents.

That's not true. The UIGEA only prohibits transactions FROM a financial
institution TO an ILLEGAL gambling site.

Cogno

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti" <cognoscienti@...>
wrote:

> Saying that online gambling is illegal in the U.S. is a blanket
> statement
> that is false. Other than perhaps a few local or state

jurisdictions,

> it is NOT
> illegal to gamble online in the U.S. Foolhardy, perhaps, but not
> illegal.

Well, every state has laws regulating gambling so it's not

unreasonable to

take the position that Internet gambling is in violation of those

laws.

> However, it IS illegal for banks to knowingly allow or facilitate
> money
> transfers either into or out of gambling websites from U.S.

citizens

> or residents.

That's not true. The UIGEA only prohibits transactions FROM a

financial

institution TO an ILLEGAL gambling site.

Cogno

There was a congressional hearing on legalizing online poker last
December. Go to Pokerplayersalliance.com for the full story. The
Justice Department official stated that online gambling was illegal
in the United States. But under questioning she admitted that there
was no law specifically outlawing an individual from gambling
online. Under questioning she stated that it was illegal for banks
and financial instituions to complete money transactions between
offshore gambling sites and American residents. She also stated that
she believed laws were in place to successfully prosecute those who
provide online gambling services to American residents.

Here is another developing online poker story. Clonie Gowan was an
original member of Team Full Tilt. She is suing Full Tilt for a 1%
share in the company. In 2004 Full Tilt was a startup company and
minor player in online poker. The management, purported to be Howard
Lederer and Chris Ferguson hired several high profile pros like Gus
Hanson, John Juanda, Eric Lindgren, Phil Gordon, Eric Seidel,
Jennifer Harmon, Allen Cunningham, Mike Matusow, and Clonie to
endorse and promote Full Tilt Poker.

All of the original members of team full tilt were promised 1% share
in the company. But no contracts were written. It was verbal
contracts to protect the parties from the Justice Department. There
was the real question of whether online poker was legal and they all
had to protect themselves. Until 2006 Full Tilt remained a minor
player in online poker. But when UIGEA passed and publicly traded
companies like Party Poker pulled out of the US market, companies
like Full Tilt boomed.

The company is said to be worth somewhere between 2.5 and 4 billion
dollars today. Clonie wants her 1%. She says the compnay is worth 4
billion. About a year and a half ago all of the original members of
Team Full Tilt were given money distributions. All except Clonie.
She argued behind the scenes for her money but none came.

On November 11th Full Tilt let her go, offering her $250,000 at
separation. She refused to take the money and put a lawsuit into
them. In the lawsuit her lawyers named Lederer, Ferguson and all the
original members of Team Full Tilt, all the way down to Mike Matusow,
as owners of the company.

Now everyone at Full Tilt is in an uproar. They say they will fight
to the end. I don't think so and here is why: I think all Clonie has
to do is make it through the dismissal motions and she wins. There
will be an out of court settlement. Why? If you were part owner of
Full Tilt would you allow yourself to be deposed in a civil lawsuit,
admitting you are part owner, therefore giving the Justice
Department proof that you are operating an illegal business in the
United States? I don't think you would do that and I don't think the
owners of Full Tilt will do it either. Go Clonie!!!

Here is another developing online poker story. Clonie Gowan was an
original member of Team Full Tilt.

No she wasn't.

Until 2006 Full Tilt remained a minor
player in online poker.

Well, they weren't the top two, but they weren't minor.

Now everyone at Full Tilt is in an uproar. They say they will fight
to the end. I don't think so and here is why: I think all Clonie has
to do is make it through the dismissal motions and she wins. There
will be an out of court settlement. Why? If you were part owner of
Full Tilt would you allow yourself to be deposed in a civil lawsuit,
admitting you are part owner, therefore giving the Justice
Department proof that you are operating an illegal business in the
United States? I don't think you would do that and I don't think the
owners of Full Tilt will do it either. Go Clonie!!!

No online poker site operates in the US, unless by that you mean accept
business from US residents.

Cogno

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Cogno Scienti" <cognoscienti@...>
wrote:

> Here is another developing online poker story. Clonie Gowan was

an

> original member of Team Full Tilt.

No she wasn't.

> Until 2006 Full Tilt remained a minor
> player in online poker.

Well, they weren't the top two, but they weren't minor.

> Now everyone at Full Tilt is in an uproar. They say they will

fight

> to the end. I don't think so and here is why: I think all Clonie

has

> to do is make it through the dismissal motions and she wins.

There

> will be an out of court settlement. Why? If you were part owner

of

> Full Tilt would you allow yourself to be deposed in a civil

lawsuit,

> admitting you are part owner, therefore giving the Justice
> Department proof that you are operating an illegal business in the
> United States? I don't think you would do that and I don't think

the

> owners of Full Tilt will do it either. Go Clonie!!!

No online poker site operates in the US, unless by that you mean

accept

business from US residents.

Cogno

Yes, what I meant was the Justice Department considers it to be
illegal for anyone to provide online gambling services to American
residents. To date the only person I know of who has even attempted
to admit ownership in an online poker site doing business with
American residents is....Clonie Gowan. No one wants to admit
ownership.

Isn't Phil Ivey and several other notable pros part owners of PokerStars?

···

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:26 AM, mickeycrimm <mickeycrimm@yahoo.com> wrote:

   --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com>, "Cogno
Scienti" <cognoscienti@...>
wrote:
>
> > Here is another developing online poker story. Clonie Gowan was
an
> > original member of Team Full Tilt.
>
> No she wasn't.
>
> > Until 2006 Full Tilt remained a minor
> > player in online poker.
>
> Well, they weren't the top two, but they weren't minor.
>
> > Now everyone at Full Tilt is in an uproar. They say they will
fight
> > to the end. I don't think so and here is why: I think all Clonie
has
> > to do is make it through the dismissal motions and she wins.
There
> > will be an out of court settlement. Why? If you were part owner
of
> > Full Tilt would you allow yourself to be deposed in a civil
lawsuit,
> > admitting you are part owner, therefore giving the Justice
> > Department proof that you are operating an illegal business in the
> > United States? I don't think you would do that and I don't think
the
> > owners of Full Tilt will do it either. Go Clonie!!!
>
> No online poker site operates in the US, unless by that you mean
accept
> business from US residents.
>
> Cogno
>
Yes, what I meant was the Justice Department considers it to be
illegal for anyone to provide online gambling services to American
residents. To date the only person I know of who has even attempted
to admit ownership in an online poker site doing business with
American residents is....Clonie Gowan. No one wants to admit
ownership.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Isn't Phil Ivey and several other notable pros part owners of

PokerStars?

Ivey is with Full Tilt. (who knows if it is true or not but the rumors
are Ivey is knocking down 2 million dollars a month fron his share in
Full Tilt.) Pokerstars has a different lineup of players hawking their
site--Danny Negreanu, Greg Raymer, Joe Hachem, Chris Moneymaker, etc. I
don't believe they have shares in the company but are just compensated
for their services.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Pawloski" <jpawloski@...> wrote: