Poker Forum

The PPA is still in its infancy hence the yes/no information circular on the DOJ deadline Friday. If they are smart the PPA should be pushing for the inclusion of a third-party "players organization" in most online poker legalization legislation, where the PPA would in fact be the defacto "players voice" for all online poker players and be funded by a few bucks per player per year. This would serve the public interest by ensuring that the player's rights as a whole have a forum.

This should also spawn parallel poker player organizations looking to be recognized and funded but that is also good for poker because it stabilizes the industry on the poker player's side.

Let's all keep in mind that the U.S. DOJ has seized the money to seize the money. At no time has the DOJ made any statement sympathetic to the poker players, taking the position that most if not all of the online poker players are marginal citizens engaging in a quasi-illegal act. This position is totally wrong, of course, but the DOJ has taken this stance in keeping with their broader mandate of poker prohibition.

The parallel between alcohol prohibition of the 1920's & the current poker prohibition is quite firm. in the early 1920's U.S. citizens who drank alcohol were regarded as law-breakers and pursued by the DOJ. Prohibition became increasingly unpopular and the repeal movement, led by conservative Democrats and Catholics, emphasized that repeal would generate enormous sums of much needed tax revenue [thanks to Wikipedia] ... sound familiar?

I think the PPA has a lot to gain by labeling the current witch-hunt & revenue confiscating actions of the DOJ as "Poker Prohibition" because it unmasks the real objective: to fleece U.S. citizens indirectly by targeting the bigger online poker sites that have a strong U.S presence. The unwillingness of the DOJ to strongly deal to return money to the U.S. poker players says it all: they are keeping it.

Just curious: How was PokerStars able to pay out US players? Was it because they were more responsible and kept player's money in a separate account? I could be wrong about that, but I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

dbach7811 wrote

Just curious: How was PokerStars able to pay out US players? Was it because they were more responsible and kept player's money in a separate account? I could be wrong about that, but I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

It's a core competency issue. PokerStars places customers as a top priority in it's business enterprise. This, coupled with the fact that mainline operators like FullTilt and PokerStars knew that the DOJ action was coming down soon, and PS formulated plans to respond. FullTilt's core competency was always centered on itself, Professional Poker Players, not it's customer base. It should come as no surprise to anyone that when the shit hit the fan, they kept looking out for #1, and #2 was #2OL.

one reason Fulltilt lost their licence is probably they failed to keep segregated player accounts. - Also key difference is Pokerstars is run by Europeans and not Americans !