This. This a hundred times. I hate pop up ads, and these are the most common ones.gigastar said:
FBI Deals Out Major Online Poker Sites
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
This is one of those moments where you must have the right man at the right time, in order to pronounce the EPIC stuff:
It already has: Baxter vs United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._Baxter_Jr._vs._the_United_States). I'm not going to get an argument with you over whether it's skill or not, but the US has already ruled that it is skill. There you go.Proteus214 said:
The insane thing is that online poker literally pulls in billions of dollars a year. Several Senators have tried to legalize and regulate it in order to tax the companies and get pieces of that money. Instead, the US decides to spend a few million in order to charge these guys. It's insane. There's literally money right there in front of them, and they choose to ignore it.Mackheath said:
I approve of this videoOrcus The Ultimate said:
annnnyway maybe its technically illegal but its not like online poker is hurting anyone, I'm sure there's more important things for the FBI to do right now.
The Court in Baxter only ruled that it is a game of skill for the purpose of calculating the federal taxes you have to pay on the winnings. That is, you can treat playing poker as a business and deduct your business overheads and losses to offset the federal taxes you pay on your winnings. But in terms of regulation, poker is still a game of chance and therefore subject to all the regulation that all other forms of gambling are subject.The Bandit said:
This is just a silly misuse of money.
Really? online poker? Not the drug cartel's causing all sorts of trouble on the border towns, not the possible terrorist infiltrations, not the corrupt local governments in many states, or ya know certain groups intimidating voters or spy's in our supposedly secure labs it's this.
No need to go after that! Let's go get them evil poker players!
Yeah that's great. I know several people who've lost 100 to 75k+ because of this crap. Rather or not it's skill or not? Who gives a damn? It's the department of justice wasting resources on stuff that is unimportant. Good to know we have some real geniuses in the DoJ who are so strong on the rule of law! So long as it'll make them a good headline and not ruffle any feathers.
I am disgusted.
Really? online poker? Not the drug cartel's causing all sorts of trouble on the border towns, not the possible terrorist infiltrations, not the corrupt local governments in many states, or ya know certain groups intimidating voters or spy's in our supposedly secure labs it's this.
No need to go after that! Let's go get them evil poker players!
Yeah that's great. I know several people who've lost 100 to 75k+ because of this crap. Rather or not it's skill or not? Who gives a damn? It's the department of justice wasting resources on stuff that is unimportant. Good to know we have some real geniuses in the DoJ who are so strong on the rule of law! So long as it'll make them a good headline and not ruffle any feathers.
I am disgusted.
The issue raised was whether or not the US has ruled poker as a game a skill. Either it is or it isn't. It doesn't matter in what area. It can't be a game of skill at one point because of this law and not at another point because of a separate law. Whether the Baxter case is relevant to this case is an entirely separate issue.JDKJ said:
But, there can be no argument that the US has ruled poker as a game of skill.
Greedy children of illegitimate parentage we may be, but money is almost certainly not a motivator here. while $3 billion is far far more than you or I will ever see, it hardly even qualifies as pocket change to a Federal government with a budget in the Trillions. What's far more likely is that the FBI was merely biding their time until they had an airtight case. That's their typical MO: once they suspect you of something, they get warrants which allow them to place you under surveillance and then wait, hopefully giving you enough rope to hang yourself in the process.Mackheath said:
I'm assuming that you and your friend are UK nationals, in which case y'all probably have nothing to worry about.UtopiaV1 said:A mate of mine works for PokerStars, I hope he's okay, he's just out of uni and trying to pay off its substantial debts... as am I!!!
Anyway, everyone knows PKR is the best online poker game
That holds true only if you play poker for one hand and leave. It's impossible to win every time, but if you know what you're doing you can consistently come out on top. I played for free at Full Tilt Poker (for "Play Money", which has no actual value and is just there for bragging rights or whatever) and I worked my way up from 1000 chips (what you start with) to over 200 000. What am I, the luckiest guy on the internet?Proteus214 said:
I'll agree that it is incorrect to categorically state that poker, as a matter of law, is a game of chance. The Baxter case proves that statement wrong. But, as a matter of law, it is also possible for it to be a game of chance in one area of the law and a game of skill in another area of the law. That's how the decision of a court can, in fact, work.The Bandit said:
Most accurately stated, the issue decided by the Baxter Court was whether or not poker is a game of skill for the purpose of calculating federal taxation of poker winnings. If a court specifically limits its ruling to a particular factual circumstance, as the Court did in the Baxter case (i.e., federal taxation of poker winnings), you can't take it upon yourself to expand that ruling to other factual circumstances such the regulation of poker as a gambling activity. You'll need to present the ruling in Baxter to a court and argue that Baxter, having ruled that poker is a skill for the purposes of federal taxation, should persuade that court to expand the Baxter ruling to another factual circumstance. Baxter may well strongly support the argument for expansion, but until you can actually persuade a court to expand the Baxter ruling, the Baxter ruling is, as a matter of law, limited to the circumstance of federal taxation of poker winnings. At this point in time and unless and until a court rules otherwise, poker continues to be a game of chance for the purpose of regulation of gambling activities.
Be nice if they'd take out bankers, oil companies, insurance companies, and Zynga.archabaddon said:
But I'm just grumpy.