Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 161 to 173 of 173
  1. #161
    GPWA Aaron is offline Former Staff Member
    Join Date
    July 2006
    Location
    Needham, MA
    Posts
    451
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 144 Times in 64 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony View Post
    Why did Ron Paul vote present?
    Pure speculation, but I can't imagine he would be able to vote No given his Libertarian platform, but didn't want to buck the Republican line here?

    Here's my unofficial vote tally
    Democrats: 34-4 in favor (four were not present and did not vote, including my Congressman, Stephen Lynch - boo to you Mr. Lynch!)

    Republicans: 18-7 against (three were not present and did not vote, Paul voted present).

    It's interesting that roughly a quarter of Republicans voted for this, considering they have been lock-step against anything the Democrats have proposed this year. It seems that this is one issue where (with the notable exception of Paul) the politicians actually voted their conscience?

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GPWA Aaron For This Useful Post:

    Skinski (28 July 2010), vinism (28 July 2010)

  3. #162
    Anthony's Avatar
    Anthony is offline GPWA/APCW Program Director
    Join Date
    June 2003
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    7,229
    Blog Entries
    67
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,536 Times in 1,856 Posts

    Default

    Thank you for the voting breakdown.

    This is the first step.
    I am here to help if you have any issues with an affiliate program.
    Become involved in GPWA to truly make the association your own:
    Apply for Private Membership | Apply for the GPWA Seal | Partner with a GPWA Sponsor | Volunteer as a Moderator


  4. #163
    Simmo! is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2004
    Posts
    893
    Thanks
    239
    Thanked 406 Times in 226 Posts

    Default

    Thanks once again Vin. Fascinating as ever.

    One thing I didn't quite follow: operators that have been taking bets from the USA over the past few years...was the amendment to prevent them getting a licence passed or did it fail?

    Be interesting to know the cutoff date on that. Would it be October 2006 or go back to the beginning of time. And would it relate to the ambiguously worded Wire Act or the UIGEA/Safe Ports Bill. Seems odd considering Poker and Casino have never BEEN illegal at Federal level.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Simmo! For This Useful Post:

    vinism (29 July 2010)

  6. #164
    GPWA Aaron is offline Former Staff Member
    Join Date
    July 2006
    Location
    Needham, MA
    Posts
    451
    Thanks
    40
    Thanked 144 Times in 64 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Simmo! View Post
    Thanks once again Vin. Fascinating as ever.

    One thing I didn't quite follow: operators that have been taking bets from the USA over the past few years...was the amendment to prevent them getting a licence passed or did it fail?

    Be interesting to know the cutoff date on that. Would it be October 2006 or go back to the beginning of time. And would it relate to the ambiguously worded Wire Act or the UIGEA/Safe Ports Bill. Seems odd considering Poker and Casino have never BEEN illegal at Federal level.
    The amendment did pass, so as it reads right now, operators like PokerStars, Full Tilt, etc., would not be able to apply for licenses to operate in the U.S. Not sure how far back it goes, but my guess is that companies like PartyGaming, which left in the wake of the UIGEA, would still be eligible to apply.

    That said, this bill has a long way to go, and my gut says that provision will likely change if/when it gets to conference committee.
    Last edited by GPWA Aaron; 29 July 2010 at 9:43 am. Reason: fixed a typo

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to GPWA Aaron For This Useful Post:

    Simmo! (29 July 2010)

  8. #165
    Simmo! is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2004
    Posts
    893
    Thanks
    239
    Thanked 406 Times in 226 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snooptodd View Post
    The amendment did pass, so as it reads right now, operators like PokerStars, Full Tilt, etc., would not be able to apply for licenses to operate in the U.S.
    Two things occur to me there. I am not a poker affiliate, but from speaking to some at the Prague conference I got the impression that Stars and Tilt are now so dominant that affiliates are finding it harder and harder (the irony being it was affiliates that put them in the position from which to start the process of domination, I suspect). If that is true, then this could change all that and breathe new air into the poker market.

    The second thing though is this: I doubt Stars and Tilt would simply give up on the USA so where will that path lead us? The way the UIGEA passed in 2006 made me more than a little cynical about the true intentions of some politicians and it would appear that a little bit of campaign funding goes a long way in politics if you target the right people.
    Last edited by Simmo!; 29 July 2010 at 9:28 am.

  9. #166
    universal4's Avatar
    universal4 is offline Forum Administrator
    Join Date
    July 2003
    Location
    Courage is being scared to death...and saddling up anyway. John Wayne
    Posts
    32,172
    Thanks
    3,762
    Thanked 8,743 Times in 5,577 Posts

    Default

    For those "new" players that would enter the market, such as those backed by current US Land based operators, wouldn't they want those kept out of the market such as Party etc?

    Would they not want the time frame set to the beginning of time and not just the magical date in 2006?

    Not knowing what date they had in mind means we are speculating and I would certainly like to have that clarified.

    Rick
    Universal4
    Gambling World Online Roulette Online Blackjack Live Online Games Sports Betting Horse Racing
    Casino Affiliate Programs
    Hosting and Domain Names
    Gambling Industry Association
    GPWA Moderation by Me and My Big Bad Security Self
    If an affiliate program is not small affiliate friendly (especially small US Affiliate), then they are NOT Affiliate Friendly!

  10. #167
    giggles7p's Avatar
    giggles7p is offline In Memoriam, 1962-2011
    Join Date
    July 2004
    Location
    Northeast usa.
    Posts
    1,600
    Thanks
    2,443
    Thanked 792 Times in 461 Posts

    Default

    I think the blocking out of cetrtain sites if this bill passes just gives way for Vegas to take over the American market for poker, casinos, bingo sites and sports betting. I am sure they are drooling over the chance to open up as many online sites as possible if it becomes legal in the US.
    Gambling forum offering the best in online gambling
    777casinoforum.com

    Online Casino portal featuring International Casinos
    qwertycasino.com

    The relaxed affiliate forum, filled with pleasant, thoughtful banter.
    Grab a cold one or a cup of coffee and relax with gambling industry professionals!

    GamblingAffiliatePlace

    Gambling & Casino News
    CasinoScamReport

  11. #168
    vinism's Avatar
    vinism is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Location
    Imported from Detroit
    Posts
    1,209
    Blog Entries
    4
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 337 Times in 173 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by universal4 View Post
    For those "new" players that would enter the market, such as those backed by current US Land based operators, wouldn't they want those kept out of the market such as Party etc?

    Would they not want the time frame set to the beginning of time and not just the magical date in 2006?

    Not knowing what date they had in mind means we are speculating and I would certainly like to have that clarified.

    Rick
    Universal4
    There are other provisions in the amended bill that do this surreptitiously. The one specific clause I have in mind is requiring the majority of employees/operations of a company operating in the U.S. to be located in the U.S. How is PartyGaming, which just merged with bwin, going to comply with that?

  12. #169
    Magic79's Avatar
    Magic79 is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    December 1969
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    271
    Thanks
    24
    Thanked 39 Times in 22 Posts

    Default Great Thread Vin

    Quote Originally Posted by vinism View Post
    There are other provisions in the amended bill that do this surreptitiously. The one specific clause I have in mind is requiring the majority of employees/operations of a company operating in the U.S. to be located in the U.S. How is PartyGaming, which just merged with bwin, going to comply with that?
    Keeping US jobs in the bill will make the Reps. more likely to vote for it.
    Compliance could be done with admin jobs.

  13. #170
    Simmo! is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2004
    Posts
    893
    Thanks
    239
    Thanked 406 Times in 226 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vinism View Post
    How is PartyGaming, which just merged with bwin, going to comply with that?
    Set up a subsiduary like "Partygaming USA"?

  14. #171
    vinism's Avatar
    vinism is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Location
    Imported from Detroit
    Posts
    1,209
    Blog Entries
    4
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 337 Times in 173 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Simmo! View Post
    Set up a subsiduary like "Partygaming USA"?
    Maybe. But I don't think that's going to work. I think the intent was the parent company had to be located in the U.S. And because the U.S. is withdrawing gambling from its WTO obligations (a legacy of the Bush administration), this is perfectly legit. In fact, the language in the bill reflects the withdrawal of gambling from the WTO commitments, and it says if any other part of this language violates the WTO, the clause is null and void.

  15. #172
    vinism's Avatar
    vinism is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Location
    Imported from Detroit
    Posts
    1,209
    Blog Entries
    4
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 337 Times in 173 Posts

    Default

    I just posted an analysis piece in a new thread on what's next for the Frank bill. Hope it answers some questions.

    Link to analysis thread: https://www.gpwa.org/forum/showthread.php?p=605202

  16. #173
    AmCan's Avatar
    AmCan is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    November 1999
    Location
    The Lost City of Atlantas
    Posts
    2,376
    Thanks
    242
    Thanked 326 Times in 161 Posts

    Default

    My take on this amendment to keep current operators from getting a license leads me to this conclusion.

    Specifically Party Gaming - they stopped US business in response to UIEGA and cut a plea deal with the US justice department, so they should be eligible to have a license. Others who stopped for UIEGA might need to cut a plea deal on stuff before to get "clean".

    But since the Parties, 888s, etc., took US business in the old days, they're unlikely to get licensed in very many states. Basically i think they'll be snubbed for that. On the other hand, places like Ladbrokes and Betfair which never accepted US players would likely fare much better when seeking a license

    I think legalizing online gambling in the US is great for gamblers, good for the states, but the end of the US affiliate business as we know it. Many disagree, but i don't see US, land based operators doing profit sharing or paying CPAs that exceed 5% or 10% of their profits. I think the US gaming affiliate business will probably look more like the CPA for leads that Credit Card and Mortgage companies tend to pay out.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •