The Poker Beat - July 29

[TeddyKGB]

There are legal constitutional avenues available to challenge the denial of a license of this sort available to these Companies, regardless of whether or not there is a process set forth in the law.

Im still not sure what bad acts Stars and Tilt have committed that would bar them from a license. I guess there have been transactions in contravention to the UIGEA, and it always seemed odd to me that Tilt and Stars just flat out let people in Washington State sign up and play for real money as its expressly illegal there. Anway, it would be fng ironic if the two sites that in fact have their acts together to the greatest extent, end up barred from the US. I for one would be furious.

[The 6th Wilbury]

Funny, when I heard you say "Bad Actors" amendment, I immediately pictured this guy:



Some thoughts: of all the talk of what happens to the giants like Stars and Tilt (which I agree could continue to be viable sites offshore, like Betfair is right now), I wonder what happens to the smaller sites with less of an international footprint, such as a Doyle's Room; or sites that emphasize sports betting, like Bodog?

[Enzown]

Originally Posted by The 6th Wilbury

Funny, when I heard you say "Bad Actors" amendment, I immediately pictured this guy:

FYP

Back to the Beat for a sec. The show going over "time" is fine as long as the discussion is interesting, also Jess did a great job hosting.

[Agent ]-[arbinger]

On a side note, finishing the show with Pink Floyd is +EV. It negates the tilt from the Go-Gos.

and

[TOCurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by The 6th Wilbury

Mystery solved: TOCurmudgeon was the Insider.

Ha! Hardly.

[Dan Michalski]

Originally Posted by Gauss

There are legal constitutional avenues available to challenge the denial of a license of this sort available to these Companies, regardless of whether or not there is a process set forth in the law.

i agree. haven't gotten into it yet, but could see a likely scenario where Stars applies for a license, gets denied, then sues, claiming there was no legitimate reason to deny them.

[BJ Nemeth]

Originally Posted by 5carab

Thanks for the info BJ - any idea on whether US players will be able to play against those of us from countries not run by crazies (ok, we are run by crazies in the UK also, just not crazies who care about online poker... yet...)? I mean, I don't care that I don't get to play the French (although more players is always good), but losing out on the chance to play everyone in America, especially as money can begin getting online, would SUCK!

My understanding is that the requirement that servers and personnel be stationed in the United States only applies to serving players in the United States. Online poker sites would probably be allowed (if I'm reading it correctly) to host servers and other personnel overseas as well.

Where the servers and such is located would only be an issue if a European country (or any other) passed similar legislation to the U.S. But from the American side of things, there's nothing in the legislation that says that the games can't be played against players from around the world.

Originally Posted by Gauss

There are legal constitutional avenues available to challenge the denial of a license of this sort available to these Companies, regardless of whether or not there is a process set forth in the law.

I've been looking for information on this -- though admittedly, not looking very hard. Do you have any links to precedent or some source that describes the process? I don't see anything in the U.S. Constitution itself that provides any protections to a company trying to license an online casino.

I would love to find out I'm wrong on this, because I'm not a fan of putting too much power in the hands of a few people in the U.S. Commerce Department.