full tilt mucks

back when online poker was legal lol. i used to play on party poker quite often. at party poker and empire poker one thing i used to love was that say your in a hand and your bluffing and you get called on the turn. you already know that your beat so instead of continuing the bluff you could just fold. no checking just straight out fold. muck your cards. on full tilt they do not have this option i was wondering if anyone has any insight to why they think at tilt you cant do this?

Online poker is still legal, it never stopped being legal. The UIGEA applies to payment processors only and certain online sites like Party stopped US players from playing, because they are publicly held companies in Europe.

As for the muck button, I'm not sure exactly why FT doesn't let you. PS does. It annoys me on FT. Not just for bluffing, but also when you are in the BB and it gets checked down. Sometimes I just don't want people to see what I had at all so it doesn't get stuck in their mind that those are cards I'd limp with.

i was just jokin about the poker being legal thing. but you also had another good point on the BB thing. im tryin to think of other situations where i wouild like to just muck. if anyone else can think of situations where you wanna just muck please feel free to respond.
Also i only play on full tilt but next time i do a deposit (or should i say donate my money lol) i wanna go for a bonus and join a new site. know of any where i can muck cards when i want to and that are decent sites with good bonuses.

Just select the "Fold to bet button" and it will check it down (as this is the only option) and make sure on your main screen you have "Auto Muck Hands" checked under options.

I do not know why you seem to think it is legal,,,do some research. It is true the UIGIA only involves the banking system, but it is the Wire Act that many say make online poker illegal.

Why do you think the sites pulled out of the US...Why did Party Poker admit to breaking US Laws. They pulled out because they believed they were violating US Laws

Whys does the US Dept of Justice say it is illegal to play online poker (google and u will see it many times including in Time Magazine)

Why is the new Barney Frank Bill call on making Online Gambling Legal

I mean....you prolly are never going to be arrested, but many politicians and Law Enforcement personel beleive the Wire Act makes Online Poker illegal period.

Many lawyers think charges wouldnt stick and they think The Wire Act is flawed....but thats after you go thru court, appeals court, supreme court etc

The courts have ruled that the wire act only applies to sports betting and other betting where it is against the house. There have been many court cases, and every single one has so far gone the side of the wire act not banning online poker.

This is a very good point. There is a strategical idea behind it. Maybe it is just to make sure people don't fold by accident when they don't have to. I mean, imagine having a strong hand, in a big pot, and pressing fold accidentally. If anything, not having the fold button might save you some day

The sites that pulled out of the US market were publicly traded companies in Europe that didn't want to deal with the gray issues that the UIGEA created for the industry.

PP admitted to breaking US laws and payed the $300 Million fine to the DOJ because they are positioning themselves for the first US license when Frank gets his bill passed later this year. I know that may seem a bit crazy, but paying a $300 Million rake to the US Government to be considered in their good graces will allow PP to recoup that and then some down the line. And again, they have shareholders to answer to, so they didn't want to be bogged down in legal fights.

If online poker were truly illegal and they wanted to crack down on it, it would be very easy for them to arrest Ivey or Dwan (etc.) since they know they play online all the time.

And obviously I'm not referring to Washington, Illinois, and Kentucky who have specific state laws that bar it.

Cracking down on it and being Illegal are two totally different things

If the US Department of Justice says it is illegal I would go with it..but you guys know better than the US Dept of Justice

Please quote all the Federal Cases where the Wire Act was said not to include poker....because there is not a single one

Cite the first case....It has to be Federal, not State Court

"The Appeals Court specifically cites Duval's statement: "[A] plain reading of the statutory language [of the Wire Act] clearly requires that the object of the gambling be a sporting event or contest." This is very explicit language. You would have to jump through a lot of mental hoops to consider the playing of online poker to be "a sporting event"."

"On November 21, 2002, the US Fifth Circuit Federal Appeals Court upheld Duval's ruling, stating: "The district court concluded that the Wire Act concerns gambling on sporting events or contests... We agree with the district court's statutory interpretation, its reading of the relevant case law, its summary of the relevant legislative history, and its conclusion." (Text of Appeals Court ruling)"

http://www.playwinningpoker.com/online/poker/legal/

Zach already owned you pretty good there, but read the Wire Act again please. The Wire Act has always only been about bookmaking/sports betting. In fact, the Wire Act isn't even really about gambling at all, it was just a way to come down on organized crime for bookmaking, racketeering, and money laundering. This is why the UIGEA effectively changed nothing, other than adding complicated language as a way to deter the uninformed. The UIGEA is dependent upon the Wire Act. There was originally wording in the UIGEA what would change the Wire Act to include more forms of gambling, but it had to be removed in order to get it passed in time.

Good Find...the Appeals Court did rule on the Online Gambling but it was not concerning someone playing Online Poker and being arrested for it, it was this guy trying to say he shouldnt pay his credit card for gambling related debts..whole different matter

Although I certainly can see where you could point to this Case as saying a court said that Online Poker may well be legal

Anyway it is a moot point, because it truly doesnt matter (since I dont think we wil see someone arrested on Fed Law) BUT

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...2818-2,00.html

What makes the numbers more extraordinary is that online gaming is either banned or legally questionable in several of the countries where it's thriving. In the U.S., where it is hard to avoid televised poker tournaments, the DOJ is unequivocal: it deems Internet gambling illegal, period. And nearly unstoppable. The DOJ admits that it faces hurdles in bringing to heel companies not based in the U.S. But it has pressured credit-card companies to reject gaming-related transactions and "urged" Internet providers and radio stations not to air online-gambling ads. Yahoo! and Viacom's Infinity Broadcasting are just some of those that are complying rather than cross the feds.

(Commenting on the case in the 5th circuit court of appeals which I think the above poster was quoting) ....One of Wall Street's leading law firms, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, recently warned investment-banking clients to steer clear of online-gaming companies because of concerns about their legality in the U.S.

My note: Skadden Arps is one of the leading Laws Firms in the United States

I agree.
I wish that was an option on all Poker Sites.
Also what about adding the show one or both cards as you play button.

Many live games you can show as you go (one or both).

I'm all for it.
The more options the better.

It adds to the game in my opinion.

Do you understand what the DoJ is? They are a department of basically lawyers that works for the executive branch. They prosecute people in court. The only court cases about it have held that online poker is not covered by the wire act. The DoJ doesn't make the laws nor interpret them, their opinion is moot unless the courts agree with them.

I edited my post some before I saw you quoted it

But still, if the DOJ says it is illegal, they have the authority, if they wish to..TO ARREST YOU--YOU understand THEY do the arresting right?

It is only after arresting for illegally playing online poker will the courts make a statement that counts. Although there is some strong language in the 5th Circuit ruling involving the Credit Card Company which I would be using if arrested.

Cops can arrest you for being black too. They can also be sued for arresting people for something that is clearly not a crime under court rulings.

In April 2004 Google and Yahoo!, the two largest internet search engines, announced that they were removing online gambling advertising from their sites. The move followed a United States Department of Justice announcement that, in what some say is a contradiction of the Appeals Court ruling, the Wire Act relating to telephone betting applies to all forms of Internet gambling, and that any advertising of such gambling "may" be deemed as aiding and abetting.

In the United States, the North Dakota House of Representatives passed a bill in February 2005 to legalize and regulate online poker and online poker cardroom operators in the state. The legislation required that online poker operations would have to physically locate their entire operations in the state. Testifying before the state Senate Judiciary committee, Nigel Payne, CEO of Sportingbet and owner of Paradise Poker, pledged to relocate to the state if the bill became law.[7]

The measure, however, was defeated by the State Senate in March 2005 after the U. S. Department of Justice sent a letter to North Dakota attorney general Wayne Stenehjem stating that online gaming is illegal, and that the pending legislation violates the federal Wire Act. However, many legal experts dispute the DOJ's claim.

In response to this and other claims by the DOJ regarding the legality of online poker, many of the major online poker sites stopped advertising their "dot-com" sites in American media. Instead, they created "dot-net" sites that are virtually identical but offer no real money wagering. The sites advertise as poker schools or ways to learn the game for free, and feature words to the effect of "this is not a gambling website."

In August 2004, Casino City, an online portal for internet gambling sites, sued the US Department of Justice. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the website's business—promoting internet gambling—was legal, and requested a declaration from the court that its business was protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana dismissed the case in February 2005.
In its opinion, the District Court wrote,
It is well-established that the First Amendment does not protect the right to advertise illegal activity... The government's interest is specifically directed towards the advertising of illegal activity, namely Internet gambling... Furthermore, the speech in which the plaintiff wishes to engage is misleading because it falsely portrays the image that Internet gambling is legal... Because plaintiff's speech concerns misleading information and illegal activities, it does not fall within the speech that is protected by the First Amendment.[7] The US Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, dismissed Casino City's appeal in January, 2006.[8]

Now you are looking silly....there is no dispute that being black is not illegal in the US. I would hope you could come up with a better anology than one that has absolutely nothing to do with the matter.

Yes, the DOJ can decide you are being indicted and that does not mean you will be convicted. And I would think you would have a decent shot at beating the case. But it wouldnt be a walk in the park.

The fact is...no one has ever been arrested for playing online poker so there is no direct court ruling on the matter

Whooa now i'm confused.
Talk about a hijacked post,lol.
So is it legal or what.
And about the muck topic,I agree I wish tilt had this option as well.
It has been mentioned earlier in the post,but I want my oponents to have the least amout of information they can on me.
I dont want anyone to see my cards ever unless a showdown.

Last post from me so you guys can get back to original intent of Thread

If you think online poker is legal in the United States...Please immediately open a Poker Site Hosted in the United States.

I mean, if Online Poker is Legal...certainly opening a site in the US would be also.....

Also, do you think UIGEA was passed because congress wanted to make it illegal to stop money transfers..or because they wanted to stop illegal poker playing and this was the way to do it and make it stick...no money-no pokah

Nice effort at hijacking a thread! I wouldn't generally fold if I could check, but in a few situations it might be appropriate. At least PS asks you whether you are quite sure that you want to fold, as you could check, so you have both options available.

WEC,

I urge you again to read the Wire Act and the UIGEA. There's nothing in either of them that makes playing online poker illegal, regardless of the DoJ's interpretation. Their interpretation is wrong, flat out, and will not hold up in any case. Last time I checked, the DoJ does not have to power to make new laws.

The Wire Act explicitly states that it only covers bookmaking/sports betting, and the UIGEA prohibits businesses from receiving funds from a person who is breaking the Wire Act and added some banking regulations.

Running a poker site is illegal, playing is not, and it's not disputed among anyone who knows what they are talking about legally.

thats my point to the least amount of info the better.

Seriously, I still can't see what the big deal is. You can always press "fold to any bet" if you're gonna fold anyway.