Proposals for Online Poker Regulations.

We anticipate that at some point the US will legalize, and regulate online poker.

Rather than allow the delay this will cause when all of a sudden a group of non-poker playing bureaucrats are tasked with setting up the regulations of the online game, lets give them a good 'wish list' (if you will) of what we, the players would like to see, as well as what we will be willing to accept.

There most likely will be 2 distinct areas of any regulation. The money aspect of the game, i.e. depositing and withdrawing, and the actual play of the cards.

The Money aspect will require verification of who a player is, and that they are old enough to be doing so legally. I'm ok with the current verification used by the currently active sites. They are helping players set up a financial relationship not unlike setting up a banking account, or brokerage account online. "Prove to us who you are", seems an easy way to describe the process. This works toward the honesty of the game in preventing one shot shysters from gaming the game.

The money part of the legislation will also include a money exchange. Netteller worked well, has lots of experience, and would be ready (most likely) to fill an existing void. For the most part, current credit card regs prevent them from accepting payments from other than an existing customer. This could easily be changed.

The game part gets interesting in how the ergonomics of the game appear to each player. It must include several things (IMHO). Handicapped accommodations like speech and high contrast table options should probably be incorporated into the software. This might end up being optional tho as there may be (I really don't know) existing solutions that work fine.

-4 color deck should be standard.
-Sites should provide tracker style stats on each player, viewable be any player for eah of the players at the table. Doesn't have to be a HUD, but I deserve to know how my villain plays whenever possible.

There are lots of ideas you may have.....
add them here.....

Four color deck is awesome but its not my problem if someone else wants to use two colors and mix up their flush draws. It should be an option like it is now. As for the stats idea, two things: if you were given this would you only want the stats on the current table in this session?

If the sites give you lifetime stats, that's no different than the data mining that nobody likes. If they don't give life time stats how do you keep up your long term history with the villain? Also, why should the poker site have to provide the info because you ( or anyone else, not trying to get personal) are too cheap to buy a hud?

I think the sites should make it clear that huds are allowed, what the rules on data mining are and let people chose for themselves.

For the record, I'm currently playing hudless but I understand and expect that good players will have them.

Edit, my biggest issue is the money. I want to be able to deposit and play five minutes later and if I want to take a hundred or so off to take the wife out to dinner it should hit my account in no later than 24 hours. That's my big wish.

Yep to the instant withdrawal. You can deposit instantly you should beable to with draw with in 24hrs.

i agree with the four color deck (done a post on this earlier)
don't agree with the hud type thing.
i think there should be on option to play
where hud's are banned as well as allowed.
we should be able to deposit AND withdraw
instantly with a debit card.

Yep, there is a lot of work yet to be done.

Most current bill being considered is H.R.2366

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2366:

Personally I think this is way to convoluted, but then, IANAL.

that what my last ex girlfriend say, then yet again that when i learn there 2 types of that

No kidding. (the convoluted part, not the anal part)

Nothing the government does is simple or straightforward. First there are the exceptions (hypocrisy), then there are the special interests (casinos, law enforcement, indian tribes, conservatives), then there's the "rules" that will require MORE bureaucracy to ensure compliance and MORE lawyers to interpret.

I was going to comment further on the bill, but my brain got tied up in knots half way through it.

i like the ideas but i think the us government will find a way to destroy this before they can fix it..... history always repeats itself

When it gets to the nitty gritty of what legislation the sites must follow, I think one of the many should be complete user accountability.

This would include me being able to find out after the fact who is getting credit for me having joined that particular site, and how much RB they are getting on an ongoing basis. Exact dates and methods of opening, depositing, and withdrawing should be available for a reasonable length of time, say 3 years.

There are so many aspects of the online account game that are similar to, if not exact replicas of opening, and guiding, a self directed IRA, or Trading Account, that financially, those financial instruments and the owner-control of them could offer some serious guidance.

___ Another regulation, affecting players might be unified player naming. While I have several online identities, for poker purposes, I would prefer to have only 1, across all sites. This one will be very contentious, as I know many who want to have multiple accounts at a single site. But in order to have any online game that is secure and dependable, we will need to sacrifice something, and this might be an easy sacrifice.

Unified naming might also make the multiple site issue easier. We 'register' at a single 'naming registry' site, and then via that site, register for multiple different poker sites, without the repeated unpleasant ID issues each different site might require. Problem with this is the Government wanting access to that huge registry of names/ID's. SO THIS ISSUE WILL NEED ADDRESSING!. One way or another, keeping unwelcome government out of our business will be as important as keeping site info about us out of the hands of strangers.

I don`t like four-colour decks. I still play live sometimes and need to be able to retain my ability to read the cards without artificial aids.

Other than legalizing my right to fund my online poker accounts with real money, and my money being protected the way it is with most 'legitimate' banking transactions (i.e. having recourse if a site fails to pay me within a reasonable amount of time, etc.), I don't want the government to dictate anything about the game. I want to have the choices I had before Black Friday, but with ease of deposit (oh Neteller, how I miss thee).

I don't want it dictated what kind of software sites have to use, whether or not I have to use a four color deck (which I hate, btw); stats kept on players, etc. Give the government an inch and they'll take 5,000 miles, putting so many restrictions and "protections" in place that the game will be unrecognizable for US customers.

Well put.

At heart, I totally agree. HOWEVER! the reality suggests that the government will have to take a mile to give us an inch.....

You know that they (the government) will demand accountability in the area of player winnings (so they can tax us), ID verification, (so the younguns can't play), and some sort of money laundering policies (so the terrorists can't fund themselves). These things will happen. Those things will directly affect us. Policies about the sites handing of things will not directly affect us. Things like maintaining sufficient funds for a run on the bank (FT), and other proper accounting practices. These things we will not see.

So we need to be cognizant of this and help guide the politico's into proper actions. You know they will see this as a cash cow, and milk it dry. We can not let them milk it to death.


So yeah, I want it just like it was in 2005, when Netteller worked for us, the US. But it ain't gonna happen!

More fresh ideas please.............

Firstly you MUST make a distinction between legalising Poker and legalising online Casino's.
If US players are pushing for legalisation and regulation of online poker then perhaps they should consider getting each and every one of the states on side first and then get them to "push" the cause onto the Federal government.
A major "carrot" for the states could be that deposits and withdrawals be made through the states very own lottery agencies (do they exist?) thus allowing the states to get a small "commission" on each transaction. (Shhhhhh don't mention the word "t - a - x" to Americans)
My thinking here is, if you don't let them in on the action you are less likely to get a "transaction" and you could die of old age waiting for the Feds to legalise poker.

Anyone else think the requirement to investigate and provide a list of "illegal gaming sites" is bs?

If they are licensing sites, then just provide a list of "legal" sites. We aren't talking B&M here. Sites can spring up overnight. Sounds like a boondoggle for some law enforcement bureaucracy and just plain stupid.

Agree. However, this smacks of over regulation, and we know how them republicans will bitch about over regulation. Plus there is the entrepreneurial thing about anybody can start a small business. And any site on the illegal list will just change its name overnight.

While it does sound like a boondoggle waiting to happen, it has to be figured out. Since it seems unlikely (per the rumor mill) that trusted, existing sites will be allowed to start at the same starting gate as say, any existing Vegas B&M casino, there will be a veritable stampede of small sites vying for position. Many will be fly by night scams.

call me a commy but the simplest and safest solution would be a gov't run site

Commie! Hey, maybe they'll pass a mandate that everyone has to play at least one hour of poker everyday.

Belgium is working on a law that would have a serious chance to get approved in the US: in order to get a license to offer online poker, you need to have a license for a brick and mortar casino.

What happens in practice is that the big online poker brands partner up with the existing B&M casinos, and the government taxes the partnerships a reasonable share of their gross gaming revenues.

Again from the rumor mill...Before BF, Stars and probably TIlt both had deals pending with the Vegas Casino's. They were canceled after BF.

This solves so many problems. Casino's know how to do it right, there will be few 'start up' shenanigans. Before getting a license a new operator would have to show they can do it according to already established State government regulations, which should include all the concerns we will have.

The software will be the key, and interstate, and international play. Crummy software will die its own painful death, and greedy Casino operators will find a bad decision up front will pay dearly in the rear end.

yep i agree with the instant withdrawals full tilt could do it so why not others-the last 3 withdrawals from the late f/t were in my account within 10 mins of request

with online poker regs the main problem has to be different countries different tax laws and gambling laws cannot see a way round it anytime soon,the sites will still do whatever it takes to maximise there profits

I concur

Why do we need to deposit on each site? Why cant there be a central funding center where we have accounts that we can deposit and withdraw directly from, ship funds to the room we are going to play on at that moment, and ship it back to our account when we finish with that particular session. This would leave none of our bankroll on any site. We could take as much or as little as we needed to play a session at whatever site we wished to play at that moment. Just leaving it in a central fund center. whether it is a bank of our choosing or some site that is governed to do just this task.

This would allow 2 things security for us as players, and a way to keep better track of wins and losses for tax purpoces.

There is the seed of a great idea here, but we want to get online poker back first. A separate money supply and its regulations is what is involved I think, and that opens up a whole different can of worms.

Another benifit to this type of bankroll management; is that the sites will have to compete for our dollars to be used at there sites (kinda like the brick and mortar casinos have too) by better software, bonuses, or gifts

It will be much easier for players to go from poker site to poker site with their bankroll. It would also be much safer to try out a new site with minimal risk of our dollars.

Online poker sites made Millions not off of only the poker that was played but by being able to hang on to your cash. They collect interest and dont need to borrow cash for their own business needs.

Without the prospect of holding onto players $ in between sessions Poker sites would need to raise their rake.

None the less a great idea... Just dont think any site would go for it as it is a huge loss of easy access cash.

I didn't figure the sites would want to do it, I am looking out for the players interest and safety not the poker rooms

Any site which provides tracker style stats on each player, viewable be any player for each of the players at the table SHOULD HAVE ITS LISENCE REVOKED IMMEDIATELY. Because it gives players who has better tracking software huge unfair advantage.

that sort of thing already goes on mind poker table ratings buy hand historys and poker edge for example I do wonder what online poker will be like in 3+ years from now.

I think the poker sites might just cut out the middle man and start supplying there own hud stats maybe in making the game more 'fair'.

Selling hand history by poker sites should be made illegal. That's what regulation is about.

Start your own thread.

My idea here is to help figure out what might be the most appropriate structure of a bill that would pass Congress. Existing online sites will have little if anything to do with influencing the legislators, but we, the players can have significant input.

WE have to help or WE are screwed!

So while I agree that the single registrar/money system would be nice, it isn't going to, and at first we probably don't want it to, be included in a bill that will confuse most people. Capitalism will fill the gap and some business concern will figure it out, possibly Pay Pal, or Netteller who already know how to do it will step up.

Things we know will come up are ways to prevent underage players, addicted players, and those concerned with the fairness of the online experience. Amongst others. We will want a fair enough licensing practice that the whole thing is not dead on arrival. We will need ideas about how we can pacify the moralists who will likely be coming out of the walls.

While we may want to mold a perfect pokersite, we are not going to get that done via legislation. The market place will decide that. Just like it molded Stars in the last 7 or 8 years. The Stars example is good for how any site can do it, but we don't want to legislate the Stars model on everyone. Some of the more generic aspects of the Stars Model (like segregation of funds, and responsive support) should be included, while other aspects need other considerations.

For instance, one of the considerations legislators should look at is player accountability, and Site accountability to each player. So if a player is banned, or his account seized, that players should have a valid, understandable reason for that action, and some method of recourse.

Another possible idea is the term of a license. 1 year to start. As a site shows it can do things acceptably, the term increases, and fees associated with monitoring (policing) the operation, can decrease some. As it works out, the players will want protection from the sites abuse and the sites will want protection from government abuse.

If we, who understand the situation more than non players, don't serve up the good ideas the legislation (if any) will proceed designed by people who really, really do not have a clue, or by vested interests already entrenched in B&M casinos.

Make your thread private and invite only people who agree with you to join.
That will make the discussion meaningless.

Sorry. Meant that there are things that surly should be legislated, and things which clearly will not be legislated.

But it seems the first thing we want is to get the door reopened. After we have our foot in the door, we can work on refinements, but the more we jam into an initial proposal, the longer it will take to get anywhere, so my comments are meant to suggest that we go for the obvious concerns that not only we, the players, will want dealt with, but also what the non playing opponents might be concerned about.

Stuff like the integrity of the game, and underage playing, ID concerns, money laundering concerns. 3 of those things could be dealt with via some registration agency or business. Does that not scream Democrat vs Republican squabbling? Somehow we want to find ideas which deter that squabbling, which in turn deters rapid passages as things get sent back to committees, over and over for months if not years.

I opened it up with the 4 color deck idea, and deserve what I get for that. It should not be something that ever sees legislation, as it is a customer comfort item.

Make no mistake, I would ideally favor returning things to how they would have been if the UIGEA had never happened, and each site built their own trust mechanisms. But I am pragmatic enough to know it ain't gonna happen that way, and am seeking ideas, which I will try to help organize into something publicly presentable.

http://www.fairplayusa.com/

Good start here, I think. These folks seem to get it. 'It' being that we will play online, and want a reasonably set of guidelines to govern the action on both sides of the firewall.

They (FairplayUSA) want us to sign their petition. I will as soon as I think they are covering the important issues. The problem is, IMHO, that we are not all in agreement yet as to what those important issues are. There are a few big Casino's who are backing the original organization of FairplayUSA. They state so clearly on that webpage. This should concern us a little, and we want to make sure they do not control the whole process.

If we, the collective online community, do not voice our concerns, someone else will do it for us.