No poker and no work makes Homer something something

Today, I read an article in the Denver Post that discusses how Colorado casinos are following Las Vegas's lead in testing mobile gaming devices.  

I learned a few things.  (link to full article below)

"Nevada lawmakers are considering a measure that would allow casino guests to gamble on operator-issued tablets and mobile devices while anywhere on the property, such as in the privacy of a hotel room or while watching a Cirque du Soleil show.

The casino-issued gambling tablets, which feature sports betting and table games such as Baccarat and Blackjack, already are available for play at some casinos, including the M Resort Spa Casino and the Venetian. But they're currently restricted to public areas such as restaurants and lounges."

In short, intranet gambling is already in Las Vegas.  And it just getting warmed up. 

Just as a quick refresher about 'the intranets'.

An intranet is a private computer network that uses Internet Protocol technology to securely share any part of an organization's information or network operating system within that organization.

In short, you can gamble on a tablet or phone anytime you are on the casino's property and wireless network. 

So I ask, 'Can\Will the casinos offer intranet poker'? 

I already know the answers.   Yes\Yes.    I would bet my entire bankroll on it.  If I still had one. 

If Las Vegas is to be the center of online poker in the US, then intranet gambling is where it starts.  The casinos are understandably hesitant to announce the development of computer poker software right now, but it is happening. 

Creaser's already has WSOP online.  Wynn and Stations tried to skip ahead by partnering with Stars and FT, but that is only a brief setback.   Plan 'B' is already in motion.  They could just start with any of the dozens of poker apps available for the iPhone.  The casinos can start off small with a few dozen units in the Poker Room.  Add a camera and some location data for security, and the poker room expands to the pool, guest rooms, residences, sister properties, etc.    

Once the casinos and the US government are ready to move from intranet poker to internet poker, they just have to flip the switch.  Disco. 

One company seems poised to benefit the most from the scenario above.

Learn about it in part two..  A Predator Hidden in the Grass. 

(Hint:  Not a wombat)

Casinos aim to let guests gamble from tablets, mobile devices

By Andy Vuong
The Denver Post

4/25/2011

Before you rip into me for asking the question, the answer may not be so cut and dry. The more info that comes out about this DOJ's case, the less it has do with online poker.

(I put this together after listening to an interview with the CEO of a payment processor for high risk finical transactions.  I will post the podcast info at the end of my post.  I HAVE NO LEGAL BACKGROUND.  This is just a theory I put together. And much of it is owed to Chuck Kidd)


The DOJ has filed multiple charges relating to the UIGEA against the big three sites.  In the DOJ's opinion FT, PS, and AP violated the UIGEA by providing online poker to US players.

The law was vaugely written and online poker players have been operating in a legal gray area.  This area looks just as gray as it did two weeks ago. 

The UIGEA charges are flimsy at best.  And the DOJ knows it.

But they are freerolling with those charges if this goes to court.  If judge dismisses the UIGEA charges the DOJ has lost NOTHING.

The core of the DOJ's case is based on how......
1) All three poker sites conducted their financial transactions with American Banks

2) Pokerstars was able to purchase ownership in a US bank without proper approval
3) Political money was donated from pokersites to US politicians.

1) The primary charge in this case is bank fraud.  Specifically the accusation that the poker sites used false transaction coding when moving money in and out of the US.

Why did Pokerstars and Fulltilt mislabel these transactions? 

It's may not be the reason we all assume.  The primary reason may have nothing to do with the UIGEA, but how much 'rake'  PS and FT were willing  to pay for the transactions.

There is a credit card transaction code for 'gaming'.  It covers many areas.  From online gambling to online gaming.  These transactions are considered 'high risk' by the banks or other finacial instatutions down the line.  

The legality of the transaction may not be the primary reason it is considered 'high risk'.  It may correlate closer with the likelyhood that someone has 'buyers remorse' about the transaction and decides to fight it.  Or just not pay. As the risks get higher, an additional layer of 'processesor' is required for the dollars to make it into the US. 

If the poker sites choose to mislabel the transaction codes, they eliminated many of the intermediaries required for a 'high risk / gaming' transactions with US banks.   

It saved time.  It saved money (5%? 10%? 15% on the dollar).

The miscoding is a serious federal crime.      

"Re-coding is explicitly prohibited by credit card companies, and processors who engage in the practice may now be facing serious repercussions."

http://www.parttimepoker.com/credit-card-companies-restricting-gambling-transactions-faq

Speculation about the other areas of the DOJ case.

#2  Pokerstars obtained 30% ownership in the bank in Utah.  Any bank ownership change of 10% or more needs requires federal paperwork.   A foreign company needs ton of approvals to become involved.    None of this seemed to happen.

#3  The LVRJ is working on a story about how certain Nevada politicians may have been influenced by Pokerstars lobbying.  http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/apr/20/how-pokerstars-six-month-plan-went-awry/
Should be a fun election season coming in Nevada as some local politicians may have taken sides against the B&M casinos.  (MGM, Ceasers, etc)

So how could online poker still be legal?  

Two sources have been very vocal about this proving online poker is illegal.  Only two sources have come out and said online poker is illegal in the past week.  

1) the DOJ

2) Conservative senators/congressmen with a 'moral' voter base. 

Those two opinions do not make it fact or law.

It will be interesting to see if the US uses any resources into fighting Antigua's accusations of violation of itnernational trade law.  My guess is no.  They may even drop the UIEGA charges.  

Once I hear that online poker is illegal from a judge, a President, or a majority of congress after a real debate, I will believe.


But for now......... I am not so sure. 

***Podcast info*** From quadjacks podcast marathon. Going strait since Black Friday. 

Chuck Kidd Owner and CEO of picclub.com and PPN poker. http://is.gd/AYGA6c