Online poker prohibition could be overturned
Poker Lobby & AGA groups aim to end Online Gambling Bill


The Poker Players Alliance and executives for the American Gaming Association (AGA) say they are hopeful that the recent political changes in the U.S. Congress will help them overturn the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA).

You may recall how the UIGEA was appended onto to the sure-to-be-passed Safe Port Bill when most Senators had already cast their votes and left, in the final hours before the Republican-controlled Congress adjourned for mid-term elections.

The UIGEA, while not making online poker illegal, did made it illegal for banks and financial institutions to process transactions for online gambling sites from U.S. customers when it was signed into law on October 13. Regulations that banks need to comply with have yet to be defined. A Government board has until July 2007 to define them.

AGA President Frank Fahrenkopf said the AGA previously opposed online gambling, saying, "Our policy changed back in April when we took a position that we thought the best way to go was to have an independent commission look at it."

Many analysts around that timeframe noted how online gambling actually lead to previously hesitant players coming to the physical casinos, swelling the number of overall casino visitors, which likely helped change AGA's perspective.

So the AGA board of directors will meet December 6, said Fahrenkopf, to consider whether "to support legislation in the new Congress calling for an independent study of Internet gambling to see if it can be properly regulated, controlled, taxed and licensed here in the United States."

Fahrenkopf pointed out, "My guess is that they are going to say let's go ahead and do it."

This past week Terry Lanni, chief executive of MGM Mirage who is an AGA board member, said the UIGEA is "ridiculous" because it was signed into law Oct. 13 as part of a larger port security bill -- and because it exempted horse races and lotteries, and online bets placed while on American Indian land.

Nevada Representatives Jon Porter and Shelly Berkley had previously introduced a bill to create a Congressional Commission to study Internet Gaming this past May. But the bill died. Noteworthy is that both Porter and Berkley were re-elected last week.

In contrast to the prior Congressional Commission proposed, if the AGA votes for a study it has already said it prefers an independent commission such as the National Academy of Sciences to do the study, noted Fahrenkopf, so results are free from the influence of lobbyists.

AGA's board includes CEOs from some the biggest live casinos in Las Vegas, such as Boyd Gaming CEO William Boyd, Harrah's Entertainment CEO Gary Loveman, MGM Mirage CEO Terri Lanni mentioned above, and Wynn Resorts CEO Stephen Wynn, amongst others.

Many bloggers have remarked if these well known casinos launch their own online gambling sites then a large majority of players will play at them because of brand recognition and huge marketing budgets, causing yet another re-alignment in the online gambling industry.

In an interview with Reuters news service, Fahrenkopf also remarked how the stated goal of the UIGEA was to protect American citizens. Instead, he noted, it caused many legitimate and responsible operators to pull out of the U.S. opening the way for unregulated companies to fill the void, since most US players were likely to continue gambling online.

He did not go as far as many others have to call the legislation Prohibition II, as did Pulitzer Prize-winning writer George F. Will in Newsweek's Oct 23rd edition and U.K. culture secretary, Tessa Jowell.

President of the 120,000-member Poker Players Alliance (PPA), Michael Bolcerek, said that results of the Congressional election have emboldened the PPA.

"Our members and other poker players went to the polls. They influenced the federal election," he said. "In the next 12 months we're confident that we'll get a study commission bill. We think an exemption [for online poker] is in order, as well."

Legal expert professor I. Nelson Rose, of the Whittier Law School, harshly criticized the UIGEA, saying how it is confusing and contradictory with all its exemptions, and noting how a portion of the bill even sanctions Internet betting conducted within states and tribal lands.

"It's a public embarrassment...it's a mess," said Rose. "Eventually I think they'll get Congress to change the law to do for Internet poker exactly what they did for Internet horse racing. It's an exemption but (based on) states' rights."

----

Gambling911.com News Wire

Originally published November 20, 2006 1:28 pm ET

blue lady the news I left is from the afternoon news from money am. I appreciate your news above and must say the rise could be to do with your news above. I sold my stock today. I may buy back in when the market stabilises. Thankyou.

Hi janetbennison,

Who knows the real reason for the rise, the main thing is the share price rose.

This I found from another BB.

Gaming Shares Rise as FT Says Frank Wants Ban Repeal (Update1)

By Louisa Nesbitt

March 14 (Bloomberg) -- Online-gambling stocks rose after the Financial Times said House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank wants to repeal a law passed last year that criminalized the industry.

Shares of Gibraltar-based PartyGaming Plc, the world's biggest Internet poker operator, rose the most since 2005. 888 Holdings Plc and SportingBet Plc also advanced in London.

``I am working on legislation to cut back on this Internet gambling thing,'' the FT cited Frank as saying on its Web site, referring to last year's law. ``I think it's preposterous,'' and the law is one of the ``stupidest'' ever passed, the FT cited him as saying. ``Maybe we can make some money off it,' he added.

Online-gaming stocks plummeted across Europe in October after Congress unexpectedly banned the collection of credit-card payments from gambling Web sites. PartyGaming lost about three- quarters of its revenue as a result of ending U.S. operations, while 888 lost about half its revenue.

``The slightest indicator that operators may get business back in the U.S. is going to get speculators coming in,'' said Andrew French, a sales trader at E*Trade Securities in London.

Stock in Gibraltar-based PartyGaming, the world's biggest Internet poker operator, rose 4.75 pence, or 13 percent, to 42.75 pence, the most since Dec. 8, 2005. Sportingbet, the owner of Paradise Poker, gained 3 pence, or 5.4 percent, to 58.75 pence. 888 added 4.5 pence, or 3.9 percent, to 120.5 pence.

Payment Processing

To crimp the flow of funds to betting sites, Congress passed the bill Sept. 30 to bar credit card companies from processing payments for the industry. Bush signed the measure into law on Oct. 13.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/357d90ac-d29c-11db-a7c0-000b5df10621.html

Gaming shares up on hopes of end to ban

By Stephanie Kirchgaessner and Jeremy Grant in Washington and,Roger Blitz in London

Published: March 15 2007 02:00

Shares in online gaming companies jumped yesterday after a powerful Democratic lawmaker gave the industry a glimmer of hope that the sweeping ban Congress passed last year might be repealed.

Barney Frank, Democratic chairman of the House financial services committee, told the Financial Times the ban, formally known as the Unlawful Enforcement Gambling Act, was one of the "stupidest laws" passed.

"I am working on legislation to cut back on this internet gambling thing . . . I think it's preposterous," he said.

"I'm looking for ways, maybe we can make some money off of it," he said, signalling that he could be considering a proposal to make online gaming legal by regulating - and taxing - the industry. A spokesman for Mr Frank said he had not yet drafted any legislation and was still at a "thinking stage".

Although the Massachusetts Democrat represents a potentially powerful ally to pro-gaming interests, people who watch the issue in Washington expressed scepticism about the prospects for repeal. "It would be hard enough to get through the House. It is not clear how it gets through the Senate," said one lobbyist.

Under the rules of the upper chamber, a single lawmaker can - in most circumstances - block legislation from getting a vote. A spokesperson for Jon Kyl, a Republican senator who supports the ban, said he would oppose any effort to repeal the legislation.

Mr Frank said he was not ready to provide details about his proposal. "I am not ready to get into specifics yet. People have come to me with some ideas. Not Al D'Amato . . . and I'm looking at it," Mr Frank said, referring to the former New York senator recently named chairman of the Poker Players' Alliance, a lobby group that is fighting to legalise online poker.

Mr Frank's remarks prompted PartyGaming's shares to rise 12.5 per cent in London, while 888 Holdings was up 3.9 per cent on revived hopes of a takeover by Ladbrokes, the British bookmaker. Sportingbet, also the subject of a bid, was up 5.4 per cent.

Shares in the online gambling sector, rapidly seeking to consolidate, have been battered by the US ban and are vulnerable to worries about regulatory pressures.

A Washington lobbyist said that although Democrat Harry Reid, the Senate's majority leader, represented the gambling state of Nevada and had expressed reservations about whether online gambling could be regulated effectively, he was far from being an ally to online gaming interests.

He said yesterday's surge in share prices in part reflected the fact that investors did not understand the hurdles facing such legislation, which he said had less than a 50-50 chance of passing.

Greetings All

Sure turning out to be a white knuckle ride this one.
I don't seem to have the stomach to watch the sp gyrate so much.
Little worried it could drift down as quickly as it came up.

Regards

I sold out yesterday sold some in the morn at 40.75 then I sold the rest in the afternoon at 45.3p the day before they dropped down to .37p when last fri I could have sold at .415 like you say this can be up one day and down the next. I read a comment this moring that there is a less than a 50 percent chance of the bill being passed. I would buy back in a a lower price. with some more news they could go to .50p. Need to watch very carefully. I wish you all the very best of luck.

sensibly acted Janet!

this has been great trading share buy on the dips and set sell prices 2-3 % up lots of money to be made here

Hi All

Sure sgree with you in principle, but my timing seem to be out of synch.

I seem to get sucked into each rally and it hurts.

Cheers

casinos thrive on people who reckon they can beat the system! ..... have no reason to change my mind that this sector is best avoided, at least with real money ...... it's not even as much fun to watch as the lamented SUB which at least had an exciting product, even if it could not get it to work

amardev re my previous post - I had 133000 shares in prty 15.3.07 in the morn I sold 110,000 at 40.75p I decided to keep the 20,000 remaining in the afternoon when they went up to 45.3p I had to sell. If my timing had been that I had sold the lot in the afternoon I would have been 4,938 pounds better off. The idea now is to buy back in around the 38p level. I never get the timing right at the best of times. Good luck and be careful with this one it is up and down like a yo yo.

By implication then, cynic, the casinos and other gambling organisations are on a winner as we all know that the 'house' always has the advantage. This makes them cash generating machines with an endless supply of punters. I can't think of many other businesses which can boast this.
As for an exciting product, gambling is gambling! Dogs, horses, cards, roulette, football or spreadbetting, the last of which I think you are involved with.
One last point, why is gambling any more risky than oil exploration? The latter are often running at a loss & most wells are dusters.
Sorry, don't mean to become over philosophical here, but the only thing that has badly affected the gambling industry is the U.S. prohibition. Moral arguements aside, how can gambling companies lose when they have stacked the odds against the punters?

it's ok Harry ... actually i use CFDs rather than spreadbet .... i happen not to like this sector which is not based on moral grounds at all, but merely because i think that in the present climate, it is not the place to put one's money .... as for E&P companies, i also agree, which is why i hold only relatively small quantities of GOO, CHP, UMN and GTL and DOO, the last 2 being almost the same category .... of those 5 companies, i shall be very pleasantly surprised if more than 2 make the "big time" .... the rest of my portfolio is pretty much quality and proven stocks

perhaps should have mentioned BFC too, as that is coming up trumps and which, with only a little luck, will "improve" by a further lump!

Thanks for your thoughts Janet.

My own view is that the sp will consolidate @ 40p.
Unfortunately, I bought in at a higher price.

Cheers

Greetings all

Are we seeing the sp form a base .......... before another breakout.

Any other views, very welcome.

Cheers

Greetings to you all.

Gone very quiet on this thread.

Where to now ......... for the s.p.

Would love to hear your views.

Cheers

Greetings to all

Getting a bit lonesome, talking to myself on this thread.
Let's hope they don't lock me up.

Thankfully I'm in profit at the moment ................ would like some company .....
so share you're thoughts.

Regards
Amar

The trouble is that not much is happening with PRTY. Very little on the horizon for them. Try the SBT thread. BWIN are looking to become larger than PRTY & as a result PRTY are going to have to become a bit more pro-active.

So all investment is gambling?
I beg to differ, although taken as a whole it can look like it since a sp is in the hands of "Market forces"....
However, Harrycat started to defend share-based investing (I think) but then thought better of it...if I may add 2p-worth:-
Gambling on horses, casinos and so on is gambling because it redistributes wealth amongst the players - although the "house" takes a large chunk in probability it is not a huge % of the money that passes-through otherwise punters wouldn't do it. Sure the bright lights, plush carpets, free drinks and lovely ladies all have to be paid for - but that is a small % of the throughput. One aspect that needs careful control is the cash...since it would be easy to use a casino as a money-laundering machine.
Now shares:
Let me start by assuming the investments are real companies and not some minor-player with litle chance of success which is billed as a dead cert - only to die a year or two after floatation and several Rights issues.
Furthermore it's true many (mining etc.) companies are particularly risky and I include Biotech/Pharmas in this - but is it a gamble?
Only in the strick sence it might, or might not....but that isn't the same as gambling where nothing is created, indeed without new money gambling would eventually disapear since the "house" would own everything. With investment the company has assets, it has drilled here (and there) and found zilch - but at least (if they are smart) they will understand the geology better - sooner or later they will hit (Oil/Gold/Zinc etc.) and then shareholders will receive a dividend for their patience. Tis is proven by the large players, like BP, Shell, and several mining Co's.
So investing increases wealth of everyone involved...the locals have employment, the agents, shipping and Comodity-traders...as well as investors (us Punters). provided we are lucky - but even that isn't so - for any well-organised company (and there are relativly few!) will have several projects to spread the risk and to give income over the coming years - ie not a flash in the pan....
Theerfore if investing is done with solid businesses and with good management that is not gambling.
However, for many of the minor-companies listed on AIM (and lower) there is some perception it is a gamble because they are not well organised...they are not run by good management...and they are very likely to fail....although they won't tell you this until the crunch comes.

It is my opinion that Directors shoul be paid on a rolling-basis - so that their money is held in a trust, operated under the control of retail shareholders (ie no director, or crony control) with strict rules such that provided the Mkt Cap of the company is rising they get their salary, delayed by a few years, gradually as the company introduced dividends the delay is reduced, until the company is fully lish=ted and sits about half-way along the FTSE 250 when dirctors are paid just 2-years after they perform. They can't run-off or invest in a silly project because any fall in the Mkt cap will affect their own money - in effect their perfpormance and reward are linked by a legal framework. Forget share-incentives, special deals, pensions etc. these guys are going to be well rewarded if they perform well - if they don't then they weren't worth much - and shouldn't get much.

Hmmmmm....very interesting 'hangon', but a gamble is where the person who places the money has no (or very little) control over the outcome, regardless of whether the odds are in his favour. So investing in a blue chip company is technically as much a gamble as in investing in a high risk AIM company. Only the odds of increasing your stake are better. I was not intending to defend any kind of speculative investment (Marconi was blue chip, but went badly wrong).
The only other point I was making was that spreadbetting or CFDs are, imo, very much more of a gamble than 'normal trading' as the spreadbetters are not really interested in the stats, just in short term price movement.
I certainly DO NOT agree that gambling is gambling 'cos it redistributes wealth amongst the players. It does NOT. Most gamblers lose to 'the house' or the bookmaker.