Comments on: Semi-legal Online Poker: the Regulation Paradox

By: Fifth Street Journal

Fifth Street Journal — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:27:05 +0000

Deregulation, not regulation, would be the ideal. Even the current state of things may very well be preferable to regulation for poker players: any regulation is likely to be protectionist, with fewer choices and less competition. Just going back to Clinton-era priorities in the executive branch (when they didn’t care about online gambling) would be a big improvement. But for now they keep on pushing (e.g. account seizures). There’s a limit to what they can do, though, and they’re approaching it: even Full Tilt has started sending some Canadian checks lately. I appreciate what the PPA is trying to do, but I just don’t believe a free-market regulatory system (e.g. the UK) is a likely outcome.

By: danm

danm — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:59:32 +0000

Yeah, well obama is their boss, so technically he could push them in one direction or the other. Personally, I expect nothing … It seems we have been thrown into some sort of dec. 1 inbox/slush pile. I’m eagerly waiting to see what that means, even if it is nothing.

(I did make an edit to the original post to clarify that, btw)

By: Kevin Mathers

Kevin Mathers — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:41:49 +0000

I saw executive and somehow thought Obama, my bad.

So you’re expecting the announcement to be made while the major debate over the health care bill in the Senate is taking place?

By: DanM

DanM — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:49:29 +0000

http://www.loc.gov/rr/news/fedgov.html

By: DanM

DanM — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:45:11 +0000

No no not at all. The letters sent to Gheitner and the other guy … Bernanke … they are the ones who can say yay or nay on the delay. (hooray!)

The Federal Reserve and Dept. of the Treasury are White House-approved ops.

By: Kevin Mathers

Kevin Mathers — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:39:19 +0000

You’re expecting something like an executive order?