Some players are getting worried about the gaming laws and global recession. First if you need your money to pay bills fine withdraw all your funds. If you don't need the money take a step back and look at the full picture.
During a recession the worse thing to do if you have money is to stop spending. Your poker money should only be money you can afford to lose, Playing online to make money is a risk just like the stock market. If your the average poker player your not playing to get rich your playing because you enjoy playing. Treat it just like any other Recreation or entertainment expense, If you have to cut back on going to the movies or out to dinner to pay bills cut back on your poker playing also.
UIEGA update,
Final ruling has been posted at
PPA and Rep Frank has responded to both the Federal Reserve and Treasury department.
This really does noting but address the law that was already passed saying financial institutions can not process funds. The big problem on enforcing this is that in the past year I have received and cashed over 30 checks from poker sites. One site I get checks from monthly has used 7 different names on the check in that time period.
They are asking the financial institution to regulate this by not cashing a check that is knowingly in violation of the UIEGA . I see 2 major problems with this.
1: No bank is going to investigate every check you receive to try and find out if the business or person listed as the payee is a violation. This would take to much time, my last check from
Bodog did come from John Atimore in Canada how can they stop it?
2: By the time they find out a person or business is in violation they would have another account set up for sending payments.
Kentucky update.
The case in Kentucky is another story that has several big groups scared not just gaming. For now most sites will start to block the state until the ruling is complete or overturned on appeals.
I love playing poker and its not the reason I appose this ruling. This is going to be a much larger problem is a state can take control of a domain name because of state laws.
In some states just recently the opposed gay marriage, so that means those states would have the legal right to take over any domain registered in the US and accessible to the state if the site is pro gay marriage.
Some counties that are dry and do not sell alcohol, several of those counties are in Kentucky (55), Texas (74), Mississippi (1/2) and restrict the production, advertising, sale, distribution, or transportation of alcoholic beverages within their boundaries. Now couldn't the mayor of one of the counties seize any site advertising alcohol including the production companies.
