As a pro, he should know that the 2006 law was based on some (IMHO bizarre) legal rulings about online poker players not having to pay their debts.
It was easier to just outlaw it than try to craft something that would make sense in an online world that resides in a very brick and mortar universe.
Not that I am a big proponent of Nanny State Laws. But if you are going to “analyze” something, you need to analyze it completely (this is directed at the article author, not you fanfan).
I’m not sure I understand your reply, but I do understand your FRiendly tone.
I love being able to learn here, and appreciate posters like you.
:-)
The way I see it, if a guy can hit a baseball well enough to earn a million a year, why can’t a guy who is the best at poker earn his living that way?
I do not see how that applies because the online sites do not offer credit that I am aware of and if what you are saying is true the online sites can have a policy of only accepting “cash” transaction; transfers from a bank account. The law was pushed by GOP Nanny Staters, like Leach and Frist, and other GOPers who were out to protect horse racing (including online waging) like a GOP from western Virginia whose name I forget.
We “outlawed” it in the true sense of the term, we drove the business overseas. Our government at work. /s