All Categories› Poker› Poker Chat

You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!

DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites

1…456810

Comments

  • AMYBRAMYBR
    edited April 2011
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites:
    Good job it hasnt been on tv over here as the plonkers in government here may take note and try taxing us!
    Posted by donkeyplop
    Very true about government here and ty for the links.

    I just thought the story would have broke bigger here.  Wasnt sure if it was good spin, selective mediaship or just that our networks dont really care.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BrownnDogBrownnDog
    edited April 2011
    Gambling actually use to be taxed in the UK but GORDON BROWN actually abolished it after Labour came to power in 1997.

    The reason he abolished it was because it was actually costing the exchequer revenue because people were gambling through foreign betting and gaming companies were winnings wernt taxed.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TWRAMYEPTWRAMYEP
    edited April 2011
    could be wrong but as far as I understood it, punters were taxed 10% then 9% then the bookies on there profits.

    Edit: This is just from memory if someone could verify above :)
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TWRAMYEPTWRAMYEP
    edited April 2011
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites:
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites : Very true about government here and ty for the links. I just thought the story would have broke bigger here .  Wasnt sure if it was good spin, selective mediaship or just that our networks dont really care.
    Posted by AMYBR
    Its down to popularity and understanding imo, its only a big story to the community and the industry and it was States thing
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AMYBRAMYBR
    edited April 2011
    yeah i guess.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TWRAMYEPTWRAMYEP
    edited April 2011
    Do you recal the responces and the ignorant comments you may have got from non-poker playing people when you mention you play poker? Its way from mainstream
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TommyDTommyD
    edited April 2011
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites:
    Gambling actually use to be taxed in the UK but GORDON BROWN actually abolished it after Labour came to power in 1997. The reason he abolished it was because it was actually costing the exchequer revenue because people were gambling through foreign betting and gaming companies were winnings wernt taxed.
    Posted by BrownnDog
    Ahhh, the good old days where I used to argue with a friend about if it's better to pay the tax on a racing bet with the stake or on the winnings.  We still never finished that one.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TWRAMYEPTWRAMYEP
    edited April 2011
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites:
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites : Ahhh, the good old days where I used to argue with a friend about if it's better to pay the tax on a racing bet with the stake or on the winnings.  We still never finished that one.
    Posted by TommyD
    Concidering most all of punters are long time losers, it was probably best to pay tax on winnings since you pay tax on less money.

    Example: lifetime wages = £10,000 of tax at 10% =  £1000
                  Winnings £8000 with tax = £800  

                  £800<£1000           
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TommyDTommyD
    edited April 2011
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites:
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites : Concidering most all of punters are long time losers, it was probably best to pay tax on winnings since you pay tax on less money. Example: lifetime wages = £10,000 of tax at 10% =   £1000               Winnings £8000 with tax = £800                 £800<£1000           
    Posted by TWRAMYEP
    That was my side of the argument.  My friend was a regular sports better with an invincibility complex.  Last time I saw him was about five years ago and he had become a poker pro.  I haven't seen him in the press or with any great shakes on Hendon Mob so either he's mainly a cash man or he may have had a misunderstanding.  Hope he's doing well, lovely bloke but with a degen streak.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited April 2011

    There have been a number of revelations in the DoJ documents. It's not a huge surprise that there were some shady dealings going on in order to facilitate USA players deposits and withdrawals. The complexity is rather startling though. The most startling thing to be revealed is the amount of rake these sites were generating from money deposited into the site. It's estimated they were raking between 40% and 50% of every dollar deposited.

    I find that a staggering percentage.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • loonytoonsloonytoons
    edited April 2011
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites:
    There have been a number of revelations in the DoJ documents. It's not a huge surprise that there were some shady dealings going on in order to facilitate USA players deposits and withdrawals. The complexity is rather startling though. The most startling thing to be revealed is the amount of rake these sites were generating from money deposited into the site. It's estimated they were raking between 40% and 50% of every dollar deposited. I find that a staggering percentage.
    Posted by elsadog
    Not really, because the rake keeps on rolling around and around, you try HU say £!00 each, the winner say comes off with £189 and the site £11, the player then plays someone else with £100 and the same thing, win or lose the outlay is regurgitated and the rake sucked up again, keep repeating this and 40 -50 percent is highly achievablle
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TommyDTommyD
    edited April 2011
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites:
    There have been a number of revelations in the DoJ documents. It's not a huge surprise that there were some shady dealings going on in order to facilitate USA players deposits and withdrawals. The complexity is rather startling though. The most startling thing to be revealed is the amount of rake these sites were generating from money deposited into the site. It's estimated they were raking between 40% and 50% of every dollar deposited. I find that a staggering percentage.
    Posted by elsadog
    I disagree on the face of it but I need more detail on how they are calculating this.  If it's flat deposit total v rake generated by that account this is an easy number to hit.  I've been doing some admin on my records this morning and just seen I have paid just short of 8K in rake on DYM's in the last 12 months alone.  I have not deposited anywhere near 8K on this site in total, let alone for the last year.  And this doesn't include MTTs, Cash etc etc etc.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited April 2011
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites:
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites : Not really, because the rake keeps on rolling around and around, you try HU say £!00 each, the winner say comes off with £189 and the site £11, the player then plays someone else with £100 and the same thing, win or lose the outlay is regurgitated and the rake sucked up again, keep repeating this and 40 -50 percent is highly achievablle
    Posted by loonytoons
    What it means is that it's a bit of a money merry-go-round. You can't take one aspect, such as HU, in isolation. MTT players pay a fixed one off rake per tournament, as do STT players. Cash players are paying by the hand. This is 50% of every Dollar or Pound depsoited onto the site. Winning players aren't depositing. The rake and the money won by the winning players comes from the losers and it's more or less a 50/50 split.  I find that a very high percentage in favour of the rake.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited April 2011
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites:
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites : I disagree on the face of it but I need more detail on how they are calculating this.  If it's flat deposit total v rake generated by that account this is an easy number to hit.  I've been doing some admin on my records this morning and just seen I have paid just short of 8K in rake on DYM's in the last 12 months alone.  I have not deposited anywhere near 8K on this site in total, let alone for the last year.  And this doesn't include MTTs, Cash etc etc etc.
    Posted by TommyD
    Again you are not looking at the big picture. What you paid in rake is personal only to you, and is dependent on your win/lose ratio. The fact that you didn't deposit and paid a lot of rake just means you are winning overall.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TommyDTommyD
    edited April 2011
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites:
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites : Again you are not looking at the big picture. What you paid in rake is personal only to you, and is dependent on your win/lose ratio. The fact that you didn't deposit and paid a lot of rake just means you are winning overall.
    Posted by elsadog
    As I stated in my post I want to see how they made these calculations.  Give me a formula and I'll know how they came to this figure.  I wasn't talking about the big picture, my post was purely on the math and how that figure is not staggering if it was worked out in the way I stated.  If it is flat rake taken = 50% of total deposits taken this is no where near surprising.  You'll have casual/one off players around 10%-20%, regular losing players around 30%-40% and winning players anywhere between 100%-massive-percent.  There are less winning players than losing/casual/one off players so the percentage can easily be leveled off around the 50% mark.

    I didn't particularly want to get into this because the situation in the states is so deep in politics a logical argument doesn't completely apply.  But hey, what else have I got to do?  I'll jump into the DOJ documents and see what I can see.

    Elsadog, while I'm doing that:

    1)  Can you give me a source for the figure please?  (Don't want a link, don't trust links around this right now after the Trojan scare).
    2)  Your tone about this amount is it's wrong and the sites are taking advantage of players, why?
    3)  Are the DOJ charging the site founders for money laundering rules that are contrary to the Internet Gaming Act or the older established fraud laws?

    Cheers
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited April 2011
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites:
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites : As I stated in my post I want to see how they made these calculations.  Give me a formula and I'll know how they came to this figure.  I wasn't talking about the big picture, my post was purely on the math and how that figure is not staggering if it was worked out in the way I stated.  If it is flat rake taken = 50% of total deposits taken this is no where near surprising.  You'll have casual/one off players around 10%-20%, regular losing players around 30%-40% and winning players anywhere between 100%-massive-percent.  There are less winning players than losing/casual/one off players so the percentage can easily be leveled off around the 50% mark. I didn't particularly want to get into this because the situation in the states is so deep in politics a logical argument doesn't completely apply.  But hey, what else have I got to do?  I'll jump into the DOJ documents and see what I can see. Elsadog, while I'm doing that: 1)  Can you give me a source for the figure please?  (Don't want a link, don't trust links around this right now after the Trojan scare). 2)  Your tone about this amount is it's wrong and the sites are taking advantage of players, why? 3)  Are the DOJ charging the site founders for money laundering rules that are contrary to the Internet Gaming Act or the older established fraud laws? Cheers
    Posted by TommyD
    You can find all that information safely by going to the 2+2 forum. It's quite a trawl though. GL
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TommyDTommyD
    edited April 2011
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites:
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites : You can find all that information safely by going to the 2+2 forum. It's quite a trawl though. GL
    Posted by elsadog
    I was worried you were going to say 2+2 please tell me it's not in News, Views and Gossip.  If you want to see a staggering percentage try looking at sense v nonsense percentage in that one.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited April 2011
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites:
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites : I was worried you were going to say 2+2 please tell me it's not in News, Views and Gossip.  If you want to see a staggering percentage try looking at sense v nonsense percentage in that one.
    Posted by TommyD

    I have looked and it's very amusing but in the early part there is a safe link to the DoJ document which outlines the site's method of generating income from the rake and it gives a percentage of money deposited in that.

    As far as being ''normal and expected'' I don't agree. It's certainly not a figure I expected. If it were broken down to a single cash table where each player came in with £100 at a ten seater and played to the last man standing the winning player would finish with £500 and the rake would be $500 based on 50%. You can multiply the numbers up but the result is the same.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BelovedLtdBelovedLtd
    edited April 2011
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites:
    There have been a number of revelations in the DoJ documents. It's not a huge surprise that there were some shady dealings going on in order to facilitate USA players deposits and withdrawals. The complexity is rather startling though. The most startling thing to be revealed is the amount of rake these sites were generating from money deposited into the site. It's estimated they were raking between 40% and 50% of every dollar deposited. I find that a staggering percentage.
    Posted by elsadog
    I don't know where the 40-50% figure comes from, I've read all 57 pages of the indictment and the only figure mentioned is "...approximately one third or more..." of the deposits.

    Note the 'approximately', i.e. they're guessing.

    At first I thought even 1/3 seemed a bit high - but then I realised it was obviously down to the circulation of money on the sites. When you deposit you enter a tournament and pay some rake - whoever wins the tournament gets the money you paid minus the rake and enters another tournament; now your deposit has paid 2 lots of rake. Repeat that with the person who wins that tournament and so on and so on and you see that each persons deposit keeps on paying more rake until somebody cashes out (and similarly per hand on the cash tables). In that context, 'approximately one third' sounds about right to me.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TommyDTommyD
    edited April 2011
    Got this on the screen while searching the threads in that other place, guess it's been a while:


    Welcome, TD.
    You last visited: 10-28-2009 at 12:48 AM
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BelovedLtdBelovedLtd
    edited April 2011
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites:
    ... 3)  Are the DOJ charging the site founders for money laundering rules that are contrary to the Internet Gaming Act or the older established fraud laws? Cheers
    Posted by TommyD
    It's a mixture

    The consensus seems to be that the sites have to prove that internet poker isn't illegal gambling - that will make the money laundering charges and most of the associated charges go away. The bank fraud seems pretty clear cut but it seems they can argue that there's no victim - therefore no fraud.

    However that's probably all theoretical and is only likely to be applied at pre-hearing stages as the lawyers argue it out. The DoJ seems to have an almost 100% conviction rate, but only because they throw absolutely everything at you when they prosecute - it only takes one charge to stick and they can offer you a deal where you go to prison for 100 years and have a $100bn fine, or plead guilty to everything and have a suspended 3 year sentence and million $'s fines.

    In this case though I reckon they're going to go for a $1bn settlement and an agreement that those individuals can't run a poker site that serves Americans.

    EDIT: NB, you actually covered 3 different items in the quoted point. The bank fraud is when they lied and bribed about the transactions being gambling related, the Internet Gaming act is what relates to depositing on illegal gambling sites - money laundering only means getting rid of illegally gained money and getting legal money in it's place (that's why there's no money laundering if there's no illegal gambling) 
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • aiken2001aiken2001
    edited April 2011

    The rake is recurring every day there is a very small percentage of players who are actual winners over time. the only ones who are are those running the game.

    If your playing mtt then your looking at 10% rake

    If your looking overall cash the 30-50% rate is very feasable. Put 10 people on a table in something like poker academy and set it going and see how long it is before the majority of the money has gone to the rake.

    This is why if your seriously playing cash you need to have a rake deal going or good vip points system.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • IANFRAZERIANFRAZER
    edited April 2011
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites:
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites : I don't think it affects play money lol !
    Posted by IRISHROVER
    lololol
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TommyDTommyD
    edited April 2011
    Elsa

    On reflection I think the 40%-50% can come down a chuck when you take into account:

    Money from rakeback/bonuses redeemed with FPP
    Reload/deposit bonuses
    Freerolls
    Overlay (admittedly this is rare)
    Live event satellites

    The last one on the list would be the biggest amount I think.  When you take into account WSOP, EPT, WPT event tickets one site in particular would have millions leaving the site loop every year but staying within the poker community.

    I've been going through all of those threads and documents available online, still going but one thing I saw surprised me.  Is it true the Unlawful Internet Gaming Act 2006 was clipped onto a bill regarding Port Security at the last minute before Congress voted on it?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • offshootoffshoot
    edited April 2011
    yes, from what i remember there was actually some opposition to the bill, didnt they try to get it through before and it failed? Something like that. Seems kind of shady you can just attach a totally unrelated bill to a 'must pass' one at the eleventh hour. You could get through anything you liked that way.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AJW1976AJW1976
    edited April 2011
    wooooooohoooo just finished the £15 rebuy add on tourney in soton grosvner ,chopped hu cash £290 bagged plus 10 for dealer .superb venure for tourneys.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • stienstien
    edited April 2011
    Here's an explanation I got in answer to a question I posed on another forum..

    To answer the question, UIGEA was whats called a "rider," a relatively minor thing that senators and congressman are able to attach to must-pass legislation that has no chance of not passing and becoming law. Usually things get attached to the budget bill. One example is we just had a massive uproar for the 2011 budget bill, where the republicans wanted to attach a rider that would have de-funded an organization called planned parenthood. Planned Parenthood provides things like cancer screenings, contraceptives, and other women's health services, including abortions and abortion counseling. Now abortions make up 3% of what planned parenthood does, but that was enough for these republicans to try to shut down the whole thing. Obviously, this has nothing to do with the budget, and they failed in getting it passed, and it was a pretty extreme rider. Usually riders are things like a $50k measure to help build something in a certain congressman's district, and those are very standard and happen all the time. Occasionally there are bigger things that get attached like UIGEA, and yes, its incredibly undemocratic, but generally if its a large measure, something controversial, or something very impactful, it has no chance of getting attached because there would be too much opposition. 

    When UIGEA got attached, it was 3 hours before the senate adjourned for the entire 2 year session, and most of the senate didn't care about online gambling, especially with elections happening a month later, no one would have wanted to stand up and make a big scene about online gambling, which is an easy thing for an opponent running against you to spin in very negative light. On top of that, a UIGEA standalone bill did get through the house of representatives with something like a 315-120 vote in favor, a very significant win. Fortunately that bill died in the senate, but that vote certainly provided some political cover and would have discouraged anyone in the senate from trying to stop it. Bill Frist was also the most powerful senator as the majority leader (Our good friend Harry Reid is now the majority leader, and we couldn't have a better majority leader for poker right now), so that also would have made it tough to get his rider shaken off the Safe Ports act. So UIGEA was sort of the perfect storm, and a measure that impactful is definitely not the norm when it comes to riders. 
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • pod1pod1
    edited April 2011
    well done aaron, but what the ell has this got to do with this thread????????????????
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • daltydalty
    edited April 2011
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites:
    SURELY if they couldn't pay out to non US players, they (or someone else) would stop/warn the players. No way would they allow players to continue playing. There would be warnings everywhere? They would have to be closed down immediately? By law? Really tempted to deposit and play some tournys as I keep hearing about these massive overlays, but then people put doubts in my mind. The official line from Stars is that we will get our money right??????? Surely they wouldn't be allowed to say that if it wasn't true. 
    Posted by DOHHHHHHH
    lol at this dohhhhhhh very niaeve mate as you know i work in the betting industry and i can tell you when i was made redundant by pagebet last year we took bets right up till the time the recievers arrived fortunatley for customers in this country there money is first to be paid as customers were top of the creditors list above staff etc but do you think same rules will apply to your funds if they are siezed they want every penny in there i would imagine to cover anything there government throws at em.standard line for everyone in the company when people got suss everthing is fine no need to worry hmmmm
    be very cautious.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BelovedLtdBelovedLtd
    edited April 2011
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites:
    In Response to Re: DOJ indicts U.S. poker sites : lol at this dohhhhhhh very niaeve mate as you know i work in the betting industry and i can tell you when i was made redundant by pagebet last year we took bets right up till the time the recievers arrived fortunatley for customers in this country there money is first to be paid as customers were top of the creditors list above staff etc but do you think same rules will apply to your funds if they are siezed they want every penny in there i would imagine to cover anything there government throws at em.standard line for everyone in the company when people got suss everthing is fine no need to worry hmmmm be very cautious.
    Posted by dalty
    In response to specifically this - it's true that a lot of firms who go bankrupt trade right up until the moment the plug gets pulled, not just gambling related but firms also do things like take orders they know they're not going to deliver for example.

    Partly it's down to the company integrity, but largely this case is different as that only happens when the company knows that it's completely over and they've got nothing to lose. With a temporary problem - which is what these sites faced - then they're going to act responsibly because they have to think about the long term.

    The smallest of the sites indicted has behaved irresponsably inthe past so I wouldn't trust them anyway - but there was never any indication of any real problem with the big 2 -  just a lot scaremongering.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.