Posted by Dr Fro 10:04 AM

Padilla, in answer to your question about WSOP not accepting third party registrations, here is a Link with an interview with an exec from Harrah's

As in 2005 and 2006, Harrah’s will not accepting (sic) third party registrations from online poker sites (.com’s) that do business with U.S. residents. PokerStars.com and PartyPoker.com could not register players directly last year because they did business with American customers. Ladbrokes could because it wasn’t doing business with U.S. residents.

In the midst of this multi-billion purchase is the fate of the WSOP in regards to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which was signed into law on October 13, 2006, long after the final card of the 2006 WSOP had been dealt. The record-breaking field of nearly 9,000 hopefuls entered the Rio, and Jamie Gold walked away with a WSOP bracelet and $12 million. We have tried to figure out the landscape of WSOP in 2007. We have a players advisory committee consisting of several poker professionals who are close to that side of the industry. They’ve come back to us with estimates ranging from 2,000 players in the Main Event to 12,000 players. These are players who are more familiar with it than we are and even they can’t come to a consensus. We just don’t know what the impact on the Main Event will be.

When Harrah’s first heard that the UIGEA had been passed in a last-minute political maneuver, we were very disappointed. We had been under the impression that there would be support for a study of online gambling. The current legislation does nothing to protect consumers nor allows companies to compete on a global scale. It also encourages operators to develop that do not have the best interests of the consumer in mind. What would Harrah’s support, then? We think regulation makes a lot of sense. Online sites would be paying taxes; money would stay in the U.S. instead of flowing overseas. The reality is poker is a quintessential American game. To me personally, it’s like banning football because a couple of players get hurt each year. If Congress tried to ban baseball or football, I would hate to be sitting in Washington when the public’s reaction to banning football came out.

Two things come to mind when I read this:

1. I don't understand what they mean by "as in 2005 and 2006". This is completely untrue.
2. It is complete BS to say that they were disappointed with the legislation. The Congressman to whom Harrah's gives the most money is Bill Frist, author of the bill. Harrah's was the thrust behind it all.

4 Comment(s):

Posted by  Padilla, at 10:30 AM, January 15, 2007  

Might this tie in to the reason that everthing with ".com" on it is covered up at the WSOP, and all the freebies provided and recent TV commercials are ".net"?

Should be interesting to see what happens to the 44 people registered to play in the event from ultimatebet.com. (I'm guessing at least 1 is from the U.S.)

__________________________________________________

Posted by  Dr Fro, at 4:08 PM, January 15, 2007  

the .net replacing .com in the commercials was pursuant to legislation that predated the October 06 law.

Re: ultimatebet, it is not relevant whether the winners of the events are from U.S. What is at issue is whether the site allows U.S. players to gamble. If so, Harrah's will not accept any entries from the site (even entries from non-U.S. winners).

__________________________________________________

Posted by  Anonymous, at 8:08 PM, January 15, 2007  

Not true about Pokerstars last year, entry fees and travel expenses were paid in cash upon arrival in Las Vegas.

__________________________________________________

Posted by  Anonymous, at 8:08 PM, January 15, 2007  

Not true about Pokerstars last year, entry fees and travel expenses were paid in cash upon arrival in Las Vegas.

__________________________________________________

Post a Comment