For players who want to participate in any of these contests you must appear in-person to enter. After the first week however, many of them accept ‘proxies’. A proxy is a person that the contestant would designate to be eligible to enter the picks each week. Players can use friends or relatives but may also find a company or person that does this throughout the football season. One of them is Tom Thompsen. He has run a reputable proxy service in Las Vegas for the last three years. Interested players can contact Tom at tmt228@sbcglobal.net.

Below are a smattering of the most popular (and affordable) season-long contests with a deadline before the season starts.

The Super Contest at the Las Vegas Hilton is one of the most popular and longest standing contests in Vegas. As in previous years a $1,500 entry fee is required and entries are limited to two per person. Proxies are allowed and must sign up with contestant. The Contest: Entrants pick five NFL games against the spread each week. First prize is 40 percent of all entry fees. Winners are paid through 20th place. The Hilton also gives an aggregate $10,000 bonus for anyone who picks over 67 percent. Sign-up by 4 p.m. Monday, Sept. 6, to be eligible for a free $10,000 winner-take-all contest on the last three weeks of the regular season. Selections are due by 11 a.m. Saturday each week, unless playing a Thursday game, then all five plays due before the scheduled kickoff of Thursday’s game. The deadline to sign up and get first week’s entry in is 11 a.m. Saturday, Sept. 11. Get more on this contest here.

The Pro Football Survivor Contest at Wynn Las Vegas has a $100 entry fee with a maximum of 10 entries per person. Players must sign up for their Red Card. Proxies are allowed and must show up with contestant to fill out form. The Contest: Players pick one NFL game each week with no spread and if you lose once, you are done. The last person standing wins entire prize pool. The pool offers a guaranteed minimum $100,000 prize. Each week the games with highest spreads will be excluded starting with one the first week and proggressing during the season. Selections must be made on Saturdays by 11:59 p.m. or one hour prior to kickoff of games earlier in the week.

Leroy’s Sportsbooks offer multiple contests, as they do every season. All of the contest are available at all Leroy’s outlets.

The Leroy’s College Challenge requires a $250 entry fee. There is a limit of five entries per person. This contest lasts 12 weeks using Saturday games only from Sept. 11 through Nov. 27. The Contest: Contestants pick seven college games against the spread (all games are half-points) from a list of up to 50 games. First prize is 30 percent of all entry fees, which would be $30,000 based on 400 entries, but will adjusted depending on the final number of entries. Multiple contestants can win in this one with prizes paid through 40th place. In addition, 5 percent of the prize pool will go to the winner of a mini-contest over the final four weeks. The deadline to sign up is 4 p.m. Friday, Sept. 10 and selections are due by 5 p.m. each Friday. There is a very similar Pro Challenge based on Sunday’s and Monday’s NFL games only. The prize structure is the same as the College Challenge.

In addition, Leroy’s offers a contest with just a $25 entry fee. The Three N Out contest limits entries to 5 per person. The Contest: Players pick just one NFL spread or total with all lines set at half-points. The last person standing wins entire prize pool and if all remaining contestants are eliminated in the same week, they split prize equally. Picks must be made each week before the scheduled kickoff time of the game used. The deadline to sign up is 4 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 11. Leroy’s will also a free entry into a separate midseason Three N Out starting on Oct. 24 for anyone who plays the first three weeks of the the aforementioned contest and loses all three games. Get the scoop on all three Leroy’s contests here.

Station Casinos, Fiesta Casinos and Wildfire Casinos will offer thier Last Man Standing NFL and College contests for just a $25 entry fee each. There is a maximum of five entries per person and buying four will get one free. The Contest(s): Players pick one NFL game against the spread each week with all spreads will utilizing half-points. Since this is a Last Man contest, if you lose once, you’re out. The last contestant standing wins entire prize pool - for Pro, a guaranteed minimum $75,000 and for college, $25,000. $100,000 bonus is up for grabs if someone wins both the college and pro Last Man Standing contests. Each week selections must be made before the scheduled kickoff time of the game used. The deadline to sign up is 9 a.m. Sunday, Sept. 12.

Player who are looking to enter a contest for FREE and play from the comfort of thier own homes can enter either the OSGA Progressive Pick ‘em or the OSGA Last Man Standing contest. The two contests are distinct, but share in common over $2500 worth of prizes with absolutely NO ENTRY FEE.

After a successful season-long contest last year, we have again introduced
the 2010 OSGA Progressive Pick ‘em. This contest is actually two contests
in one. A weekly prize of a $100 betting account at BetOnline plus a
progressive contest that builds throughout the season. Each week OSGA players
vie for a $100 free betting account by picking each game straight up with no
point spreads involved. The progressive part of the contest asks a player
to get every game on the board correct. The prize is $100 weekly but grows
every week no one selects all games correctly.

Though a perfect week seems likely throughout an entire season, last year’s Progressive Pick ‘Em saw no player get all games on the board correct.
Therefore, at the end of the season players with the top win-loss records
split a generous rollover pot. The contest winner collected a cool $850 cash,
courtesy of OSGA.

A fun, new handicapping challenge from the OSGA is a Last Man Standing
Contest. Each week players need only pick one single winner again, straight
up. But, throughout the course of the entire NFL season, no team can be
selected twice. This is a “one-and-done” event with a losing pick getting you
instantly bounced from the competition.

The contest is co-sponsored by Badlands Gambling Hall who are offering up
huge FREE BETTING ACCOUNTS for the top four finishers including a $1000
free gambling account for the Last Man Standing. Easy pickins’, right?
After all, who can’t pick 1 NFL winner a week straight-up? Well..for those who
manage to slip-up is a $25 Free Play consolation prize courtesy of
Badlands during the contest’s first month.

If last year is any indication, players cannot only expect a good time but
weekly prizes and huge payoffs at the end of the season. Get on board
today for both the Progressive Contest AND the Last Man Standing Contest. We’re happy to bring these annual FREE football contests to the
OSGA nation and wish everyone who enters, good luck!

This week BetED launched a brand new website largely based on user feedback and input. The new site features improved graphics, a crisp, clean new look and a streamlined betting center. The company has also expanded the ‘Clubhouse’ section of the website with in-depth previews, special members-only contests and added columnists aimed at satisfying the real sports fan. BetED told us that this site will enable them to offer more odds on more teams, leagues and events than ever before. “If you can bet on it, we’ve got it,” a company spokesman stated.

Over the last month or so Hollywood Sportsbook has finally moved into the 21st century with a new look website, packed with fun features. This is the first site update we have seen from Hollywood in at least 5 years but it look like it was worth the wait. Updated last month, the website features a slick look, unique content and stats, new casino games, a new poker platform and the Hollywood Hotties! The sportsbook is also getting ready for football with cash bonuses, a new loyalty program and upcoming free contests.

This is the time of year that many books create huge offers to attract players for football and the bonuses are beginning to pile up. However, players are urged to read the fine print of any offer before sending any money. An accounting firm must have travelled to the Caribbean and Latin America as offshore books have really crunched the numbers to ensure that the bonus structure in 2010 is also sound business-wise. Where many books used to offer big bonuses with 4, 5, or 6 time rollover, now any bonus in excess of 50% is almost a guaranteed to have a rollover in excess of 10 times. We also are seeing many offers that increase with the amount of deposit a player sends offshore. But, keep in mind, this will also increase the amount of rollover or the amount of times that the deposit+bonus must be wagered before collecting the bonus can become a reality.

Still, there are some great offers out there and for a true player, the rollovers are easily achievable for anyone who wagers consistently throughout the football season. And one book even asked for our input for an exclusive offer.

The offer that OSGA had some input with is over at Badlands. They asked us to provide input from our call center and email database. We gladly assisted them to come up with an offer based on player feedback and Badlands just released a 25+25 bonus exclusive to OSGA visitors. The offer includes both a LIFETIME 25% free play bonus on deposits of $100-$5,000 with a low 4x roll over. That means that as long as you are a Badlands customer you will get a 25% free play bonus on EVERY deposit made I excess of $100. In addition, one of the biggest player peeves is the high cost of payouts. Badlands addressed this need in this exclusive bonus package with lifetime $25 Flat Payout Fee for payouts via check! We are very happy that Badlands sought our advice to come up with something that addresses players wishes. Though this may not be the biggest offer out there, it is an offer that will last a lifetime.

The BetPhoenix brands are offering the “Early Bird Special” – up to 60% bonus based on the size of the deposit. The offer consists of half of the bonus in cash and half of it in free play. For example, if a player deposits $1000, he gets a 20% cash bonus and a 20% free play to use. The bonus amount (and rollovers) increases with larger deposits. Similar offers can also be found at BetMania and WagerChief. WagerWeb also offers up a bonus that grows with the size of deposit. At this Costa Rican book you can receive up to 100% free play if you are willing to send at least $500. The offer can work for smaller players too as a deposit of $25 – $250 will get new players a bonus of up to 50%. And BetOnline also gets into the act with their progressive bonus structure. Players can start with as little as a $50 and get a 10% free play with only a 3X rollover. The bonus gets bigger as the deposit increases until a player sending $2000 or more can grab a 45% free play with a reasonable 8X rollover.

Not to be outdone, 5Dimes is offering the most free play we have ever seen from them with their “50% Plus” bonus program. New Player deposits from $100 to $400 will receive a 50% Free-Play Reward, up to a total of $200 in Free-Play. Here’s the Plus… if the deposit amount exceeds $400, and is up to $2000, it will also qualify for an EXTRA 20% Free-Play Reward.

It’s shopping season, so we urge players to check our Sportsbook Bonus page, which gets updated as new bonuses are released. We tell players ever year to make sure that the offer is not just a big bonus, but also features requirements that they are able to fulfill. Good Luck shopping!

Whoa there! This bill is far from passing anything except for a committee vote. Though this is a serious step in the right direction towards legalizing and regulating online gambling, this small victory is like a win in April for a MLB team. There are still many games to be played and many battles to be won for H.R. 2267. There will be many hurdles and many more hearings before H.R. 2267 becomes anything more than ‘Barney Frank’s gambling bill’.

The biggest thing that shows the road ahead is long and winding was from the vote on Wednesday was when Frank mentioned, when questioned, that he would like to position his bill alongside a bill that outlines what taxes and revenues his Internet gambling bill may generate. Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said that he would not be moving H.R. 2267 forward unless it is “married to a revenue bill”! Frank is referring to Rep. Jim McDermott’s Interenet gambling ‘Internet gambling tax’ bill, H.R. 2268. However, while Frank’s billl has significant support with 70 co-sponsors, McDermott’s revenue-generating legislation has only 5 co-sponsors and has not seen any movement since it was introuced alongside Frank’s bill last year.

Most likely H.R. 2268 will head down the same path as H.R. 2267 with a series of hearings, followed by a vote. But, this will not happen until after the Congressional recess, which lasts until Labor Day. By September candidates up for re-election will be busy trying to keep their jobs and will most likely have little time or enthusiasm for any forms of gambling. The really unfortunate news is that if nothing is done with this bill before the end of 2010, Internet gambling will be shelved and a new Congress will have to take up the issue all over again – from square one.

But the biggest problem I see with Barney Frank’s bill moving forward is that even if the bill does get a full House vote and passes, it will then have to go to the Senate, where Sen. Menendez from New Jersey has his own ideas on Internet gambling. He introduced S.1597, the Internet Poker and Game of Skill Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act of 2009, in August of ’09 and his bill has fallen flat, with no co-sponsors and no movement. It figures that Frank’s bill and Menedez’ bill would have to find some common ground before the Senate would vote. The chances of all of this happening in the last 4 months of 2010 are an extreme long shot, not even worthy of a $1 wager.

Still, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, introduced by Frank back in May of 2009 has made significant headway towards becoming law. The fact that seven Republicans saw the light and said ‘aye’ with bipartisan spirit, is a fantastic step. That the bill passed through committee overwhelmingly with a 41-22 Yes vote is outstanding. After getting shot down in a tie vote around this time last year, the two-thirds margin shows that lobbyists and common sense and maybe a bit of greed for government coffers are beginning to take hold.

We will keep our eyes and ears to the ground on this piece of legislation but I doubt that we will see much from H.R. 2267 again this year. However, I am very confident that Barney Frank will introduce similar legislation in 2011. Hopefully, Franks 2011 version of the ‘Internet gambling bill’ will include the amendments added this week. Such a bill would get immediate bi-partisan support and whiz through the phases of bureaucracy that took H.R 2267 fifteen months to navigate. One thing is for sure, the issue of Internet gambling is here to stay. For 2010? The recent press and attention that Internet gambling is getting could not have come at a better time. After all, football season is right around the corner.

Wednesday’s hearing on Barney Frank’s bill, H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, started a little late and Chairman Frank rushed through opening statements to get to witnesses. However, there was enough time for Alabama Representative Spencer Bachus (R) to ask “why we would open gambling up to every Blackberry . . . and Ipad.” He added, “How does raking in cash from Internet gambling addicts differ from taking a cut from the heroin sold to drug addicts?”

Now that is some polarizing rhetoric.

Testimony included arguments from both sides of the table. Poker pro Annie Duke, propped up by the Poker Players Alliance, was excellent this time (she had testified in 2008). She must have read my previous BLOG entry because this time around she stressed consumer protection. Players “want to play on sites licensed in the United States, which will provide even greater consumer protections for the player,“ Duke testified. She added “The UIGEA does not keep a single child off an internet gaming site, nor does it provide any protections for problem gamblers or mechanisms to prevent fraud and abuse – it only regulates the banks, not those who operate the games. It is quite candidly a law that appears to be more about burying government’s head in the sand than it is about government providing its citizenry with sensible public policy. H.R. 2267 corrects this untenable posture and puts us in the greatest position to protect consumers and vulnerable populations.” Well said and about time!

Mr. Ed Williams spoke on behalf of the Credit Union National Association and was very eye-opening on what the banks are being forced to do to comply with the UIGEA. “We have handful of transactions that come through and we block all of them because we don’t know which are legal or illegal. He was simply stating that in order to comply that most financial institutions will choose to block all transactions that even appear to be Internet gambling related.

The Honorable Lynn Malerba, Tribal Chairwoman, Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut spoke in favor of H.R. 2267. She mentioned that the Mohegan Tribe had joined forces with other Indian tribes around the country to work with Barney Frank so that “all tribes” can get the benefits of Internet gambling. Unfortunately, she was also the target of Calfornia Rep. Joe Bacca (D). He lambasted her implying that currently the Tribal Nations in the U.S. pay no taxes on the money their casinos generate. She said that is not true and added that the Mohegan Sun pays 25% or its revenue to the state and if possible, she she would prefer the 2% tax in H.R.2267. Bacca claimed that eventually Indian tribes would lose their sovereignty! However, Malerba retorted that she is not fearful of either losing jobs or losing their sovereignty.

Michael K. Fagan, Law Enforcement/Anti-Terrorism Consultant, who was a former prosecutor in St. Louis, railed the entire concept of Internet gambling. He believes that Internet operators will engage in predatory behavior. He wanted to know how the online operator could tell if the player was high or drunk. He took a few softballs from Rep. Bachus and attempted to hit them out of the park citing child behavior that those playing MMOG games would now lose real money instead of virtual points, that identities would be stolen and that most likely it would be the end of civilization as we know it.

One of the big argument that opponents of Internet gambling use time and again in these hearings (Wednesday’s was no different) is that the current prohibition protects our children. I think that Rep. Frank said it best when he said that ‘ the poor children here are being used by people who don’t like gambling.”

Perhaps the best part of the hearing was when Rep. Bachus pulled out a giant picture, so big he had trouble holding it up, showing the headquarters for the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative. It was a picture of a UPS store in Washington, D.C. Rep Frank hit the gavel, making him put it away quickly. Hilarious.

But there is nothing funny about this debate. The sides are so diametrically opposed that there appears to be no middle ground; no compromise in sight. The bill is scheduled for markup (changes) on July 27. Unfortunately, it does not appear that Rep. Frank and others will ever be able to include enough alterations to H.R. 2267 to ever get the other side to see the light.

The 1 hour and 18 minute hearing was called by Governmental Organization Committee Chair Senator Roderick D. Wright (D-25), who desperately wants to make Internet poker a reality in California. However, after seeing the opposing views of tribal gaming, current California land-based cardrooms and others, he decided to pull the bill, for now. Evident in his opening remarks Wright mentioned that, “We still have more work to do”.

The charismatic Wright made several emphatic statements at the outset of the hearing. “The world isn’t standing still while we figure out what to do” and “The longer we wait, the more difficult it will be to get that business back.” He is obviously right. The online poker world continues to chug along.

Overall, I got the feeling from watching the proceedings that this was not a question of if there is going to be Intrastate Internet poker in California, but when it will start. In fact, I am 100% confident that this was not the end of SB 1485, but that this bill is

the beginning

of online poker in California.

After several Senators got their chance to chime in on the legislation, the panel took comments from the floor. Every single speaker was supportive of the bill except for the Reverend James B. Butler from the California Commission Against the Expansion of Gambling (CCAGE). No shocker there. He was given a large amount of time and even got into a little back and forth with the Chair, who had obviously spent a good deal of time reviewing problem gambling. In response to the Reverend Butler, Wright said, “I can manage the downside of gambling better on the Internet”, than brick and mortar casinos can.

Unfortunately, even though all but one speaker supported the bill, they all had a “but” in their responses. Irish bookmaking giant Paddy Power was again present and emphasized current operators (no shock there). So did the Poker Players Alliance and the Poker Voters of America, who think that players should have a bigger choice than the three licenses that are being proposed.

Senator Wright acknowledged that there may be an issue of liquidity, which has doomed many an Internet poker room. Liquidity refers to the amount of players that are registered and play on a regular basis. He also added that due to the size of the state and the estimated number of gamblers that California is one of only a handful of states (including New York and New Jersey) that would have enough players on their own to host the games. He thinks that in the future the Federal government may allow smaller states’ players to wager across state lines for the sake of liquidity, adding that it “behooves” California to get in “first”.

No one could contest, Wright has done his homework. He even figured out that perhaps it was not in the best interested of California to keep it all within the state, correctly mentioning not all of California lies within the Pacific Time Zone. Therefore, a player signing on at 5AM might not find much of a poker game. He was hinting that in a truly competitive environment California players could be playing against players from England or Russia, if a license was given to an existing global operator.

And ultimately, California may find that that is the solution. How many players are going to suspend play in their existing accounts at Full Tilt or Poker Stars to try the California game? Legislators are shooting for 50% of the existing market. But, these and other current poker giants have zero chance at getting into the game. The legislation will have an article written into it where any operator who has taken bets from U.S. citizens post-UIGEA will NOT be allowed to get a California license. This bill would mark the end of the game for current operators who allow U.S. players.

But, this bill and the political rhetoric make it ‘Game On’ for California. There is no doubt about it, Californians will be getting their Internet Poker. Not in 2010 and maybe not in 2011, but Senator Wright is proving he is a very resourceful and smart guy. Not only has he done his homework, he made SB 1485 an Urgency Bill, so that it may be continually amended. And it certainly will be, until they “get it right” and the citizens of California are playing poker, LEGALLY, on the Internet.

From the moment I got off the plane in Panama, there were signs of the World Cup. People from all walks of life were wearing jerseys from soccer teams around the world. Brazil and Spain appeared to be very popular ones smattered with England, Mexico and Portugal. On the way to the airport, I asked the taxi driver about World Cup fever.

“Oh Ches. De World Cup is berry big down here.” But, Panama does not have a team in the tournament, I remarked. “Every body picks dare team or where dare grandfadders and modders come from”, I was told. Apparently, his team is Brazil, which looks like a solid pick.

Upon arriving at the hotel, all of the employees were all wearing the same colored shirt – orange - for the Dutch squad. Apparently, the parent company that owns the hotel is Dutch. Then it’s off to the hotel bar, where four extra 40 inch flat screens were sitting on tables for all to watch. As one English-speaking local told me, “At my little local bar, there are 6 brand-new plasmas. It’s not that big a place, it’s like there is plasma overload in there.”

On one trip around Panama City in the afternoon, I noticed far less traffic in what is normally a congested area. I was told by that taxi driver that, “everyone is watching futbol.” So, with all of this, and the next several days of soccer, soccer and more soccer, I have been converted. A 0-0 tie really can be exciting. And watching the English bemoan their team and the French cry in their wine, the World Cup has become quite exciting for this American.

And, I am not the only one. Handle is up throughout Latin America and Caribbean sportsbooks. Industry giant Bodog told us that, “We are seeing great action through the first matches of the World Cup. The handle is comparable to an NFL Sunday regular season game.” Sill, 5Dimes is seeing even more wagers than that! “Action is about double what we expected. We expected similar action to a typical NFL Monday night football game. We’re getting double that”, the top man at 5D told us.

One reason for the exceptional handle might be in the outcomes of some of the early games where a number of soccer ‘giants’ went down. 5Dimes added that “this World Cup has exceeded expectations to this point.” And this is only destined to increase.

The belief offshore (and a valid one) is that the handle in the next round will even larger, as bettors get a better grasp on who is playing well, Bodog expects the 2nd round wagering to be “comparable to an NFL first round playoff game.”

Of course, some games will get more bets then others depending on the teams playing, just like in the NFL. But powerhouse countries like Spain, Brazil and Germany will see a good deal of action. And of course, for sportsbooks that service the American market, they can expect to see a ton of bets on the U.S. But, book who have an international clientele, like Bodog, with Canadian, European and South American clients, will get wagers on both teams and thus balance the action.

So have American bettors embraced the World Cup? Yes, is the definitive answer. And for books that take U.S. bets, with clients who have new affinity for soccer betting, GOOOAAAL is the word of the month.

On a side note, in the U.S. the ESPN announcers really do not do the sport justice. International commentators really get into the match. You can have a beer in your hand, turned away from the bar, and hear when it is time to watch the flat screen. The excitement builds in the announcer and the viewers, all waiting to hear the afore mentioned scream of GOOOAAAL! Great stuff, but not on a TV set in America.

BetED, based in Costa Rica told us that “From the initial figures the turnover has exceeded even our highest expectations based on historical data.” Throughout Costa Rica books are experiencing high volume and U.S. facing books are seeing an interesting phenomenon. Though teams like the U.S., England and Germany expect to draw large handle, “the World Cup is the only international tournament where your roots mean more than your birthplace/citizenship”, added BetED’s senior sportsbook manager. Apparently, throughout North America, players are betting with their heritage and teams like Italy, Brazil, Argentina and Spain also have a large amount for futures for winning the Cup.

We also have heard the ‘live’ betting or ‘in-game’ betting has been a big draw. BetED mentioned that the “highest growth we have seen is in our World Cup InPlay” (their brand of live betting). Not surprising from U.S.-based players who can bet on quarters in basketball, first 5-innings in baseball and instant-gratifying props galore during the NFL season.

As expected, the Spain upset proved profitable offshore. WagerWeb commented, “obviously the match with Spain vs Switzerland was a HUGE decision for us.” The 1-0 upset for the Swiss has been the biggest shocker so far. Not to mention that the inordinate amount of ties and low scoring in the first several days of competition also increased bettors woes. The biggest match on the board so far ended in a bookies dream decision. When the U.S./England match ended in a tie, offshore operators were dancing in the street. Surprisingly, BetED and several other books had a large decision fall their way when the host country South Africa drew against Mexico, who were the favorites going into the match.

However, the tournament has not been all peaches and cream for the bookmakers. Sportsbooks across the board got hammered in the Germany vs. Australia match. The spread was between -1.0 and -0.5,-1.0 goals while the action was all on Germany. The emphatic 4-0 win took much of the profits made in early matches off of the table.

It looks like we finally will get to see some scoring and most likely some increased action as the weaker teams get weeded out. Every sportsbook we spoke to expects to see increased handle as the competition becomes better and the odds grow tighter. If some of the more powerful teams like England and Spain can get back into form, bettors can expect a wild ride in what has been a muddled start to the World Cup.

One of the biggest sticking points for Frank and the banks was what constitutes a payment to an ‘illegal’ online gambling operator. After all, no one in this administration or any previous ones has been able to actually define what that ‘illegal online gambling’ is, and thus banks and payment processors really do not know which transactions to block. The fear amongst Frank and his legislative buddies was not only the cost to financial institutions (always a biggie when you have the ear of the banking lobbyists), but the fear that any suspected transactions, including legitimate ones, would be denied.

The OSGA has been getting swamped with inquiries as to what would happen come June 1. We have been telling players since the passage of the UIGEA, that the movement of money for the purposes of gambling online, except for U.S.-based horse racing sites and lotteries, is illegal because of the 2006 law. We also have spoken with online gaming companies worldwide who tell repetitive horror stories, usually involving getting money back to players in the States. In reality, the banks are already doing more due diligence on ‘suspected’ transactions. We have reported on many companies that process money back to U.S. players which have been shut down and had funds confiscated for several years. As it turns out, the effects of this law have already been felt, and it’s not yet June.

Last week we got a disturbing report that a player had his debit card shut down by his local bank. Apparently, he had made several deposits with an online gaming operation located off of U.S. soil. These transactions were identified as illegal and his debit card was shut down, I guess so that he could make no further deposits with it. This is quite alarming, as it was not the transactions that were blocked, it was the players debit card that was shut down. His account remained open, but his card was shut down.

This may be an example of the frustration that the banks are going to have with ambiguous rules and regulations. Unfortunately for everyone, the UIGEA makes financial institutions police, judge and executioner. They will simply block first and ask questions later. In New Hampshire and North Dakota, overblocking led to denial of legal online lottery purchases several years ago. The blocking of legitimate transaction is one of the biggest arguments against the ambiguous UIGEA. Yet, who can blame the banking system? They will be fined if they process money to/from an Internet gambling house, even if they just missed a check or debit.

It is important to keep in mind that the UIGEA was not written to go after any player sending money offshore or receiving payouts from gaming companies. Instead, it enforces steep penalties on financial institutions for allowing ‘illegal Internet gambling’ transactions to occur.

The same player continued to have bad luck at his bank. The same week as the debit card incident, he went to the bank to deposit a check he had received for a payout from the same book. The bank claimed that the check was bad, and was looking for additional information. Instead the customer checked with the book, found out that the check was indeed good and simply asked the bank to redeposit it. Of course, the check cleared. And of course . . . once it did . . . the player opened an account at another bank.

This player’s story and his particular bank may be an isolated incident, or this case may be the tip of the iceberg. No one can be 100% sure. But this one occurrence should show players at Internet sportsbooks, casinos and poker rooms, that these regulations are making a real impact, implemented or not. Though we believe that the online gaming companies that service U.S. players are always one step ahead of the long arm of U.S. law, you can never be too safe with your money. Players should take care with how they are sending and receiving money and now, more than ever, keep an eye on balances.

If you have had a problem with your bank and the UIGEA regulations, please add your comments below.

And Big Money is what was being discussed. How ‘bout $42 billion over ten years! That is the figure that was thrown out early by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who had to leave almost immediately after his testimony to take care of slightly more important national issues, like legislation designed to boost bank lending to small businesses. 40-plus billion is a huge number and is predicated on McDermott’s complex tax scheme involving operators paying a 2 percent tax on customer deposits, a one-quarter percent tax on wagers and the tax generated from gamblers who would now pay on their winnings in the form of a 1099 at the end of the year from their favorite online casino.

A good deal time was spent exploring the deposit tax. Several senators could not fathom that there would be a tax when making a deposit. They likened this as to a tax when a consumer ‘walks into Sears to buy a refrigerator with $1000 in their pocket’ and is taxed, whether a purchase is made or not. This line of archaic thinking came from multiple sources at the hearing. Finally towards the end of the hearing McDermott brought some sense to the argument noting that gamblers are not the ‘type of people’ to leave their money in the account. “That money to be deposited will be gambled”, said McDermott.

Even though this was supposed to be a hearing on the tax bill, it quickly turned into the usual point-counterpoint on the rewards/evils of online gambling. Opinions were all over the place with some legislators hitting on points that seemed to have nothing to do with the taxation of Internet gambling. Job creation, problem gambling, and the who, what and when of regulation were discussed. Advocates made legitimate arguments while opponents brought up much of the tired commentary that led to the current prohibitions.

Once again Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), architect of the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA), brought up the suicide of a constituent. Though these stories are sad, the constant reminder of them brings to mind Tipper Gore saying that heavy metal music and Ozzy Osbourne prompted kids to kill themselves and others in the 80s. Rep. Wally Herger (R-Calif.) wanted to know at the outset why there was “even a hearing being held” when 317 legislators voted for the UIGEA. He did not reveal that the UIGEA was attached in the 11th hour to a homeland security bill that was pretty much a slam-dunk for passage.

Clearly Herger is obviously an opponent, as is Goodlatte, who spent a good deal of time being grilled by regulation advocates including, Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). However, Goodlatte takes a unique approach when being questioned. When asked, he punts and allows State’s rights to play defense for him. The questioning of Goodlatte went something like this. Q: Bingo. Goodlatte: States rights. Q: Poker. G: State rights. I think if it were up to Bob Goodlatte, we would have no Federal Laws, the states should be able to regulate every aspect of life.

There are clearly lines being drawn between supporters of Internet gambling and those that think the current prohibition is the best way for the country to go. Rep. Blumenauer commented that after the UIGEA legislation “people are still playing” and Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA) said that we are doing nothing more than “taxing what is already going on offshore”. Rep. Shelley Berkely (D-NV) added in that she supports legislation and regulation, but cannot give the OK to this tax bill. I guess Las Vegas thinks they pay enough taxes already. There was talk of limiting funding to political campaigns via gambling proceeds and whether the IRS will need more people and what about the Tribal Nations and their gambling? Clearly this is going to take some time . . .

Here are a couple of my favorite quotes from the two and half hour hearing.

Danny Davis, (D-IL) (neutral): “I think freedom of choice is a real concept.”
Sanchez, (D-CA) (for): “Today we are talking about a revenue stream.”
Earl Pomeroy, (D-ND) (against): “We can’t gamble our way back to a balanced budget.”

These three quotes are a microcosm of the realization that Federal legislation for Internet gambling is still a long way away from any type of resolution. The two sides are so far apart they cannot even get together on the most important aspect of legalization and regulation, at least as far as the government is concerned – how to collect the money. As long as legislators like Bob Goodlatte keep bringing up letters from States Attorney Generals and the sports leagues and the FBI and is allowed to put them into the record (again and again) then the road is long and uphill for legalization in the U.S. In the meantime, U.S. gamblers keep playing, offshore companies continue to benefit and the American consumer is the one who loses.