Gerhard

Nej, nej! Det ninreb skriver är bara gallimattias för att vara rättfram.

Svinto har rätt. Detta går inte att besvara med sannolikhetskalkyl Alla kan kanske göra en mer eller mindre intelligent gissning. Längre än så kommer man inte. PS. Dessutom är frågan något oprecis. Avses att man får minst 1 fråga som har upprepats?

Som bekant stängdes Party för jänkar för en tid sen. Som bekant var det därmed mycket fisk som försvann. Är det nån som vet vart de tog vägen? Gick de till Poker Stars? Har därmed motståndet på Poker Stars blivit svagare?

Byta avatar är väl enkelt, bara att klicka på något smart ställe... Du kan byta avatar max en gång. Men sen är det slut. Du sitter med din avatar for ever.

Säg att du har ett ess och en kung. Sannolikheten att det första kortet inte är ess eller kung är 44/50. Sannolikheten att det andra inte är det om det första inte var det är 43/49. Analogt för tredje kortet 42/48. Sannolikheten för inget ess eller kung alls = 44/50*43/49*42/48 = 0,676. Sannolikheten för minst ett ess eller minst en kung = 1 – 0,676 = 0,324. Om du vill ha det som odds blir det 676:324 vilket är ungefär 2,1 : 1. PS bordet kan ju para sig men jag förmodar att du inte var intresserad av det.

Jag känner igen detta också trots att jag har en ny och excellent dator. Jag börjar vänja mig. Ni har "single Click table activation" ikryssad under "advanced multi-table options" i Optionmenyn? Tackar tackar! Nu fungerar det utmärkt!

Expressen har rätt. Har man AA är målet att få en stor torsk. Blir det fler eller många är risken för stor att någon av de andra får triss, tvåpar e d. Den som gapar över mycket mister ofta hela stycket.

Jag känner igen detta också trots att jag har en ny och excellent dator. Jag börjar vänja mig.

Oct 17, 2006 LEGAL EXPERT SPEAKS OUT AGAINST ONLINE GAMBLING BILL New US law described as an "...arbitrary, poorly-drafted, vague set of prohibitions that only serve to further complicate the muddled mess that is online gaming regulation" The portal Winneronline quoted US legal expert Lawrence Walters this week in an article on the American legal situation regarding online gambling financial transaction bans. Prefacing the specialist's opinion, the article commented: "Yes Congress attached anti-gambling language to the Safe Port Act; yes it will be harder to play poker online and yes the banks will be asked to monitor transactions, but it isn’t the end of the world as punters know it." Walters says the addendum to the Act doesn’t clarify the online gambling situation, in fact it does quite the opposite. “The version of the legislation that finally passed is an arbitrary, poorly-drafted, vague set of prohibitions that only serve to further complicate the muddled mess that is online gaming regulation in the [u.S.],” said Walters. “In order to reach a compromise allowing passage in the Senate, provisions that had been included in previous versions of the bill, seeking to expand the Wire Act to include online casino games of chance, were eliminated,” he explained. “As a result, the remaining provisions of the legislation are contradictory, and attempt to incorporate provisions of existing state or federal law in order to define what activity constitutes ‘unlawful Internet gambling.” The WOL article reports that among the opponents of internet gambling prohibition are the banks, which would not only be required to track all financial transactions to ensure that they aren’t related to online gambling, but stop the ones that are as well. Banks have a lot of business to go through in a day and determining what transactions are related to online gambling amongst the millions of other transactions would probably be like looking for that proverbial needle in the haystack. And the cost of setting up detection systems would most likely be costly. As Independent Community Bank lobbyist Steve Verdier was quoted as saying, “It's very tempting to think the banking industry can stop this kind of stuff because people pay for it through banks, but the fact is the system just wasn't really designed to do it.”

Man får ju party points även som icke-vip. Delas pointsen ut i snabbare takt som vip? Jag hoppas det, mtp att det snålas ju rejält för oss oviktiga personer. Jag skickade förövrigt mail och bad om att få bli vip. Fick till svar ungefär vad jag förväntar mig från partys och deras urusla servicenivå: De uppgraderar folk till vip 'on a monthly basis'. Tyvärr gjordes detta inte i september, men det var tydligen hur lugnt som helst eftersom jag skulle bli vip vid nästa uppgraderingstillfälle som troligen kommer att ske i oktober eller november... ... Det jag uttalar mig om är silvermedlem och guldmedlem. Om detta är samma som VIP är mig obekant. Promoveringen/degraderingen sker mycket riktigt vid månadsskiftena. Som silvermedlem få man 50 % mer Party points när man spelar (om det nu kan vara till någon glädje). Guldmedlemmar får 100 % mer.

Jag har varit silvermedlem nu en tid. Det blev jag på den "gamla" tiden då det gick snabbare att få poäng. Med nuvarande långsamma takt kommer jag så småningom att degraderas. Party pointsen man får använder jag i första hand till att spela frirullar. Man kan skaffa lite prylar i stället men de har (nästan) inget som jag eftertraktar. Sammanfattningsvis kan jag konstatera att Party pointsen är överreklamerade. Man kände sig stolt över att bli silvermedlem men de reella fördelarna är få.

Jag såg en uppgift att Sverige ger 40 Mkr årligen. Tillträdande biståndsministern Gunilla Carlsson har inga planer på att ändra detta.

published on: Thursday Oct 05, 2006 Legal Landscape of Online Gaming Has Not Changed Analysis From CardPlayer's Legal Counsel Misleading news stories abound both online and in print regarding the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The completely incorrect interpretation states that the new bill essentially outlaws most forms of Internet gambling. The new bill absolutely does no such thing. I have been analyzing legal issues for 25 years. I have gone to court thousands of times interpreting statutes and I have taught new lawyers the correct method by which a statute should be analyzed. For over 15 years I was part of a legal hotline where California attorneys would call me with a legal question. As this is my field of expertise, I am flabbergasted at the misinformation being perpetuated regarding the new bill. The New Bill Does Not Make Online Poker Illegal The new bill attempts to make it more difficult to get money into a site by forbidding US financial Institutions from funding the type of online gambling that the law has previously made illegal. The new bill does not make online gaming illegal where it was not illegal before. Let me say that again. The new bill does not make online gaming illegal. The bill merely speaks to the mechanism by which an online account is funded. I am going to spend some time in this article explaining the accuracy of my reasoning. The Bill Constitutes Enforcement Legislation First and most simplistically, the bill is called the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The operative word is enforcement. It is a bill whose goal is to enforce laws that already exist. The bill begins in section 5361 by discussing congressional findings. In that section the bill states that Internet gambling is funded by credit cards, etc. Section 5361(a)(4) states in relevant part: “New mechanisms for enforcing gambling laws on the Internet are necessary because traditional … mechanisms are often inadequate…” The Bill Does Not Change Existing Gaming Law Next, section 5361(b) specifically states that nothing in this new law shall be construed as “altering, limiting, or expanding any Federal or State law… prohibiting, permitting or regulating gambling within the US.” In other words, the language of the statute confirms that this new law does not change existing gaming law. It does not speak to the legality of online gaming. It only applies to the mechanism of funding any Internet gaming that has already been deemed to be illegal. Even Senator Frist said about the bill, “Although we can't monitor every online gambler or regulate offshore gambling, we can police the financial institutions that disregard our laws.” The Definition of Unlawful Internet Gambling Of extreme importance in a statute is the definitional section that sets forth the parameters of a bill. The term “Unlawful Internet gambling” is given a definition. Section 5362(6) defines unlawful Internet gambling to mean placing or receiving a bet “where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law.” This raises the question regarding what type of online gambling is already illegal. That will be discussed below. First, let’s move on to the meat of the bill. This is the section that states just what is prohibited. Section 5363 begins by saying that “No person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept…” electronic transfers, credit cards, etc. where a person is engaged in “unlawful Internet gambling.” This new law applies, if and only if, the gambling is already illegal under current law. This brings us directly to the issue of what has been deemed illegal in the last 10 years since the first online casino opened its virtual doors. In a nutshell, sports betting is made illegal by the 1961 Wire Act, but poker is not. Remember please, that the Attorney General’s office has not brought one lawsuit in 10 years against a poker site, even though it takes the position that online poker is prohibited by the Wire Act. How the Law Works In order to explain this discrepancy, I must digress with some rudimentary background about just how the law works. You probably remember from your high school civics class that the legislature makes laws that the judiciary construes. That means that our representatives in Congress draft the laws that judges then interpret. Legislators are not wordsmiths, which is why there is a whole body of law called statutory construction. The first rule of statutory construction says that if the words of the statute are clear, the court may rely upon the common language. But if the language is not clear, the court must construe the language using a complicated legal process. If a law is unclear, a depuy attorney general (the prosecutor) will take one position and often a defense attorney will take an opposing position. They go to court and a judge makes a determination. So when the Attorney General makes a public statement about what a law means, he might or might not be correct. It is ultimately the decision of a court. When the Attorney General’s office takes the position that the Wire Act prohibits online poker, the court ultimately decided whether that opinion is accurate. Senator Frist incorrectly believes that all online gaming is illegal. He said: “or me as majority leader, the bottom line is simple: Internet gambling is illegal.” However, in order for Internet poker to be illegal, there must be a specific statute that forbids such activity. For years I have posed the question: What statute prohibits online poker? And if it is illegal, why has there not been one lawsuit filed by the government against an owner of an online poker site? Online Poker Is Not Illegal Even though the Attorney General’s office has publicly taken the position that the 1961 Wire Act forbids online poker, in 10 years they have not put their money where their mouth is. Why? The judiciary (that is, the interpreting body) has already held that the 1961 Wire Act doesn’t speak to poker. It only applies to sports betting. The case in point to which I refer is “In Re Mastercard International,” decided by District Court Judge Stanwood R. Duvall, Jr. in 2001. Among other issues, Judge Duval was faced with the question of whether the Wire Act applied to online gambling. The posture of the case was interesting because many deadbeat gamblers attempted to avoid online gambling debts they had incurred by alleging that the money they owed their credit card companies amounted to illegal gambling debts in violation of the Wire Act. As a matter of fact, there were so many similar suits filed by so many gamblers who did not want to pay their losses that the lower court consolidated 33 such similar charges. Judge Duvall ruled that the Wire Act only prohibited wagering on sports events and he dismissed all 33 cases, noting that “Comparing the face of the Wire Act and the history surrounding its enactment with the recently proposed legislation, it becomes more certain that the Wire Act's prohibition of gambling activities is restricted to the types of events enumerated in the statute, sporting events or contests.” In other words, online poker was not within the reach of the Wire Act’s prohibition. The District Court of Appeal agreed with Duvall’s ruling that the 1961 Wire Act does not apply to online poker. I must mention one caveat. District courts are permitted to disagree with one another until the Supreme Court steps in. However, in this case Judge Duvall’s reasoning is so sound that it is close to irrefutable. There is a well established body of law regarding statutory construction and Judge Duvall followed the procedure to a tee. Even Representative Goodlatte, who authored one of the online gaming bills in the House, acknowledges the limitations of the Wire Act. “We need to modernize the Wire Act, which is 45 years old, and does not apply to all forms of gambling,” says Goodlatte, adding, “It clearly applies to sports betting.” Hysteria Is Completely Unfounded Since this new law does not change what is legal or illegal, the current hysteria is completely unfounded. This legislation attempts to make it more difficult to get money into a site. Besides a few wrinkles that will be the topic of another article, that’s about it. The statute is primarily no big deal since poker players stopped using credit cards a few years ago and found other ways to get their money into their favorite gaming sites. I am not saying there won’t be lawsuits construing the meaning of the statute, but ultimately, the statute will only be deemed to affect the method by which online sites are funded. Correct Analysis There are a few very insightful people out there correctly analyzing this new legislation. For example, the president of the American Gaming Association, Frank Fahrenkopf is one such person. “This bill did not make anything legal or illegal,” says Fahrenkopf. “What it did was affect the mechanism by which Internet gambling takes place…and there is some question as to whether or not that will be effective.” Bloomberg correctly reports that “Congress passed legislation that curbs financial payments from banks to offshore Internet casinos that are illegal under US law.” Consumer Affairs seems to have gotten it right as they report that “The legislation does not criminalize the placing of bets by consumers. Rather than outlawing online gambling, the bill prohibits banks and credit card companies from making payments to online gaming websites… However, it's unclear just what is covered by the bill. Internet sports betting is plainly outlawed but what about online poker and other popular games?” I urge our readers to use care in accepting the opinions that one site gets from another site where no legal opinion is being presented. Please, read the statute yourselves. Read the words carefully and think about my analysis. The statute can be found by clicking here. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement section starts on page 213. Jurisdiction Another area I have written about extensively is the area of jurisdiction. Libraries of books have been written on the varied and complex meaning of jurisdiction. One of the simplest meanings of “jurisdiction” is legal power. For example, a New York court doesn’t generally have jurisdiction (legal power) over a problem in Texas. A federal court doesn’t have jurisdiction over a violation of most state laws. A municipal judge doesn’t have jurisdiction over a felony trial. Our government doesn’t have jurisdiction to make rules for a company that resides offshore. Our rules do not apply in other countries, as they have their own sets of rules. This bill prohibits a gaming company from accepting payment that violates US gaming law. Besides the fact that no law makes online poker illegal, all the gaming sites are offshore and not subject to US laws. A law that tries to control an offshore company is considered a law with no teeth, because it cannot be enforced. In the US, when a law is broken, a person is arrested. The government subpoenas records and a case moves forward. What it means not to have jurisdiction is that US laws do not apply offshore, nor can the US arrest a person in another country nor does our government have subpoena power to command an offshore company to turn over records. NETeller, an online money transfer service, is also an offshore company, not subject to US laws. The Future First of all, nothing is going to happen for 270 days. The Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System have 270 days (after the bill is signed by the president) to come up with enforcement policies and procedures. Those procedures are directed to the behavior of banks and credit card companies. The procedures will be a nightmare. Representatives of the financial services industry worry about a heavy regulatory burden being placed on banks. “The bill sets up banks to police a social issue,” said Laura Fisher, spokeswoman for the American Bankers Association. “It's not something we want to encourage.” The bill passed by Congress could allow regulators to exempt checks and money transfers because they are more difficult to track. “Analyzing 40 billion checks a year would be a largely manual process,” Fisher said. If checks are not exempt, this would break our banks as it would be too costly to enforce. If checks are exempt, players could simply send a check to an online site. If checks are not within the purview of the law, what about e-checks? The rules won’t even be figured out for nine months during which time, all the clever sites will have legally circumvented this new law by other legal procedures to fund the sites. Some Online Sites Are Overreacting I am surprised to see some online sites overreacting and posturing as if they will pull out of the market. Any company that just pulls out of the market deserves to lose a lot of money because it is receiving bad legal advice. Offshore companies are not bound by US antigaming laws. But the most persuasive reason why offshore companies shouldn’t pull out is because the laws of online gaming have not changed. A few years ago when the government was beginning to subpoena news networks, offshore sites didn’t pull out because the movement by the government couldn’t affect them. Similarly, a law that directs itself to the mechanism used to enforce current laws, does not change the legal landscape.

Citat från 2 + 2 Forum: Re: Poker, specifically ... LA Times article quoting Prof Rose [Re: TruePoker CEO] In today's LA Times, Nelson Rose is quoted as follows: That's a major weakness" of the new measure, said I. Nelson Rose, an expert in gambling law at Whittier Law School. "It left out expanding the reach of the Wire Act, so poker sites can say, 'We're not covered by that.' " Taking this as the basic premise, this failure to amend the Wire Act to include poker is the first step of two positive analytic threads: First thread: Playing online poker is itself not "unlawful Internet Gambling" under Federal Law (leaving aside State law for now), so deposits for online poker are not in connection with "unlawful Internet gambling". 1. The UIGE Act only related to deposits in connection with "unlawful Internet gambling". 2. Poker is not unlawful Internet gambling (under the Wire Act, leaving aside State laws for this discussion.) 3. Therefore, deposits in connection with online poker are not retricted by the UIGE Act. The second thread, which was my initial thought,: 1. Even assuming that online poker were construed to be "unlawful Internet gambling", the UIGE Act only applies to acceptance of deposits by persons "engaged in the business of betting or wagering". 2. Poker site business models do not involve any risk of the site dependent upon the outcome of play; poker sites do not "bet or wager". 3. The poker-only business model is not a person covered by the restrictions of the UIGE Act. 4. Perhaps also ?? (Where poker is regulated as "gambling" in State laws, it is specifically named ???) TruePoker CEO Min anm.: The UiGE Act = The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006

Möjligt, men den stora massan fisk är ju rekreationsspelaren som lirar några timmar då och då. Användarna av den här typen av lösningar trot jag tilltalat de redan frälsta lite mer. Alltså, hajen stannar kvar och fisken försvinner.... Men det är ju förståss bara en teori... Jag är rädd för att det stämmer angående fisk o haj. Ser inte ljust ut för oss som har poker som inkomst då blåsta jenkare med mkt $$$ tillhör favoritfödan. Ja, jag har inte motsatt mig era farhågor bara påpekat att det kanske inte dör ut helt och hållet. Visst, just nu är det den "frälste" som hittar lösningar men så fort det blir enkelt för alla att använda samma lösning kommer det att slå. Se på Internet. Från början var det modem och BBS. Det var en liten krets nördar som höll på med det. Nu har nästan varenda kotte bredband och tankar både det ena och det andra. De som inte har bredband kräver att få det, mer eller mindre gratis. Det är visserligen några år mellan "Nörden och hans BBS" och "Ropen skalla, bredband åt alla" men förutsättningarna finns där. Bör gå snabbare inom pokern, all infrastruktur finns och nya affärer som kan ge fina pengar till riskkapitalister. /Over and out. Citat från talesman för Party Poker på 2 + 2 Forum: Although I can’t get into details about the decisions that have been, or will be made, I can hopefully clarify a few things that will concern you as players. If, as expected, the act is signed into law, PartyGaming will be indefinitely suspend real money gaming activities in the United States. This does not mean we will be closing the account of US players. Accounts will remain open and you will continue to have access to your funds. Cashouts will continue to be available. We have no plans to force withdrawals or not allow you to cashout using the standard methods. Deposits from US players will be suspended indefinitely. Keep in mind, PartyGaming is a large company with a large player base. We are not “closing shop”. We are leaving the accounts of US players open because we are committed to finding new and interesting offerings. Our US community will remain. For non US players, poker will go on as planned. Our games will continue and we will be offering more time zone friendly tournaments and promotions.

sorry om jag e trög, men vad betyder denna lista? Vilka sajter kommer amerikanarna kunna lira på och vilka inte? Det jag framför allt är intresserad av är pacific, kommer det vara som fram tills nu eller kommer det ändras? Verified pulled out: Tillåter ej amerikaner Verified Staying: Tillåter amerikaner Unofficial Status: Läget oklart

En del information kan man hitta på http://www.aktietips.com/ . Där registrerar man sig. När man gjort detta kan man söka t ex på spel poker gambling unibet etc. Här finns förstås skribenter av alla de slag allt från rena töntar till mycket väl insatta.

Hur ska dom ha det? Citatet är hämtat från http://www.unitedstatespoker.org/poker-site-status-list. Detta är hemsidan för United States Poker Player Information. Jag reagerade själv på detta men återgav citatet in extenso.

Verified Pulled out of US Market Cryptologic Network: Betfair Sun Poker Classic Poker InterPoker Littlewoods Pokerplex Totalbet UK Betting William Hill Pacific Poker (888.com) BOSS Network (playtech) Unofficial Status PartyPoker.com - Leaving if the bill gets signed PokerStars.com - No "official" decision either way UltimateBet.com - No official statement, rumored to be sticking around PokerRoom.com - Official statement is "no official statement" Verified Staying FullTilt.com - Multiple confirmations, open letter AbsolutePoker.com - Multiple confirmations, press release PlanetPoker.com - Press release WorldPokerExchange.com - Only confirmed via e-mail TruePoker.com - CEO Post on 2+2 PacificPoker.com - Gambling 911 article

Absolute says: Hold your horses A member at 2+2 e-mailed absolute twice, once to support@absolute.com and once at vip@absolute.com. He recieved a response from each. The first response was from the vip program: Hi xxxx Thank you for your inquiry about the recent U.S legislation. It is our intention at AP to carry on with our current gaming operations. We will have an official statement shortly. Regards, Harry AbsolutePoker ~ VIP Host VIP@AbsolutePoker.com The second response was from support: Dear xxxx Thank you for your email. Absolute Poker offers its services throughout the world and the laws governing.

WPX e-mail Hi xxxx, We have absolutely no plans whatsoever of dropping any players. In short, it will be business as usual. WSEX.com and all its sister companies are legal and licensed businesses regulated by the Gaming Commission of Antigua and Barbuda. We are wholly located in Antigua and do no business or run any part of our operation on US soil. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has recognized the right of Antiguan companies to be in this business and has instructed the United States to stop trying to block US residents from playing at Antiguan operations. Nothing in the bill criminalizes placing a bet or sending money to or receiving money from an offshore gambling business.

Planet Poker Statement As seen on planetpoker.com: Planet Poker's Statement to the US Safe Port Act. Planet Poker is located and operated in Curacao which is part of the Netherlands Antilles. Planet Poker does not have ownership or operations in the USA. Planet Poker has a fully authorized gaming operation license issued by the Curacao government. All aspects of operations and business conduct are endorsed and sanctioned by the Curacao government. Any bets placed by you are received and processed by Planet Poker in Curacao where accepting your bet is fully legal under Planet Poker's license. Customer records are held confidentially by Planet Poker, not the Curacao government.

Legal Expert says poker is arguably lawful Submitted by root on Mon, 2006-10-02 23:02. As seen on pokernews.com: Noted Legal Expert I. Nelson Rose's Views On Recent Legislation October 02, 2006 Earl Burton gavel Monday brought a flood of action in response to the passage of Internet gaming legislation in the U. S. Congress late Friday evening. Some companies have come out already and stated that they will suspend American action from their sites (most notably PartyGaming and 888.com) while others have yet to decide what action to take. I was interested in the analysis of the issue from one of the finest legal minds on gambling when I contacted Professor I. Nelson Rose over the weekend. Professor Rose is viewed as the foremost authority on gambling law. He has published several books on the subject, most notably his book from 1986 "Gambling and The Law", and continues to write many articles regarding the subject. He also is a professor of law at Whittier Law School in California and has been involved both civil and criminal legal cases regarding gaming on both personal and industry wide levels. His views regarding the passage of the bill were quite eye opening and his thought processes very complete. In an e-mail that I received from Professor Rose, he first took on the methods through which the bill was passed. "Would-be presidential candidate Sen. Bill Frist warped the law-making process to score a few points with his right-wing religious base," he stated in the opening of our conversation. Professor Rose quickly moved on to his analysis of the bill by remarking, "The new law will be difficult to enforce. It only applies to "unlawful" gaming, but does not expand the reach of the main federal anti-gaming statute, the Wire Act. So, there are still going to be arguments that Internet poker, for example, is not unlawful." "The new crime on transferring money only applies to gambling businesses," he continued. "Payment processors are not covered, unless prosecutors want to use theories of aiding and abetting. Treasury will make new regulations to require money transferors to identify and block funds from gambling sites. Banks will thus not be required to read paper checks." When looking at offshore payment processing houses, Professor Rose pointed out a very important factor. "Why should NETeller comply with U.S. regulations? The U.S. and state Attorneys General can get court orders preventing ISPs from hosting sites that transfer money, but NETeller is not hosted by a U.S. server. Foreign nations are not usually required to enforce U.S. injunctions." Professor Rose was also kind enough to send along his complete, line-by-line breakdown of the legislation as it appears in the Port Security bill that is awaiting President Bush's action. You can visit Professor Rose's website, gamblingandthelaw.com, to view the entire text and I certainly appreciate the time Professor Rose took to respond on this issue during his teachings overseas. View the original article at: http://www.pokernews.com/news/2006/10/nelson-rose-views-legislation.htm

Brief Analysis of Internet Gambling Prohibition Act (Attached to Safe Port Act) First the bill does not make poker playing illegal on the Internet at a Federal Level,although it will make it much more difficult to enjoy “your game” on-line. As we havementioned before we are immediately working on your behalf to obtain an exemption for Poker prior to the financial enforcement provisions are finalized (estimated between 3 to 9 months). This is the most important thing that the Poker Players Alliance and its members can do in the short term. This version of the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act that amended the Safe Port Act contains no amendment to the 1961 Wire Act. However this bill provides additional enforcement powers to the Wire Act that will presumably be applied to wagering on Poker. Although Poker is a skill game and even the Department of Justice recently testified in the April 2006 Judiciary Hearing that “games subject to chance” clause may not apply to “games such as Poker”, it is likely that they will take a broad brush approach to enforcement and use these tools defined by this prohibition act to restrict your ability to access poker sites and fund your accounts as you have done in previously. The enforcement mechanisms as it relates to Internet Poker falls into two broad categories: Financial The Internet Gambling Prohibition amendment will require financial institutions to monitor and block your funding of your poker accounts, whether you use Credit Cards, ACH, Stored Value Cards, electronic checks (debits), electronic funds transfers or physical checks. Within 270 days the Federal Reserve Board and the Attorney General will proscribe policies and procedures with which banks and other financial institutions will enforce this act to monitor and block financial transactions. Banks are absolved of any liabilities by the Federal Government by a “reasonableness test” in complying with this legislation. We assume this to be applied liberally given the consequences for financial institutions who not comply. Although it is unclear how a financial institution could block a transfer to a personal account off-shore, but for most players it will be difficult to enjoy the game they love. Additionally is likely to very costly for financial institutions to “play the morality police”, but they are under order of the Federal Government to comply. Internet Hyperlink Blocking The IGP amendment requires that “Interactive Computer Services”, essentially Internet Service Providers (ISPs), remove or disable access to internet links and hyperlinks “that reside” on the ISPs servers to “Internet Gambling” upon written notice from a State Attorney General, or the Attorney General of the United States. There is no affirmative monitoring provision for ISPs, but no liability for compliance. The exemptions included in the “Prohibition” are for wagering on Horseracing, Intrastate Lotteries, Intrastate Gaming (where legal), Indian Reservations, and playing Fantasy Sports, but nothing yet for Poker. This must change. The Poker Players Alliance will renew its fight to obtain separate treatment for a great game of skill, poker, and a community game. In then next several months, this will be our focus, to ensure that Poker is protected from this outrageous intrusion into the lives of 70 Million poker players. Long term we seek to have Poker affirmatively legalized, licensed, regulated and taxed on a Federal level. You have our commitment on this. Regards, Michael Bolcerek President Poker Players Alliance

US Member Update: 1st October 2006 On Friday 29 September 2006, the US Congress passed legislation which includes certain provisions to prohibit unlawful internet gambling through the restriction of payments to such sites. The Bill states that there will be a period of up to 9 months for the US regulators to prescribe regulations requiring each designated payment system and all participants therein to identify and block or otherwise prevent or prohibit restricted transactions. It is currently unclear how NETELLER, a European company, with no assets, presence or employees in the US, would be affected by this bill. Once the regulations have been written, NETELLER will have a clearer view of which companies are affected, how those companies will be expected to comply, and any possible resulting impact on NETELLER and its US facing business. NETELLER continues to operate its business as normal. Over 3 million customers in 160 countries trust NETELLER to transfer over $7 billion each year. The company is authorized in the UK by the Financial Services Authority and listed on the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange. To protect its customers’ money, all deposited, in-transit, and un-cleared funds are held in Trust Accounts.