some books are closing their phone wagering from the US
- Thread starter MadJack
- Start date
I have noticed I have not got one email offering any bonus stuff.
No mail things either in a few weeks.
Never use the phone, but I would if I need to in the future
No mail things either in a few weeks.
Never use the phone, but I would if I need to in the future
There are also many times when out and about and not near a computer - so phone wagering makes sense at that point.....
It would be a problem, I'm guessing, for a lot of guys that don't sit home and watch the games or whatever....
It would be nice if most websites made their sites PDA ready - then it wouldn't be a problem - but most do not...
Jack, any thoughts of formatting madjacks so it can be accessed from a PDA (like the Treo)???
It would be a problem, I'm guessing, for a lot of guys that don't sit home and watch the games or whatever....
It would be nice if most websites made their sites PDA ready - then it wouldn't be a problem - but most do not...
Jack, any thoughts of formatting madjacks so it can be accessed from a PDA (like the Treo)???
I like the option of able to call in, even now some places are hard with accents etc
I have a phone that goes online, Propbet, Pinny, Heritage, Cascade works real nice. Some books work good with it, others don't - like Bodog, Vip, Wagerweb.
Hopefully all the books will get this going
I have a phone that goes online, Propbet, Pinny, Heritage, Cascade works real nice. Some books work good with it, others don't - like Bodog, Vip, Wagerweb.
Hopefully all the books will get this going
I liked having the option in case I was out at a bar with friends or something like that, but most of my betting is done online.
Personally I don't use the phone. Can't understand most of them that they have answering the calls :shrug:
Big Daddy said:
i agree..i have trouble understanding most of the phone operators...so i don't use the phones.
Last edited:
When I first started, almost exculsively.
Now, only once or twice a year when internet access is unavailable. There are still a lot of 'regular joes' who use them though. The less regulation/laws/rules the better IMO.
Now, only once or twice a year when internet access is unavailable. There are still a lot of 'regular joes' who use them though. The less regulation/laws/rules the better IMO.
Hardly ever use the phone. Have a little in Carib, so I have wireless internet on my phone. This makes it easy!
http://wireless.caribsports.com/CaribSportsLaunch/index.jsp
Maybe someday all books will do this!
Picture some fed stopping you somewhere and asking if you made a bet from your cell phone?? Too Funny!!!!
http://wireless.caribsports.com/CaribSportsLaunch/index.jsp
Maybe someday all books will do this!
Picture some fed stopping you somewhere and asking if you made a bet from your cell phone?? Too Funny!!!!
I've only made 3-4 wagers over the phone in the last 6 yrs. No big deal for me if it's not available.
I very rarely use the phone for bets, almost always use computer unless there is a problem and I have to call.
the 1st--hope the last--Boyles is an Irish Book
Dear Mr. Hoehn,
Due to present legal uncertainties in the U.S., we regret we are unable to continue to accept bets from U.S. resident customers. As a result, your account with Boylesports.com has been suspended with effect from today, 22/07/06.
Dear Mr. Hoehn,
Due to present legal uncertainties in the U.S., we regret we are unable to continue to accept bets from U.S. resident customers. As a result, your account with Boylesports.com has been suspended with effect from today, 22/07/06.
DOGS THAT BARK said:
Guess I need to start looking for a local. anyone that lives in the Orange county area in So Cal that can hook me up let me know. Any undercover agents reading this please disregard :mj07:
Hope this is correct and would seem more logical--
CONFLICTING SIGNALS
Or are we trying to read too much into some of these statements?
The huge coverage and focus on every word uttered by officials and lawyers on the BetonSports issue this week has understandably led to company execs trying to fathom what the federal action is really all about.
One of the burning questions has been whether the action taken against BetonSports and its people is company-specific (i.e. aimed at nailing a high profile company that has allegedly questionable origins and a sports telephone betting record) or is it the start of a wider persecution of industry activities in the United States?
Certainly the hard-ass initial statements of Missouri AG Catherine Hanaway gave the impression that there was more to come. She said: "Illegal commercial gambling across state and international borders is a crime. Misuse of the Internet to violate the law can ultimately only serve to harm legitimate businesses. This indictment is but one step in a series of actions designed to punish and seize the profits of individuals who disregard federal and state laws."
However, later statements by DoJ spokesfolks had a milder ring. Jackie Lesch said the indictment against BetonSports was consistent with previous US policy, and emphasised that the DoJ did not intend to go after all US-facing operators. She added that "Under three federal statutes, online gambling is illegal, both sports betting and casino games."
Asked why the DoJ had picked on BetonSports rather than, say, PartyGaming, she said: "We weigh up the evidence and pick the cases that we think will have the greatest deterrent effect."
Mitch Garber, CEO of Party Gaming countered: "I would ask the DoJ that if online gambling is illegal, why are there three Bills waiting to go to the Senate trying to make online gambling illegal?"
Jon Tarasewicz, a leisure analyst at Deutsche Bank?s City arm, seemed to agree with Garber, saying that the action may be aimed specifically at the Kaplans and their associates. The family had run physical gambling operations before going offshore and BetOnSports made greater use than rivals of telephone betting, in contravention of the Wire Act in America.
Tarasewicz said: ?If this is not driven by trying to get at the founders and is genuinely the start of an industry clampdown, the timing seems odd, given that politicians have passed legislation through Congress whose whole point is that existing legislation is not robust enough to prosecute anyone.?
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, arch-enemy of online gaming in the House of Representatives seemed to admit that the question of illegality was not as cut and dried as Department of Justice spokesmen believe it to be. Praising the actions of the DoJ, he said: "We join with them in trying to make it clear that the law covers all forms of gambling. It is quite clear that the Wire Act covers sports betting, [but] the Wire Act because it was written in 1961 is not at all clear as to whether it covers other forms of gambling."
The existing law does not clearly ban such things as a virtual roulette wheel, poker and other kinds of online gaming, Goodlatte said, also drawing attention to the fact that executives with other overseas gambling companies should take note of the prosecution.
Another DoJ spokesman, Brian Sierra said: "The view of the Department of Justice is and has been that Internet gambling is illegal," According to Sierra, the new laws and Congress' interest in online gambling have nothing to do with the latest round of charges lodged by the Department of Justice. "We're not trying to send a grand scale message here," he said. "We've been saying it for years: Internet gambling is illegal."
Sierra?s comment to Dow Jones Newswires earlier in the week downplayed suggestions the indictment may trigger a clampdown on the online gaming sector. "I wouldn't read too much into one indictment. It is obviously a fairly significant case on its own with a number of defendants," he said.
Sierra says the department's position is and has always been that anyone either in or outside of the U.S. who operates illegal online gambling operations to take bets from U.S. residents is committing a crime. Period.
UK gaming lawyer Hilary Stewart-Jones believes that much of the Department of Justice?s tactics are based on scaring the industry into compliance.
?I don?t think it?s going to be part of a flat-out campaign to prosecute everyone associated with online gambling," she told OCN. "I don?t think they [US Department of Justice] have the resources or the appetite to do that? I would imagine it is much more about putting a marker in the sand and being seen to be taking action. The Department of Justice stance throughout all of this has been to try and control by fear as a deterrent, rather than pushing through clear legislation for example, or pushing through to test cases and prosecutions, so the fear factor has featured largely in deterring companies from going all out to take bets from the US.?
Several sector observers and analysts in London opined Tuesday that investors were overreacting by selling off online gambling holdings: ?The indictment seems to be very BetOnSports-specific, yet the market seems to be treating all online gaming companies in the same manner,? said Wayne Brown, an analyst with Altium Securities in London.
Martin Owens, a US attorney who specializes in online and interactive gaming law, says "The arrest of David Carruthers represents a giant step backward in American gaming policy. It serves only to daunt and intimidate precisely that segment of the industry, which is attempting to bring online gambling into a harmonious and useful relationship with the licensed gaming regimes already in place. Grabbing Carruthers does nothing at all against the true pirates of the industry - to the contrary, it reinforces their position."
"There is a genuine controversy here, based on the fact that Internet gambling is legal under the laws of at least 70 countries at the same time that the United States purports to ban it," comments Owens. "I say purports because that is not a clear law or decision. At the time of this writing, there is as yet no federal law on the books unequivocally banning i-Gambling, and no federal court decision to that effect. The issue of whether or not American state or federal jurisdiction is invoked simply by the act of an American contacting an offshore gambling site has not even been intelligently addressed, never mind decided".
Mark Grossman, US technology lawyer and the author of the "TechLaw" column, which has appeared as a weekly feature in the Miami Herald adds to this sentiment:
"I don't think this [arrest] spells doom and gloom for the industry. This has always been an industry where those in the business understood the legal risks inherent in their operation. For years now, the government has been aggressive in the public positions they have taken about the legality of online gaming operations. The fact is that the laws are ambiguous and Congress, after years of trying to pass news laws that address the ambiguities, has not been able to get anything approved by both houses of Congress. So does the latest arrest spell the end of the industry? Of course not. However, I suppose that there will be fewer layovers in Dallas by executives involved in an online gaming business."
Jim Halpert, partner at the DLA Pipe law firm in Washington, DC, said: "The record of enforcement in this area is one of periodic high-profile enforcement actions, designed to deter what the Department of Justice views as ongoing systematic violations of US law."
US legal expert Anthony Cabot said that over the past decade, federal officials have prosecuted many operators of online sports books with U.S. ownership or operations because federal law prohibits using phone wires to place those bets.
In a celebrated case from 2000, prosecutors won a conviction against Jay Cohen, a U.S. citizen who ran an operation in Antigua that took sports bets from Americans over the Internet. He was sentenced to 21 months in prison. But the wire law doesn't cover other types of casino betting, a federal appeals court in New Orleans ruled. That has left some doubt about whether prosecutors can shut down poker and other casino games that target American players, Cabot said.
"The Justice Department has said [all] Internet gambling is prohibited, but most legal experts would say they are wrong, that this only applies to sports betting," opines Joseph Kelly, a legal scholar at the State University of New York at Buffalo, who has consulted for the government of Antigua and others on US law.
Kelly said it was an unusual coincidence that the indictment - which was handed down in June but only unsealed this week - came in such close contiguity to the House of Representatives passing a new bill banning some, but not all forms of Web gambling in the USA.
"Why would Congress try to make something illegal if it is already illegal?" he asks.
The Times says that Britain will refuse to extradite suspects for breaking US laws against internet gambling. Extradition is an option only if conduct is illegal in both the UK and America.
The Telegraph added to other independent reports that several senior online gambling executives had been in the United States without hassles very recently, and quoted analyst opinions that this may indicate that the crisis was company-specific and not an all-out attack on the industry.
CONFLICTING SIGNALS
Or are we trying to read too much into some of these statements?
The huge coverage and focus on every word uttered by officials and lawyers on the BetonSports issue this week has understandably led to company execs trying to fathom what the federal action is really all about.
One of the burning questions has been whether the action taken against BetonSports and its people is company-specific (i.e. aimed at nailing a high profile company that has allegedly questionable origins and a sports telephone betting record) or is it the start of a wider persecution of industry activities in the United States?
Certainly the hard-ass initial statements of Missouri AG Catherine Hanaway gave the impression that there was more to come. She said: "Illegal commercial gambling across state and international borders is a crime. Misuse of the Internet to violate the law can ultimately only serve to harm legitimate businesses. This indictment is but one step in a series of actions designed to punish and seize the profits of individuals who disregard federal and state laws."
However, later statements by DoJ spokesfolks had a milder ring. Jackie Lesch said the indictment against BetonSports was consistent with previous US policy, and emphasised that the DoJ did not intend to go after all US-facing operators. She added that "Under three federal statutes, online gambling is illegal, both sports betting and casino games."
Asked why the DoJ had picked on BetonSports rather than, say, PartyGaming, she said: "We weigh up the evidence and pick the cases that we think will have the greatest deterrent effect."
Mitch Garber, CEO of Party Gaming countered: "I would ask the DoJ that if online gambling is illegal, why are there three Bills waiting to go to the Senate trying to make online gambling illegal?"
Jon Tarasewicz, a leisure analyst at Deutsche Bank?s City arm, seemed to agree with Garber, saying that the action may be aimed specifically at the Kaplans and their associates. The family had run physical gambling operations before going offshore and BetOnSports made greater use than rivals of telephone betting, in contravention of the Wire Act in America.
Tarasewicz said: ?If this is not driven by trying to get at the founders and is genuinely the start of an industry clampdown, the timing seems odd, given that politicians have passed legislation through Congress whose whole point is that existing legislation is not robust enough to prosecute anyone.?
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, arch-enemy of online gaming in the House of Representatives seemed to admit that the question of illegality was not as cut and dried as Department of Justice spokesmen believe it to be. Praising the actions of the DoJ, he said: "We join with them in trying to make it clear that the law covers all forms of gambling. It is quite clear that the Wire Act covers sports betting, [but] the Wire Act because it was written in 1961 is not at all clear as to whether it covers other forms of gambling."
The existing law does not clearly ban such things as a virtual roulette wheel, poker and other kinds of online gaming, Goodlatte said, also drawing attention to the fact that executives with other overseas gambling companies should take note of the prosecution.
Another DoJ spokesman, Brian Sierra said: "The view of the Department of Justice is and has been that Internet gambling is illegal," According to Sierra, the new laws and Congress' interest in online gambling have nothing to do with the latest round of charges lodged by the Department of Justice. "We're not trying to send a grand scale message here," he said. "We've been saying it for years: Internet gambling is illegal."
Sierra?s comment to Dow Jones Newswires earlier in the week downplayed suggestions the indictment may trigger a clampdown on the online gaming sector. "I wouldn't read too much into one indictment. It is obviously a fairly significant case on its own with a number of defendants," he said.
Sierra says the department's position is and has always been that anyone either in or outside of the U.S. who operates illegal online gambling operations to take bets from U.S. residents is committing a crime. Period.
UK gaming lawyer Hilary Stewart-Jones believes that much of the Department of Justice?s tactics are based on scaring the industry into compliance.
?I don?t think it?s going to be part of a flat-out campaign to prosecute everyone associated with online gambling," she told OCN. "I don?t think they [US Department of Justice] have the resources or the appetite to do that? I would imagine it is much more about putting a marker in the sand and being seen to be taking action. The Department of Justice stance throughout all of this has been to try and control by fear as a deterrent, rather than pushing through clear legislation for example, or pushing through to test cases and prosecutions, so the fear factor has featured largely in deterring companies from going all out to take bets from the US.?
Several sector observers and analysts in London opined Tuesday that investors were overreacting by selling off online gambling holdings: ?The indictment seems to be very BetOnSports-specific, yet the market seems to be treating all online gaming companies in the same manner,? said Wayne Brown, an analyst with Altium Securities in London.
Martin Owens, a US attorney who specializes in online and interactive gaming law, says "The arrest of David Carruthers represents a giant step backward in American gaming policy. It serves only to daunt and intimidate precisely that segment of the industry, which is attempting to bring online gambling into a harmonious and useful relationship with the licensed gaming regimes already in place. Grabbing Carruthers does nothing at all against the true pirates of the industry - to the contrary, it reinforces their position."
"There is a genuine controversy here, based on the fact that Internet gambling is legal under the laws of at least 70 countries at the same time that the United States purports to ban it," comments Owens. "I say purports because that is not a clear law or decision. At the time of this writing, there is as yet no federal law on the books unequivocally banning i-Gambling, and no federal court decision to that effect. The issue of whether or not American state or federal jurisdiction is invoked simply by the act of an American contacting an offshore gambling site has not even been intelligently addressed, never mind decided".
Mark Grossman, US technology lawyer and the author of the "TechLaw" column, which has appeared as a weekly feature in the Miami Herald adds to this sentiment:
"I don't think this [arrest] spells doom and gloom for the industry. This has always been an industry where those in the business understood the legal risks inherent in their operation. For years now, the government has been aggressive in the public positions they have taken about the legality of online gaming operations. The fact is that the laws are ambiguous and Congress, after years of trying to pass news laws that address the ambiguities, has not been able to get anything approved by both houses of Congress. So does the latest arrest spell the end of the industry? Of course not. However, I suppose that there will be fewer layovers in Dallas by executives involved in an online gaming business."
Jim Halpert, partner at the DLA Pipe law firm in Washington, DC, said: "The record of enforcement in this area is one of periodic high-profile enforcement actions, designed to deter what the Department of Justice views as ongoing systematic violations of US law."
US legal expert Anthony Cabot said that over the past decade, federal officials have prosecuted many operators of online sports books with U.S. ownership or operations because federal law prohibits using phone wires to place those bets.
In a celebrated case from 2000, prosecutors won a conviction against Jay Cohen, a U.S. citizen who ran an operation in Antigua that took sports bets from Americans over the Internet. He was sentenced to 21 months in prison. But the wire law doesn't cover other types of casino betting, a federal appeals court in New Orleans ruled. That has left some doubt about whether prosecutors can shut down poker and other casino games that target American players, Cabot said.
"The Justice Department has said [all] Internet gambling is prohibited, but most legal experts would say they are wrong, that this only applies to sports betting," opines Joseph Kelly, a legal scholar at the State University of New York at Buffalo, who has consulted for the government of Antigua and others on US law.
Kelly said it was an unusual coincidence that the indictment - which was handed down in June but only unsealed this week - came in such close contiguity to the House of Representatives passing a new bill banning some, but not all forms of Web gambling in the USA.
"Why would Congress try to make something illegal if it is already illegal?" he asks.
The Times says that Britain will refuse to extradite suspects for breaking US laws against internet gambling. Extradition is an option only if conduct is illegal in both the UK and America.
The Telegraph added to other independent reports that several senior online gambling executives had been in the United States without hassles very recently, and quoted analyst opinions that this may indicate that the crisis was company-specific and not an all-out attack on the industry.
I've used the phone a few times
I've used the phone a few times
I remember once I called in an under, when I wasn't around any computers, after I saw Chris Berman on ESPN say "and you, uh, 'investors' might want to know that the snow and cold in Buffalo today at gametime will be much worse than thought yesterday".
But I do almost all my handicapping over the internet---thus, when I find a good bet I'm already online.
I suppose the reason some offshore books aren't taking bets over the phone anymore is because DOJ has intimidated them enuf with 1965 Wire Act (which prohibits betting over the phone) that they think this change will reduce thier legal exposure.
Note that the lawmakers who wrote the Wire Act, a federal judge who ruled on it, and testimony from officials have repeatedly stated the Wire Act is for going after bookmaking operations, not casual bettors calling in bets, "even those bettors that bet large sums of money and show a certain degree of sophistication".
But no doubt some folks calling in bets to offshores are local bookies laying off bets, and that would certainly be illegal under the Wire Act. As are any American citizens running these books that are taking any bets over the phone, as American law follows you wherever you go.
I've used the phone a few times
I remember once I called in an under, when I wasn't around any computers, after I saw Chris Berman on ESPN say "and you, uh, 'investors' might want to know that the snow and cold in Buffalo today at gametime will be much worse than thought yesterday".
But I do almost all my handicapping over the internet---thus, when I find a good bet I'm already online.
I suppose the reason some offshore books aren't taking bets over the phone anymore is because DOJ has intimidated them enuf with 1965 Wire Act (which prohibits betting over the phone) that they think this change will reduce thier legal exposure.
Note that the lawmakers who wrote the Wire Act, a federal judge who ruled on it, and testimony from officials have repeatedly stated the Wire Act is for going after bookmaking operations, not casual bettors calling in bets, "even those bettors that bet large sums of money and show a certain degree of sophistication".
But no doubt some folks calling in bets to offshores are local bookies laying off bets, and that would certainly be illegal under the Wire Act. As are any American citizens running these books that are taking any bets over the phone, as American law follows you wherever you go.
it seems like betjamaica is covering all the bases lately trying to become number 1. betjm takes phone wagers and will continue to take phone wagers and they even have a minimum of $10 which helps the small bettor as well. not to mention you usually get an english speaking rep that isn't hard to understand like you get with many of the call centers when calling in your bets.
great job you're doing over there, scotty!
great job you're doing over there, scotty!
