PartyPoker, RIP.
October 14, 2006 12:16 PM Subscribe
PartyPoker is gone. Where do I go now?
Due to the new law Bush signed on Friday, PartyPoker has stopped accepting wagers from US players. Looking for a site to replace it. I play very (very) low stakes NL Holdem. Looking for a site with good software, a low rake, and a large number of players. Since I don't play much, I care very little about rakeback or bonuses (since I would hardly ever clear them anyway).
I tried WPEX, and the software was ugly and made me want to cry. My home has been taken from me. Where do I move to?
Also, I hate Bill Frist.
Due to the new law Bush signed on Friday, PartyPoker has stopped accepting wagers from US players. Looking for a site to replace it. I play very (very) low stakes NL Holdem. Looking for a site with good software, a low rake, and a large number of players. Since I don't play much, I care very little about rakeback or bonuses (since I would hardly ever clear them anyway).
I tried WPEX, and the software was ugly and made me want to cry. My home has been taken from me. Where do I move to?
Also, I hate Bill Frist.
PokerRoom, UltimateBet, PokerStars and Full Tilt all are still accepting bets.
I like UltimateBet the best as far as software and service go, personally. I'd be happy to refer you to any of them if you want a bonus (but of course you know I'd get a bonus too, so I won't post my name on here publicly).
It should be noted that PartyPoker's interpretation of the law seems incorrect. The law prohibits banks from making transfers from US accounts to gambling sites. It does not prohibit players from making deposits, nor does it prohibit online gambling (or online poker, which in my opinion is at least slightly different).
There are discussions on all of the major poker forums (ITH, 2+2, P5's etc) on the law and its implications.
posted by twiggy at 12:22 PM on October 14, 2006
I like UltimateBet the best as far as software and service go, personally. I'd be happy to refer you to any of them if you want a bonus (but of course you know I'd get a bonus too, so I won't post my name on here publicly).
It should be noted that PartyPoker's interpretation of the law seems incorrect. The law prohibits banks from making transfers from US accounts to gambling sites. It does not prohibit players from making deposits, nor does it prohibit online gambling (or online poker, which in my opinion is at least slightly different).
There are discussions on all of the major poker forums (ITH, 2+2, P5's etc) on the law and its implications.
posted by twiggy at 12:22 PM on October 14, 2006
Wow, I play at partypoker too. I played at UltimateBet.com a while ago, and they have lots of great low limit tables, all the way down to 1c/2c tables.
The software pretty good when I tried it.
Also, this still sucks ass. I can't believe they won't even let people play with the money already in their accounts!
posted by delmoi at 12:23 PM on October 14, 2006
The software pretty good when I tried it.
Also, this still sucks ass. I can't believe they won't even let people play with the money already in their accounts!
posted by delmoi at 12:23 PM on October 14, 2006
My wife says Full Tilt is still going until the fallout settles.
I don't play poker, but good god, I hope Americans do some housecleaning at the polls in November.
posted by zek at 12:26 PM on October 14, 2006
I don't play poker, but good god, I hope Americans do some housecleaning at the polls in November.
posted by zek at 12:26 PM on October 14, 2006
Also, here's a relevant side note on PokerStars claiming exemption from the law since poker is a game of skill. Seems like they're more interested in fighting it than other sites are.
Full Tilt's poker blog also talks about the legislation.
Ultimate Bet's news on it is more brief....
posted by twiggy at 12:29 PM on October 14, 2006
Full Tilt's poker blog also talks about the legislation.
Ultimate Bet's news on it is more brief....
posted by twiggy at 12:29 PM on October 14, 2006
Full Tilt has the best software out of those listed, imho. It's also where a lot of Americans seem to be heading.
They don't seem to be going anywhere (from recent mailouts).
Here's a poker site status list I've found useful. Well, I'm Canadian... But if I was American I'd find it useful.
posted by ODiV at 12:34 PM on October 14, 2006
They don't seem to be going anywhere (from recent mailouts).
Here's a poker site status list I've found useful. Well, I'm Canadian... But if I was American I'd find it useful.
posted by ODiV at 12:34 PM on October 14, 2006
Pokerstars is the new #1 site. Check out their official statement on the legislation here.
http://www.pokerstars.com/legislation/uigea/
As an aside, I've almost always liked stars better than party. They rake less, their software is better, their customer service is more responsive, and they have less dumbass promotions that cost you money like "Monster".
posted by reishus at 1:56 PM on October 14, 2006
http://www.pokerstars.com/legislation/uigea/
As an aside, I've almost always liked stars better than party. They rake less, their software is better, their customer service is more responsive, and they have less dumbass promotions that cost you money like "Monster".
posted by reishus at 1:56 PM on October 14, 2006
Pokerstars sayeth:
PokerStars has received extensive expert advice from within and outside the U.S. which concluded that these provisions do not alter the U.S. legal situation with respect to our offering of online poker games. Furthermore it is important to emphasize that the Act does not in any way prohibit you from playing online poker.
Why are other companies refusing to take bets from US users then? Someone has to be lying.
posted by wackybrit at 3:05 PM on October 14, 2006
PokerStars has received extensive expert advice from within and outside the U.S. which concluded that these provisions do not alter the U.S. legal situation with respect to our offering of online poker games. Furthermore it is important to emphasize that the Act does not in any way prohibit you from playing online poker.
Why are other companies refusing to take bets from US users then? Someone has to be lying.
posted by wackybrit at 3:05 PM on October 14, 2006
wackybrit: Nobody's lying - it's about the companies' relative confidence in their lawyers' interpretation of the laws.
PartyPoker may have shot themselves in the foot by becoming publicly traded, because they're a little more out there in the spotlight especially as far as US lawmakers/regulators go. As a result, they may have to be more careful than other companies that are not only based offshore, but not traded on our stock markets here.
Based on everything I've read, PartyPoker is overreacting. Online poker absolutely hasn't been made illegal by this bill. Players also aren't the target of this bill, it's banks.
posted by twiggy at 3:14 PM on October 14, 2006
PartyPoker may have shot themselves in the foot by becoming publicly traded, because they're a little more out there in the spotlight especially as far as US lawmakers/regulators go. As a result, they may have to be more careful than other companies that are not only based offshore, but not traded on our stock markets here.
Based on everything I've read, PartyPoker is overreacting. Online poker absolutely hasn't been made illegal by this bill. Players also aren't the target of this bill, it's banks.
posted by twiggy at 3:14 PM on October 14, 2006
The real problem now is that gambling sites aside from sports betting now seem to be under the Wire Act (1967?) or something quite similar. Under this act, there is not much the US can do to the foreign *companies* - but they can do bad things to the foreign company's executives. In particular, 2 CEOs of online gaming companies (legitimate, publicly traded companies in the UK) were arrested in the US in the last few months under this law. If poker sites now fall under the same or similar law, which this articles claims they do, with the new legislation then CEOs of partypoker, etc, could be arrested any time they step inside the US.
Anyway. I've always played at a variety of sites and that hasn't changed, I just had to add some other ones in the mix. I've found the games at bodog to be quite soft, and I still play at Hollywood. I haven't tried PokerRoom recently to see if I can still get in. My crypto accounts got closed though.
posted by RustyBrooks at 3:30 PM on October 14, 2006
Anyway. I've always played at a variety of sites and that hasn't changed, I just had to add some other ones in the mix. I've found the games at bodog to be quite soft, and I still play at Hollywood. I haven't tried PokerRoom recently to see if I can still get in. My crypto accounts got closed though.
posted by RustyBrooks at 3:30 PM on October 14, 2006
One thing that sucks, I used this "HUD" software for partypoker, called pokermanager. Does pokerstars allow the same software? Anybody know?
posted by delmoi at 3:42 PM on October 14, 2006
posted by delmoi at 3:42 PM on October 14, 2006
Seconding Full Tilt
It is not going under, or so they claim, and has good software, usually lots of people, tables, of low stake NL. Clearing the bonuses really sucks there and that's my reason for wanting to switch elsewhere (I liked Absolute and I think it's still running) but if you don't care about that then go for it. Make sure you don't use FirePay, as they are no good anymore. I think Neteller is alright.
posted by shokod at 3:43 PM on October 14, 2006
It is not going under, or so they claim, and has good software, usually lots of people, tables, of low stake NL. Clearing the bonuses really sucks there and that's my reason for wanting to switch elsewhere (I liked Absolute and I think it's still running) but if you don't care about that then go for it. Make sure you don't use FirePay, as they are no good anymore. I think Neteller is alright.
posted by shokod at 3:43 PM on October 14, 2006
Why are other companies refusing to take bets from US users then? Someone has to be lying.
Well, the whole ban was something slipped into a completely unrelated bill at the last minute, so it's not the most clearly worded thing in the world.
posted by dagnyscott at 4:34 PM on October 14, 2006
Well, the whole ban was something slipped into a completely unrelated bill at the last minute, so it's not the most clearly worded thing in the world.
posted by dagnyscott at 4:34 PM on October 14, 2006
PokerRoom is not an option They have announced they are closing to US-ians and many people are locked out already. PokerStars is the best software and support, Full Tilt is a solid #2 and WPEX is rake-free. All have their pluses, but all-in-all, I'm mostly at Stars because they have games high enough for me to play (50/100), but not so high that they attract Ivey and company.
posted by Lame_username at 7:45 PM on October 14, 2006
posted by Lame_username at 7:45 PM on October 14, 2006
I, Cringley had a column on this topic last week. comes at the issue from a completely sideways angle, so you can see the reasons more clearly.
1) the law legitimizes online gambling, but only for interstate commerce, ie, domestic.
2) the only parties that can violate any of the new rules are banks. the banks now have the requirement (not the power, they had that) to monitor your transactions on a micro scale and prevent transactions to gambling sites. you and the gambling site don't do anything illegal in this new law, but it puts the banks between you.
...my interpretation
posted by qbxk at 10:34 PM on October 14, 2006
1) the law legitimizes online gambling, but only for interstate commerce, ie, domestic.
2) the only parties that can violate any of the new rules are banks. the banks now have the requirement (not the power, they had that) to monitor your transactions on a micro scale and prevent transactions to gambling sites. you and the gambling site don't do anything illegal in this new law, but it puts the banks between you.
...my interpretation
posted by qbxk at 10:34 PM on October 14, 2006
Kingjoeschmoe, do yourself a favor & sign up for a rakeback account. It's free money w/ no set amount of hands required. Standard rate is 25-35%.
I hope Americans do some housecleaning at the polls in November Let's hope but you need to understand about redistricting here. Even back in 2004, pols were given 40% approval but 98% were re-elected. They know who votes for them & get to design the voting districts to their advantage. Sorry about OT rant.
posted by poodlemouthe at 3:32 PM on October 15, 2006
I hope Americans do some housecleaning at the polls in November Let's hope but you need to understand about redistricting here. Even back in 2004, pols were given 40% approval but 98% were re-elected. They know who votes for them & get to design the voting districts to their advantage. Sorry about OT rant.
posted by poodlemouthe at 3:32 PM on October 15, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by beaucoupkevin at 12:17 PM on October 14, 2006