Ok I might be missing something here but here is my take on the whole thing . It looks like it is jsut one of those "paper" bills . Banks cant transfer money to a poker site but how many people actaully send direct to the poker site from thier banks? Not very many I dont think . Most use Neteller or click2pay or somethign similaer.. Since neither of theese sites are "gambleing" sites you can still send and recieve funds from them . So in all essence nothing will really change once the dust settles . Ok thats my two cents .

Party just shut down inter account transactions for US residents.

!PARTY_ACCOUNT_interaccounttransfer_transfermoneyr ejected_UserFromUSNotAllowed

Originally Posted by gder03

^&$#^& two night ago I baught 100 shares of party poker stock.

I seriously hope ur kidding.

if not, ouch

Just to freak you all out even more, I just got this email from the affiliate site that i originally signed up for Party through.

"Due to the new gambling law passed last Friday, Party Poker will be banning all US players from their site. They have also asked us not to sign up any new players until further notice.
We will keep you posted as we get more news, until then the site is closed."

http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...7s+top+stories

LOOKING FOR LOOPHOLES. But U.S. casinos hoping for a slice of the $12 billion online market aren't so sure the party is over. They see a reason to celebrate in the language that ended up on the Senate's cutting-room floor. Unlike the version that passed the House earlier this year, the approved legislation does not explicitly outlaw betting on online casino-style games, such as poker and blackjack. The bill does bar financial institutions from accepting "illegal" bets, leaving the question unanswered as to whether some forms of online gambling are permitted. To date, sports betting is one of the only forms of gambling explicitly outlawed in the act.

The American Gaming Association, which lobbies for the U.S. casino industry, took a neutral stance on the bill, even though several prominent members, such as MGM Mirage (MGM), have said they would like to start online sites. AGA president and CEO Frank Fahrenkopf says the organization does not believe the act eliminates the possibility for U.S.-based casinos to open online sites, regulated by states or the federal government, in the future. "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."

Indeed, Nevada Congressman Jon Porter introduced a bill in May that would study whether online gambling sites, run by U.S. companies, could be effectively regulated. Fahrenkopf believes that bill is likely to be considered early next year. The measure is backed by the casinos and still gathering support. "It is still Congressman Porter's intention to move ahead with this bill," says Trevor Kolego, the congressman's legislative director. "We hope to pass it, if not by the end of this session, then next session."

CONGRESSIONAL CONCERNS. Congressman Bob Goodlatte, the Virginia Republican who pushed through the initial anti-online-gambling bill in the House, concedes that the final version is not the blow to online gaming he had hoped for. "It is not everything the House passed earlier this year, but it does include the enforcement prohibition to cut off funds going to the illegal online sites," says Goodlatte. He adds that the bill should prevent some of the annual $6 billion in online bets made by U.S. residents from "getting sucked out of our economy."

But he's still pushing for a separate piece of legislation that would change the wording of the 1961 Wire Act and clarify that various forms of online gambling are illegal. "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."

Publicly, the Justice Dept. has maintained that all online gambling violates the Wire Act. But it has only prosecuted cases involving online sports betting. In July, law enforcement officials charged the company formerly known as BETonSports (BSS.L) CEO David Carruthers with racketeering and fraud for permitting U.S. citizens to gamble on the site (see BusinessWeek.com, 7/19/06, "Justice Gambles on Net Crackdown"). Carruthers was subsequently let go from the company and is currently under house arrest in a St. Louis hotel. Similarly, Sportingbet (SBT.L) nonexecutive Chairman Peter Dicks has also been charged by a Louisiana court with violating the Wire Act. He is out on $50,000 bail.

INVESTORS GLOOMY. Shares of publicly traded gambling companies plummeted after each arrest, but then recouped some losses amid expectations that the U.S. law enforcement action would be limited to sports betting operations and wouldn't severely dampen online gambling in the long run (see BusinessWeek.com, 7/12/06, "Betting Against Online Gambling"). On Oct. 2, the same hopeful arguments appeared silenced. But as stocks plummeted to new lows (see BusinessWeek.com, 10/2/06, "Party's Over for Online Gaming"). Companies warned investors to expect significantly lower profits as they planned their withdrawal from the U.S. market.

Eugene Christensen, CEO of gaming-analysis firm Christensen Capital Advisors, says investor pessimism is warranted. Although the law may not explicitly outlaw all online gambling, Christensen says it's clear that the U.S. plans to aggressively attack foreign Internet gambling sites. "It is, long term, a very substantial negative for the U.K.-based Internet gambling companies," says Christensen. "They have lost the U.S. market, and I think they have lost it for good."

Other analysts disagree. If the bill becomes law, they say that U.S. gamblers will still bet on these sites. But rather than using credit cards, they'll employ other e-wallet payment services based outside the U.S., such as NetTeller and FirePay. Frank Catania, former director of gaming enforcement in New Jersey and president of Catania Consulting Group, calls the law "a sham" that won't stop online betting in the U.S. "There are so many alternate means of payment that it is not going to stop what is happening here," says Catania. "We are going to be spending a lot of money for enforcement, and it is going to be worthless." Enforcing the act will cost about $2 million between 2007 and 2011, according to a May 26 Congressional Budget Office report.