[ohdear]

are there different rules for different states? i've heard some people say it is illegal to bet sports online but i don't see how that's possible considering there are so many verified sites out there.

i've also heard it's illegal to bet from the US to a US-located bookmaker?

someone shed some light on this please

[Thremp]

No.

[savman]

I'll plead the 5th...or drink it

[WileOut]

Its not illegal federally to place a bet. It is illegal to accept a bet. Then different states have different laws on the matter. Most states do not have laws about internet gambling so it is a grey area.

[Sinister Cat]

There is a Federal law that could be found to make online betting illegal, the Federal Wire Act. Basically it's illegal to use phone lines for betting. It historically has been used only against bookmakers.

Beyond that, some states (washington for instance) have laws that specifically forbid online gambling. Others forbid gambling generally.

[allwater334]

ohdear, if you havent started gambling yet, dont even think about starting..You watch games all of the time and think you can make a fortune betting..IT WONT EVER HAPPEN...You will get on streaks where u will feel like u can win every game and then other times, u will lose and start chasing and before u know it, u will be depositing again...even if u say u arent going to chase or have rules of using a certain percentage of your bankroll on each play..IT DOESNT MATTER, u will find yourself breaking those rules when u lose and like I said it wont take long to figure out that u made a huge mistake but it will be too late bc the gambling urge wont leave...

[THEGREAT30]

Suspicious

[Richkas]

Is online sports betting 100% legal?

Yes with CreditWagering

[wildemu]

Originally Posted by allwater334

ohdear, if you havent started gambling yet, dont even think about starting..You watch games all of the time and think you can make a fortune betting..IT WONT EVER HAPPEN...You will get on streaks where u will feel like u can win every game and then other times, u will lose and start chasing and before u know it, u will be depositing again...even if u say u arent going to chase or have rules of using a certain percentage of your bankroll on each play..IT DOESNT MATTER, u will find yourself breaking those rules when u lose and like I said it wont take long to figure out that u made a huge mistake but it will be too late bc the gambling urge wont leave...

This post is so accurate that it's scary.

[robert715]

Originally Posted by allwater334

ohdear, if you havent started gambling yet, dont even think about starting..You watch games all of the time and think you can make a fortune betting..IT WONT EVER HAPPEN...You will get on streaks where u will feel like u can win every game and then other times, u will lose and start chasing and before u know it, u will be depositing again...even if u say u arent going to chase or have rules of using a certain percentage of your bankroll on each play..IT DOESNT MATTER, u will find yourself breaking those rules when u lose and like I said it wont take long to figure out that u made a huge mistake but it will be too late bc the gambling urge wont leave...

Sounds accurate to me. The probelm is life being to boaring. I

[vanzack]

Placing a wager on sports is totally legal at the federal level in the US and is not governed by the Wire Act. The act of accepting wagers is what is covered by the wire act, an important distinction.

Let me quote the ruling that has stood since Nov 25, 1981 and has NEVER been challenged (USA vs Robert Baborian 528 F.Supp 324 paragraph 5):

Congress intended the "business of gambling" to mean bookmaking, i.e. the taking and laying off of bets, and not mere betting. The provocative question is whether this is still the proper definition when the bettor wagers substantial sums and displays the sophistication of an expert in his knowledge of odds making. This court concludes that the statute simple does not covers such a situation. This court finds that Congress never intended to include a social bettor within the prohibition of the statute and that Congress did not contemplate prohibiting the activities of mere bettors, even where, as with Mr Baborian, they bet large sums of money with a great deal of sophistication.

The truth of the matter is that the DOJ does interpret the law the way I stated it, and that is evidenced by the fact that there has not been a single prosecution at the Federal level since the case I cited (USA vs Baborian 1981). Not one single bettor has been brought up on federal charges since 1981 unless there was tax evasion, money laundering, or RICO thrown at them. The Wire Act simply applies ONLY to those in the business of gambling, and as defined by the judicial system that means someone who TAKES bets. The following are some articles on the subject - keep in mind when reading them that when they say sportsbetting is illegal under the wire act - the key definition is that of someone "in the business of gambling" which has been defined to exclude the person placing bets.

http://www.playwinningpoker.com/online/poker/legal/
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Feder...s/wire-act.htm
http://www.unc.edu/courses/2006sprin...e/federal.html (important pertinent text quoted in italics below - its about the 4th paragraph in the link)

Criticisms of the Wire Act’s Applicability to Online Gambling
• In the Business of Betting or Wagering
Even if the Wire Act is shown to apply to internet gambling it would only apply to gambling operators, since it expressly states that it applies only to those “engaged in the business of betting or wagering.” 18 U.S.C. 1084, U.S. Code Collection, Cornell Law School , at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...4----000-.html . Obviously, this would exclude individual bettors from any liability under the Act. This point is fairly uncontroversial, and is supported by the language of Congressman Emanuel Celler, then Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who stated during debate on the Act that “[t]his bill only gets after the bookmaker, the gambler who makes it his business to take bets or to lay off bets. . . It does not go after the causal gambler.” Jeffrey R. Rodefer, Internet Gambling in Nevada : Overview of Federal Law Affecting Assembly Bill 466, 8-13, athttp://web.archive.org/web/20040303190351/http:/ag.state.nv.us/hottopics/int_gamb_nv.pdf (quoting United States v. Baborian, 528 F. Supp. 324, 328 (D.R.I. 1981) (quoting 107 Cong.Rec. 16,534 (1961))).


At the state level, certain states have specific laws that make gambling illegal. Even other states (nevada, california, louisians, and washington) have specifically made online gambling illegal. Any way you slice it, NOBODY HAS EVER BEEN PROSECUTED FOR ONLINE GAMBLING. The closest thing was Jeffrey Trauman of North Dakota - who paid a 500 dollar fine and never went to court in the only known attempt at harassing an online gambler in US history.

http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/col...Online_Bet.htm

The politicians love to stand up and say that online gambling is illegal because it helps their causes and they can say whatever they want to further their agendas. The proof is simply that it is totally untrue. Sports bettors are exempt because they are not in the "business of gambling".

If sports gambling was already illegal under the wire act why would they be trying to pass the proposition to update the wire act? They wouldnt need to. Politicians love to say that sports betting is illegal but then at the same time are trying to pass a bill that makes it illegal. Does that make sense to you? That should be proof alone.

Simple google searches on the subject will all be consistent - if it is a politician talking they will say the wire act makes it illegal and if it is an attorney or independent party they will state the facts - that no federal statute covers online gambling (poker or sportsbetting) if you are placing wagers and not in the business of gambling as defined in 1981.

Now this is all at the FEDERAL LEVEL. Every state is different on their state statutes with regards to gambling, but they are generally considered to be soft laws considering the lack of effort to even enforce them. But the federal law is clear to anyone who does not have an agenda, take bets and you are in trouble, place bets and you are ok.

[wtf]

vanzack, very informative. what do you think the position of government is on exchanges? as they just provide electronic market place to match parties, they do not take wagers.

[sofun]

wowowwo Vanzack, great written and definition

[vanzack]

Originally Posted by wtf

vanzack, very informative. what do you think the position of government is on exchanges? as they just provide electronic market place to match parties, they do not take wagers.

Exchanges are slightly different than a traditional book in nature, but it hasnt been tested at the legal level yet.

[wtf]

Originally Posted by vanzack

Exchanges are slightly different than a traditional book in nature, but it hasnt been tested at the legal level yet.

oic, you are quite the sharp. that is exactly what americas premier gaming lawyer said!

are you a laywer?

[vanzack]

Originally Posted by wtf

oic, you are quite the sharp. that is exactly what americas premier gaming lawyer said!

are you a laywer?

I am not a lawyer, but "americas premier gaming lawyer" might also be my personal lawyer, my lawyer is one of the ones always mentioned in that conversation. Who are you talking about?

[ohdear]

ok so technically there is nothing to worry about as far as the law goes.

the real concern is getting carried away and allowing it to become an addiction.