Hi All Long time, no speak. Can somebody bring me up to speed with what's going on in the world of online tournament blackjack please? Looking to get playing again but I'm guessing UB/AP isn't a good place to start I hope someone is going to say that Global Player is back online *crosses fingers* Laters Reachy
where have you been DAMN REACHY YOU STILL HAVE THAT BLACK EYE I TOLD YOU TO STAY AWAY FROM THOSE WILD WOMEN:laugh::laugh:
It's a tattoo Here and there. New job, ultramarathon through Africa to train for, erm...., that's it really. I guess the answer to my former question is "not much"! Oh well, poker it is then...
online play good to see you back online UB/AP is pretty much only sit and goes right now, pretty frequent play at low levels, but only during the evenings at $20 or above. They do have a $250 guaranteed tourney for a $10 buy-in at 7:00 PM EST each night.
Isn't that interesting Nov. Post, somehow shows up NOW! Good observation Colin. I', m goin dumb, deaf and blind, but I didn't see it before. But, blackjack21.com was soliciting playas, by phone and erstwell. AND could be good fortune coming for on-line play with last week's US Supreme Court decision to not ACT, to let anti-porn Internet Law DIE. Thought someone else would relate. But here's my take. The skinny: 1998 law to protect chillin, much as what was tooted about UIGEA(but enacted up front) died quietly after 10 years of litigation. It was pased overwhelmingly by CONGRESS but was fought on constitutional grounds and was never enacted. ACLU fought case, with contention, apparantly agreed in abstinence by HIGH COURT, that "It is not the role of the government to decide what people can see and do on the Internet." An appeals court in Philly ruled the law would violate the 1st Amend., saying "filtering" technologies and other parental control tools are a less restrictive way to protect chillin from inappropriate on line content,(re: gambling?) This now defunct "ACT" was passed a year after the SUPREME COURT ruled the "Communications Decency Act" was unconstitutional. Critics of both acts asserted that pornographers and others could simply base their operations "offshore." beyond the reach of US law. The precedents are here in TWO cases to revoke the UIGEA, with the only distinction the encomberence on US banking institutions. But the prevailing First Amendment Rights stated and refered to in both instances would seem to superceed the banking regulations. This is not to mention the confusion as to how the UIGEA could be enforced. Not to mention that the "to come" enforcement provisions have not yet been developed. Under the old Administration "National Security" played a "part" because of the ability on gambling sites to transfer money among "accounts." But a new day has dawned. Hopefully it doesn't take 10 years for the sun to shine again.
