Numerous commercial and government restrictions since the 2006 UIGEA passage have hampered the smooth depositing and withdrawal of money for online poker players in the U.S. Today, some major banks do not facilitate transactions related to online gambling.
Payment processing is one of the issues that need fixing. Thirteen years ago, the majority of online poker players had an easy time transacting worldwide. Then, they enjoyed lower currency conversion, processing, and withdrawal fees. In 2019, poker players in the country have to clear a vast number of invasive personal identification checks before depositing into an online poker site that’s state-sanctioned. This is unlike customers that patronize accredited brick and mortar poker rooms in the country. Such clients enjoy instant ‘’cash out’’ access to their money. They can conveniently collect their funds at a cashier’s cage.
The second issue that needs fixing is ring-fenced player liquidity. When the intra-state ‘’shared liquidity’’ online poker in the country became a reality last year, many Pennsylvania players hoped that it would be possible to link-up with opponents in Delaware, Nevada, and New Jersey to form a combined marketplace of more than 20 million residents. Contrary to their expectations, earlier this year, the USDOJ-OLC (U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel) overturned its 1961 Wire Act interpretation. The department publicly informed enforcement officials that the law which spans decades now applies to ‘’all’’ the interstate gambling. To survive and be successful in a licensed environment, it is online poker must have a larger pool of players.
Product quality is the third issue that needs fixing. Because of the sputter of regulated U.S. online poker, most operators have reduced investment into the sector while they allocate increased marketing spend to verticals that are tied closely to online casinos. In spite of a player’s frequency of play or skill level, an online poker product’s security, software and presentation remain major facets that concern every patron of regulated peer-to-peer gambling site.
Another issue that needs to be addressed has to do with gambling guidelines. For more than a decade, Pennsylvania Casino Self-Exclusion guidelines have been regulating the commonwealth’s land-based industry. Nevertheless, the probability of cross-jurisdictional ‘’white-book’’ sharing of data and enforcement related to clients ‘’opting out’’ of casinos is under scrutiny as there is a spread of licensed iGaming services to more states.
Finally, yet importantly, U.S. jobs need to be looked at. If the regulated online poker sites are unwilling or unable to source their main talent from their corresponding statewide jurisdictions, then it does not make sense to promise lawmakers that licensure or regulations will ‘’create jobs.’’ Moving forward, all the operators that get authorization from policymakers in the states will need to adhere to each jurisdiction’s mandates. In other words, they must act within the best interests of every state they are licensed in. Failure to do that means they risk being replaced by a firm that is willing or able to hire employees within the job market in the United States.
