Zimba Blog:
In the wake of the Black Friday indictments, we've heard several poker rooms indicate that they are closing off access to new American players. On Monday, Hero Poker became the latest poker room to announce it, while adding in similar fashion to the other poker rooms that they will continue to serve existing U.S. players. What they seem to be evoking is that these earlier players are essentially "grandfathered in." Although I'm not a lawyer, this has never made any sense to me. Either it's legal and prudent to serve American players or it's not. How are long standing players any different than new sign ups? Either you shun all U.S. players or you take your chances much as the Merge network has and serve everyone.
The legal concept and history of being "grandfathered in" has a uniquely American angle. According to Wikipedia, it originated in the 1890's as the Southern United States tried to prevent blacks, Mexican Americans and certain whites from voting by making voter registration available to those who had eligible grandfathers. The original grandfather clauses were eventually ruled unconstitutional. Despite the pejorative and manipulative origins the "grandfathered in" concept grew in popularity as a vehicle to create a cutoff date for new action to be implemented which allowed those prior adherents access but denied all future participants. There are many state and federal law implementations (e.g. weapons ban, drinking age, interstate highway act, FCC laws etc.) that have utilized a "grandfathered in" date into their legislation.
In the sports world, there are many instances of grandfathered new regulations:
1. In 2004, the NFL outlawed the one-bar facemask but allowed existing users to continue to wear them.
2. In 2006, NASCAR passed a rule that required teams to field no more than four cars. Since Roush Racing had five cars, they could continue to field five cars until the end of 2009.
3. The National Hot Rod Association is enforcing a grandfather clause banning energy drink sponsors from entering the sport if they were not sponsoring cars as of April 24, 2008, pursuant to the five-year extension of its sponsorship with Coca-Cola, which is changing the title sponsorship from Powerade to Full Throttle Energy Drink.
4. Major League Baseball rule 1.16 requires players who were not in the major leagues before 1983 to wear a batting helmet with at least one earflap. The last player to wear a flapless helmet was the Florida Marlins' Tim Raines in 2002 (career began in 1979).
It is natural in all areas of business that long standing customers of a service request or demand that they get "grandfathered in" to a certain pricing or service packages out of loyalty when the terms changed.
I don't understand why U.S. facing poker rooms are utilizing a similar approach to treat long standing poker players differently than new sign ups due to increasing pressure from the U.S. authorities, I think it's a faulty approach that won't bear fruit. Sure the poker rooms don't want to lose loyal long standing customers, but the hope that by creating an arbitrary cutoff date and shutting out all future U.S. players will mitigate their legal exposure is a faulty one in my opinion.
Whereas there was significant speculation that U.S. authorities were only targeting the largest poker rooms, today's Maryland indictments of U.S. facing sportsbooks and poker rooms on the much smaller Yatahay network indicates that no one is free from investigation.
The "grandfathered in" concept may be popular and have considerable history in the U.S., but I don't feel it is applicable in any way nor make any sense for the remaining U.S. facing poker rooms.
In the wake of the Black Friday indictments, we've heard several poker rooms indicate that they are closing off access to new American players. On Monday, Hero Poker became the latest poker room to announce it, while adding in similar fashion to the other poker rooms that they will continue to serve existing U.S. players. What they seem to be evoking is that these earlier players are essentially "grandfathered in." Although I'm not a lawyer, this has never made any sense to me. Either it's legal and prudent to serve American players or it's not. How are long standing players any different than new sign ups? Either you shun all U.S. players or you take your chances much as the Merge network has and serve everyone.
The legal concept and history of being "grandfathered in" has a uniquely American angle. According to Wikipedia, it originated in the 1890's as the Southern United States tried to prevent blacks, Mexican Americans and certain whites from voting by making voter registration available to those who had eligible grandfathers. The original grandfather clauses were eventually ruled unconstitutional. Despite the pejorative and manipulative origins the "grandfathered in" concept grew in popularity as a vehicle to create a cutoff date for new action to be implemented which allowed those prior adherents access but denied all future participants. There are many state and federal law implementations (e.g. weapons ban, drinking age, interstate highway act, FCC laws etc.) that have utilized a "grandfathered in" date into their legislation.
In the sports world, there are many instances of grandfathered new regulations:
1. In 2004, the NFL outlawed the one-bar facemask but allowed existing users to continue to wear them.
2. In 2006, NASCAR passed a rule that required teams to field no more than four cars. Since Roush Racing had five cars, they could continue to field five cars until the end of 2009.
3. The National Hot Rod Association is enforcing a grandfather clause banning energy drink sponsors from entering the sport if they were not sponsoring cars as of April 24, 2008, pursuant to the five-year extension of its sponsorship with Coca-Cola, which is changing the title sponsorship from Powerade to Full Throttle Energy Drink.
4. Major League Baseball rule 1.16 requires players who were not in the major leagues before 1983 to wear a batting helmet with at least one earflap. The last player to wear a flapless helmet was the Florida Marlins' Tim Raines in 2002 (career began in 1979).
It is natural in all areas of business that long standing customers of a service request or demand that they get "grandfathered in" to a certain pricing or service packages out of loyalty when the terms changed.
I don't understand why U.S. facing poker rooms are utilizing a similar approach to treat long standing poker players differently than new sign ups due to increasing pressure from the U.S. authorities, I think it's a faulty approach that won't bear fruit. Sure the poker rooms don't want to lose loyal long standing customers, but the hope that by creating an arbitrary cutoff date and shutting out all future U.S. players will mitigate their legal exposure is a faulty one in my opinion.
Whereas there was significant speculation that U.S. authorities were only targeting the largest poker rooms, today's Maryland indictments of U.S. facing sportsbooks and poker rooms on the much smaller Yatahay network indicates that no one is free from investigation.
The "grandfathered in" concept may be popular and have considerable history in the U.S., but I don't feel it is applicable in any way nor make any sense for the remaining U.S. facing poker rooms.
First Zimba Blog: I Want That Feeling, One Time!
Second Zimba Blog: Sunday Poker Diatribe
Third Zimba Blog: Thoughts and Experiences with Cheating in Poker
Fourth Zimba Blog: The Myth of Money Won in Poker
Fifth Zimba Blog: Poker Super Powers - The Cloak of Invincibility
Sixth Zimba Blog: The Good News About The Portuguese Prodigy
Seventh Zimba Blog: Finding Your Place In Poker
Eighth Zimba Blog: Poker Empathy
Ninth Zimba Blog: Poker - A Global Game
Tenth Zimba Blog: 10 Things I Learned From My First Week Not Playing Poker
Eleventh Zimba Blog: The Blame Game
Twelfth Zimba Blog: Commentary On FSG 218 Pros List
Thirteenth Zimba Blog: Poker News or Perspective?
Fourteenth Zimba Blog: WSOP Memories Redux
Fifteenth Zimba Blog: WSOP Memories Redux, pt. 2
