According to the ESPN podcast "The Poker Edge" with Phil Gordon and Andrew Feldman, the WSOP will not welcome online qualifiers in starting from 2007, supplication to the primitive laws banning online moonshining in the US.

Basically, Harrah's are not allowing poker sites to buy their players into the WSOP. As a follow after, Full Tilt are no longer periodic satellites to the 2007 WSOP, cutting immediately!

The existent reaction to this news is one of a restrained workaround - instead of the poker sites buying the players in, they could just paean their accounts with the $10,000 so the players can do it superego.

Once you've got the $10K in any case, it's a particular matter. I can't think of what my girlfriend said if I told her I'd just won $10K, but that she couldn't even have a new pair of shoes! Winning staker is one an existence, cash is collateral matter unanalyzably.

I deduce the enlightenment that these sites aren't soft online entries is so that they are seen to be publically separating self from the "law breaking" online gamblers. No highly reputed company wants to be tied with criminals, starkly (Although it's nevertheless up in the air as to whether American players will in fact be classed as criminals or not…)

There is a inappreciably more absurd side to the without exception thing admitting that. It turns out that Harrah's funded Bill Frist's whistle-stop campaign
. Does this mean they were pro-banning, or that they undividedly weren't shrewd of his long when they contracted the cheques?

I'm not sure it makes merchantry sense for them to be pro-banning… thousands of players coughed up millions of dollars in narthex fees this year - one and all from online qualifications. Do they certainly want to disseminate that away?