The poker world did a collective double-take Thursday when a PokerNews story claimed that the PPA would fight any federal bill that banned online gambling.

http://nj***********.net/2723/poker-...-igaming-bill/

One of the wonderful or horrible aspects (depending on your point of view) about making statements regarding specific parts of complex situations is that those same statements can always be quoted independently and then compared to a different part of the complex situation, thereby creating some confusion. That is what happened here.

The PPA is opposed to the Adelson sponsored bill as currently written because it bans all online wagering and that is defined in a such way so as to unquestionably include online poker.

The PPA would still be opposed to the Adelson sponsored bill even if it were altered to include a provision that allowed (some form of) state online poker to continue. Why? Because such a bill gives us nothing. We already have state online poker and we hope to expand it - why support a bill that bans other things simply because it "allows" us what we already have?

Now if we were in a situation where an Adelson sponsored bill seemed likely to move forward, maybe even pass, then of course the PPA would support including a carve out for online poker in that bill.

But supporting such a provision in that situation is very different from giving initial support to the passing of a bill that primarily does all sorts of other things (mostly bad IMHO) simply because it also happens to include a provision exempting poker from its wrath.

Hope that explains things.

Skallagrim