Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Poker Legislation & PPA Discussion hosted by Rich Muny Discussions of various poker-related laws and steps players can take to push for better laws.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-09-2012, 05:51 AM   #151
tamiller866
Pooh-Bah
 
tamiller866's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,651
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by keyman View Post
Actually, such a suit would probably get a more complex ruling.

However, the threat of the suit, or actually filing it, could be used to put political pressure to obtain concessions in the process of getting such a bill passed. Alternately, filing such a suit could enable them to get an injunction preventing the roll-out of ipoker until such time as the lawsuit is resolved.
The one California compact which I skimmed dealt exclusively with Class III gaming. Even in 1999, it explicitly denied offering such games over the internet "unless others in the state are permitted to do so under state and federal law." However, the brief mention of the internet restriction may be limited to only those games "authorized under state law to the California State Lottery".

Poker is a Class II game. I would consider it unlikely that any of the California State-Tribe compacts granted tribes the exclusive right to operate Class II games. The compact I skimmed did grant the tribe, or other tribes (which could also get a compact), the exclusive right, within the (specified) geographical area served by the tribe, only for Class III games.

Should CA ipoker be passed, the courts, ultimately, would likely end up ruling that the tribes have the right to offer internet poker to people physically on tribal land (as stated in the IGRA) without being subject to state taxes, but to offer it to people who are not physically on tribal land they must be licensed by the state/feds in accordance with any applicable laws/regulations. Part of obtaining such a license to serve customers not on their land is agreeing to be taxed under the terms of the license.

While not exactly equivalent, an argument that tribes would have the right to offer ipoker to people outside their own tribal lands is analogous to saying: Nevada is sovereign, so their licensees can offer ipoker into California without being licensed, or taxed, in California, and without complying with California laws/regulations. Obviously, in the absence of federal laws explicitly dealing with such an issue, the argument is flawed. This does not mean that the tribes will not argue that it is, or should be, so.

Hart's statement (1st quote above) that "the measure would require tribes to 'waive tribal sovereignty'", is just wrong. The tribes are sovereign on their own land, not everywhere. Passing the measure would automatically give them the right to offer ipoker on their own land (via IGRA), but not in other areas of California.
Actually, because there are no federal laws explicitly dealing with the issue - unlike say lottery law, preventing other states from selling lottery tickets cross border, the dormant commerce clause could be inferred by the courts to be controlling, and Nevada might be allowed to poach California players.

Anyone that says 'this is how the courts would rule' is kidding themselves, we wouldn't even have IGRA if the pundits had been correct on California v Cabazon.

California allows Horse-racing to use the legal fiction of advanced deposit wagering to make internet wagers off track 'legally' take place at the track, so tribes could assert the same privilege.

But for us it doesn't really matter how they would rule, just having a federal suit filed would suddenly make this a legitimate federal issue, and Congress might be forced to get involved.
tamiller866 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2012, 06:15 AM   #152
TheDarkElf
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,667
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by keyman View Post
Actually, such a suit would probably get a more complex ruling.

However, the threat of the suit, or actually filing it, could be used to put political pressure to obtain concessions in the process of getting such a bill passed. Alternately, filing such a suit could enable them to get an injunction preventing the roll-out of ipoker until such time as the lawsuit is resolved.
The one California compact which I skimmed dealt exclusively with Class III gaming. Even in 1999, it explicitly denied offering such games over the internet "unless others in the state are permitted to do so under state and federal law." However, the brief mention of the internet restriction may be limited to only those games "authorized under state law to the California State Lottery".

Poker is a Class II game. I would consider it unlikely that any of the California State-Tribe compacts granted tribes the exclusive right to operate Class II games. The compact I skimmed did grant the tribe, or other tribes (which could also get a compact), the exclusive right, within the (specified) geographical area served by the tribe, only for Class III games.

Should CA ipoker be passed, the courts, ultimately, would likely end up ruling that the tribes have the right to offer internet poker to people physically on tribal land (as stated in the IGRA) without being subject to state taxes, but to offer it to people who are not physically on tribal land they must be licensed by the state/feds in accordance with any applicable laws/regulations. Part of obtaining such a license to serve customers not on their land is agreeing to be taxed under the terms of the license.

While not exactly equivalent, an argument that tribes would have the right to offer ipoker to people outside their own tribal lands is analogous to saying: Nevada is sovereign, so their licensees can offer ipoker into California without being licensed, or taxed, in California, and without complying with California laws/regulations. Obviously, in the absence of federal laws explicitly dealing with such an issue, the argument is flawed. This does not mean that the tribes will not argue that it is, or should be, so.

Hart's statement (1st quote above) that "the measure would require tribes to 'waive tribal sovereignty'", is just wrong. The tribes are sovereign on their own land, not everywhere. Passing the measure would automatically give them the right to offer ipoker on their own land (via IGRA), but not in other areas of California.
Compacts do not mention poker because tribes do not need to form compacts to offer Class II gaming. Regulation of Class II gaming is done exclusively by the NIGC. Any law that requires a tribe to obtain a license for poker from a state regulatory agency violates the principles of IGRA.
TheDarkElf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2012, 08:59 AM   #153
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,365
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDarkElf View Post
Compacts do not mention poker because tribes do not need to form compacts to offer Class II gaming on tribal land. Regulation of Class II gaming is done exclusively by the NIGC. Any law that requires a tribe to obtain a license for poker from a state regulatory agency violates the principles of IGRA.
FYP. There's the rub.

The issues of prominence for Indian tribes in regards to i-gambling and i-poker are:

1. Sovereignty: Under IGRA the tribes can self-regulate all their gaming under only Federal oversight. The only time a state gains the right to some regulatory authority over the tribal casinos is when it is gained through the tribal-state compact wherein the tribe grants this authority as part of the exclusivity terms. This state regulatory authority is largely limited to access to financial record-keeping for revenue-sharing audits and some consumer protection oversight.

Legislative bills, such as the current state i-gaming bills, would impose the same state regulatory authority over tribal sites as it does over the non-tribal sites. This, in their view, is a violation of their sovereignty as recognized under IGRA.

2. Taxation: Under IGRA the tribes cannot be assessed any taxes on their gaming. Most tribal-state compacts do include some revenue-sharing in exchange for exclusivity.

Legislative bills, such as the current state i-gaming bills, would impose the same state site taxes on the tribal sites as it does on the non-tribal sites. While one can argue that the tribal sites will be operating outside of tribal lands, such a state-tribal arrangement is usually accomplished through compact negotiations, not imposition of law. Creating a law that enforces specific taxes for tribal gaming on non-tribal land harks back to a clear violation of tribal sovereignty and may well be illegal under IGRA.

3. Exclusivity: Currently, tribal-state compacts often grant exclusivity of some or all gaming to tribal casinos in exchange for revenue sharing. I-gaming legislation, such as the CA bill, open up player access to all gaming within the state without regard to such exclusivity terms.

4. Equal market access: Due to the large entry fees and/or qualification requirements in the legislative bills, smaller tribes (or in some cases all tribes) will not qualify for the i-gaming licenses. This is a violation of IGRA, which grants the right to every tribe to run the same gaming which is legal for any other entity in the state. Once again the question of gaming on non-tribal lands comes into play. Is there a difference between a player choosing to place their wagers on the tribal servers over the Internet and choosing to drive to the tribal casino to place their wagers on the tribal tables?

Although poker has Class II gaming status under IGRA, i-poker is clearly a special case that enters the realm of a new category of gaming. The current CA bill is for all i-gaming, not just poker, as is the NJ bill. The i-poker only bills are usually structured in such a manner that it will only take a legislative change to one definition in the bill, "authorized game", to expand to additional gaming.

The concerns of the tribes over i-gaming legislation are legitimate, and will take intensive consideration to properly resolve, either through the legislative process or the courts.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2012, 01:05 PM   #154
Jonaspublius
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The America becoming
Posts: 2,182
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Would a federal law automatically invalidate exclusivity compacts?
Jonaspublius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2012, 01:29 PM   #155
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,365
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonaspublius View Post
Would a federal law automatically invalidate exclusivity compacts?
That's one of the concerns. The i-poker bill helps this in some regards as it could make all other forms of i-gambling illegal, thus protecting the compacts from state legislation. On the other hand, it would set up the framework for expansion later to other forms of licensed i-gambling without such protection. It also begs the question of whether or not i-poker itself draws away the tribal casino customers, thus violating the exclusivity in spirit.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2012, 02:05 PM   #156
Jonaspublius
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The America becoming
Posts: 2,182
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu View Post
That's one of the concerns. The i-poker bill helps this in some regards as it could make all other forms of i-gambling illegal, thus protecting the compacts from state legislation. On the other hand, it would set up the framework for expansion later to other forms of licensed i-gambling without such protection. It also begs the question of whether or not i-poker itself draws away the tribal casino customers, thus violating the exclusivity in spirit.
This seems to make the opt in or opt out clauses headaches to draft.
Jonaspublius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 12:11 AM   #157
TheDarkElf
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,667
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu View Post
FYP. There's the rub.

The issues of prominence for Indian tribes in regards to i-gambling and i-poker are:

1. Sovereignty: Under IGRA the tribes can self-regulate all their gaming under only Federal oversight. The only time a state gains the right to some regulatory authority over the tribal casinos is when it is gained through the tribal-state compact wherein the tribe grants this authority as part of the exclusivity terms. This state regulatory authority is largely limited to access to financial record-keeping for revenue-sharing audits and some consumer protection oversight.

Legislative bills, such as the current state i-gaming bills, would impose the same state regulatory authority over tribal sites as it does over the non-tribal sites. This, in their view, is a violation of their sovereignty as recognized under IGRA.

2. Taxation: Under IGRA the tribes cannot be assessed any taxes on their gaming. Most tribal-state compacts do include some revenue-sharing in exchange for exclusivity.

Legislative bills, such as the current state i-gaming bills, would impose the same state site taxes on the tribal sites as it does on the non-tribal sites. While one can argue that the tribal sites will be operating outside of tribal lands, such a state-tribal arrangement is usually accomplished through compact negotiations, not imposition of law. Creating a law that enforces specific taxes for tribal gaming on non-tribal land harks back to a clear violation of tribal sovereignty and may well be illegal under IGRA.

3. Exclusivity: Currently, tribal-state compacts often grant exclusivity of some or all gaming to tribal casinos in exchange for revenue sharing. I-gaming legislation, such as the CA bill, open up player access to all gaming within the state without regard to such exclusivity terms.

4. Equal market access: Due to the large entry fees and/or qualification requirements in the legislative bills, smaller tribes (or in some cases all tribes) will not qualify for the i-gaming licenses. This is a violation of IGRA, which grants the right to every tribe to run the same gaming which is legal for any other entity in the state. Once again the question of gaming on non-tribal lands comes into play. Is there a difference between a player choosing to place their wagers on the tribal servers over the Internet and choosing to drive to the tribal casino to place their wagers on the tribal tables?

Although poker has Class II gaming status under IGRA, i-poker is clearly a special case that enters the realm of a new category of gaming. The current CA bill is for all i-gaming, not just poker, as is the NJ bill. The i-poker only bills are usually structured in such a manner that it will only take a legislative change to one definition in the bill, "authorized game", to expand to additional gaming.

The concerns of the tribes over i-gaming legislation are legitimate, and will take intensive consideration to properly resolve, either through the legislative process or the courts.
I believe that IGRA requires a compact for all Class III gaming regardless of whether exclusivity is part of the deal or not. States are usually happy to grant exclusivity because nobody wants a casino in their backyard, hence, if they can stick them on some tribal land they don't really give two chits about and collect a nice stream of revenue for essentially doing nothing, it's a win-win for them.

But I am far more concerned with the "FYP" part of your post. You steadfastly adhere to the idea that that a wager occurs in the location it is placed and in the location in which it is received. I can trace this idea back to the DOJ of the lunatic who was president even though he didn't really win the election. That was about a decade ago.

Is there some statute to back this up? How about some relevant case law? If the answer to both is no, are you sure this DOJ feels the same way?
TheDarkElf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2012, 12:38 AM   #158
tamiller866
Pooh-Bah
 
tamiller866's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,651
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

DE,

The DOJ in NY has gotten away with using the NY statute that says that if the wager is placed in NY, the gambling occurred in NY, in charging offshore sports betting sites for violating the IGBA.

But as you know, the tribes in NY were able to say that NY gambling statutes are regulatory and don't extend to the player, in order to offer poker on tribal land in NY.

So even in NY, which has an applicable statute, it's not clear which way the courts would hold. There's no right answer until the high court weighs in, so the FYP was clearly premature.

Interestingly, it was probably because of that statute and the case law upholding it that the DOJ chose NY to prosecute PokerStars et al, but if regulatory statutes don't apply to instate tribes, how can they apply to foreign businesses?

Further, if they believe the business of online poker to be occurring in the home of the player, why aren't they going after the sites for a slam dunk tax evasion charge without needing to prove poker is gambling?

By not charging offshore sites for tax evasion, they are all but admitting that the business is not occurring in their tax jurisdiction, so how can it be occurring in their criminal jurisdiction?

/derail

Last edited by tamiller866; 03-12-2012 at 12:43 AM.
tamiller866 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2012, 02:06 AM   #159
Micro McD
grinder
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 468
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill



CA Gov Legislation Today's Events:http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/todevnt.html
Micro McD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2012, 04:12 PM   #160
madshakes
grinder
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 539
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

What's the likelihood of this passing?
madshakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2012, 01:27 PM   #161
RU18LOL
fade city
 
RU18LOL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,517
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Is there any specific date we are looking forward to right now?
RU18LOL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2012, 02:12 PM   #162
cakewalk
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
cakewalk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: it depends
Posts: 8,506
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

something happened yesterday. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...2_history.html

Quote:
COMPLETE BILL HISTORY


BILL NUMBER : S.B. No. 1463
AUTHOR : Wright
TOPIC : Internet gambling.

TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Urgency
Appropriations
2/3 Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

BILL HISTORY
2012
Mar. 22 Referred to Com. on G.O.
Feb. 27 Read first time.
Feb. 25 From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 26.
Feb. 24 Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
What does "Referred to Com. on G.O." mean?

Last edited by cakewalk; 03-23-2012 at 02:22 PM.
cakewalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2012, 03:05 PM   #163
yoshi_yoshi
journeyman
 
yoshi_yoshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 265
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Looks like Committee on Governmental Organization:
http://sgov.senate.ca.gov/

From the agenda:
http://sgov.senate.ca.gov/agenda
Looks like the committee meets every other Tuesday (next being 3/27). Currently SB 1463 is not on the 3/27 or 4/10 agendas though =(

On the plus side, Wright is the chair of the committee.
yoshi_yoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2012, 01:56 PM   #164
ScreaminAsian
For President
 
ScreaminAsian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: grabbing life by the pussy
Posts: 21,262
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

if I was a state legislator I'd just change that 2/3 vote part to something way lower.

like, c'mon guys, common sense.
ScreaminAsian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2012, 05:04 AM   #165
Micro McD
grinder
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 468
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by cakewalk View Post
BILL HISTORY
2012
Mar. 22 Referred to Com. on G.O.
Feb. 27 Read first time.
Feb. 25 From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 26.Feb. 24 Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Just noticed that part, I guess the day we are looking for starts today. Atleast this means there's still a small chance they want to rush this thru like crazy, didn't know they couldn't act until a month after print. It's a longshot but Nevada is gearing up and CA wants to start the cashflow this year so who knows.

Hoping for lots of action in April. More likely in the summer.
Micro McD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2012, 01:29 PM   #166
dmyers1166
old hand
 
dmyers1166's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Our lab cali
Posts: 1,671
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Maybe a committee hearing in next month or two .. and then june for the rush through. After that it is all election. No assembly bill, so that could be an issue .. Both have to pass and I'm not sure it can be pushed that easily through both.

A long shot for sure, but really we don't have much else going on so fun to dream. I don't think Gov. will veto, CA is a fairly liberal state and doesn't get much into the vice thing.
dmyers1166 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2012, 11:47 PM   #167
madshakes
grinder
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 539
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

What about tribal opposition? Will that have any influence?
madshakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 06:18 AM   #168
NDwon
stranger
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: California
Posts: 14
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by madshakes View Post
What about tribal opposition? Will that have any influence?
They have major influence that's why i think this has little chance to pass.
NDwon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 12:09 PM   #169
dmyers1166
old hand
 
dmyers1166's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Our lab cali
Posts: 1,671
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Remember, some tribes want online. Of course they want it all and maybe just one tribe wants it all. It's a sausage factory and you don't want to look inside.

The chance the bill as to pass, is much more complex than the tribes want it or not. Well funded competing interests and Las Vegas as not weighed in yet. Once, Nevada is up and running I'm sure there interests will be well funded in CA. To be profitable, Nevada needs the liquidity of CA. I agree, though other than budget concerns it is not likely. 200 million is small in terms of budget deficit, but it is some piece of the pie, and does not require raising taxes so really free money.

There will be some more movement I'm certain, the committee/senate head are on board that helps will moving the bill along.
dmyers1166 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2012, 08:22 PM   #170
TheDarkElf
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,667
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmyers1166 View Post
Remember, some tribes want online. Of course they want it all and maybe just one tribe wants it all. It's a sausage factory and you don't want to look inside.

The chance the bill as to pass, is much more complex than the tribes want it or not. Well funded competing interests and Las Vegas as not weighed in yet. Once, Nevada is up and running I'm sure there interests will be well funded in CA. To be profitable, Nevada needs the liquidity of CA. I agree, though other than budget concerns it is not likely. 200 million is small in terms of budget deficit, but it is some piece of the pie, and does not require raising taxes so really free money.

There will be some more movement I'm certain, the committee/senate head are on board that helps will moving the bill along.
Many, not all, tribes were OK with last year's bill. I suspect this year's bill is a different story.
TheDarkElf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2012, 07:40 PM   #171
dmyers1166
old hand
 
dmyers1166's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Our lab cali
Posts: 1,671
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Found this article .. from CardPlayer ..

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...ded-for-battle

Small quote ..
Quote:
The source said California isn’t “stalling” with its legislation. Lawmakers are being very “deliberate” as the dialogue continues. The goal is to pass the measure in 2012.

End of the article a glimmer of hope we can get to see something next month ..


Quote:
The bill is currently being amended and will be acted upon in a Senate committee in either late April or early May.
Usual friction but maybe something is going on and better than it is dead!
dmyers1166 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2012, 08:08 PM   #172
yoshi_yoshi
journeyman
 
yoshi_yoshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 265
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Thanks for the article. Nothing too exciting for the short term but sounds like at least something is happening. Two more quotes that sound promising:

Quote:
If enacted as is, poker would be the only game allowed for two years. After the waiting period is over, the state could phase in other games. Opponents of the bill say online gaming should never be expanded beyond poker, according to the source.
Quote:
The Morongo and San Manuel bands of Indians spent more than $640,000 lobbying for online poker in 2010-11, according to the Modesto Bee.
yoshi_yoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 10:18 AM   #173
yoshi_yoshi
journeyman
 
yoshi_yoshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 265
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

"Intratstate Internet Poker 2-9-10" is a main link on the Senate GO page! It contains a bunch of transcript links to the testimonies on 2/9/10.

http://sgov.senate.ca.gov/intrastateinternetpoker2910
yoshi_yoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2012, 07:48 PM   #174
DeNutza
grinder
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 624
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by yoshi_yoshi View Post
"Intratstate Internet Poker 2-9-10" is a main link on the Senate GO page! It contains a bunch of transcript links to the testimonies on 2/9/10.

http://sgov.senate.ca.gov/intrastateinternetpoker2910
This seems like a very thorough handout on impacts of taxes and rake:

http://sgov.senate.ca.gov/sites/sgov...cunningham.pdf
DeNutza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2012, 07:49 PM   #175
dmyers1166
old hand
 
dmyers1166's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Our lab cali
Posts: 1,671
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

^^^ nice document little dated with effect of black friday. I hope the politicians will read and attempt to understand the logic in it, but government like rec players mostly fail and learning even basic concepts.
dmyers1166 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online