LG:

You should try and lock PX in for the full 5K on this bet. By my crystal ball, you can't lose. PX seems to be in some kind of delusional fog thinking that "only 5 states" will opt out. Here is my (admittedly subjective) list of states likely to opt out - if this monstrosity actually becomes law:

Alabama
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Hawaii
Kentucky
Nebraska
Georgia
Tennessee
California
Minnesota
Arizona
Virginia
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania

Let's say I'm being far too pessimistic, so knock off any five from my list just for the hell of it. That leaves a minimum of 13 states opting out. No way you lose that bet.

Former DJ

And this is the real basis for your objection to the PPA and this bill. You are not looking at:

1. Whether the PPA has maintained the status quo successfully for 4 years (it has)

2. Whether the proposed bill is a good first step (it is).

3. Whether the proposed bill is good for a majority of U.S. players (it is).

4. Whether the bill(s--Frank and McDermott) creates a framework that incentivizes opting in even in states that opt out first (it does).

Probably lots of other things, too, that you are not considering.

All you are doing is posting your fear that this bill will harm you. This may be true, but it is not a rational argument against the bill.

I, too, live in a state that will opt out of this bill. It sucks for me, but the PPA represents all players, and it is obligated to do what it thinks is best for the majority of players, not folks like you and me who live in states that will opt out. Our fight is with our state governments who will opt out. our fight is not with the PPA.

That's because he rest of us have been paying attention. We saw that we lost UIGEA 317-93 in the House. We saw the GOP add a plank to ban online poker in its 2000, 2004 and 2008 platforms (yes, they come out only on presidential election years). We observed the tone of the House yesterday regarding the status quo. We know Congress will take action against us if we don't take action for us.

I get that you want the status quo, but what you don't seem to get is that it will fail if we stop pushing legislation in Congress.

You are talking about a state that has allowed Connecticut to suck in gambling dollars unimpeded for years and years because they are completely disfunctional.

I honestly don't feel that Alabama is guaranteed to opt-out. Yes, they probably will, but it's more complicated than "Bob Riley is against gambling" or his successor for that matter. Riley has staged a campaign to eliminate what he considers illegal gambling. The "casinos" that have been shut down are trying to pass slot machines off as bingo. Yes, I know they're "technically" bingo. And who spends $87 million to build a casino in a state where casino gambling is illegal anyway? Pretty sure somebody is going to notice. Last time I checked Riley wasn't trying to shut down the dog tracks which are legal and provide revenue to the state.

+1000

As a resident of Utah I pretty much have no chance but I still think this bill is needed.

Former DJ,

If I understand correctly (correct me if I don't), the bill in its present wording doesn't criminalize players in opt out states.

I don't exactly know what options will be available for those in opt out states, but I'm sure it'll be far from impossible for these people to play poker.

FermentedDJ:

Not what I said. My point was that very few states will opt out without passing their own intrastate IG legislation as well, imo.

lol, brilliant.

In virtually every business the internet is seen by many business leaders as the key to a successful future.

Some businesses see the internet as a threat and try and stave off their own destruction from better competition by petitioning government to preserve their antiquated monopolies on a particular service.

IMHO, the internet is clearly the future to success as a gambling brand. This applies all across the board from a giant like Harrahs to a small expanded bingo hall at some tribal casino. I base this opinion on the fact that throughout history every time businesses have attempted to prevent the future rather than adapt to it, they have ultimately failed. It is only a matter of time. The casino executives who will prevail are the ones who understand this fact. And when a few show the rest how to really expand business by use of the internet, the rest will jump on board (eventually ... sometimes dawn comes late over Marblehead ).

Skallagrim

Agree 100%. Play poker at Harrahs.com. Get comps at the Harrah's B&M of your choice. More business for the B&M. Easy game.

http://www.coinflip.com/news/pokerst...-gambling-laws.

Pokerstars does not seem to be worried at all....

Bentley is personally against gambling, but supports letting the people vote on whether to have it in the state or not. The best use of your energy right now would seem to be campaigning for Sparks.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/...-casino-report

Mr. bull62:

Thanks for posting this very informative link. Before reading the Montgomery Advertiser article, I didn't even know who Ron Sparks was. All the talk around here (that I've heard) is that Dr. Bentley will be our next Governor. However, since Ron Sparks seems so much more enlightened about gambling than Dr. Bentley, I'll definitely be voting for him.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if Ron Sparks got elected and "Former DJ" had to eat his words!? If Alabama opts in, then LG might be in big trouble on his bet with Skall. If Alabama opts in, you'll be able to knock me down with a feather. There are parts of this state where you can drive down a mile of road and pass three or four churches. Most church goers in this state really look down on gamblers. They have about the same attitude regarding poker players as Joan Rivers.

Former DJ

Fermented DJ,

It is not my fault, nor the fault of the PPA, that you live in the middle of a group of people who believe what you do is evil (if that is indeed the case, never been to Alabama myself).

Perhaps you might regain some credibility on these forums if you lay out a specific case as to why the PPA should demand that the Federal Government protect you from the votes and opinions of your neighbors? I would especially appreciate you explaining how that benefits most poker players if that also means depriving a majority of the rest of the nation the benefits of openly legal online poker.

Assuming your latest take on the subject is not as FOS as some of your past ones, that might be an interesting post - unlike virtually all of your past ones.

Skallagrim

PS - you have your "PPA robots" mixed up. I have no bet with LG.

That's nothing compared to what ManWithBrisk who posted above has to contend with in Utah. There were 2 churches with only 2 houses in between about a 1/2 mile down my street when I lived there. No big deal until you realize they were the same denomination. One that is an anti-gambling as any group out there.

I dont think anyone has an actual bet with LG at this point.

Ohio finally passed a casino bill to finally get casinos built on Ohio soil so I cannot see them opting out as they already made a leap to this type of commerce.

Ohio's in

yes?

this is a post that's more appropriate for the politics forum, but i'm going to make it anyway. gauging from the breakdown of the vote on this law, it looks to me like the politicians some of you are referring to as the "leftist nanny-staters" might actually be more free market than the tea partiers on this issue, yeah? seems like baucus and bachmann are trying to nanny the american population with their opposition to legalization. imo based on the law in WA banning online poker and indian tribes looking out for their own interests, i think WA is less than 50% to opt-in. if i had to put a percentage on it, i'd say 35-40%. i don't want to move, but if i have to...

Any info on Wisconsin and to a lesser extent Illinois?

I may end up moving when the state opts out. Poker is enough of my regular income that I think it would be worth while to leave a place where it is not an option.

Mr. Foldemlow:

You're correct, it will still be possible for players in opt-out states to play online poker - just as long as they're willing to pay a 50 percent deposit tax and play on an "illegal" unlicensed site.

If legalization passes and becomes law, I'm afraid I'll be spending more time making the 235 mile drive over to Tunica and playing live. Either that or go back to work in a "real job" - as my foster mother says.

Former DJ

From the trenches, If it is left to any elected official Kentucky is opt out. If it is put on a statewide ballot we are definitely opt in.
The Horse Racing Industry is just too darned powerful here. Add in the rural religious vote and no elected official outside of Louisville or Lexington will make a public vote for "Gambling" of any type.
Kentucky is full of "Saturday Sinners, Sunday Saints" and only in the privacy of the polling booth will they really stand up for Poker. It took a statewide ballot and constitutional show down to get the lottery.

Kentucky: Coin Toss leaning towards Opt-Out.