Skall, that's interesting analysis, but it it doesn't really address either of my two points.

It certainly seemed like, from comments made on here this Spring, the lotteries were a major factor in gumming up a potential attachment. So is there something in that analysis that wasn't there a few months ago? What has changed the mind of state lotteries?

My second point was about lotteries pressuring states to opt out to protect their stranglehold on state gaming revenue. Wouldnt your post indicate they are likely to do just that?

Third, if its so easy for lotteries to provide games across state lines without legislation, why wouldnt that apply to poker as well? I thought the DOJ authorized intrastate gaming at this point? Furthermore, why would states choose to invade each others territory rather than forming partnerships as they have with MegaMillions and Powerball type games?

If I was a lottery provider and had political clout, those incentives wouldnt be enough for me. I'd want a cut of the money generated, preferential market access, or guarantees on my take of state gambling revenue. Otherwise Id take my chances with the intrastate route, where I would definitely get a perferred competitive position in any legislation, and figure out how to most profitably expand from there.

Obviously a less winning-player friendly route, but why would I give a damn about that?

The realization that if they want to get into online gaming other than their traditional role (selling tickets for the daily/weekly drawings) they are not going to have a monopoly on those games too unless the Feds give it to them. And the Feds are not inclined to give it to them (Kyl very much so).

Yes, if they see it costing them significant revenue. But online poker ALONE does not cost them revenue; online poker alone is not really even competition. And any small amount of lottery revenue lost will flow back to the state through other mechanisms.

Other online gambling is competition and is likely to cause a reduction in lottery revenue. So they can choose to compete in that market (ha-ha) or they can ask to have that market made illegal under most circumstances, or they can demand that their states get a portion of the revenue commensurate with what the lottery looses. But the one thing they wont get is a monopoly over the internet.

It is not easy, it requires BOTH states to have laws that allow the games. If Delaware wants to offer its games in Utah where there is zero legal gambling, too bad - doing so would be illegal.

But if Illinois has legal online slots then Delaware is not providing an illegal game, merely violating a protectionist law. States do not have the power to let one entity run a game (itself) and prohibit another entity from offering the same game simply because it is an out-of-state entity, that is the Dormant Commerce Clause in action.

Greedy people are greedy; they want it all. When the realize they can't have it all they look for what they can get or at least something that protects what they already have. State lottery monopolies are no different.

Skallagrim

^^^

+1

It would be like hens lobbying for the fox to be the hen house guard.

So have lotteries actually changed their viewpoint or is this a theory as to why lotteries might support a bill? I thought TE said no but Skall said yes? I don't find this a compelling case for lotteries to support a bill, nor do I think they are going to view poker as "different" when pushing for opt outs, so curious if this is just a new pitch or if lotteries are on board.

Edit: I'm really skeptical of dcc arguments on this as well given our smack down in the Washington courts, and I don't see why lotteries would compete with each other rather than collude as monopolies for online lottery-type games.

I can't imagine what sort of logic is behind this post. Come on, Lirva. You know better than this.

So basically no one knows if there's a deal,what's in the deal if there is one or how they plan on attaching it. So once again we're supposed to get our hopes up on a something that isn't very likely to happen.

Pappas & Skall know their stuff

You're discounting the prospects of legislation passing because reid/kyl have not made a public announcement (which would obviously be counterproductive to its chances of passage)? Don't get your hopes up- nobody cares if you do.

The likelihood of a bill passing is impossible to quantify obviously, but the absence of a public announcement that a deal has been reached does not necessarily make it unlikely.

IMO, it most certainly does. This Congress can't seem to agree on anything. And after the election they are just gonna push a bill through that hasn't been vetted? I don't think so.

It's unlikely because it's an unpopular issue in a divided Congress. We don't really need to consider the existence of a "public announcement."

I'm not sure what the "vetting" process you are referring to is, but this is the sort of thing that happens when people make deals. I've heard from plenty of people that legislative drafts of a poker bill are being thrown around in a far more advanced form than just early guesswork on a statute.

I'm sure both of them know where their colleagues stand and what the bill will need to look like to reasonably pass. Reid runs the Senate and is arguably the 2nd most powerful democrat in DC.

Kyl, despite being sort of a "lame duck," is still powerful and is the party whip in the Senate. I'd easily say he's one of the most powerful people on the Hill had he not announced he's retiring after this year. Even given that, his opinion and wishes still demand attention.

All this said, I still think it's unlikely to pass this year. However, it's not impossible and I'd put my faith in what Skall is posting here. He's right about Pappas. Guy knows his stuff and is very good at what he does.

Remember, it's an election year, a lot is at stake and both parties are going to step carefully. Poker is not going to be a top priority. The balance of power in the Senate is up for grabs and, with the recent Obamacare ruling, the outcome of this election is seen as do or die by many on both sides.

I'm not discounting the prospects because they haven't made a public announcement. I'm discounting the prospects because there's too many parties with a vested interest in online gambling for there be some grand compromise that's worked out behind closed doors that will allow Reid to be successful in a lame duck attachment of his poker bill.

Sure it's theoretically possible that Reid/kyl has work out an agreement with states,lotteries,card rooms,big and small casinos,horse racing,etc and will have the votes he needs to get it done, it's just very unlikely at this point.

It may be possible down the road for an attachment(maybe by lame duck 2014?) but were not there this year. I'm not convinced the congress see a need to get involved yet but thy might at some point. If there's major problems with intrastate online gaming down the road and the feds decide to get involved then it could happen but not without serious debate on the matter.

When/if congress gets serious about online gaming we'll have a better idea of where we're headed but until then it's mostly just talk that isn't going anywhere, at least on the federal level.

In your opinion. Your opinion with no real facts to back it up other than the already recognized problem that this is a very divided Congress.

Yet a lot or people, many of those people with access to far more facts than you or I, are working very hard to make this happen.

It may not happen, but it is far from impossible. In that light you can choose to bet on it not happening, do nothing to help, and perhaps even tell others that they are wasting their time trying to make it happen. Or you can recognize the difficulties but find the cost of personally helping easily small enough to justify betting on success given the value of the possible winnings.

I think you know the choice I favor.

Skallagrim

What are our metrics for knowing when they are serious? Might they be serious right now?

The problem is the people with more facts can only cry wolf so many times before no one believes they any more facts then then the rest of us.

They aren't there yet IMO. We'll know because there will be many more hearings about online gambling and follow-ups to hearings. Most of the hearings this congress just brought up more questions and potential problems, ones in which congress didn't want to spend the time on to address for w/e reason. As we start getting closer We'll hear talk about it in main stream media not just poker media. There's been movement in the right direction but not nearly enough.

Unless you have IRL experience or facts to back assertions like this up, you shouldn't just draw assumptions out of thin air because it suits your agenda against a certain person or group.

You just... have to be making this stuff up right?

I mean the amount of faith you put into the substantive value of hearings and what came out of them is pretty revealing about your grasp on how this machine actually operates.

This coming from the guy who thinks Reid can just tack on a Federal online tax and licensing scheme without anyone noticing as though it were a ban on self-rolled cigarettes?

+1 Nova, California (where almost 40% of pre-BF poker players live) has been debating and compromising for years and they can't even get a bill out of committee, and the problems they are dealing with (tribes, horseracing, lottery, etc) are the same but magnified on the federal level.

The fact that we haven't heard about any compromises on a federal bill means it's likely further off than what Pappas called a 'mess' in California.

I'm sorry, but I think you have the wrong person. I've barely posted on this forum in the past year, much less said anything like that. I haven't even seen the term "federal online tax and licensing scheme" before and certainly haven't said it.

I obviously would never believe that, especially when we peer towards the house side (considering Boehner and, potentially more importantly, Cantor). You could figure that out from the context of my above posts (you know, where I call it "very unlikely"), but that must be too difficult. Random attacks against the people who are actually trying to help you guys out are the way to go. Skall and I have clashed very publicly in this forum before. I'm certainly not here to just be his apologist.

I have a pretty good idea about how this stuff works online poker isn't my first go around pushing an issue to lawmakers. Perhaps that why I'm bitter to whole process and where we stand right on a federal bill.

It's not that I think hearings themselves will produce the "finial" result. It's pretty obv though that much still needs to worked out before the majority of congresscritters are simply going to hand Reid his online poker bill come the lame duck.

You really think the hearings on this issue are actually integral to how policy is made?

Have you ever heard the term "check the box" hearing? Do you know how much time each senator gets, and how much stock they put in the response to hearing questions? Do you know how witnesses are selected? Do you know how the written follow-ups work?

Sorry, I did have the wrong person, but I do find questioning the education/credentials of anyone that disagrees distasteful.

Karak, I get that hearings are a dog a pony show and aren't going to solve most of the issues with a bill or answer most questions. IMO,The hearings we did have did raise more questions and potential problems with moving a bill though. There's much more at play in all of this then anything brought up in hearings.

States,lotteries,tribes,casinos, and that's just the tip of the iceberg are fighting for their little piece of online gaming. None of the big issues have been resolved yet and aren't going to be by the end of the year. I really hope Reid/kyl can manage to "get it done" but I see no reason to believe they can this year.

Seriousness Above Replacement...obv.