John Pappas said today at the PPA Town Hall that he believes that Reid and Kyl have a finished UIGEA-II type bill with a poker carve out. He said they will likely try to pass it in the lame duck session. He said the fact that Kyl is retiring helps our chances since he wants to cement his anti-gambling legacy. He also mentioned the specter (to some) of more states passing iGaming (not poker-only) bills as helping the chances of federal regulation.

I didn't catch the town hall, I just can't take any more rumors. Dear, sweet, God that lives in the sky - I can't take any more rumors.

Funny, I cant get enough of them.

zero

After thinking about it for a moment, as I'm typing this post...

I know. Its hard, to believe. (get it?)

double entendre FTW

ahh...

But to see if I can squeeze any more juice out of you, my answer to your question (get it?), is

great news!

lol politicians

Great news if true. Anyone have the quote or link?

I always assumed the bill was ready, just not viable. I hope the lame duck changes that, but if not I'll probably just have to learn the words to Oh Canada.

They mention it in this discussion at 6:20 in...the whole thing is worth a listen if you have the free time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCfyqKvsi40

This is still my opinion:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...9&postcount=60

I fully agree and expect to see this get done this year in one way or another.

100% this year?

Three weeks after the Nevada assembly held it's sit down with PokerStars to map out the NV path to becoming the dominant (one assemblyman said monopoly) online poker hub, this administration executed the BF warrants.

The day after Nevada signed off on it's internet poker regulations, this administration announced that Wire Act didn't apply to poker, so all States were free to regulate it themselves.

The same week Illinois proposed legislation to regulate poker by their lottery, this administration answered the PPA petition by reaffirming that i-poker was a state decision.

Hello?

Reid can do anything he wants, as long as this administration is in office, internet gaming will be in the hands of State government, any of you convinced 100% otherwise are welcome to free money if you want to place yours where your mouth is.

TY

I attended the Town Hall, and you might add a few specific points to your summary:

It is online casino games that is the new "boogeyman", it may be a calculation that casinos can accept and tribes might support. The "timing" depends on a lot of factros to be "right" but is based upon the consequences flowing from (1) the DOJ Letter and (2) States moving forward, some with online gaming generally instead of "poker only".

1. The "some" folks concern you referred to was very interesting, because it was in the context of the Delaware "Not just poker" / Lottery driven bill. Briefly, John related that tribal gaming interests, faced with a new perceived threat (i.e. online lottery-sponsored casino gaming) were now much more receptive to the prospect of a federal bill, to protect themselves against lottery inturision into their markets. I think the point, while very interesting, may have been over stated with respect to the 2012 lame duck session. John hopes that the prospect raisded by Delaware will prompt an immediate by tribes to support a 2012 lame duck effort. I just don't think the threat perception is that great nor that immediate.

2. A lame duck proposal: It would depend upon selling a lame duck bill as a real States-level bill, but for poker only, and would need Eric Cantor to sign off. Rep. Barton spoke about the prospects of a "doable" lame duck deal, he emphasized however, that he was NOT saying it WOULD happen, only that it was doable between the House (where he said the votes WERE sufficient, and the Senate, where both Kyl and Reid could put it thru.)

3. I thought Barton's talk was very candid, he explained that a standalone bill like his was essentially dead for 2012 under House rules, unless it moved forward within a July timeframe. He spoke instead about attachment to a Senate-driven bill during the lame duck session, stated that the poker regulation language had enough votes to pass the House if it came up for a vote but left out only one qualifier .... He couched his "have the votes" language with the requirement that the proposal actually come up for a vote... I asked him out in the hallway about the prospects of getting Eric Cantor's support to schedule a vote, in light of Las Vegas press reports realting that Adelson had Cantor's ear. He reiterated that a lame duck passage was doable, but not "done", and the Republican leadership, meaning Boehner and Cantor, were key to a lame duck effort.

All in all the town Hall was an excellent PPA event, drawing both PPA lobbyists and 4 Board members, together with PPA staff.

FWIW, Rep Barton gave a very candid talk on the role of "support" in getting a Congressman to listen to you, and that both money and a grass roots perception were important.

(This referenced perceived rising tribal support for a federal bill may prove short-lived, insufficient for 2012 or with only limited support among the California tribes. However, if that State logjam continues, it may bear fruit in 2013.)

The big variable in my view: Will casinos like Caesars or suppliers like IGT accept a federal prohibition on online casino games, with only a poker-only carveout ?

I don't think they should or would upon reflection.

The margins available for core gaming, i.e. casino games and slots and video poker far exceed those of online poker AND do not require the same liquidity. I think online casino gaming is the Holy Grail for the industry compared to poker business models, a hard fact which this forum may resent.

The B&M "protectionist" angle John thinks the tribes may embrace would require Caesars and IGT and the rest to turn away federally from the biggest revenue stream and highest margins they can see online (aside from selling games to players who will pay simply for entertainment without ANY prizing.

I just don't see how that would be in the industry's interest vis a vis continued State development. They are not THAT scared of lotteries grabbing the whole pie, outside of a few States like Delaware where the Lotteries already control gaming.

I am hardly a "100%" believer that internet gaming will be a federal matter, but you need to define your proposed wager a lot better to make it a real betting proposition.....

Proposition betting is all in the details, the bet terms must be clear enough so that it can be fairly graded and a winner declared.

How would you grade a prop bet about 100% federal if a federal bill passed that said only that States are allowed to legislate intrastate AND multi-state compact between/among themsleves as they wish ? (That is pretty much the powerball model.) For betting purposes, who wins if THAT bill were to pass, you or the "federalist" bettors ?

An IHA type 'everyone get along' bill might get support from the administration, but Reid wouldn't support it unless NV ended up being the only hub like Oregon is for online betting for Horseracing.

Reid and Obama could get together and divide up the country with Nevada getting the 12 states that allow commercial poker and lottery getting the rest, I could see something like developing if he wins a second term and States drag their feet, but I'll take opposite side of that or any other federal online poker legislation for 2012.

I hope Harry gets right on it the day after the elections. The Republican-controlled House only has 16 working days in D.C. during the lame duck session. Eight days in November and eight days in December. I find it difficult to feel optimistic.

^^

Honestly, the less days they have to do it better imo. That means they are going to have to ram a whole ton of bills through in a short time, and hopefully poker will get attached and fly under the radar due to all the craziness right after the election.

+1

Everything they haven't done in the last year and half is going to get jammed in to those 16 days.