great informative post skall, ty. One question: Assume the odds of Reid/Kyl lame duck passage is 50% if Obama wins. In that case, what is the % if Romney wins?

I find just saying things plainly aren't true even more distasteful. (re: the comment I replied to) Misinformation is a huge problem with this community when it comes to advocacy. Skall, Rich and all them know of what they speak. You guys would be wise to listen. They do a good job. Just because they haven't climbed Mt. Everest in 3 days doesn't mean they don't know how to climb.

agreed all of the trolling really turns me off to these threads sorry

,

What misinformation? I'm stating my opinion same as Skall, Rich,Pappas and everyone else ITT. They say Reid has good shot a getting a bill done in the lame duck I disagree. Not just to disagree but cause there's real issue that have to be worked on with regard to online poker/gaming regulation.

So they say the issues have been worked out and Reid came to an understanding with other lawmakers that lead him to believe he can get something done in the lame duck.

I have my doubts that these things have been worked out with the, states,tribes, lotteries,etc sort of like when Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.) and Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) wrote this about tribes and online gaming http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...eptable-gamble maybe something has been figured out regarding tribes but I have my doubts.

No one expects Mt. Everest to be climbed in 3 days just a little realization about the situation.

This is what the lobbyist for the California tribes said when asked why they opposed something that is inevitable (online poker) rather than trying to position themselves to benefit from it:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/06/re...itics-of-poker

The lottery (state government) and horseracing groups would likely answer the same way, and hearing 'Don't worry, Harry has it all sorted.' isn't very comforting.

Anyone that thinks I'm 'trolling' and don't really believe that Harry doesn't have all the answers is welcome to accept my offer to place money on my opinion.

How about questioning past statements?


09-26-2011, 10:55 PM Which, somehow, he came back from.

And now, the drama begins again...

Today (July 7, 2012), 05:34 AM

When the politicians were all tripping over themselves to return their donations after FTP was labeled a ponzi scheme, a lot of people had those same thoughts, it's actually quite impressive how swiftly the PPA was able to right the ship.

Many of us would not have thought that less than a year later they would have a U.S. Congressman accepting their phone calls, let alone attending a townhall PPA meeting, so we should all tip our hats to Pappas on pulling that off, regardless of what happens in the lame duck.

The fundamental difference in what has changed is the DOJ opinion, and that in my estimation is the key difference between now and other times when we got our hopes up.

Remember that the DOJ opinion said only sports betting was illegal online, which also opens the door for online slots, blackjack, backgammon, roulette, craps, whatever the hell else someone can make money off of.

If people think interests like the tribes didn't sit up and pay attention to that then I don't know what to say... because that is what is going to bring them to the negotiating table and allowing online poker. Because poker is a very small source of their revenue compared to these other games in which they play as the house and not a third-party taking small dollars from the pot. They are going to allow poker so that they don't have to give up their monopoly on these other games. And the reason they are going to have to allow poker is that the casinos and Harry Reid and the other people on our side aren't stupid enough to give something for nothing. That isn't how politics is done.

This understanding extends to other interests who now have to come to the table - the Republicans who want to nanny state and might not have anything against online poker but do preach the evils of gambling in the pit, etc, etc, etc.

Sorry, but the PPA is not overplaying their hand to get a donation, or whatever their motive might be for overestimating their chances after November. And I'm not a PPA fanboy. I am just taking this all at face value. The DOJ opinion is going to make all the difference, because now the door is open and the other side is going to have to come to the table if they want to have any chance of closing it again.

The argument most people seem to be making for why it won't pass is that too many interests have had too little time to work it out. But the thing is, the more states like Delaware and Nevada that pass bills, the worse it gets for these other interests. They have a limited window of time to make sure that they get their share before more states come into the fold and they are in an even worse position, as they are in a position where gambling is being expanded and they have no control over it. Don't you get it? They want the control. And they want it before its too late. So they are going to come to the table and work it out now, while they still can. Its great that Delaware is doing this and I hope more do.

P.S. What the **** do state lotteries have to do with anything? I didn't realize that government entities were of the type that even had a seat at the table. Maybe I am missing something, but I thought government programs usually shut up and took what the congress gave them. I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't that violate the anti-lobbying act (again, not a lawyer)?

Thanks for sharing these thoughts, Skall. This is the most encouraging thing that I have heard in a while.

Getting the tribes to the negotiating table wasn't a problem even before the OLC and the President affirmed that online gambling to be a State issue, even before the Wire Act opinion they attended every hearing in the House, where negotiating on tax and regulation questions was intended by the founders to initiate, because they are elected every two years and therefore closer to the people.

The problem is that the commercial casinos are trying to make an end run around the constitutional negotiating process by 'negotiating' directly with the majority leader of the Senate in order to ensure they secure a competitive advantage.

There is also good reason to believe that the States (lottery) have done their 'negotiating' directly with the President, indicated by his answer to the online poker question the same week Illinois (Obama's State) announced legislation for it's lottery to offer online poker.

California may be a mess as Pappas put it, but Washington DC is a pig pen by comparison.

Federal Online Poker Measure Could be Voted on This Month

G911 watched the video, read this thread, and wrote up a story. Nothing wrong with that, and at least they credited Skallagrim for his quote, but I guess there's nothing new there.

When forum post are news .... well, just LOL.

Maybe I can figure out how to put one of those copyright symbols after the "Skallagrim" and then they couldn't copy the whole thing or would have to pay me!

I had a debate with my non poker playing roommate. He thinks that if states are allowed to legalize within their borders, that it will allow too many personal/privacy intrusions authorized to law enforcement in order to ensure people from say Texas aren't gambling in Delaware. Texans understand that delaware can do whatever it wants, but Texas does NOT want its citizens gambling on Delaware sites for obvious reasons.

From a practical standpoint, what stops some intelligent people from setting up VPN farms inside Delaware and charging a small fee to allow those outside Delaware to gamble? Without massive law enforcement into IP networks this cannot be stopped.

So my roommate says he WANTS a federal bill to both even the playing field and prevent the technology development of this anti-spoofing software. He also is totally cool with parimutuel betting but not games against the house.

Skallagrim ©

(just copy and paste)

No doubt some would try this.

That said, it's pretty easy for a web company to detect when it is being accessed via VPN. This would probably be illegal, and the sites would probably take active measures to deter it.

Except why would Delaware really care? Spend money to stop out of state gamblers generating revenue for them?

Yep. Because any gambling business that doesn't follow their state law is going to be shut down by the state. And if the regulators don't do their job, they are out too.

Well that begs the question, is it state law? It's more like federal law right? Commerce Clause? It would seem it's up to a state like Utah to enforce not being able to access Delaware's sites, not the other way around.

This is funny.

Given the fact that the regulators will be in DE, the servers will be in DE, and the only people with any access to the latter are also in DE, the onus is on them.

As stated previously, the software downloaded from a poker site will check to see what other software is on the computer. I seriously doubt the poker client will operate if a VPN is in use.

Beyond that, how do you get around the residency requirement? Sites will require copies of state-issued ID, utility bills, etc.

The issue of national cyber security is becoming more prominent. I wonder if it could end up being must pass lame duck legislation.

I thought it just means you must be in Delaware to gamble, not a resident. I go to Nevada and gamble many times a year and I'm no resident.