Is it too early to hope that the fix is in?

not this.

kyl has railed hard against online gambling for a long time. and it hasn't hurt him politcally. if he wanted, he could continue to do so, and no one would care. barring a reason to soften his stance, he doesnt need to pretend to be reasonable.

this

I think, when you consider the base of Kyl and the House GOP, this is a much more nuanced issue than people give it credit for. While Kyl and other members of Congress have gotten support in some areas by being unyielding opponents of gambling, I don't think it is such a slam dunk issue for them.

I think the GOP base breaks down on gambling somewhat like this: a small but vocal minority are rabidly anti-gambling; a smaller and slightly less vocal minority lean libertarian and are strongly opposed to government telling us we can't gamble; and a large plurality silently believe that poker is no big deal and if adults wan't to play it on the internet that's fine.

According to this take, there is really not that much political capital to be gained by generating a lot of publicity shutting down online poker.

If Kyl was seeking re-election, I would surmise that he may be coming to this same conclusion. Since he isn't seeking re-election, and has always been morally opposed to all gambling, I'm not really sure what is going on. Absent some sort of horse-trading going on in the Senate, he really doesn't have any incentive to appear reasonable on this issue.

For the House GOP, getting them to buy into this view of their base will go a long way towards getting them to not block an ipoker bill.

Perhaps Kyl is thinking of playing a few hands of poker online to pass time after he retires?

I would play on kylpoker.us if he could bring us ipoker before 2012 erections

The hourly phone calls for age confirmation would be tilting.

I see no evidence to suggest it was made in 2011, in fact this piece of language makes me believe it was made in December 2010

This is only true if a politician has taken a moderate position, or no position at all.

Jon Kyl has basically given poker the middle finger and alluded we're all child molesters. This language from him is conveying a genuine message.

If Jon Kyl backs down from this we can bypass the house altogether. Sadly, I don't think theres any evidence to think that he has, this thread is full of false hope.

No way to know for sure until its over and we can look back. Hopefully we see that one of the many no show/no work jobs Kyl receives will be as a consultant for Caesars Entertainment. Hey, he's retiring because its his turn to get rich right? Why not collect another 100k/year?

Yeah, let's really PISS HIM OFF for moving in our direction. Rather, let PPA do the heavy lifting behind the scenes in ways that politicians, like Kyl, can/will understand.

Your analysis is pretty bad here. Politicians have no reason to be upset when their constituents send them letters. I don't know why you think this would piss him off.

As for Kyl's apparently softened stance on internet poker, he is a politician, and being a politician is all about making friends and influencing people. I don't mean to state the obvious.

Black Friday set up 10 million so very pissed off American poker players to take their frustrations out on their state and local representatives, over an issue a majority of congress poeple could honestly don't give a **** about, one way or the other.

There are close races that are going to be decided on this issue, and all the members of congress may be forced to take a stand, for or against. Some of this nations leaders will be betting their livelyhood, home, and congressional seat they have worked their entires lives for, on what they see as a meaningless issue. Mr. #notmeantobeafactualstatement is its poster child.

Can you imagine how uncomortable it must be for Mr. Kyl when he walks into the Senate steam room? I'd bet what is now a couple hundred bucks of full tilt play money that he's sneaking over to the White House to shower after a game of raquetball with his one friend in Washington.

The best comparison to me would be the points these Republicans score for with their central base for attacking the National Endowment for the Arts. Politics and soliciting campaign contributions is one thing. But what if they won their fight? Would their next campaign ad show said repulican out in the woods with Dick Cheney hunting Big Bird? Make a VERY small base happy, while setting 10 million Seasame Street loving soccer mom's out for blood.

Kyl's so called position change is a moot point right?? Spencer Bachus is the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. He is opposed to any kind of gambling on a "moral" level (whether it's online or not). Any online poker type bill needs his approval.

He won't approve. Ever.

So there if there is no way to circumvent his "moral" opposition, then why waste time getting a federal bill passed? Shouldn't this be a state by state effort????

http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/spence...ker-story-778/

I don't know that this argument holds any truth given the fact this is his last term. Also, the amount of people who really take this seriously is very small. Very few people outside of the poker scene really care about this. Now don't get me wrong, there are people who do care but there are such a large part of the populace that does not care or is so highly misinformed about internet poker that they are opposed.

When it comes time for election, those that really really care, will make up a very very small part of the electing body. Also those that don't play that kinda care, which make up another small part, will not weigh this that heavily in their decision. And really why would they when there are so many other bigger pending issues going on right now. Don't get me wrong, I find this to be important. However, it is very hard to reverse legislation and this is not as big an issue as some of the other things that deserve attention. To tell you the truth if my politician spent a large amount of his time trying to push a poker legislation bill through, while ignoring many other problems going on, I would have to think long and hard about his reelection, even if the bill went through. I believe it is a waste of tax payers dollars. I believe he best chance that we have is for a bill to be drafted and tacked onto the back of some must pass legislation that the Republicans want.

your image fits you to a tee....always a downer.....life must suk in your world

How many US players would have switched back once the blackout period ended? I know I would have..unless someone else developed a "rush" style game. It's the only game that I can get the volumn in with my limited playing time and still turn a desent profit.

"their" base is the tea party movement. It is all about limited govenment!

Your post is utter nonsense. First of all Bachus is only in charge of that Committee...there are various other House committees that can markup and prepare a poker/gambling bill for a floor vote not just Bachus' committee.

Second of all if a bill ends up somehow miraculously getting Kyl approval and goes through the Senate FIRST then the House leadership (Boehner, Cantor etc not Bachus) just needs to consider/amend the already passed Senate bill.

In either case Bachus is almost entirely irrelevant and a bit player at best. Kyl is the one with the real power in this battle because the Senate HAS to deal with his bull**** to get a bill done.

Your interpretation of my analysis is pretty bad here. Politicians track mass responses by numbers, and by percentages that come from their REAL constituents...those in their geographical boundaries.

Voters, like me, are better served writing to their OWN senators, expressing support for Senator Kyl's potential consideration of carving out poker from the general pool of online gambling.

I am a poker player, not a gambler. My bumper sticker reads: "I play poker AND I vote."

Elections are held to give the entire population an opportunity to voice their opinions and elect their representatives. A small number of Americans care about this issue. These are both true statements.

Elections are decided by a small percentage of the population.

Take Kyl's last election for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...lections,_2006

Jon Kyl - Incumbent re-elected, 53.3%

He held onto his job because 3.3% more people in Arizona thought he wasn't a freedom robbing dickhead.

1,526,770 voted in the election. the election was decided by 45,803 people. I will give you 10 to 1 on my full tilt balance that there are more than 45,803 poker players in Arizona. I will give you 25 to 1 on my UB balance more than 45,803 poker players, who have never voted before, finally take a shower, and get out and vote.

As far as "Why would he care? He's retiring" No one on Capitol Hill is a burger flipping, Joe the Plumber, middle magament schlep, dogging it out just to get to retirement age. They see themselves as making history on a daily basis. They enjoy being kowtowed too. They enjoy the pomp and circumstance. They enjoy the wheeling and dealing. To head out the door wondering if you could have done more is a blow to an ego of the type that becomes a United States Senetor.

IMHO all of our favorite adaptations, permutations, and marketing tricks are going to be co-opted by whoever steps in to fill in the vacuum. Once FT/PS/UB are branded illegal enterprises, they wont have very much standing in a US patent and copywrite court. Arrest warrants would be served promptly as poker site bigwigs stepped off the plane to appear in court to say "Rush Poker was MY idea!"

It would be nice to see Rush Poker, double or nothings, home games, OnyxCup, mini-WSOOP, jerseys, and all the other cool stuff on one site.

Nothing to base that opinion on. Maybe its just wishful thinking.

Mr. Voter, I never implied that everybody needs to write Kyl, just those in his district. We shouldn't be disagreeing about anything at all here and yet we are.

Please keep writing though.

Fed bill passes, you will need a state by state effort.

Fed bill doesn't pass, you will need a state by state effort.

youre also delusional if you think poker isnt gambling.

You don't understand his point "dying actors".

The way the law is currently written Poker isn't illehal if it it's a "game of skill".

If poker is a "game of skill" then it isn't technically "gambling" according to the rules that are currently shutting us down. If Poker is a game of skill (not gambling) then the UIGEA doesn't apply to it.

If i could only choose one between gambling or skill, it is obvious to me that poker is far more skill than gamble. I have played tournaments professionally for about 5 years. I think i have only had about 3 losing months during that period. Over any reasonable period of time poker is more skill than gamble.

false. sorry. its a game of skill, and its gambling.