He is changing his position somewhat because a Democratic administration did something. C'mon. He is going to be against whatever they did.

yeah this is a really good point and totally fits with his actions since obama took office. if marvel came up with a superhero staring jon kyl he'd be the Contrarian

I think its much more clear that he is referring to a bill to be considered this year.

According to a poster earlier itt the new statement was posted sometime between 12/10/10 and 4/22/11. Typically you don't say that you will considering something "later this year" in mid December. Additionally, I seem to recall Kyl's public statements about the Reid proposal being along the lines of "that bill will become law over my dead body." Not exactly "carefully considering."

I think everything points to this statement being updated sometime after the new year, with the Reid bill already defeated.

I remember he said both, actually. This was the default strategy of the GOP in the first two years of Obama's administration: The GOP would 'negotiate' and murmur things about 'taking a look at' bills and 'working with' the other side, only to pivot suddenly into complete obstinance.

We saw it with health care reform, finance reform, cap and trade, and the Reid bill. The Reid bill was a bit more transparent because Kyl got the order mixed up. First he said 'over his dead body' then he pretended that he really had to scrutinize the bill before making a decision.

Honestly though, this kind of speculation about the senate is fun, but I really don't see anything passing the House. Tea partiers aren't going to agree to any revenue creation and the religious right won't allow a GOP run house to set precendent by allowing federally regulated gambling.

And guess what? There's no one left in the GOP caucus after you take those two groups away.

Kyl has his sites set higher, perhaps a cabinet post of a republican wins the White House or perhaps even the number 2 spot on a ticket.

His conservative cred is gold.

Also, don't count him out for the top spot if the GOP is too fractured, but that would be insane on his part since PERSONALLY I think Obama will win.

obg

Much more interesting would be to know if it was changed pre or post end of the lame duck session. Hopefully it's post since if it is he is basically saying he is open to iPoker legislation later this year.

What bill would that be? There is no such bill atm. I think you're crazy if you think he isn't talking about the december bill, especially when the comment was made around that time.

What comment are you talking about? We are talking about a statement on his web site.

The part of his statement on his website where he refers to a bill coming up "later this year". I think its far more likely he was talking about Reid's December bill than a theoretical bill later this year. Especially since its only May.

Has Senator Jon Kyl Changed his Mind?

While gambling might not be shameful lumping in poker (and game of skill) with gambling (games of only chance) reduced the likelihood of any passage. What is some future bill specifically carves out games of skill. Would you still consider poker gambling?

There is an element of chance in poker but there is also an element of skill. Baccarat, Roulette, keno, video poker, slot machines, craps, etc are games of purely chance. There is no possibility for skill to turn a -EV game into +EV on.

Technically speaking Nevada PROHIBITS casinos from engaging in games of skill (against the player). It makes it far more difficult to project losses and cash reserves. With games of chance, defined house advantage, and betting limits, calculating risk of ruin and establishing a bankroll that puts that at <0.1% is mathematically trivial.

Golf & Poker:
There is an element of chance in golf but nobody would call it gambling (pros are only paid when they win). While a pro may have a bad day, or bad run, hell might even lose to a amateur in the long run a pro will perform better because of superior skills. Likewise in the long run a good poker player will perform better because of superior skills.

Lumping poker with gambling/gaming is foolish. In many parts of the country gambling (games of chance in which house places wagers against players) is prohibited but card rooms are allowed.

There should be no blurring of lines.
Golf is a game of skill with some element of luck/chance/variance.
Poker is a game of skill with some element of luck/chance/variance.
Nobody would call a pro golfer a gambler despite luck/chance/variance affecting their annual income. Likewise we should be pushing for a day when people accept that a professional card player isn't gambling despite the fact that luck/chance/variance will affect annual income.

Guys, I am all for being optimistic, but IMHO we are reading too far into this. Until I see prrof otherwise, I will only consider this a bit of wordsmithing on Kyl's part.

Think like a politician.

Politicians aren't stupid. They may be egotistical, power hungry, *******s but they aren't stupid.

Who is the only group fighting to have Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act?

Anyone see the Casino Game Players Alliance? How about the Roulette Players Union? Maybe the sportsbook freedom party? Nope.

The only group actively fighting the UIGEA is Poker players. If it goes down it will be because of ...... <drumroll> ..... poker players.

So thinking like a politician here if you wanted to keep as much of the UIGEA intact and avoid a future repeal in a year, or two (after you have retired) which carve out would you pick? If you could parlay that carve out for Poker into even tighter restrictions/fines/enforcement of casino games, sportsbooks, etc would you?

Now think like a Poker player. If UIGEA remained into effect (or was made even stronger) but specifically carved out Poker as a game of skill and not subject to the bill honestly how much effort would you put into getting UIGEA repealed? If you play tomorrow at your favorite sites, use fast and easy transfer methods, and the ease attracts lows of brand new fish would you be playing poker or fighting to make sure sports books are treated fairly?

Mmmmm.............No....

^^ dude why not???

Because I am a poker player, not a gambler, so what is done to control games of chance does not concern me.

pff, nvm i misunderstood the question. we're on the same page.

You are both saying the same thing. You are talking right past each other.