Anti-online poker language to be stricken from Mass. bill!

[LetsGambool]

Can we assume the the Nyman amendment mentioned in the other thread won't be needed since this language is coming out via technical correction? The amendment amends Section 36 to exclude poker.

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Can we assume the the Nyman amendment mentioned in the other thread won't be needed since this language is coming out via technical correction? The amendment amends Section 36 to exclude poker.

There are now expanded options.

Getting poker defined legislatively as a game of skill would be of great benefit to Mass. players while setting precedent for national legislation on poker vs. house-banked games of chance. An affirmative law on online poker would obviously be helpful as well. It would also help with federal legislation by showing precedence on ways to address the concerns of those who feel licensing of online poker would open the floodgates to the house-banked variety. Our opponents do tend to be pragmatic (when is the last time you saw FoF protesting the Wynn or even the neighborhood lottery ticket selling convenience store?), so this type of approach can be of benefit.

Likewise, getting the provision stripped from the bill in its entirety would be of great benefit as well. We wouldn't get the affirmative statement on poker, but we'd be free and clear.

So, things are definitely looking good.

[Kevmath]

In this situation, isn't the "technical correction" coming from the various amendments that need to be voted yea or nay?

[BoooooooM]

I just want to be 100% clear about this cause ive already made plans to move.

so now there is nothing in the bill that i have to worry about in relation to online gambling and withdrawing/depositing funds?

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

There are now expanded options.

Getting poker defined legislatively as a game of skill would be of great benefit to Mass. players while setting precedent for national legislation on poker vs. house-banked games of chance. An affirmative law on online poker would obviously be helpful as well. It would also help with federal legislation by showing precedence on ways to address the concerns of those who feel licensing of online poker would open the floodgates to the house-banked variety. Our opponents do tend to be pragmatic (when is the last time you saw FoF protesting the Wynn or even the neighborhood lottery ticket selling convenience store?), so this type of approach can be of benefit.

Likewise, getting the provision stripped from the bill in its entirety would be of great benefit as well. We wouldn't get the affirmative statement on poker, but we'd be free and clear.

So, things are definitely looking good.

The affirmative stuff all requires a vote.

The technical correction doesn't (by my understanding where this is a done deal).

Things are looking good indeed, but it would be tragic to have had the chance to get the language out of the bill and not done so.

The strategy has to be to get the language out via technical correction (since this is a done deal), then support the skill game amendments with no downside doesnt it? I want no part of the Nyman amendment and an up or down vote.

I realize the benefits nationally of the licensing language, but we should take no risk towards having the language left in the bill.

Im assuming that is the PPA's strategy, but wanted to voice my opinion if it is not.

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by Kevmath

In this situation, isn't the "technical correction" coming from the various amendments that need to be voted yea or nay?

My understanding is the technical correction is coming from the committee head that has already approved the bill. So he's basically saying "we are sending this bill to the House floor, but making these technical changes". In this case, basically saying that the offending section 36 wasnt designed to affect online wagering so the language should be changed.

EDIT: To be clear, this may still need a vote, but is basically a formality since its coming from the committee chair saying "hey this is what we meant to say".

An amendment seeking to explicitly legalize online poker or make poker a skill game would be, of course, more than a formality. So Id rather not deal with any amendment that deals with Section 36 without just striking it as a technical correction. It puts MA players in at least some jeopardy.

We should, of course, support and lobby heavily for the Wallace skill game amendments. Those would be huge, huge wins.

The skill gams

[LetsGambool]

Is this language officially out of the bill now as a poster in the legislation forum suggested? Or do we still need to get an amendment passed?

[LetsGambool]

Is the language out? I have no idea whether to support or oppose the bill at the present time.

[novahunterpa]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Is this language officially out of the bill now as a poster in the legislation forum suggested? Or do we still need to get an amendment passed?

I can't find any info that the language has been removed (I'm sure Kevmath will post a link when it is LOL) just promises to remove it. I don't know if the language will be removed by a "technicality" or they just hope it will be changed by amendment.

[LetsGambool]

It seemed like we were changing strategies and going for an amendment instead of the technical correction, but I havent heard anything. If we need an amendment, shouldnt we be calling our reps? Or is this in the bag somehow? Someone posted in legislation that the language is coming out according to both Speaker DeLeo and his rep, but I have not seen how this has occured or a bill with the new language.

Last TE post seemed very optimistic, but we are a little in the dark here. I have no idea whether to be calling to demand a no vote or not. The vote is this week, if Im unsure I'll probably call my (ex)-rep tomorrow.

[novahunterpa]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

It seemed like we were changing strategies and going for an amendment instead of the technical correction, but I havent heard anything. If we need an amendment, shouldnt we be calling our reps? Or is this in the bag somehow? Someone posted in legislation that the language is coming out according to both Speaker DeLeo and his rep, but I have not seen how this has occured or a bill with the new language.

Last TE post seemed very optimistic, but we are a little in the dark here. I have no idea whether to be calling to demand a no vote or not. The vote is this week, if Im unsure I'll probably call my (ex)-rep tomorrow.

I don't know whether to tell my friends and family in Mass to call their Reps. and ask to vote no or yes for this legislation. It's unclear to me at the moment and as you point out we don't have lots of time to decide. What should tell them to say to their lawmakers?

[LetsGambool]

Im going to tell all my poker playing friends and family to oppose it. Can't take the risk IMO until we know the language is out.

[Coco Lugo]

what's the status on this? is the anti-online language out?