White House View on Online Poker (May 18, 2012) - Page 3 - Poker Legislation

LastLife · 05-19-2012, 12:27 PM

Pretty standard

Mention all the negatives associated with illegal gaming to give a non answer to legal gaming.

nrocme · 05-19-2012, 12:38 PM

The statement about real money play prohibited in USA is a lie. Freerolls are nothing more than sweepstakes. We deserve a more detailed answer on this imo.

RollWave · 05-19-2012, 01:14 PM

i dont know why you are derailing the thread, but that is not a lie. Pokerstars does strictly prohibit real money play and deposits by us residents on their site.

nrocme · 05-19-2012, 01:23 PM

Sorry, not trying to derail the thread. I'll try and find a more appropriate thread to pose the question.
Regarding freerolls, these are not prohibited by law. If the DOJ forced Pokerstars into not allowing US to play them, then this is overstepping the law. Could be a concern for US voters no?

kennabot · 05-19-2012, 03:29 PM

Maybe we should tell them Biden already came out and said he was comfortable with online poker?? Really, this is the best response we could have expected. They were never going to come out in full support for online poker.

**TheEngineer** · 05-19-2012, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

I doubt it, they are facing the same legislation calendar constraints we are.

The lame duck session is wide open. There's plenty of opportunity. IMO, the more voices that demand any type of action on online gaming, the better it will be for something to move.

rizeagainst · 05-19-2012, 06:47 PM

Quote:

The Administration understands that many Americans engage in paid online poker games for entertainment purposes. Online gambling on sporting events or contests violates federal law.

Sorry, but how are these 2 sentences linked? The petition is solely about online poker, not about sports betting. What a complete non sequitur.

"The Administration understands that many Americans engage in paid online poker games for entertainment purposes. Now we're going to bring up something separate from online poker entirely for no apparent reason."

**TheEngineer** · 05-19-2012, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizeagainst

Sorry, but how are these 2 sentences linked? The petition is solely about online poker, not about sports betting. What a complete non sequitur.

"The Administration understands that many Americans engage in paid online poker games for entertainment purposes. Now we're going to bring up something separate from online poker entirely for no apparent reason."

It's good for us IMO, as it alludes to the recent DoJ determination on the scope of the Wire Act.

ScreaminAsian · 05-19-2012, 07:43 PM

now, i'm not sure, but could it be like, when you're walking into a house party, the host says 'look, i know a lot of people do coke at parties; it's fun. but there shall be no sex on the furnature.' ? they're SOMEWHAT connected, but if you only intended to do one or the other, it may seem like a nonsequitor.

cause that, to me, sounds like a tacit go-ahead to openly do as much cocaine as i want at this guy's party.

LetsGambool · 05-19-2012, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

The lame duck session is wide open. There's plenty of opportunity. IMO, the more voices that demand any type of action on online gaming, the better it will be for something to move.

It's still only open for a Harry Reid attachment, which we have seen is very low probability. Obviously the more we press the better, but we are massive underdogs as always. Given that reality, this letter provides some hope for a second best route.

**TheEngineer** · 05-19-2012, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

It's still only open for a Harry Reid attachment, which we have seen is very low probability. Obviously the more we press the better, but we are massive underdogs as always. Given that reality, this letter provides some hope for a second best route.

We've not seen that an attachment is a low probability, nor have we seen that we are massive underdogs.

permafrost · 05-19-2012, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ValueJammer

Sounds like a big green light for states to proceed. That's super +EV in my opinion.

"It is left to each state to determine whether it wishes to permit such activity between its residents and an online poker business authorized by that state to accept such wagers, but online gambling that is not authorized by state law may also violate federal statutes."

A little disappointing that it seems to imply this administration will not push for a federal bill. What do you guys think?

I don't think this says anything about the states getting a green light; it is a recognition of existing state power. Why would states suddenly need a green light to license more gambling when they have always had that power (and have used it)?

novahunterpa · 05-19-2012, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

We've not seen that an attachment is a low probability, nor have we seen that we are massive underdogs.

I don't see how you can say we're not massive underdogs and that a Reid attachment isn't a low probability. We don't even know if Reid has a bill or if he will even try and attach it. You must be starting to buy into your spin if you believe we're not underdogs.

JohnWilkes · 05-19-2012, 11:20 PM

I had hope for better. It could have been worse. It is better then no reply. They have little regard for us. But little regard is more than no regard.

**TheEngineer** · 05-19-2012, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by novahunterpa

I don't see how you can say we're not massive underdogs and that a Reid attachment isn't a low probability. We don't even know if Reid has a bill or if he will even try and attach it.

I'd say we're slight underdogs. I wouldn't say "massive", as LG did.

Quote:

You must be starting to buy into your spin if you believe we're not underdogs.

I don't spin anything.