Can anyone find any info that the AGA or if any, which specific B&M casinos,state lotto's, Indian gaming tribes support this bill? afaik if any, not many have come out in direct support of the Frank bill or any of the federal bills. Some have said they do/may or might support some form of online gaming or poker have not "PUBLICLY" endorsed the bill.

I really wish casino groups in mass would come out and fully support the Frank bill or the Menendez bill in the Senate. I don't know why they haven't or what it means for things like state opt-out's, but I don't think we can really say they support these specific bills.

Some may remain neutral for the most part, may eventually support the bills in time or may actively lobby against them and for states to opt-out. I really don't know but I don't think we can just assume they support the bill if all they do is remain quite.

http://www.mydesert.com/article/2010...ernet-gambling This is probably why California would opt-out but then again, I don't particular live in California. The article then states that the Bike, Commerce, and other cardroom casinos oppose to internet gambling. Is it saying that the tribe and cardrooms didn't accept the bill by California legislature or internet gambling in general. It seems to me that the both would rather have it specifically within the state rather than accept Frank's bill or Menedez's bill.

^^ http://www.americangaming.org/indust...tail.cfv?id=17

This is pretty opaque and wordy, but here's a quote that comes close to clarifying their position...

"Thus, the AGA acknowledges that a properly regulated legal framework for Internet gambling is the best way to protect consumers."

Yea, but they don't clarify their position on what that framework would be State or Federal, they don't really get into the details of their position. The AGA also says this:

The Frank bill has been around a while now and they have no official position on the bill or any of the other bills. Why Not?

Maybe they don't want to stake a stance on legislation at a federal or state level. They could be just trying to look at all the options provided to them and trying to level out which option could best suit the situation at hand. It could be just a waiting game.

This may very well be what they're doing. But at this point in time we can't say they support it or are against this legislation, they almost get play both sides of the issue. Right now some are just assuming they will support the "Frank bill" if it's passed into law but we can't rally say they will, we don't know what their position is or will be in the future.

My point is right now we can't just assume they will be their in support of any legislation when the time comes, they're just a likely to oppose it for all we know.

Novahunter, I don't have the reports right in front of me and I am too lazy to google it at the moment. but both Harrahs and MGM, and the AGA independently for that matter, spend multi-million $s each year on lobbying in D.C..

I don't know what these lobbyists are telling our (their?) Congresscritters, but if you take their public statements at face value, these interests want online poker legalized. They are still split on online casino games.

I suspect they have a lot of reasons for not PUBLICLY supporting the Frank (or any other) bill. But I know they are hard at work behind the scenes.

Skallagrim

I live in Memphis, Tennessee where we have to make the 30 minute drive to Tunica for casino play. Tennessee has Powerball and scratch-offs but still keeps gaming illegal. After seeing the kind of money that Tunica has been bringing in for years now, Tennessee just doesn't seem to wanna budge any on it's stance, otherwise Tennessee would also be a casino/gaming state as well. Therefore, i see Tennessee as an opt-out state. If this happens, and Mississippi ends up as an opt-in state, i would find a new place to live right below the state line in Mississippi. If i didn't have a daughter here i would strongly consider just moving on out to Vegas. And i will re-ask a question that was asked by another poster a couple of pages ago; Could the Engineer or anyone else connected with the PPA tell us how likely that they think this would be passed, and when it would take effect after it was passed.

I couldnt find where anyone from the ppa answered the question if they think the bill will pass, and when will we know this?

The PPA does think (is optimistic) the bill will pass and we will know that they think the bill will pass a nanosecond after each instance they tell us they are confident and cautiously optimistic that it will pass.

And, of course, i'm in no way affiliated with, or speaking on behalf of, the PPA and am just having a few chuckles whilst drinking alone....again

Here's a interesting question: Why is it that in states where state run lotteries, bingo, and/or horse racing is legal but yet will not allow room for casino gambling and/or poker because it is illegal? o_O; It's like Stossel said (and im paraphrasing it) state lotteries are hypocritical giving players huge payoffs but at the worst kind of odds. Is casino gambling more addicting than drugs, sex, alcohol, video games, etc.? Sure that gambling is addicting but it isn't any more addicting than alcohol, drugs, sex, etc. It's like Doyle Brunson said as he was referring to other pro poker players and himself: "We're all addicts but we know how to control it." That should be BR 101. The government will sooner or later realize that poker and the way we play it now is rapidly changing and they will accept it one way or another!

They actually arent that confident it will become law this year. John Pappas said there isnt an appetite for this broad of a bill in the Senate, so the chances of the current bill becoming law are unlikely.

I really don't know. We'll know more after the morning mark-up.

As it's written today, immediately.

Meh, I'm skeptical that this reasoning does much work in the California decision.

This is the real problem IMO.

I hope you are wrong too . The part I don't understand is that shouldn't everyone other than the existing B&M casinos want the free money opting in would provide? (I'm ignoring the nanny-staters -- if they were a force to be reckoned with we wouldn't have an indian casino on every street corner and the state lottery)

I would think the gaping hole in the budget might trump the desires of the existing B&M interests.

I think all the "think of the children" nanny state stuff is just a cover for people with other interests.

TANGENT: The principled position is to not have any gambling of any kind in the state (no lottery, no B&M casinos, no horse race betting). I don't like this position but at least it would be intellectually consistent.

Noah:

I respect your knowledge of poker and analytical skills enormously. When it comes to fleshing out really complex technical issues, (like Nick Grudzien and online cheating), there are few people here on 2+2 that are your equal. But when it comes to politics, I think you have a tin ear. Assuming that HR2267 and S.1597 (or some form of the two) passes and becomes law, if you really believe that governors and state legislatures [might not] "get wind of this," then you are really naive.

Any thought, belief, (or wishful thinking) that internet poker will be quietly accepted and "slip in under the radar" in the individual states is a pipe dream. I'm almost certain that in many states there will be a political firestorm over this. Social conservatives alone - and political candidates seeking their votes - will make sure that the Governor "gets wind of this ..." You can bet on it.

Former DJ

My hope is that many of the states on the list of no skill games will now have a new outlook on the poker issue. If this bill is passed I think the game will be de-stigmatized to a certain degree.

I know a whole lot of extreme religious right wing people, and gambling is about number 5000 on their list of concerns right now. Number 1 through 3000 is how to keep our country from moving from number 1 in the world in terms freedom and standard of living, and becoming a socialist nation for no reason at all other than the masses thought Obama looked cooler and younger than McCain....and that whites owe something to minorities.

Conservatives say next to nothing about the state lotteries, and haven't raised much commotion about full blown legalization of poker in Florida. Left wing poker players don't understand that the republican politicians who stand against poker do so because of their own beliefs, not because they are trying to please their constituents.

SC has to be considered on of the more conservative states in America and they have a court decision saying that poker is a game of skill. I'm hoping that when the bill passes about 4 or 5 states will opt out.

Re: Minnesota

After the whole banning ISP debacle here, didn't almost all of the politicians do a complete 180 in support of legislation? I'm almost positive I read about them being VERY persuaded by the PPA and the arguments they provided. Especially about the large revenue stream that would be generated.

Arizona will opt out.

They actually started disallowing western union money transfers before Stars stopped taking them.

Sucks hardcore here.

Opt out provision now extended to a legislative session, but looks like it will take a legislative action to opt out, which looks like a positive.

Now lets see what the revenue ends up looking like.

http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/News/...ND0729102.aspx

How powerful is NACS? they could be a problem for this legislation or in states when it come time to decide to opt-out. Maybe we need congress to make changes to the bill (at some point) so the National Association of Convenience Stores wont oppose the bill.

Somewhat powerful - they have that "small business" aspect and every politician says they love "small businesses."

Note, however, that the NACS stand is pure turf protection. They don't care about poker or casino games as no one is coming into their stores to play those games. They merely want to make sure that buying lottery tickets still has to be done at their stores.

Skallagrim

A good counter-argument for the NACS position:

Under this legislation, lotteries will be able to expand to all Internet gaming. The lotteries will likely set ups sytems for their customers to deposit to their online accounts through the retail outlets. This translates to a lot more sales for the retailers. Eventually, there may even be Internet kioks at the retailer locations where the customers can play their online lottery games.

It will be an explosion of lottery income for the retailers, just like atm fees have been for banks.

The need for legislative action helps our cause in most cases, but hurts in one big one.

California becomes more likely to opt out and go intrastate based on the amendments offered yesterday.

Definitely a one off, I dont see North Dakota state poker forming any time soon, but I think Cali goes its own way on this one. Hopefully we can get a better bill than what was offered up this year.

MA is more likely to opt-in given the Governor influence is reduced, but the politics of this state are nuts so its not a sure thing (see current casino battle for details)

Jonas:

Some very good points - several of which even I had not thought of.

For those who think passing this and getting internet poker "legalized" is a good idea - even at the cost of having some states opt out - there's another factor to consider. Depending on what states, and how many, opt out; there's a real possibility online players living in states that opt in could wind up playing in a smaller player pool with less traffic. Think about it. One poster on here has pointed out that if California alone opts out, that would equal the effect of ten other states opting out. A number of replies in this thread have indicated that Massachusetts and Texas are strong possibilities for opting out - both states with substantial pools of online players. If those three states alone opt out, for those who remain, kiss a lot of your traffic goodbye.

Now I suppose some on here will say, "Well who cares if little bitty rinky-dink Alabama and Tennessee opt out? Those states are no big deal anyway since there aren't that many online poker players living in those states, so we can go ahead and toss them overboard." It's very easy to be sanguine about state opt-outs when your live in a poker-friendly state like Florida, but I wonder how gung-ho Skall would be about this if he lived in Birmingham or Montgomery rather than Clearwater? It's very easy to be all for state opt outs when you live in a state that's very unlikely to opt out.

For the PPA to tell its members who live in (likely) opt out states to go ahead and support this legislation anyway, is kind of like somebody handing you a gun and telling you to go ahead and blow your brains out.

Former DJ

Requiring action from the legislature is a big win for us NY'ers. I dont think the NYS legslature has passed anything in the last two years. They are the most dysfunctional group of politicians I have ever seen.