The term is more genteel than saying, "hors***it".

Holy ****. Did DQ just use his One Time? I am officially optimistic.

You DO realize that you have not used your "One time" if it didn't come in don't you? It seems they still have theirs to use...unless of course they used it in secret negotiations that brought Reid and Kyle together on this issue and we just aren't aware of it.

Edit: Wit how badly I have been running I suspect that I have accumulated multiple one times to use so I am going to be extremely liberal in using one of them on this.

Not yet .... I still am holding my One Time until we can see what is actually in the prospective bill, not "hey, I am sure it is okay but I haven't really seen it" puffery.

That said, I do believe the odds of passage of SOME federal bill in the Lame Duck to approach 35% or more.

There are just a LOT of factors now in place for SOME bill to have a chance of attachment/passage.

I thought about this, we have a definition issue here.

(A) "One Time", whether it works or not, can be used ONLY One Time on a given topic,

or

(B) a "One Time" can be invoked repeatedly, until it works, but will only work One Time.

(It cannot be (B), otherwise I have unwittingly and successfully invoked it 100+ times in a variety of settings.)

I think we need a ruling from Jerry Yang on this.

Some interesting tweets from Chris Krafcik this afternoon:

None of that should be news, as Berge confirmed that lobbying is ramping up AND anyone not in deep denial should "get" that lotteries will lobby/seek to protect their interests if a bill seeks to bar their ability to enter into online gaming.

I STILL think that there is a common ground that may be reached between lotteries and commercial gaming interests, especially as Nevada has NO lottery .... i.e. perhaps cooperation between Nevada/Cali/NJ licensees and other States' lottery in adopting and operating online games other than lottery sales..... for example, lotteries get an exclusive for lotteries, but have to allow competition from licensed commercial gaming interests licensed by an "approved" gaming authority for everything else, subject to a 30% or so rev sharing deal with any out-of-state competitors for Lotttery State players.... Nevada, California, maybe NJ and the various other States lotteries carve up the market, and a bill passes ?

So, I am as optomistic as 35% of a bill passing federally, which bridges that gap. there are many hypothetical ways to skin the cat, who has the votes will tell who likely holds the knife.

Rev share/guarantees for lotteries seems like a viable avenue to explore if we want states to actually opt-in if/when a bill is passed. Id much rather lottery interests are addressed during bill construction rather than jam something over them then watch 45 states opt-out.

The National Journal getting some bits on the deal:

Reid, Kyl Close to Online Gambling Deal

Sadly this sounds like the end of online gaming for those of us in opt-out states if this passes. The "we need GOP support" line still leaves me pessimistic about our chances in '12, but Kyl's comments are a positive.

Those of you in opt-out states shouldn't have expected any hope from the feds anyways. Nothing will change that. Up to your individual state to get the ball rollin.

Yup, agreed, just gonna suck when I cant donk away $100 on an NFL game or small stakes on Merge, but get stiffed out of regulated i-poker too. No way around it of course.

dont underestimate the desperation of a broke state government

(although obviously online sports betting is never getting legalized at a federal level)

I know my state government very well. They're not opting into a Federal i-poker scheme. They are a candidate for ****ty intrastate though...yaay!

am i so crazy to believe i'll still be able to bet sports and poker in an opt out state?

You're going to oppose this again?

TE,

Precisely what do you mean "...oppose this" ?

What is this ? Fill in the blanks, please.

If "this" nothing more than a recycled 2010 proposal, per your use of the term "again", then say so.

Is there a new draft proposal, with details available to review ?

Otherwise, asking about opposing "this" is an empty rhetorical device.

The proper answer to the question being, "maybe, but I would support that".

DQ

I didn't read that as him saying he'd oppose it.

+∞

Goddamn, you are one tedious mofo.

what state are you from?

I did. He's just getting warmed up IMO.

Don't forget LG has 1K riding on the bill failing.

+2

Honestly, I think Washington State could be opt-in. We are pretty liberal. The hag who pushed the original internet gambling bill through to protect Indian gaming interests is retired. Jay Inslee could be governor and he supports i-poker. McKenna the GOP governor nominee has promised to look at it with open mind. The only real monkey wrench is how the tribes react to it.

Obviously Im not going to oppose it. That would be like me asking if you are going to put Howie and Chris back on the board. Obviously circumstances change.

Im from MA, we are 1000% opting out.

Maple, you mad bro? All the money Ive bet is going to the PPA one way or another. Sorry I dont think this is going to happen. Tell you what, if every poker player had given as much as I have to the PPA we'd have a bill by now so put up $3 or $4K to the cause or stick it up your ass.

What if MGM or Wynn get one of the remaining licenses?