Sportbooks will survive the same way they have been doing it latelly working with agents having their offices out of USA, will partypoker be allow to be back ?

Why wouldn't it be? It's how UIGEA got passed.

Will non-US players be allowed to play at these new regulated sites?

28,000 views ITT. imagine if we had 28,000 letters to congress ;o

probably 4,000 of these are my views.

TE has personally said he will not support a bill with that clause in there and I would expect the PPA to withdraw support if it is not removed. I take them at their word as this is clearly not a player friendly option.

Totally agree with you. If that's not eliminated I would go meet personally with my reps and explain that I am a poker player and will vote against them in future elections if they vote yes.

I worry about this clause too as it is the number 1 thing we need to change, but am cautiously optimistic that A) we can remove it and B) the PPA walks from the bill otherwise.

Just cant see a good organization that has done right by its players selling out its membership like that, and I do think its a good organization.

Would this bill (and McDermott's bill) impact the online horse racing market or are they still covered under their old laws? If these bills do affect them, don't you think they will oppose this legislation since it will add more restrictions and taxes on them? I assume we need them on our side, isn't their lobby much wealthier than the PPA?

Called mine this morning, her staff didn't even know what HR 2267 was..when I asked them what her position was on the bill they told me they couldn't comment. This is the same Rep. That doesn't answer the emails that I send via the PPA template emails on the subject.

Does anyone know where I can find out who voted for and against HR 2267 in yesterdays vote?

Thanks.

too bad it's too little too late and online poker is already dead

Yes, PPA opposes all player penalties. I have been quite adamant about this, especially within PPA. PPA put out a press release demanding its exclusion (it's not part of the Frank bill, so it didn't come up in yesterday's discussion).

IMO, this provision was tossed in as an afterthought to answer a question some will ask on what is being done to deter play on unlicensed sites. It's a foolish proposal in many ways.

Winning players won't have much liability at all, while losing players likely won't pay it (and probably won't even know about it -- it's not like this will be its own line on the 1040 tax form). Furthermore, the IRS wouldn't know when winning players made their rare deposits. Most winning players would have net deposits of $0, as winning players withdraw more than they deposit (by definition). Furthermore, this proposal would erode compliance with payment of other taxes. Those owing it could just decide they should keep quiet about the whole online poker thing altogether.

So, when directed at the players, the proposal fails as an enforcement mechanism. Things like this also alienate the player base, costing backers of the legislation key support. Adding even tougher enforcement mechanisms to this bill could possibly turn it into a ban on poker in opt-out states. Well, why would poker players from those states fight to ban poker in their home states? If anti-poker types wish to ban poker, let them pass their own legislation.

sorry if i missed this in one of the threads, but what happens with player transfers (do they count as a deposit, or something else)?

I'm still not understanding the outrage over the 50% tax for deposits to unlicensed sites under the McDermott bill. Maybe someone can help me understand my logic fail?

First of all, most informed opinion is of the belief that Stars and tilt will get licensed. But even if they don't, it seems likely the market is going to filled with a ton of new sites that are licensed, giving us numerous options. At this point, why would one WANT to play at an unlicensed site. It seems to be Stars and Tilt will just fade away, with or without the 50% tax.

The other point I'd make is that without some sort of penalty for not being licensed, the motivation to become licensed is undermined.

Someone help me here.

well, what are you going to do if you are in an opt-out state?

I believe it has been stated repeatedly that we are going to push hard for the penalty to be removed or, at a minimum, to only apply to states that do not opt-out.