On that topic, after seeing video of poker championships and hearing testimony from Mike Sexton, the judge in the SC case yesterday said he believes Texas Hold 'em poker is a game of skill. The ruling is next week.

We may get to add victory #6 to the list of 2009 state wins soon.

Here's a decent article on the case. Please digg it at http://digg.com/world_news/SC_Judge_..._Due_Next_Week

Ruling next week in S.C. poker case

Judge’s decision on Texas Hold ’em expected to have wide impact

http://www.thestate.com/local/story/684597.html

The Associated Press

MOUNT PLEASANT — After seeing video of poker championships and hearing testimony from a professional poker player, a town judge said Friday that he believes Texas Hold ‘em poker is a game of skill — a decision that could affect how the card game is treated in South Carolina.

South Carolina law outlaws gambling on games of chance played with cards or dice and Municipal Judge Larry Duffy’s formal ruling to be issued next week has a shot at rippling through the state’s higher courts.

“I have determined in my mind that Texas Hold ‘em is a game of skill,” Duffy said toward the end of the hearing.......

For more updates, please follow me on Twitter, at http://twitter.com/TheEngineer2008

Got a standard "I'll keep your comments in mind" form letter from Mel Martinez (FL). Nothing from any other representatives

Even if true, that's not "double taxation". A corporation possesses personhood of its own, and should be subject to taxation on its income. Shareholder income is a separate issue, since each shareholder possesses personhood on their own, as well.

I'm confused by the fact that some of the sports betting people have issues with PPA. I'm sure most people would support a Sports Gambling Alliance if one were to be started. I know I would support sports gamblers right even if I don't bet on sports myself. Having issues with PPA only because they aren't spending their resources (Read: personal time) on sports gambling is just silly. You can choose not to spend your time supporting PPA which is fine if that's how you feel but "having issues with PPA" for that reason is odd IMO.

PPA has been throwing sports gambling under the bus

it's not that they are not spending their resources

Why do you think PPA has thrown sports betting under the bus? PPA has not supported ONE anti-sports bill.

Some sports bettors seem to think poker players are supposed to carry their water for them. I hope sports bettors form their own PPA (SBA?).

sports bettors are too intelligent on the whole to form such a ridiculous and counterproductive group

You say tomato, I say tomahto. As far as I'm concerned if the government is taking a cut it's a tax.

Since you advocate doing nothing, sports bettors are following what you feel to be the optimal strategy. I hope that works out for them.

LOL at suggesting that PPA is counterproductive or ridiculous.

Your argument is a couple beers short of a six pack.

So why all the previous anger at the PPA? As TE said, given your previous statements it would appear sports betters are quite happy with the status quo, and given this statement they have no desire to form an organization that might try and change the status quo.

The status quo, of course, is that conducting a sportsbetting business with operations in the US is a clear violation of the Federal Wire Act.

If Poker advocates are successful in getting openly legal poker (either by getting a Federal classification as a skill game or a specific UIGEA exemption), we will have changed nothing for sportsbettors.

So since sportsbetting will (legally) remain exactly as it is now, and you seem happy with the way it is now, and you have no desire to organize to change things, your animosity towards the PPA can only be classified as irrational.

Skallagrim

His animosity could possibly also be described as counterproductive and ridiculous.

On the contrary, if the days of the big American fish sites come back I will of course play on them again if I can (along with most other decent Euro players). I will then import lots of $$$ into the UK, being of far more use than an estate agent or even most lawyers ever have been to the UK economy as a whole

Frankly the societal usefulness of a great many quite well paid jobs is way overrated (bankers anyone?). If I add to my countries net wealth that is at least demonstrably useful.

If the end result is legal and regulated games that only admit US players and have an unbeatable rake I'd say it is counterproductive. Most fish don't have a clue about rake, some don't even know what it is, so they won't baulk at a high rake, just like slots players don't mind a game they can't possibly win long-term.

I'd rather the fish jump through a few hoops to get his money onto FTP than make an easy deposit onto a regulated and 'trusted' US site that I can't actually beat him at.

the PPA is against freedom

I am against them as a result

I'd say the same. Fortunately, PPA isn't advocating either mandated U.S. only sites (by law...if I site chooses that, more power to them) or unbeatable rakes.

Fish may not have a clue about rakes, but they would notice their money going away as fast as they could deposit it. Also, it's not quite like slots. At slots, participants bang away, hoping to hit big jackpots. As poker does not feature 100:1 jackpots, that allure does not exist.

It's too bad there is so much unfounded fear about a legal game being an unplayable one, as if insane taxes are inevitable. Surely we are better off in that regard fighting for our rights than we'd be hiding in fear of a bad law. In fact, IMO it's this fear that kept many poker players from fighting back prior to the passage of UIGEA.

I'm glad you're enjoying the status quo that has been preserved by those fighting for our rights. If you'd like to have been jumping through hoops with a DoJ that thought it was their duty to stop you from playing, then more power to you.

Do you honestly think the situation you have today can exist ten years from now (easy access to offshore sites and a prohibition on onshore ones)? If not, doesn't it make sense to stand up for what we want?

To the people who constantly post that any regulated US online poker will be unbeatable because of taxes and high rake, I ask you to consider the following.

California has regulated and taxed live poker.

California is in the midst of a huge budget deficit.

Why hasnt California made its live poker "unbeatable" with high taxes and high rake?

If you cant answer that question please stop making "the sky will fall if online poker is regulated and taxed" posts.

Skallagrim

Absolutely. I can't believe there are still people who advocate being quiet after the trouncing we took on UIGEA. I guess fear paralyzes some.

unless you count the top 25 earners out of 33,000 employees, nobody at my bank was paid "quite well". though this is a common misconception.

Only the winners who try to cash out and are told in the forums to lie to the banker. Or the new players who have to buy gift cards at some check cashing place. Or the banks who handle the trans.

The act of playing poker online may be legal in most states, but in practical matters it is illegal to do for money.

another falsehood spread by you

most did not say it would be unbeatable

just not a pareto better situation to the one we currently have


oh yeah, hooray for guys that sit in a casino all day in LA grinding their asses to make money

wait, did the PPA exist before the UIGEA???????

ooops

has the PPA accomplished anything good for poker?

Much as this must burn your a**, the answer is clearly YES!

In past month:

The PPA helped Poker Player Kevin R. get found not guilty by a Colorado Jury.

The PPA is helping Poker Player Bob W. continue his fight in the Pennsylvania Appeals Court after a judge dismissed the gambling charges against him by ruling, after reviewing studies and arguments put forward by the PPA, that poker is a game of mostly skill.

The PPA led the campaign that got a provision which would have made playing online poker a felony in Massachusetts dropped from a proposed casino bill.

The PPA led the campaign that convinced the Virginia legislature to defeat a bill that would have made charity poker illegal.

And just today the PPA was central to providing evidence that led a South Carolina judge to rule Poker was unquestionably a game of mostly skill.

Thats in less than a month.

And MTTR, while I am too lazy to look up whether you ever said the exact word "unbeatable" many folks here have, and the point is still the same - the CA legislature has not set unreasonable taxes on poker in CA, what (other than your say so) guarantees that the US Congress will?

I'm beginning to think the real issue here is that a while back some guy in a PPA hat must have stolen or insulted MTTR's girlfriend, or at least something like that .

Skallagrim

U.S. lawmaker to push repeal of online gambling ban (Reuters)
Posted on Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:41PM EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior Democratic lawmaker will push legislation this year to repeal a U.S. ban on Internet gambling that has hurt trade ties with the European Union, a congressional aide said.

"The bill introduction should happen in the next month," a spokesman for House of Representatives Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.

On Thursday, Reuters reported the EU could file a complaint about U.S. enforcement of the gambling ban at the World Trade Organization.

"Mr. Frank will bring back legislation to repeal the UIGEA (Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act)," the spokesman said, referring to a Republican-crafted bill passed in 2006 when the party controlled Congress and the White House.

Supporters of the ban argued offshore Internet gambling websites take billions of dollars out the U.S. economy, damage families and serve as vehicles for money laundering.

The law cost Europe's online gambling companies billions in lost market value as they were forced to retreat from one of their most lucrative markets. It barred businesses from knowingly accepting payments in connection with unlawful Internet gambling, including payments made through credit cards, electronic fund transfers and checks.

Against Frank's advice, the Bush administration finalized regulations late last year to implement the ban and gave companies until December 1 to comply.

Frank said the rules would burden the financial service industry at a time of economic crisis.

Many publicly traded European companies, including PartyGaming and 888.com, withdrew from the United States after Congress passed the ban, but they face possible criminal prosecution for activities before then.

Anurag Dik****, a founder of PartyGaming, pleaded guilty in December to Internet gambling charges and agreed to pay $300 million in fines. He still faces possible jail time under a deferred sentencing arrangement. Other PartyGaming founders have not settled with the U.S. Justice Department.

EU industry officials said the pressure on Dik**** to make a deal showed the Justice Department had crossed a major line in its prosecution of cases.

The European Commission, acting on industry petition, began a formal investigation in March into whether Washington was singling out EU companies for enforcement actions while allowing U.S. online firms to operate freely.

Sources familiar with that investigation told Reuters in Brussels on Thursday they expect the investigators' report, initially due last year, to recommend action at the WTO when it is released next month.

Rather than move immediately to litigation, EU officials would use the report as leverage to seek a negotiated solution with the United States, they said.

(Editing by Eric Walsh)