There's no oops. PPA had just kicked off prior to UIGEA. Our opponents were working this for 10 years prior and are committed to stopping us from playing. LOL at anyone who thinks this should be an easy fight.

Please digg at http://digg.com/politics/Lawmaker_to...ker_Gaming_Law

Done. gogo digg everyone!

wow, this is dumb. if the same rake structure as cali was implemented for online poker, it would be far less profitable than it is today.

MT2R:
As an intelligent, rational person, what have you done to advance the cause of online poker? As I recall from your 'how to shortstack' threads, you make your living off of poker. How have you protected your income?

Victor,

I think Skall's point was the the rake structure was not maxed out such that B&M poker became unbeatable. As online poker has lower expenses, I'd expect it to have a far lower rake.

As legislation is coming soon, we all need to write...now. Even those who don't want regulation have to write, IMO, to oppose UIGEA and the bad interpretation of the Wire Act applying to poker.

To get more writers, I submitted the PPA letter to Congress to Digg. If you like the letter, please digg, comment, and thumb-up other comments at http://digg.com/political_opinion/In...iting_Congress . If it hits the Digg front page, the 20,000 - 100,000 extra hits could be worth a lot of letters. Around half of my 2009 submissions have hit the Digg front page, so we have a real shot.

Also, everyone, please follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/TheEngineer2008 . This will help us to retweet info through their network.

I applied for and was accepted into the "Top Conservatives on Twitter," (that will surprise the handful of people here who think I'm some sort of liberal just because I'm upset with the GOP leadership for abandoning their commitment to limited government....IMO that makes me more conservative, not less) so I can submit to that group as well. Should help us put out the message.

Thanks!

IMHO, what is "dumb" is totally and completely missing the point.

The point is this: the new California Budget does not raise the cost of poker in California, why not? Are not all politicians only interested in money? And wouldnt any legalized and regulated poker be set up in such a way as to cost to much to make the games profitable? Thats what people here have said, so it seems inconsistent that the California politicians didnt pass a law requiring an additional $5 (hey, why not $10? $20?) tax on every hand of live poker played in the state? They would make hundreds of millions wouldnt they?

No, they wouldnt. People would stop playing or start playing elsewhere. Then the state would get no money at all and the cardrooms would close, adding further to the unemployment roles.

Most politicians in Congress understand this principle too. And while they will want their cut, they will not demand so much of a cut that significant numbers of people stop playing the game because then they actually get less money than if the tax were set at a reasonable rate.

Does that explain it? I never said that the Feds should mandate the same rake structure as California, to think I did is "dumb."

Skallagrim

Need more diggs. If you like the letter, please digg, comment, and thumb-up other comments at http://digg.com/political_opinion/In...iting_Congress. Thanks!

it could have far lower rake. this would require some research and input from ppl who understand poker.

or the guys in charge could just make it the same rake as live. after all, there is precedent for such a rake working.

and you completely missed my point, which was that live rake is egregiously high and would completely destroy online lhe.

just bc such a scam of a cut allows for a few humps to grind out a miserable pittance in live games does not mean that putting the same policy makers in charge of my online rake is good for me.

There is also a precedent for what rake should be online, which I don't see changing much, if at all.

Also, the companies would only be taxed on their overall profit, just like every other company that operates. It's not like they are going to magically tax them at a higher rate or on a per hand basis or something ridiculous like that.

Live rake isnt that bad considering the levels played live. Put another way, no cardroom/casino could make a profit spreading $.50/1.00 limit precisely because they would have to rake it so bad just to pay the dealer. As TE said, the dynamics of online poker are obviously different.

A 1-2% tax on total US deposits is the most likely outcome (thats basically what Senator Menendez of NJ proposed last year). Combine that with a far greater reduction in the costs to the sites to process US withdrawals and deposits (now very high precisely because of their questionable legality) and at worst you have a wash, at best you will actually see much lower rake as competition between sites increases.

I think I am done with this argument for now however. Those of you who have this abiding fear of what the government will do if it openly legalizes online poker will obviously not be assuaged of your fear. In some ways thats a good thing, the possibility of bad laws must be guarded against. But not, IMHO, to the point of stopping one from being involved in the process out of fear that the cure could be worse than the illness.

So at this point the only thing to do is wait until the actual legislation is proposed. Then we can talk about specifics, not speculations.

Skallagrim

Yes, any number so things are possible. However, there is no precedent for a $5 rake working online. There is precedent for the current rake structure as providing ample profits.

A 1-2% tax on deposits would be great for legal online poker in US. Even if both state and federal government charged that fee, the lower costs due to the availability of PayPal, echecks and credit cards would offset the tax.

What worries me is that the tax charged by states will be closer to the tax that they charge B&M casinos which would be prohibitive for online poker.

If the tax is the same online -vs- B&M why would it be "prohibitive to online poker???? Online has far less expenses , far more table , and far far more hands per hour thus far greater revenues...I see the result here being the site will make less but those costs will not be passed on to the customer in order to maintain profits and margins...If a Stars or Full Tilt would try to increase rake to maintain profits Harrah and other entering sites would under cut them to a point where they are happy with the profit from "The New Market"...

I can actually see effective rakes lowering...The amounts these sites make now are astronomical and excessive IMO...I can see entering site settling for much less to enter a "new market" of untapped revenues...

double dugged

following!

so he wants to regulate poker like he regulates the banking industry??

If there was a tax, it should be on withdrawals not on deposits.

Don't be ridiculous. Income is already taxed.

Any taxes will be on the sites not on the players.

no , think about how much more money us winners would pay in taxes vs 1-2% on deposits.

i think you were missing his point. He wants that 1-2% tax to be on withdraws because the online casino would be paying that anyway and net withdrawals would be way less than net deposits.

I think its way more likely the deposits get taxed though, I'm happy either way, as long as it's the site paying.

One, my support comes from confronting the PPA here.
it hurts the cause more than helps it.
it's brilliant to see every skallagrim post have some sort of personal attack in it. Then, he addresses the opposition as consumed with fear or something rather than debating why his group is a bunch of sell-outs. That is just the person to win hearts and minds.
The PPA is an interest group.
Interest groups are destroying the country.
On top of that, the group does not really believe in freedom.
If they had some deep philosophical principal attachment to actual freedom, I might support them. They don't. They care only about online poker, to the exclusion of not only every other type of online gambling, but also every other type of personal freedom.
Then they advance the argument for regulation and taxation, which is a turning of their backs on freedom in the most abhorrent of ways.

See, I support freedom. The PPA does not. They are my enemy. I look at the big picture. I've spent countless hours converting people to Libertarianism and beyond. I've done more for freedom than the PPA has. You win on all issues when you pull people to the side of freedom. We lose on all issues when we let tiny special interests groups argue for their carve outs in ways that do not promote freedom.

Barney Frank please resign