These reports are accurate and the foundation of a "deal" is quite real. As with the last 2 times, it depends on the rest of the chips falling properly. There are still those that oppose online poker, obviously.

Additionally, politics completely unrelated to online poker also come into play here. No one, even if he or she could care less about online poker, from the opposing party is just going to give Reid exactly what he wants and not get something in return. How much does Reid value this?

Finally, there are still troublesome details about a bill that I think need to be worked out. The most pertinent being: lotteries, role of Nevada in regulation, tribes (although I don't think they are as big a deal as you might think... they just want to buy time because technologically some are behind the curve).

Again, as with the last few times, it'll take a bunch of stuff falling into place, but it's certainly possible and people are talking about it.

Edit - I will add that a few people who I didn't even talk to until after the fact expressed great surprise that something didn't happen last time (Jan/Feb this year). It raised some fishy questions about what happened.

This is one of the more insightful posts in the thread. Even if a bill passes, there are things which could be in there that will upset players very much. Who knows what will and what will not make it into the final cut, but to think the bill won't carry any upsetting provisions is naive. This bill isn't going to be some grand savior of poker that returns things to 2005 Party. It won't even be close.

Also, I think people in states which are already opt-out are going to be fighting a long, hard road. It'll need to start with their own state legislators/governors.

Thanks.

There's nothing wrong with speculation, as long as it is framed as speculation. That said, there are people who post here that do know what they are talking about. Of course, there are people who also post acting like they know what they are talking about who actually have no idea.

So you are asserting a bill will a) exclude certain international sites from participating in US online gaming, b) tax winnings and c) exclude other forms of gambling. These are not groundbreaking facts. The US government taxing things it regulates is certainly not a novel concept, and restriction of ports betting and other forms of gambling is an absolute necessity if you ever want to see a bill passed. That's unavoidable. If you'll only accept a bill that also legalizes other forms of gambling, you'll be waiting for 50 years. If you'll only accept a bill that doesn't tax winnings, you'll be waiting until the second coming of Jesus.

I will say, however, that your assertion that online poker will somehow become a cash cow for government to suck dry whenever it needs money is laughable. The total revenue from online gambling is a drop in the bucket when it comes to federal dollars. You either vastly underestimate the size of the US operating budget or vastly overestimate the revenues from online poker. Without looking at any numbers, I'd wager that at a 100% taxation rate (assuming we hold supply/demand constant), the added revenues from online poker wouldn't even be noticeable.

While taxes and vig might be prohibitively high, it's not like they can just come back and squeeze it whenever they want. You also forget there's a very powerful casino lobby here which won't be thrilled with the idea... and the $$ is just pennies.

The last 2 attempts were fairly significant, but the chips didn't fall into place. Each time something like this pops up, people try to caution everyone that we are just saying there's a substantial chance right now. Substantial chance != 100%. Hell, substantial chance may not even be over 40-50%. But it is important that people contact their legislators and inform them of their support for online poker.

The backlash from the poker community after losing 2 flips in a row is pretty surprising. Heck, even if we call them 70/30s (which is super generous), I'm sure that's happened to all of you. You have to understand no one was ever promising 100%. I will say, however, that how close a tack on bill came earlier this year is perhaps undersold.

No I was joking man. I was referencing Karak's comment on me.

This is the context you should analyze Lirva's posts in:

He is an Anarcho-Capitalist. His passion is admirable, but in his world, the PPA (or anyone, really) pushing for anything short of an Anarcho-Capitalist solution is a failure.

I understand he is very sincere about his political views, but he's unable to accept that pushing for them would result in absolutely 0 results. Compromise is essential.

For further context on where he comes from, see:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...ation-1214274/

Edit - And no, I will not engage in a public discourse ITT about the merits of Anarcho Capitalism. Even if I fully agreed it's the best system (which I do not agree with), it's a waste of time since it's not a practical solution here and won't be anytime soon. I consider myself at my core an Austrian, but I'm willing to accept that Austrian economics in their purest form are just never going to be integrated in America.

Sorry, I'm so used to criticism from the "throw everyone else under the bus to get ahead" lemmings I think I've become blind to sarcasm.

Yeah no **** man. Someone questioned how anyone could say what was going to be in the bill, and I pointed out the obvious.





The PPA states that we have a right to play online poker. They are correct in my belief. But why?. Is it because humans cannot exist without online poker? No. It's because we have a right to do as we wish with our money so long as we hurt no others, isn't it? And if that's the case, then why would we have a right to play online poker but not other forms of online gambling? If the answer is that we have the right to play online poker AND other forms of gambling, then why is the PPA lobbying to prohibit other forms? Because that's exactly what they're doing.

If we have a right to play online poker, we have a right to engage in other forms of online gambling.

If we don't have a right to engage in other forms of online gambling, we don't have a right to play online poker.






If online poker revenue would be so unnoticeable, why are they even considering this legislation? It would be completely pointless, would it not?

Yes the debt and deficit is enormous, and online poker alone couldn't tackle it, but you have to start somewhere.





Why couldn't they? They vote to lower or raise taxes like every freakin year dude.


You won't engage in public discussion here about Anarcho Capitalism? You won't? Seriously?

THEN WHY THE **** EVEN BRING IT UP????


You PPA guys have to run your little damage control operation every time I post in one of your threads or some **** apparently. I make a post and I get people suggesting others ignore me, you saying I post potentially dangerous misinformation and am generally inaccurate, and now you're bringing my personal philosophy into the discussion to try to discredit me or something?

It's a ****ing joke dude.

Attack the argument, not the arguer. You're doing the exact opposite, and it's par for the course.

I don't work for the PPA.

And I never made any sort of argument against the merits of ACism, other than noting I don't adhere to it. I only asserted that it's an impractical approach to affecting legislation in Washington.

Do you need me to explain why anarchism isn't popular in DC?

One thing that really amazes me is people talking about how the government will screw us if actually institutes regulated US online poker. What amazes me is that these people seem to be totally oblivious to the screwing the government is giving us NOW. I truly fail to see how a regulated market can be worse than an illegal market.

I know that last sentence will prompt some response and so I will make 2 advance replies.

To those who say I am a fool and that an illegal market will always be better than the regulated one, I wonder then why you worry about the creation of a regulated market. In every society in every age, if the government allowed market is bad enough people will develop a black market. The only time a black market disappears is when the government allowed market is actually producing product so popular that no one actually participates in the black market. IOW, if your predictions about how bad regulated poker will be prove true, there will clearly be a black market to take your business instead.

Secondly, as Karak has essentially said, compromise is not a bad thing. If you are getting screwed by the government it seems insane to me to not support a less painful screwing because, on principle, you believe you should not be screwed at all. For example, I support full legalization of marijuana as a matter of principle. I cannot see how this principle requires me to oppose medical marijuana laws or marijuana decriminalization laws because they do not go far enough. Instead I support anything that makes the current situation better.

And I do that simply because I like seeing things getting better. And I also think making things a little better now actually makes it easier to make things even better again in the future.

Skallagrim

PS - Anarcho-syndicalism is, IMHO, a far better societal foundation for social animals like humans than Anarcho-capitalism.

And FYI, a better primer on Anarcho Capitalism and where I "come from" (you know, so people can think I'm a cook and **** like you want them to ) would be this:

Anarcho Capitalism is based upon the concept of natural rights and the non aggression principle.

The non aggression principle states that it is morally wrong to initiate force against an individual or group of individuals that have not unjustly initiated force against you or anyone else, and the concept of natural rights explains why: we are born with inherent rights which include the right to life, liberty, and property.



You are a supporter of them, so when I say "PPA guys" I mean PPA staff members and supporters. Sorry for not specifying.


No, I need you to explain why you're even bringing Anarcho Capitalism up, and why it and your other posts in this thread appear to be not debating my points, but personally attacking and trying to discredit me?



Online poker is NOT federally illegal in the United States, so how is it an "illegal market"?

How is strengthening and further enabling the UIGEA an effective way to deal with the problems it created?

Seriously I don't know why either of you waste your time arguing with each other. Sure Lirva we get your points. Internet gambling on poker shouldn't be different from gambling on tiddlywinks if you harm nobody in the process. We should have all of those freedoms. I agree. But you just have to accept people are willing to sacrifice other freedoms and the chance that a poker bill sucks anyway, even in hindrance of others (ie other internet gamblers that exclude poker). This is a poker forum and people want a shot at regulated poker.

I don't think it's unreasonable at all people want this on 2+2 while at the same time understanding it sucks for the reasons you've stated. But it isn't a perfect world, and in the world you want to live in nothing would get done. And maybe you would prefer the status quo, and that is fine, but most 2p2ers want this done. I think you should at the very least understand this because it would appear to me that you only show up in these threads to try to scare people. Yet I think you underestimate most viewers in that we have already thought about the things you are saying and are deciding we'd like a shot at change even though it's by no means a guarantee we'd be happy with the results.

This question is best answered by reading the Black Friday indictments.

I do not agree with all the positions taken by the DOJ in those documents, as most know quite well. But they do reflect what our government believes.

And when the government believes it can, and frequently does, seize any money it finds in transit between poker player and poker site, I fell that pretty much effectively makes it an "illegal market."

Perhaps someday the courts will rule our way and for a time it will be clearly legal. Do you really think Congress will let that time last for very long?

It is not, in general.

But this specific "strengthening and further enabling" of the UIGEA will have a carve-out for us online poker players that should prove to be on par with the one previously given to state lotteries, Fantasy Sports, and horse racing.

In my mind that would make the US a slightly better place overall, and a significantly better place for online poker players.

Skallagrim

I see Lirva made another successful hijack.

No I see the majority of people trolling LirvA and the minority actually addressing his points.




Don't you see the irony in this picture and similarities in our situation?






You mentioned Black Friday. Do you think that's pretty much the precedent for how things are going to be for sites that the government deems as "unlawful"?

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~Arthur Schopenhauer

Do not be naive and think anything, and I mean anything pre-black Friday will ever exist amongst the online poker climate ever again. #Truth (As Karak previously stated and also kinda said I had an intelligent post, which btw makes my world considering my troll status on here)

Heres our issue. Over the past 50 years or so we have increasingly looked to government to solve many of the social and economic problems that we have faced.

As I said in my earlier post we have effectively "outsourced" many of these problems to an entity that,by design, cannot solve or effectively manage these problems.

The government wasn't designed to create jobs. The government wasn't designed to provide people who don't have health care to be given health care, and, above all else, the government wasn't DESIGNED to be our personal nanny to make sure that everything we do and everwhere we go has limited risk associated with it.

Sucks, but now is NOT a good time to be fighting the good fight against Uncle Sam. He's big, he's bad and hes out of control.

We are simply on a path of destruction and online poker is barely a fly on the wall.

Now I say this with conviction...if just half the bitching posts on 2+2 let alone all the poker and pro-gaming forums turned there posts into live meet and greets with their respective congressman or senator ....believe me you we'd be living in a tax free gambling country. (Exaggeration but you get the point).

We lack pation, simply put. We lack action. We WILL settle for what congress and the lobbyists conclude on. End of story.

Once we lost the Big Two who actually had the balls to stand up to the US we effectively moved our Queen into a check mate.

RIP some of the greatest memories even amongst losing $70k of paychecks and almost ruining my entire life. God that film with Zeebo featured in it was Epic. All the BS scandals and the late night sweat sessions in the forums trying to keep up with the gossip. The broken keyboards and endless cortisol released from runner runner backdoor busts. I will miss the... I will miss the.

Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ~Plato

LirvA, besides the fact that you're a self-entitled prat used to everything going your way, your main problem is that you see the world in black and white. Its not. Its shades of ****ing gray, and anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes out of their mummy's basement understands this. No one gets exactly what they want, especially politically. In an ideal world, I and 99.9% of this forum would make all forms of internet gaming legal. But you're arguing (well, derailing your 183rd thread) with people on a forum devoted to discussion of poker. Can't you see that poker would be our top priority, and that ho-hum Ron Paul/freedom and liberty circle-jerking comes second?

Your accusations of this thread trolling you are ridiculous. According to your logic, you can punch a guy in the face 100 times, and the minute he hits back, you've been assaulted.

Mods, please ban this tool asap. Hes been given more than enough chances to redeem himself in the Poker Legislative forum and hes not taken any of them. Hes cancer to any chance of reasonable discussion.

[ ] addresses my concerns of further prohibitions
[ ] addresses my concerns of limited competition
[ ] addresses my concerns of excessive taxation
[x] personally attacks me

The cancer to any reasonable discussion of this bill is that nobody has seen it, yet anyone that doesn't fall in line and start clicking out "support the (mystery)#poker bill" tweets is somehow labeled a troll.

In 2010 the text of the bill was removed from the "discussion" thread, because these aren't actually intended to be discussion threads, anything other than cheer leading, "one times!", 's and cute pics of cartoon character's ejaculating makes one a pariah.

im sorry. this is my fault. ive put lirva on ignore.

That's the kind of thing I like to see! Mods can't infract me if they've got me on ignore!

What about people who give inside info to reporters about deals that then get squashed for 'unknown reasons'?

These are the kinds of arguments you make after we get some kind of a deal through, not before.

The only way to get things done in our government is to compromise. Criticizing proposed deals because some of the details don't adhere to your fringe political ideologies, while thousands of professional poker players and others in the industry are without their livelihood, is a very destructive form of intellectual masturbation (or more accurately, in your case, attention whoring and trolling).

You want to make sure a bill passes before you work out the details and implications of it? Ok ... sure? That sounds ... really really terrible tbh. If I'm asked to support a bill, I want to see wtf it is and wtf it does before I blindly support it. Call me a fool for that, I certainly don't give a ****. I think taking the opposite position is foolish, clearly.




Not true.

Someone mentioned Ron Paul. Ron Paul hasn't compromised on his principles at all, and he's been in D.C. for 30 years. Finally at the end of his career, he's nearly realized one of his greatest goals: fully auditing the federal reserve. He's been trying to do that because he believes in people having freedom and the federal reserve has been contrary towards that goal.




First of all, believing in individual rights and freedom is a fringe belief? I'd say that's a very crazy, and dare I say, fringe statement.

I myself am a poker player as well. A job was taken from me on black Friday. I relied on pokerstars for income. I argue here not because I want to damn poker players or throw them under the bus, I argue here because I am a poker player and I think what the PPA proposes and is trying to do would be very bad for me.

And I am the world. What is good for me is good for the world.

Being able to play online poker or bet on any sports or play any other casino game online on any site I choose, with any people I choose, any time I choose, being able to keep all of my winnings, not being forced into high rake or even high rake + taxation. All of this would be good for me and for you.

If people just want to sit on their couch literally masturbating to every new 'sweat' thread rather than play on the existing US facing sites, go to a casino, set up a VPN, or relocate to play poker, that's their choice.

If people want to click tweets and feel some sense of superiority over those who don't want to sellout our freedom to gamble other than poker, States rights, tribal sovereignty, nor anything else this mystery bill might 'compromise', that's also their choice.

It's my choice to to object as fiercely as I am able.

You are wrong. The status quo is much worse than a flawed bill getting through.


We'd all love this. It is never going to happen though.

You're making the same logical mistake Ron Paul supporters made during the Republican primaries. Instead of backing a flawed horse who has a reasonable chance of success and is the closest to what you want (I don't know who this would have been but it certainly would not have been Mitt Romney - probably Newt, Cain or some other wingnut) you stick to your principles and moon the whole process. The end result is you get something worse than what you would have gotten had you compromised.

You got your principles though. Congrats on that. Me, I'd rather have food.

Up to each reporter to judge his own sources. Makes me glad I'm not in media. Those types do def get taken advantage of sometimes.