Sorry my friend, this is the world we live in. There is no "plain English" in this bill, nor in most of the statutes Congress has passed since WWII.

Here's the best I can do: this bill will allow licensed poker sites to service US customers. It also, however, allows for individual states to require licensed sites not to accept players from states that "opt out."

Also, this bill BY ITSELF creates no new taxes nor tax with-holding; it provides that US players will have legal recourse, civil and/or criminal, against cheaters and sites that don't pay; and it exempts any site with a license from the provisions of the UIGEA, thus allowing easy deposits and cash outs from those sites.

Skalllagrim

Thank you Skallagrim, ive read a couple of the posts and it seems we agree. I guess i'll have to go to find law to find actual arguments as I view all lobbyists as speacial interest groups so I wont be able to access the PPA site. My contention is that the federal goverment should not be involved. I think they may even have their hands full with the international community regarding trade laws if they did pass legislation prohibiting on line poker. The several states...would be another matter. I am a strong states rights proponent.

If it is passed that sites with a license are exempt from UIGEA, what are the chances some banks will still just block all gaming transactions as it is easier?

Wrong again Mr Engineer.

1) Your views and your solicitation of your views are on every poker forum. including ready to send letters to legislators (for dumb people like myself who need to use a spell checker).

2) I did not assume eveyone thought UIGEA made online poker illegal.

We all know that it doen't. I would like to know what current federal law makes on line poker illegal.

I can appreciate your tenacity, however the methods you employ could use some work.

Remember the old Engineer motto: One track minds often lead to derailed trains of thought.

bump

fail

Thank you sir, this is clear, concise and on point.

What about the realistic chances of this getting passed? Is it any close to at least 50/50? And how long are these hearings usually last for, when are we going to hear an answer?

It seems that states would not turn down more taxable revenue, but it seems more likely that they will just as easily say, "the internet is no casino reservation, and we do not want our citizens participating in such skullduggeric behavior." This rings especially true right now, since this only requires the governers signature.

I can see Leapfrogs concern, as states that currently took no interest in this issue previously, will jump onboard to illegalize something they once took something of a passing interest too. Is it not the case that once a state opts-out, it becomes officially illegal in that state?

This seems much more powerful than the UIGEA, because with this bill the government will actually get its hands into some taxable regulations, which will cause them to take much more notice of its enforcement.

IMO, the opt-out option should say something to the effect that the activity that is being opted-out of, then does not become illegal in that state, with no other legislation.

Really, even if this bill passes, how much will it boost the games? I think the decline in fish is a direct result in the decline of credit cards acceptance on the sites+neteller, not the idea that it is illegal, and a simple repeal of the UIGEA would be just fine, though I guess that isn't reasonable.

won't it reduce rake via increased competition?