Just really enjoying yourself over all of this aren't you?

You know full f---ing well that ZBTHorton was talking about the fact that the Frank bill had a kind of transition period too, but nothing remotely like the "blackout" in this bill. In the McDemott bill the sites were specifically allowed to continue pending licensing.

You knowingly took his quote out of a very different context and then went to compare it mine accusingly.

Much as we disagreed in the past, and much as you sometimes grate on my nerves, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME you have lost my respect. Play these games with others, I have work to do.

Skallagrim

I have a few questions:

Why is there a 15 month blackout, and is 15 months confirmed to the day.

When will the blackout begin?

Whose to say in 15 months they dont just decide to not allow it?

I didn't in any way take his quote of out context. He is responding to exactly this situation. In fact, the OP here started the thread there. The ZBH post is the 2nd one.

btw, I lost respect for you a long time ago

edit: here are the posts just so there is no confusion. You should be taking issue with ZBH, not me, but it feels good to lash out huh?
post #1 in thread

post #2

this.. and why does this bill have to be passed so early when we just found out about the blackout.. cant u set a later date so we can all prepare for this?

this is outrageous

If we let the casinos and congress know that we will stay with stars/FT and never play for them maybe they will get off of this 15 month kick

The timing of this for me is just unreal, cant help but lol, and then puke.

The issue to me is that we took a bill where opt outs were the necessary evil, and now layered on a blackout period. So now we're asking players to take a 15 month blackout for an unknowable chance that their state opts in, and we have no assurances how many states will actually do so.

That's too high of a price for me I think. I understand reasonable minds may differ. I dont like that this is being decided without an attempt to solicit what the player base wants. This bill is not a victory in and of itself given the state opt in provision. Its merely a step down the road to victory. I think that as the blackout and state opt in provisions become apparant, the PPA is going to have a massively difficult time uniting the community to do what we need to do to have this bill result in victory.

I understand the risks, but I do think Im going to write to my Senator and oppose this bill. Genuinely sorry Skall and TE, I hope no hard feelings but I owe you the respect of being up front about it and hope it works out for the best.

You know he was talking about 2 different things not even remotely alike and he says that they are not alike directly in the thread. But why let facts stop you.

Oh, my mistake then. I wont make that mistake again.

Skallagrim

same man.. just moved into a house

Can't imagine why the ppa would support this. What the hell is regulation going to do for us. What we need is deregulation. The taxes may start out bearable, but that won't last. If we haven't learned that, from past history, the government offers to take a piece of the pie and offers what in return? To "allow" us to play online poker. Thanks a lot we already are.

This is like a bad dream.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mf-X...eature=related

this sucks for americans.

How are they going to enforce this "blackout" block the websites or what?

Supporters of the bill seem to think the 15 month blackout is the price we have to pay for a bright future in online poker.

The fact is that we have no idea what the market will look like once it is implemented in 15 months. What we do know is that the govt is only bothering to regulate so they can tax the sites. From what I've read this will come in the form of a 20% deposit tax. Supporters seem to think that this cost will be eaten by the sites. People are delusional if they think that 20% is coming from anywhere but the players pockets. Not directly, but whether it will be in the form of no or low rakeback, higher rake or in some as yet unforeseen way, that money will come from the pockets of the players, from the poker economy. On top of that we will still required to pay tax on winnings the same way we do now.

They will tax the sites, who will tax us, and then they will tax us again.

I said this in another thread but the margin by which a player beats the rake and pays taxes is a delicate balance. When have legislators shown an understanding of how a poker economy works?

So what I see is a 15 month blackout, then a highly unpredictable future for profitable online play.

I respect this choice even though I disagree.

The only other problem I have is that you seem to imply that opt outs or opt ins were something we could have avoided in a better world. Given our Constitution and the Federal nature of our government, there was never, and will never, be a way in which the Federal Government will require every state to allow people within that state's borders to play online poker for money.

It is not that state options are a bargaining chip, they are a given and must be accepted under any set of circumstances.

Skallagrim

I've just recently learned of this new bill today. I'm fairly new to discussing politics, as I'm not necessarily up to date on here. However, I have been looking at the PPA's decision making and the posts on here of the board member Skallagrim. He posted this reply in one of the newer threads (the bolded parts are what interest me most.) :

"It would be wrong if it was true. But you know you have a chance of hurting the PPA but no chance of hurting Reid, McConnell, Kyl, MeDermott and the other Senators (and staff) negotiating this bill - so ... attack the PPA of course.

I am on the Board of Directors of the PPA. Want to know when I first learned Reid's bill was going to have a blackout period? The answer is early last week. Want to know when I first posted (on 2+2 of course) about the costs/pain in this bill? It was the same day the damn bill became public.

But I do feel your pain. I feel the pain of every online pro who is going to take a significant, maybe life altering, short term hit if this bill passes. I also have to remind you of the benefits of taking this hit. The benefits come in 15 months and they are almost all we could ask for except international player pools (and we should get those eventually).

I also know that the status quo is not stable. It is slowly but surely disintegrating. With a few legal victories, maybe we could keep it going in most states another 2-4 years. But we will lose states along the way and ultimately we will lose in court or the Congress will react fast and probably not favorably.

The choice, unfortunately, has been presented as follows: take some serious short term hurt to be able to reliably come back for the long run OR milk the short term for all its worth and fight to prolong it as long as possible knowing it will ultimately die within some single digit number of years?

Skallagrim "

It is interesting to see a board member of the PPA saying something to the magnitude of "(poker) ...will ultimately die within some single digit number of years"

Really? Poker will die within a few years ultimately? Why is this so? Why are we donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to the PPA if poker will ultimately die? Why havent we heard of anything like this anywhere on the PPA website saying online poker will ultimately die? Does the average poker player honestly think online poker will die, ever? I don't, and I can not stand for such absurd statements. ESPECIALLY from a board member of what we believed can prevent this absurd statement.

From my perspective, this looks like propaganda to me. Propaganda allowing Casinos to have their monopolistic control over the entire poker industry, online OR live.

I don't give a **** if you say I'm a conspirator, because when I see a board member of the PPA saying such an absurd blanket statement about the Future of poker, I'm instantly concerned.

He also goes on to say:

"The benefits come in 15 months and they are almost all we could ask for..."

If any poker playing monkey read that bill, they would know that it is NOT beneficial to the online poker industry, and casinos are the ultimate beneficiary of this bill, as what-should-be the players.

Please read this guy's blog, it has a good analysis of whats going on in the bill: http://www.billrini.com/ (i read it and epect every other poker player to read it.)
Anyways,

So why does the PPA support a bill which is benefiting the exact people who want to ruin online poker(well mostly want to have control over it and reap the profits)? I'll leave that up for discussion, or even in another thread. To my understanding the PPA is NOT in the poker player's best interest to support, until otherwise.

Poll I started in the PPA forum. Whether you oppose or support the bill, make your voice known.

live poker, meh

Hey Skallagrim,

When do you think the blackoutwould be implemented. Someone mentioned 1st Feb 2011, but just wanted to confirm with a trusted source.

THanks

edit: I see the question has already been asked. Sorry for reiterating what someone already asked.

yes i think they are overstating their claims to some extent so they feel a bit better about a thoroughly rotten situation

If u live in any conservative state u can kiss poker goodbye. If u live in the south,midwest (except illinois), southwest poker is over. It will probaly only be legal in ny/nj,cali,smaller liberal states,maybe dc and that's it. Im from va we got 2 dems in the senate and a GOP gov so it could break either way.

The only positive for me is I guess I'll save about $90 a month from training site memberships.

well guess we're gonna find out if an online 1-2 winner can indeed crush 5-10 live. be nothing but hoodies, ipods, serious depression, 30-lb weight gains, and lots of snarling. and that's in no limit.

+1