Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

News, Views, and Gossip For poker news, views, and gossip

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-29-2010, 02:08 AM   #351
peljomo
centurion
 
peljomo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: just donking around...
Posts: 141
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

whats going on atm?

will onlinepoker be banned in usa?

is ftp and stars going down?

chances it will end well?
peljomo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:38 AM   #352
Solid up arrow
banned
 
Solid up arrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,134
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by peljomo View Post
whats going on atm?
voting bills out of committe

Quote:
will onlinepoker be banned in usa?
no

Quote:
is ftp and stars going down?
no but your mom does

Quote:
chances it will end well?
58%
Solid up arrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:39 AM   #353
prodonkey
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: F me
Posts: 14,597
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by peljomo View Post
whats going on atm?

read the thread

will onlinepoker be banned in usa?

well this passed so it is a good sign for poker

is ftp and stars going down?

nobody has any idea, this will probably be 1-2 years off, the bill has to pass both houses and get signed then they would apply for licenses

chances it will end well?

in the long run, great

I think greater than 58% personally
prodonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:40 AM   #354
JQPublic777
veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,944
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

wtf would rakeback disappear?
JQPublic777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:44 AM   #355
kp1022
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,219
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by As armas View Post
A great TY to Engineer, Skall, Papas, and the PPA. Great work! The politics of this is pure gold. The leader of the tea party caucus, Ms. Bachmann, doesn't think you at home should have the choice to play online poker. You don't deserve that option in life as you do the best you can to pursue happiness. The governement needs to protect you from yourself. That is the America she believes in. Next time you see her railing against gangster government, about how the government is out of control and gutting your freedom, REMEMBER THIS VOTE. Talk is cheap biitch. The republican party does not believe in personal freedom, 18 nays to 7 yays. That big gubment democrat party does, 34 yays to 4 nays.

/end rant speaking the truth
+100000000
kp1022 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 02:44 AM   #356
NoahSD
Is Right
 
NoahSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,865
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

There's basically no reason to think that rakeback would disappear because of this bill. In particular, if you keep playing on your current sites, it definitely won't disappear there since they already have agreements with you (or technically they have agreements with your affiliate and your affiliate has an agreement with you).

Some people were throwing random speculation in for no reason about rakeback just like some people have thrown in random speculation about just about everything ITT. Beanie took the opportunity to say (and TE agreed) that the industry might be moving towards more reward programs and less rakeback (i.e. more like Stars and less like FTP). The only way that that's related to the bill is that the bill's passage would create lots of new poker sites that may try out some new systems.

The bill definitely doesn't ban rakeback and definitely doesn't create ridiculously high fees that would mandate really high rake or getting rid of rakeback or anything like that.
NoahSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 03:25 AM   #357
AlanDyer
Pooh-Bah
 
AlanDyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,682
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

just like to point out that there is no way anything is getting passed under a republican filibustering senate,

am i rite?

mods why u delete, this is completely on topic, and i'd be happy to be proven wrong..
AlanDyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:07 AM   #358
wifebeater123
journeyman
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 225
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Any guesses on what the tax rate on net poker income would be like? (once the bill is passed)
wifebeater123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 04:22 AM   #359
fluffysheap
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 224
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Senate doesn't filibuster everything, just important stuff. Maybe poker is important to us but to Congress, not so much. There are a lot of senators that oppose poker enough to to slip UIGEA into a must-pass bill but not so many that are willing to put in the effort needed to maintain a filibuster. Senators don't have to camp outside the Senate floor any more but they still have to keep showing up and making cloture votes which they may not be willing to do for something as insignificant (in the grand scheme of things) as online poker.

Since the Republicans only have 41 votes right now a lot of stuff is going to pass even if someone did want to filibuster it because if the vote is not strictly party line there might be 60 votes for it anyway (i.e. one Republican supporter is enough to break a filibuster and there are 41 different Republicans in the Senate, not 41 clones of Max Baucus).

Note filibustering is not a Republican tactic, both parties use it when they are in the minority, which just happens to be the Republicans now. Since Republicans will almost certainly gain several seats in the next election it would really be better for this bill to pass before then.
fluffysheap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 05:14 AM   #360
HopelessHousewife
old hand
 
HopelessHousewife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: In my 1950's fantasies!
Posts: 1,253
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

imo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXCwcyxVOB0#t=0m47s
HopelessHousewife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 07:27 AM   #361
boobies4me
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,233
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

When it's all said and done, if online poker is legalized/regulate,d it will not be profitable for online players I'm guessing due to what will probably be unreasonable tax code as well as hefty raking. If it is profitable though it's very doubtful it will be more profitable than it currently is now.

What I envision when I think of legalized poker is basically an online site where the rake/taxes is so much that it can't be beat but the casual players really could care less and play anyway. As a result, the pros don't play on that site and stick to the offshore unregulated sites instead but they will have dried up even more due to the casual fish going to the unbeatable site.
boobies4me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 07:32 AM   #362
cpitt398
Pooh-Bah
 
cpitt398's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 4,115
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

So the tax implications for the site are paying a 2% tax on deposits? (confirmed?)

If so, not only would rake not go up, they could afford to lower it.

Right now, sites (or at least one) are actively paying 6% on financial transactions to process your payments because of the shadiness needed to do the drop.
cpitt398 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 07:43 AM   #363
LucidDream
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LucidDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: flippin it on em!!
Posts: 10,703
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

ive seen other ppl say 8% tax on deposits tho im not sure where they are getting the number from. even still i dont see how it would cause the rake to go up much more than it is now on the major sites. esp if these sites are allowed to offer betting on horses.
LucidDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 07:45 AM   #364
kmd107
old hand
 
kmd107's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,250
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cpitt398 View Post
So the tax implications for the site are paying a 2% tax on deposits? (confirmed?)

If so, not only would rake not go up, they could afford to lower it.

Right now, sites (or at least one) are actively paying 6% on financial transactions to process your payments because of the shadiness needed to do the drop.
I'm not sure the all the financial details are worked out yet, I believe there is another bill waiting for markup that has the financial details in it.
kmd107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 07:58 AM   #365
AlanDyer
Pooh-Bah
 
AlanDyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,682
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

boy the us government

nice senate where a bunch of flyover states dictate to the cities....

GIVE US POKER DAMNIT
AlanDyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 08:02 AM   #366
Dak9885
banned
 
Dak9885's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,196
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

I'm not holding my breath. The bill was only voted on by represenatives in the financial services committee. They likely campaigned on fixing the economy and are more likely to understand the benefit of taxable online poker. When it goes to the Senate the views will be more objective.
Dak9885 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 08:21 AM   #367
Widespread Panic
journeyman
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 254
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Distajo View Post
wtf would rakeback disappear?
Im not sure how rakeback works because it wasn't available when i began playing so i haven't really looked into it but I believe the speculation that it will be gone is thinking that any extra money from online poker will now be going to the federal government of the USA because this country is full of lazy degenerates loser scumbags who require welfare to live.

since we aren't going to let anyone starve in this country we send them a check to live every month.... and a place to live.... and free healthcare etc....


so rakeback will be gone in favor of paying for their laziness..... is the thinking.


oh, and our bombs so we can kick ass.
Widespread Panic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 08:24 AM   #368
Todd Terry
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 16,301
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky LITE View Post
I agree with this. In my experience casinos are ruthless with the way they rape the players. Just look at the wsop as an example with their $900+100 BS and tbh that's pretty lax compared to what a lot of casinos do.
Maybe that's because they have very little legal, regulated competition? Is a B&M casino going to get away with exorbitant fees if their customers can stay home and gamble online?
Todd Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 08:41 AM   #369
JasonP530
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,306
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidDream View Post
ive seen other ppl say 8% tax on deposits tho im not sure where they are getting the number from. even still i dont see how it would cause the rake to go up much more than it is now on the major sites. esp if these sites are allowed to offer betting on horses.
What I saw said 2% state tax and 6% federal for a total of 8%.
JasonP530 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 08:57 AM   #370
Skallagrim
PPA Board Member/LSN Dir
 
Skallagrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: It's a PPA post only if so stated
Posts: 6,713
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

The major sites have reported to the PPA that so long as the total deposit tax stays under the 10% figure they do not anticipate any major changes in rake or their rakeback and rewards policies. The new cost to them will be offset by lower costs elsewhere and by renewed growth in the market.

Skallagrim
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 09:09 AM   #371
JQPublic777
veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,944
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim View Post
The major sites have reported to the PPA that so long as the total deposit tax stays under the 10% figure they do not anticipate any major changes in rake or their rakeback and rewards policies. The new cost to them will be offset by lower costs elsewhere and by renewed growth in the market.

Skallagrim
For example, they could eliminate the costs of paying 3rd party payment processors?
JQPublic777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 09:11 AM   #372
LucidDream
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LucidDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: flippin it on em!!
Posts: 10,703
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim View Post
The major sites have reported to the PPA that so long as the total deposit tax stays under the 10% figure they do not anticipate any major changes in rake or their rakeback and rewards policies. The new cost to them will be offset by lower costs elsewhere and by renewed growth in the market.

Skallagrim
based on the amendments written into the bill wouldnt the current major sites not be allowed to operate in the US market tho?
LucidDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 09:17 AM   #373
craigmarq
old hand
 
craigmarq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Had dem pocket 77s
Posts: 1,545
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LucidDream View Post
based on the amendments written into the bill wouldnt the current major sites not be allowed to operate in the US market tho?
Operators who have broken the law will not be allowed licenses.
craigmarq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 09:20 AM   #374
LucidDream
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
LucidDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: flippin it on em!!
Posts: 10,703
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Whats this all about then?

Quote:
The first amendment was brought by Congressman Brad Sherman of California. Online sites that have intentionally broken internet gaming laws cannot get a license to conduct business in the United States. This will affect larger online poker sites such as PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, and Ultimate Bet who allowed players from the U.S. to play on their site after the UIGEA went into effect. This amendment passed.
LucidDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 09:49 AM   #375
boobies4me
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,233
Re: House Financial Services Committee Markup on HR 2267 (passes 41-22)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim View Post
The major sites have reported to the PPA that so long as the total deposit tax stays under the 10% figure they do not anticipate any major changes in rake or their rakeback and rewards policies. The new cost to them will be offset by lower costs elsewhere and by renewed growth in the market.

Skallagrim
Even so, with the current tax code for gambling it will be unbeatable if someone is paying the taxes the way they're supposed to be paid which considers a "session" the net win/loss for each table from when you sit down to stand up. If that's the case then each table online would be a session which drives up the wins/loss column making it so that people living in the states where you can't deduct losses get hammered. Seems for them to make this work they would have to change the tax code as well.
boobies4me is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive