How so?

Poker is a game of skill. It also gambling. Do you have a problem with this duality?

I would probably support a Reid-Kyl-type bill, which bans most online gambling but authorizes licensing & regulation of online poker for any state that opts in, with interstate pooling.

I would oppose a RAWA-type bill which bans all online gambling with just certain carveouts, including an online poker carveout. This type of bill would simply exempt legal online poker from the ban. It wouldn't do anything towards making the path to legalized online poker in the States any faster or easier, nor authorize interstate pooling. In other words, it would not improve the chances of online poker licensing anywhere in the U.S., and might hurt the chances if companies don't see profit in it when there is no chance of getting online casino gaming at the same time.

Of course, if the only choice is RAWA with or without a poker carveout, with is the obvious choice. But if the choice is RAWA with a poker carveout or no bill at all, the obvious choice becomes no bill at all.

+1

There are some places where it isn't gambling. I took your post to mean that you think it is gambling anywhere you go.

Poker players do not get to "choose" what bill provisions are going to be enacted at the federal level. The best poker players realistically can hope for is to play defense.

What you or I or the PPA may choose to put into a bill is essentially irrelevant to the legislative outcome.

Beyond that, I can't even guess why you think "RAWA with a poker carveout" is worse than "no bill at all". Typo, maybe ?

because we're currently experiencing the fervent RUSH by so many states to legislate licensed intrastate online poker. remember a couple years ago when all we had to do was avoid a federal bill and the states would move on this? lol

Not everyone's opinions are based entirely on their own self interest.

who else is looking out for us except for us? i don't see the nba or nfl lobbying capitol hill in favor of online poker. do you think they'd give a **** about our interests if they were offered legalized sports betting with a poker ban?

Look, intrastate online poker-only is not a viable industry in very many States. However, the population base in many states would support at least one poker provider ..... cue the State Lottery in your State if you want State-level poker.....

But,more directly, is RAWA with a poker carveout worse than "no bill at all" for poker players in California or Pennsylvania ?

there's a difference between lobbying for something you want, and lobbying for something you believe in. Principles are expensive in politics though!

What places? Mars maybe?

And how is this relevant to USA regulation, or lack thereof?

This. In canada we can play any form of online sportsbetting, casino slots, table games, and complete freedom of online poker. We literally can do anything.


No one should have to live in some sort of sanctioned police state, where the govt tells you what to do with your money, thats pretty disgusting and sad.

In the end its all just gov't greed, they want their hands in your pockets and will dry rape you financially and impose their wills on what you can do, because theres nothing you can do about it.

Yes. They are around to support Poker Players. Not Gambling as a whole.

Should DFS and Horse Racing have turned down their exemption because it wasn't right to leave out all the others?

Is it the right thing to do? Probably not.

Is it the PPA's job to worry about other forms of gambling? No

PPA is one of the biggest jokes in poker.

RAWA with a poker carveout = online poker/gaming companies can offer only online poker, in states which pass legislation to license and regulate it.

No federal bill = online poker/gaming companies can offer online poker and online casino gaming, in states which pass legislation to license and regulate it.

There is more incentive for the companies to lobby for state authorizing legislation and open sites with no new federal bill than with RAWA with a poker carveout.

Former Senator Bradley allegedly got butthurt during an NBA game he was playing in. [covers.com]

Bradley would later say that his opinion on gambling was cemented when, during an NBA game, he was appalled when a meaningless end-of-game shot that enabled one team to cover the spread was cheered. Bradley doesn’t mention the game, and it’s possible the story was a fabrication to bolster his arguments against gambling.

In 1993 Republican Christine Todd Whitman was running for governor against Democratic incumbent Jim Florio.

“Turnout is everything when a race is tight,” New Jersey state Sen. Ray Lesniak, a longtime advocate of allowing sports betting in the Garden State, told Covers.com, “and Republicans [who controlled the General] Assembly refused to even take a vote on sports betting because they thought it would increase turnout in urban areas and hurt Whitman’s chances.”

Joe Brennan Jr., president of the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gambling Association and a strong advocate of sports betting in New Jersey, affirms Lesniak’s recall of the times, putting it in even starker words: “Republicans were afraid that minorities would turn out in enough numbers to support sports betting, and they wanted to depress that vote for political purposes.”

I agree with Lesniak's and Brennan's assessment here. The casinos wanted sports betting back in '93. And NJ was given the one year window to get it in. But the Republicans played "dirty politics" and won. NJ's tax cuts were paid for by stealing money from the police and firefighter's pension funds, AC was denied sports betting, but the Republicans captured the Governorship.

(This is one of many reasons I despise politicians.)

But that just explains what went wrong in NJ. My point is that PASPA, passed by the Federal government, is looking really obsolete less than 25 years later. After NJ loses one or two more times in court, they will join the bandwagon of states looking to get the law repealed at the Federal level. Good luck to them - our Federal government is change averse to the extreme, and NFL bucks are hard to pass up.

If RAWA is passed now with a poker carve out, I can see dozens of states interested in online gambling wanting it repealed in less than 20 years.