Dr Gainsbury is up right now.

Sounds like I missed some good stuff there, finally no card counting in poker and he had data? What was it relevant to?

Back now, I think we might have Gainsbury next or soon

The data Luke provided about hourly loses between games, a lady at the end ask for them because they where well written

Yeah the data is clearly on our side in terms of various forms of gambling and hourly losses that was the best part of Luke's submission

It's promising that the frame of debate seems to be 'how to we regulate' now as opposed to 'should it be regulated'

Gainsbury seems to be a good speaker which is promising.

Joey 2 questions mate.

1) is Sally single

2) is Sally thicc

Love that David made the distinction that the ofarrell report didnt focus on poker specifically.

+1

Has there been any mention of ignition creeping into Aus now that stars, pp, 888 ect may/have left the market?

yeah jimmybruv joey and oliver nailed that home numerous times. Annoying that they keep thinking this whole VPN thing is a problem people will struggle to work around.... when they just have to play ignition or ACR like they do stars.

Yes, a couple times now.

yes!!

I think I missed the end stepped away for a couple mins and it seems to be done

Overall that went pretty well I think? Not perfect, but very well, the Senators seem to be onside for regulation and the pro-poker people as a whole came off better than the anti-poker people

Daniel Laidlaw wins MVP for today

Agree swoop. Def went well. The pro-poker people definitely came off more prepared and more educated on the matter (this is only to be expected though of course). Is it only a one day sitting for the committee? When do they sit down and discuss it all/determine results?

Today was Round 1 of a very long battle. There may be further hearings, the committee has to formulate a report to present to the senate and they will make recommendations based off submissions and research to present to the government.

If everything goes our way the government will then draft and table a bill or amendment, both houses will vote and then it becomes law. If things don't go our way the government will release a response to the report explaining why they do not accept the committee's recommendations.

This is my understanding of the process, someone correct me if wrong.

it went fantastically well even the people that came on to argue against kind of agreed with regulation Joey and Swoop were great also the 2 on after and the Canadian professor what a legend! Well done all I don't see how any can listen to all that and still be pro ban poker!
The only thing that wasn't covered much was the set deposit /daily limits! I think swoop mentioned it in his opening statement and the woman at the end also but she was unsure that player set daily deposit limits are already an option for online poker and obviously help a lot with problem gamblers

I did mention it in my opening statement. I'm kind of surprised the Senators didn't go back to my recommendations but they're part of the public record etc now so they're there if it comes up at any point

Part way through the day it felt like the framework of the debate went from 'should online poker be regulated or banned' to 'how should online poker be regulated as the consensus is prohibition doesn't work' which is a promising sign for us.

Anyone who gets word of what the committee recommendations are and/or dates for further hearings please post ITT asap, in the event there are further hearings we want our best possible representatives to make sure they're available etc

That is how the tone of the conversation sounded to me too. Glad I'm not the only one who thought that.

What happens now is that the committee considers the submissions they have received and the testimonies that they have heard today and prepares a report that they present to the Senate.

The report must be presented by September 21. We may see something before that but that is the deadline for the committee.

When the report is presented to the Senate there are normally three things that may happen.

1) They ignore it completely and carry on with their agenda

2) The relevant Minister will take it on board and make recommendations to the government for changes to legislation

3) An opposition or cross-bench MP will move a motion for the government in relation to the report and then the government will act accordingly

So it is really wait and see time at the moment, they will take some time to look through the information provided and prepare their report.

Our first course of action is to see what comes out in the report and then the second point is to see what action is being taken because of it.

I have made plans with the Minister's office to sit down with them and discuss the outcomes of the inquiry once the report is out so I am hopeful we will have some good news as to direction and time frames then.

Hey guys, first time posting ITT I think, I spoke at the hearing today and overall I think it went really well for us.

I was pessimistic coming in but pleasantly surprised to find the Senators genuinely trying to understand the issues involved. From brief chat with Senator Leyonhjelm at the end it sounds like we have decent chance of winning.

Just chatted with Luke briefly as well, he said the Senators seemed to be very on-board with the idea of regulation in person and that he thought as a whole the pro-poker arguments went well from everybody. Daniel seems happy with his testimony too as he should be, I think as a group we did very well today overall, at times some of us were dragged off message by lines of questioning etc but the tone went from 'ban or regulate' to 'how do we best regulate' as the day progressed and it would probably take the Senate rejecting the committee's recommendation to regulate for us to lose from here, I think our chances are better than a flip for sure to get some positive legislation out of this after today.

@Choparno great testimony today I think you were the MVP staying on topic and answering all of their questions in the best possible way

As someone said a few posts up even the anti-poker witnesses generally conceded that regulation would be a better harm prevention mechanism than prohibition.

Good work Joey re: letting us know the process from here. Let's hope this plays out well, it's hard to see the committee recommending anything other than regulation after how today went.

Great stuff mate. Thanks for everything.

I really think everyone who spoke today can be proud of themselves. You have all made a positive contribution to the future of poker in this country.

Great work everyone who presented

The one area that concerned me is the general vibe of "cash games are bad and tournaments are good". I'm not sure whether this is true.
- Tournaments attract people chasing the big win, while cash game is more of a grind it up style activity
- what about single table or heads up sit and gos?
- what about spins?

Whilst I listened to it all today I couldn't help but feel this was what the senators looked like when you guys spoke.

Well done guys. I'm gutted I didn't get to listen, but this thread gave me a good enough sense. Sounds like it's now down to their report.

Joey 2 questions - will the report be made public and under your three options outlined would we have an MP to help with option 3 (if needed)?

I can answer one part - the report will be made public