Updates itt were great. Ty all.

Yes to both

Joey you still haven't answered the most important questions.

1) is Sally single
2) is Sally THICC

Don't post here much if at all but I have been keeping an eye on this thread over the last few months and did my part of making a submission.

I just wanted to say on the behalf of everyone a huge thank you to Joey, Swoop and others that spoke on our behalf today.

They did a tremendous job and should be really proud of themselves.

well done guys amazing job by all Joey Swoop and others what ever happens the Poker community have you to thank for all your work

Joey is there a way to find out how many submissions were made in total? There should be at least several dozen and likely at least 50 and last I checked nowhere near that many were uploaded. I feel like the range is 50-200 probably on the lower end of that scale but only 24 are displayed on the website so far (and many submissions I know of from people ITT/my partner/a friend whose submission I helped edit etc aren't there yet

My understanding was that they would all go up eventually. They just got way more than they anticipated.

I will follow up again to confirm but I think we will see more start to pop up shortly.

How does it take so long to put them up? They had 16 up a week or so ago now it's 24. Does it really take half a day to put a single submission up etc? Even if they had to read every sub in full to vet it they can't take more than a few minutes each on average. Weird.

I understand it's Communications Minister Mitch Fifield, is that right? I understand we need the Senators from today to convince Minister Fifield to make these changes, as a result of what they have hopefully learned from the hearing today about the need for regulation.

Yeah good work today guys!

Kind of.

Minister Fifield is certainly the Minister. As mentioned I have a commitment to speak to his office once the report is published.

The committee won't necessarily try to convince the Minister as such, they will make recommendations on their findings and provide that to the Senate (and the Minister).

The Minister will review this and then see if he wants to look at changes to Government policy based on these recommendations. If he does he will then take these to a cabinet meeting (and to a backbench policy discussion meeting) and the government will agree to the changes and then take them to parliament as part of their policy agenda.

In summary, we are just providing the tools that the Committee can show the Minister to say "look at all this overwhelming evidence" so he can show it to cabinet and to the rest of the government and make supporting us the obvious choice.

Sorry for my ignorance but what are the chances that they ignore the report and go on with their agenda? How common is this in situations similar to this?

I'm failing to see how this isn't a likely outcome

It's common but you need to remember two important things.

1) The government never had an actual position on online poker. It had a position of the IGA and just supported that without considering different game types

2) The government supported the call for an inquiry. indicating that they are interested in the outcome.

Aside from that several government MPs and Ministers are on our side and the Minister's office has indicated we need to have a look at the best way forward.

In short, the reason it is a possible scenario and not a likely scenario is the amount of work we have been doing behind the scenes on this.

The inquiry is just one piece of the puzzle.

I think they have to be "accepted" before they are put up.. I assume this means someone has to read them all first. If some parliamentary done dedicates two hours of their work day to it hundreds of submissions would take ages.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

Going into the Ministers' world, I'd suggest our two main arguments that will resonate with them are:

1. If you ban it there will be zero tax dollars. The government needs $$$s
2. With no regulation Australian problem gamblers and regular consumers will still be (easily) able to access it and will have no protection.

I know there are many more supporting points, but I would think that these are the two that should be our headlines. Thoughts?

makes sense to me

Keep in mind that the ban on online gaming only exists as a result of a deal with the late Senator Brian Harradine in 2001 between the then-Howard Government and the Senator. The Howard Government introduced this legislation in exchange for his support on other legislation.

It was opposed (albeit for no particular ideological reason) by the ALP at the time, and that many Liberal Party MPs have no particular opposition to online gaming and/or online poker, but rather, just don't care about it.

For anyone who missed the hearing, the transcript is available here,

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...66fdc4%2F0000"

Huh - obviously knew it was Howard-era legislation, but I didn't know that was its specific origin. Thanks for the background

It certainly doesn't strike me as an issue that either major party has a strong moral objection against (the same probably can't be said for, say, the Xenophon senators). So hopefully they make the right logical conclusion here.

Thanks for the link . . . was wishing there is an audio version.

Good job guys.

Brabin's interview is gold. You can feel the rage seething out of the text.

I read them all.

Pretty good. The main negative seemed to be the leaning towards scapegoating cash poker in favor of tournament poker. For no good reason. Morons. Someone needs to explain to them the standard deviations of winrates of cash games compared to tournaments.

Also I don't like how everyone says to look at the UK structure. It's better than a ban, but it isn't good for players or effective and reducing problem gamblers.


It's looking to me like this whole thing will get shaped into poker regulation. When it does, we will have an equally important job. To force the poker economy into a more player friendly environment.

At the moment we're on the poker sites/monopolies side. When we're shaping regulation we can force them to:

-not rake poker games so hard they are turned into casino games
-not do stupid stuff like enforce tables limits & ban cash games
-not offer casino games disguised as poker games.
-look at anti competitive behavior

There will be a a lot of lobbying power from jokersters against this kind of thing when the time comes. Because any player friendly regulation in Australia has flow on affects for players and regulations world wide and will hurt their monopoly and bottom line.

Unfortunately these days Australia isn't that free and liberal. Government owned and operated. At least our corruption isn't too bad yet, with some of those ATO tax guys getting prosecuted.

Just got an email asking me to go over my statements and correct the record for Hansard on any mistakes and did so, there were a lot of minor errors like the record saying 'BPNs' instead of 'VPNs' etc so everyone who gave testimony should check their email and make sure they review their testimony to make sure it was all recorded accurately

I play tournaments mainly.
So what’s wrong with responsible gaming table limits if it takes 24 hours to approve and you can request an increase in 7 days?

Or a weekly deposit limit? I don’t know how long a site, i.e. Pokerstars takes to process a change in this. This is obligatory in France
As a cash game player can you live with them?

France also has “Maximum weekly wager amount“ (https://www.winamax.fr/en/about-us_set-your-limits). this is horrible

Jannit the maximum weekly wager amount is a designated amount you can set. It isn't set for you by the site, or the state.