Stars gave me the usual copy/paste email that they're not currently planning on pulling out, your funds are safe and blah blah and they'll let us know if that changes. Not seeing a submission from them and I sent them a link in case they were unaware of it. Surely they're not incompetent enough to not be aware of what's going on.

At this point i've done all I can, hope things work out. I'm not sure whether overwhelming support for legal/regulated online poker in submissions or silence is better. I did direct stars to this thread and encouraged them to respond, some leadership from then on the issue so we at least know how Stars, 888 and co want us as the Australian poker playing public to react would be helpful

I know the bill is directed at other forms of gambling, but we don't want to accidentally end up in a situation where we didn't even try and online poker gets banned as a side effect of legislation targeting other forms of gambling.

I've always been on the side of 'lol we're safe it's fine' if you see my history in this thread but i'm legitimately worried for the first time this time even though nothing is certain yet. I don't play poker professionally anymore but still enjoy it recreationally and it would be devastating if all of my friends who still play online professionally had to leave the country due to any oversight on our part as the poker community (or more likely on Stars part)

Stars gave me some copy paste responses in response to me calling them out for a copy pasted response when the poker community basically wants to know what they want us to do. I assume i'm not going to get anywhere with their support and we need someone with links to the higher ups at stars and more status in the community to advise us. Maybe someone who is/was sponsored by Stars can point us in the right direction. I'll ask around and see if anyone has any useful info for the thread

This is the most polite way i've ever been told to **** off and stop emailing them by customer support after an exchange of three emails

Hello Oliver,

Thank you once more for your follow up response.

We truly appreciate the genuine concern that you are showing in regards to this matter. However, please keep in mind that we at Support, don't handled this kind of information.

Our CEO's, managers, lawyers and such are the ones in charge of handling, dealing and negotiating the different licenses and their regulations.

Although we appreciate your caring, there's not much that we can add to this themes. But please rest assured that if any relevant information that should concern the players arises, we will communicate it immediately.

Thank you very much once more for your concerns and well wishes.

Should you require further assistance in regards to this or any other matter, please don't hesitate and contact us back. We aim to please.

Regards,

Tatiana M.
Stars Support

Amaya CEO just said on conf call that if legislation passes, market withdrawal likely.

I hope this is right
Re-reading the legislation, I noticed the following exclusions from the IGA (meaning these events are legal):

"8A Excluded wagering service
(1) For the purposes of this Act, an excluded wagering service is:
(a) a service to the extent to which it relates to betting on, or on a series of, any or all of the following:
(i) a horse race;
(ii) a harness race;
(iii) a greyhound race;
(iv) a sporting event;
(b) a service to the extent to which it relates to betting on:
(i) an event; or
(ii) a series of events; or
(iii) a contingency;
that is not covered by paragraph (a).
(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a service unless such other conditions (if any) as are specified in the regulations have been satisfied.
(2) Paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) do not apply to a service to the extent to which:
(a) the service relates to betting on the outcome of a sporting event, where the bets are placed, made, received or accepted after the beginning of the event; or
(b) the service relates to betting on a contingency that may or may not happen in the course of a sporting event, where the bets are placed, made, received or accepted after the beginning of the event.
(3) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to a service to the extent to which the service is:
(a) a service for the conduct of a scratch lottery or other instant lottery; or
(b) a service for the supply of tickets in a scratch lottery or other instant lottery; or
(c) a service relating to betting on the outcome of a scratch lottery or other instant lottery; or
(d) a service for the conduct of a game covered by paragraph (e) of the definition of gambling service in section 4; or
(e) a service relating to betting on the outcome of a game of chance or of mixed chance and skill. "

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00607


It's obviously tenuous but assuming poker is a clear game of skill, it may be enough for the poker providers to continue to provide a service - still would have thought they would need to be registered though...

Aherm, you may recall that Aus players were urged to submit to the consultation.

They're still accepting submissions until 21 Nov the website says.

We do have the Australian productivity commission report stating that poker is a game of skill on our side which helps. Honestly i'm nowhere near qualified to figure out the specifics of what's going on. pies01's post seems promising with the provision

(e) a service relating to betting on the outcome of a game of chance or of mixed chance and skill. "

being carved out as legal. Poker is pretty clearly a mixed game of chance and skill, with the skill component becoming more overwhelming the bigger the sample.

Hopefully we hear from a stars/888/party rep in thread and they have some useful info for us.

I don't think this provision contemplates online poker as being an excepted or excluded wagering service, especially given the year that the bill was enacted as legislation.

Unfortunately, and again going back to the taxation of winnings (as one of a few takes that the government has provided on poker in the private rulings that the ATO offer) that the game itself is one of pure luck (which puts it into the same category as betting on horses, sports, etc.), however, for the very unique few, there can be some skill attributed to it arguably but only where the person, whose winnings are potentially subject to tax, have set themselves up as a business.

But in terms of how the government would interpret poker under section 8A, I would be very surprised given that generally poker winnings are not taxable that they would interpret poker as a game of skill and chance but only chance. And in terms of E applying I don't know whether playing the game of poker would include us betting on the outcome rather than an outsider who was not involved in the game itself betting on the outcome. I also question, if it does include us betting on the outcome, what that outcome is and whether it includes every street (or action) or is the outcome the fold and the raking in of the pot.

Don't think he is reading that correctly

It starts with

(3) For the purposes of this Act, none of the following services is a prohibited internet gambling service:

(aa) an excluded wagering service (see section 8A);


So "excluded wagering services" are legal and detailed in 8A

Then moving on to 8A

We have things that are legal which include in 1b

(b) a service to the extent to which it relates to betting on:
(i) an event; or
(ii) a series of events; or
(iii) a contingency;
that is not covered by paragraph (a)

but then we have an unspecified "it might not apply" depending on other regulations.

(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a service unless such other conditions (if any) as are specified in the regulations have been satisfied.

and more importantly

(3) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to a service to the extent to which the service is:......

.....(e) a service relating to betting on the outcome of a game of chance or of mixed chance and skill.

So this is saying that "betting on the outcome of a game of chance or of mixed chance and skill" is not an "excluded wagering service" ie it is prohibited.

anyway, fingers crossed

that's what i'm saying ie poker is a game of skill with no chance (over the long term) so the exclusions to the exclusions don't apply. bundy5's point re: tax pretty well ****s over that point though. So I guess we're back to
1) trying to lobby ourselves or
2) hoping the poker firms will keep servicing Australia and the government keep turning a blind eye

missed this one. did they specifically address Australia in the conference call?

ok sorry for missing your point, but in any case I think that skill and chance with skill predominating is the only reasonable definition of poker.

from the conference call referred to by Hood
"In Australia, we currently offer poker and are reviewing the applicability of proposed legislation to player versus player games of skill. At this time, it would appear likely that if the legislation passes, we would block players from Australia. As we do not offer casino sportsbook in Australia, it currently contributes to about 2.5% of our revenues and we estimate it could reduce our EBITDA margin by up to a 150 basis points."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4023...nscript?page=6


Our last chance is to get the legislation adjusted by sending communication to the government as mentioned by SwoopAE in his earlier posts.

Hypothetically if Stars did leave, that still leaves other sites right?

Yes, the same **** rip off sites that take US players. All the respectable sites that have real regulation, nah, they be gone.

Do we have a rough date of when legislation may pass/fail?

21 November is the last date for submissions. Make your submissions. Poker is a low risk game for gambling addiction, offering licenses to reputable providers provides consumer protections (Australians not at risk from shady unregulated sites like Lock/UB), more jobs (Australian providers such as Poker Asia Pacific could reopen) and extra tax revenue from international billion dollar companies (Stars, 888, Party) for the government.

Once again i'm not a lawyer or an expert so some leadership from said billion dollar companies that may lose 2%+ of their revenue if the worst case happens might be helpful.

I'm confused.....what are the cliffs on this latest development? Is it GG Stars?

Government is only sitting until the 1st of December, then they are done for the year. So maybe this won't pass this year.

yes, this seems crazy. i'll send in a submission over the next couple of days but I can't imagine I'll have same influence as a pokerstars, 888 , unibet - not to mention betfair, unibet who I would have thought would take the opportunity to try and adjust this legislation so they can start offering poker.

The submissions are "for inquiry and report by 30 November 2016." I'm not sure how quickly it can/usually moves from from "report" to legislation. SwoopAE, do you know?

If we fade this parliamentary sitting, then the next is from 7 Feb to 16 Feb.

Great work in this thread Swoop (and others). Sent an email, hoping for the best but getting a bit worried

i'm not thrilled about people making strong submissions to parliament that poker is a game of skill. you may find that the ATO agrees with you - impacting those of us who play profitably live and currently tax-free, even after they (potentially) ban online.

however, there may be some strong arguments you could make:

1. Australia is a free country, we enjoy our pastimes and something many of us enjoy doing with our spare time is playing on a safe and very fun online poker site.

2. Australian players, due to our better education and skill, are ahead of the curve in terms of world online poker results, and have profited on the whole over a significant period of time and are actually bringing money into Australia, not sending it out.

3. The risk of players becoming addicted to and injured by online poker is the same or lower than any other form of gambling.

4. The appropriate way for young and vulnerable people to mitigate their risk of problem gambling across all forms of gambling is via education, not draconian bans.

5. A distinction can and should be made between online poker, that can offer several hours of great entertainment in an mtt for $10 or less, and online casinos that almost certainly should be banned. (It doesn't help that online poker skins routinely link to affiliate casinos, but that's not an insurmountable hurdle and none of us would care if Australian poker players were no longer able to see such links on our app.)

6. The proposed online poker ban is nothing short of breathtaking hypocrisy in light of pokies, Crown, Star, horse-racing, online betting, tote, TAB, greyhounds and every other form of wagering in our gambling-mad society. There is no social justice element to the legislation. All the politicians are really saying is that they'd prefer the gamblers to be betting on things the government can monitor and tax.

And of course, any sensible submission would not include #6 because it's not an argument you can win.

Stars could potentially do something useful to protect this 2% market by providing evidence and data to support #1 and #2.

I'm in the dark regarding this legislation but I'll have a look at it when I get the chance. I do know that the reputable companies plan to comply with countries' legislation, when its black and white and clear, because the US Government has made it clear they will refuse future licences for companies flouting the laws elsewhere.
Iagree that submissions from players would be helpful. As an example submissions were called for the Minimum Bet Laws (for racing) before they were passed in Victoria, and seemed to help change the original proposal to something more in favour of the punters.
I don't agree so much that taxing the winnings of pros would be such a bad thing. It might mean a slight net loss overall for the poker community, but any pro earning a significant taxable income from poker would be intelligent enough to minimise their tax obligations. I'd take that if it sealed the deal in our favour.