I dunno if this is the reason it's not legal - the 'zone of questionable legality' was certainly brought about for moral/crassly political reasons ("here's an issue we literally could not give two ****s about that we'll toss to the fundies as a bone, presto, chango, UIGEA!") But I do think Dids is right that the argument for legalization would probably be being made with greater force if the government and/or politicians saw there was money in it - I think we all know there is, but we're almost certainly higher information on this specific issue than most politicians for whom this is a deep background issue. Though maybe it is the most important thing ever for Attila the Heller or whatever Ma.so.ns boy is named in Nevada...

fantastic

iirc it's not exclusively stars, it's any site who offered play to americans after uiega was enacted. obv stars is the only relevant site left of those that applies to

Unless they have to have been shown to have actively violated UIGEA, I still don't see how that flies, though I suppose the ensuing lawsuit both a temporal and legal barrier to entry essentially serves the same purpose. Regardless, if the summary is correct, that law is a **** sandwich even aside from the defacto ban on stars.

slow:

also, i think the Breaking Bad one was better

My link was better

I thought this was actually what the bill said. Vaguely remember reading that yesterday but it might have just been an NVG post.

not to go karak, but if you're thinking of the ex post facto clause, it doesn't apply here.

Gonna be fun trying to **** over the government anyway possible the remainder of my life for them taking away Pokerstars.

Good luck

Greear you gonna murder someone at the doj?

flush ur cat litter down the nearest public toilet that'll show em

The lesson as always is lol poker. Also, lol America. But mostly lol poker.

keep those ppa donations coming guys

If I am understanding right, bill would make it so that any funds sent from a sports betting sites would be subject to forfeiture if the bank figured out what it was? Um, **** that ****. Can guarantee they will step up enforcement to the point that sports betting online is practically done if the pigs get to keep your money for "busting" you.

Flushing it down the tiolet would be even better

I was just watching the Outside the Lines interview with Anthony Hargrove, and while he was answering some question, this dude popped up for a couple frames out of nowhere:



Rewound my DVR and paused to snap a crappy cell phone pic. Not quite sure what the deal was with that.

EDIT: Not sure if this would go in any other thread so I just put it here.

The PPA’s mission is to establish favorable laws that provide poker players with a secure, safe and regulated place to play.
The PPA’s mission is to establish favorable laws that provide poker players with a secure, safe and regulated place to play.
The PPA’s mission is to establish favorable laws that provide poker players with a secure, safe and regulated place to play.
The PPA’s mission is to establish favorable laws that provide poker players with a secure, safe and regulated place to play.
The PPA’s mission is to establish favorable laws that provide poker players with a secure, safe and regulated place to play.
The PPA’s mission is to establish favorable laws that provide poker players with a secure, safe and regulated place to play.
The PPA’s mission is to establish favorable laws that provide poker players with a secure, safe and regulated place to play.

i'm sincerely ashamed to admit i donated money to this once

every sports bettor hated them from the beginning when they tried to throw us under the bus to get a more favorable position for only poker players

also can't believe its been one year since scar jo 9/14/11 i still haven't forgotten

Kate Middleton's turn

Eh, could also be Takings clause issues (though I'm more familiar with the jurisprudence on my state takings clause rather than federal from a case I worked on forever ago)

Given their amount of funding, they do what they can. It's an absolute miracle that they even got the ear of anyone on this. But to think they can override the influence of massive casino lobbyists or social conservatives is laughable. If poker players got heavily involved and made significant financial contributions it'd be a different story.

But to expect them to be able to lobby anyone substantially on this bill in the Senate with a tiny bankroll is really unfair. Their grassroots efforts at bringing attention to the issue and spreading info DO help though. It's just real tough once we get to the policy making phase.

They do the best they can. That they even get anyone to consider their viewpoints is a real testament to their abilities. You usually aren't able to do that with a disinterested base and no ****ing money.

I'm phone posting so sorry this reads so clunky.

Why would that affect the clause barring former international bad actors? Not being critical just curious because it's something I hadn't considered.

Drink

Was your quoting of SRM's post done on a phone? Just trying to figure out why this: ' turned into this: ’

tuq confirmed WW railbird