where college is easier than high school

Ha. If only you could understand the great struggle the poker community has with understanding what a rumor is. You should see some of the emails I got. "I heard a rumor that" equates to "this is a cold hard fact" in their minds Some people even threatened to sue me when one of the rumors turned out to be false.

True, but for some reason natediggity doesn't strike me as the 10k/hand pai gow type. More likely he is some sort of pai gow cooler.

holdem bonus 4x pre blind ftw

Used to be worse. They were voted in and had to wait until March to do anything. Lincoln had the South seceding and couldn't do **** for over two months.

In 25 words or fewer, why? Something to do with the Tea Party? edit: I guess Barney Frank seems more important.

pretty much this

the worst of all ppl are those results oriented idiots in blackjack who keep lecturing the last person about how he shoulda stayed or hit. yea cool i took the bust card. next time i'll stand on 9. morons

Jared I didn't go to 3.2mm law school but the answer prob has to do with the fact after after the lame duck period passes other issues (those the new guys ran on) will become more important.

You aren't kidding. A handful of my smart friends went to MSU and pretty much all said it was a huge joke.

Kyl is retiring, and the DOJ letter opens the floodgates for States to legalize without issue. Feds don't want a free for all amongst the States, and Kyl, who hates gambling and is retiring, would rather put his stamp on a very clear, restrictive bill that puts the issue to rest for a long time by limiting things online to poker only, and clearly legislates slots/table games/sports are illegal period period period.

It's a done deal in the Senate for those reasons, plus Reid's support of the industry. The house is the only real issue, and they're gonna feel compelled to do it now rather than fight to keep it unattached to omnibus legislation or be faced with cleaning up a bigger mess later.

Man, Jon Kyl sucks so hard.

legalization does not seem advantageous at all. id be shocked if this bill doesnt kill profitable poker.

seems like a bizarre stance tbh.

i vaguely recall the proposed rake structure and tax withholdings being pretty ****ing absurd

im not saying status quo or prohibition would be better. just that i expect it to be about as viable as state lotteries. guvment is pretty horrid and inefficient at crap they have done forever, now imagine them trying outline the structure of an operation they have no idea about.

vegas casinos effed this up beyond believe like 10 yrs ago. just another example of billionaire businessmen sucking at their job but still benefiting bc cash cow ghana cash cow. kinda like nfl owners that thought somehow blacking out games would help grow their product.

right. and max bets.

Yup. Very possible. Some say likely.

Lots of people involved fear what victor said

I disagree with this reasoning though. Casinos see ipoker as a loss leader of sorts

They want to lure people into their bm establishments

no, no and no based on the last bill.

Not sure what you're talking about.

I mean, you imply status quo is better when you say it will "kill profitable online poker". For most pros it's way better than not playing at all, and for those who moved out of the country, its likely better for them too assuming they like living in the US. For those who set up IP masking, etc etc, it may be better or worse, but my guess is better and I think it's a pretty big favorite assuming they are paying taxes currently like they are supposed to.

This is totally false for the majority of relevant casino companies, and for all the probable bigger players in the space.

if they dont see the profitability of internet poker as a stand alone entitey, then yes, they suck at their jobs.

and, more importantly and obviously, they should have realized that making poker available in billions of people's homes would massively increase the amount of people that want to come to vegas casinos. esp if the form of poker in these homes, was affiliated or named by that casino.

It always baffles me that casinos don't seem to see this is the case, especially since THAT IS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED after Chris Moneymaker won the WSOP.

Like I said above, his point is completely 100% wrong for any relevant casino companies.

I'm not even sure what the point here is, other than it seems wrong.

What is the point, exactly? Since one of you made it and the other agreed to it, I'm hoping one of you can clarify.

Vic, I'd appreciate an answer to my question a few posts ago as well (your vague point about Vegas casinos 10-years ago...I'm assuming its related to this stuff I just quoted?). If you're going to ignorantly rant, I'd love for you to at least make a clear enough point for me to lol at the specifics as opposed to just ignoring random nonsense.

cool, i dont know anything about the bill. havent done any research. just find it hard to imagine the guvment wont eff it up and make needlessly bloated and punitive.

casinos were initially against online poker when it started to gain popularity. they should have been at the forefront promoting it. it would be legal, they would run it so that it would be legit and profitable and healthy for all parties.


i was under the impression that the poker landscape was super bleak right now, even for those who jump thru the hoops to find games. so, while i dont hold out much hope that this version of legality will rectify the situation, legality itself is a precondition for creating a burgeoning and healthy environment. im just skeptical that this initial move will fix things right away. i think we are a long way off.

and, realize, yes i am completely talking about of my ass as i have no idea wtf is included in this bill.

why didnt the casinos work to make online poker legal around 98-02? didnt they actually work against making it legal?