Also, its true Fahrenkopf did not put much political weight behind the skill argument.

That, however, is primarily a legal argument (and he seems to not be fully aware of our recent legal successes).

Politically, the skill argument is only ONE aspect of the argument he says "has legs." That broader political argument is that "poker is different."

Skallagrim

Oh, and to clarify one other point: regulation not legislation is what the AGA chief is unsure should be at the federal or state level. He also says he thinks most of his members (but certainly not Harrahs) would prefer state regulation but that this would still need to be done under some minimal Federal framework.

You are right. I take it back. I had just finished reading a couple of nonsensical skall posts, including a number directed at me personally, and hit a wall.

It's sad that a middle-aged man is more whiney than my teenaged nieces engaged in facebook wars.

Yeah. I agree on behalf of two middle-aged men.

What is the difference between a puffer fish and a lawyer posting on 2+2 ?

One of them spends time swimming in circles in dark waters , while defensively inflating his bladder to appear bigger than life to everyone who sees him.

The other is a fish.

Now that the personal side-show seems to be subsiding, there are two very important points to note from this interview:

First is the quote I mentioned before:

"SM: Is there anything we haven’t touched upon that you think could dictate the conversation in future months in regards to online gaming?

FF: Well, you know it, but the argument that poker is different — I think that has legs."

Second is that, despite some prior arguments to the contrary, we clearly still have plenty to do, and plenty to still accomplish, on Capitol Hill. This weekend I am going to send another round of letters and/or emails to my Representatives and Senators with that message: "poker is different."

Skallagrim

That doesn't totally work on poker forums. I know that, as a poker player, I'd rather be called anything than a "fish".

IMO, this is not an objective political analysis, or is it presented as one. Rather, both highlighted points are reflective of AGA members' current business models.

I enjoy everyone's posts on here...for the most part it really is sort of a family community here...But Skall is 100% right TP definitely got his hand caught in the cookie jar here...On a side note, can anyone respond about yesterday's online poker bill in NJ w/ the assemblyman? See the post...Ty...


http://http://forumserver.twoplustwo...mbling-742689/


Michael of NJ

Yea I can agree with it being better then intrastate-only monopolies, but I have a feeling a group like AGA would push for only American sites (who happen to members of their association) to be the only ones allowed to offer online poker. AGA members would be the only ones who have experience in running fair games and protecting the consumer I hope i'm wrong and this isn't their intention

I think this is some of the best news in awhile. While I think poker is a game of skill, our best chance to earn the best living would be in an environment where poker rooms are connected to casino games (in a dreamland also sportsbooks. kinda like now). After a rough couple weeks in poker news, I think this is a breakthrough. I love that they changed their policy so Wynn could not block progress any longer.

While I used to worry that a federal legislation would only allow US companies or land-based casinos, what I have read in the Legislation forums over the last year has made me less concerned. I think that Full Tilt, Stars and Party would be able to secure a license. They may have to open some type of operations in the US, but I think there will be a way for them to offer their services. Even if not initially they may litigate their way in, once the licensing framework is put into place.

I am by no means certain this is what the AGA wants. It will, of course, want a deal that favors its US clients. But if they insist on deal that requires foreign sites to ban the US market, they know full well they will banned from accepting players from those foreign markets.

Unlike most state legislators, these folks fully understand the economics of poker. Its hard to be the next PokerStars if in the process you make being a PokerStars-type international site illegal in your home jurisdiction.

Skallagrim

I hope this is the case and it may well be but I'm not going to just assume AGA (members) feel this way. I think it's better to take the wait a see approach and want to see what "actions" and statements AGA make in the future, as legislation starts to move (state and federal). The AGA statement is a good first step and a net positive and certainly better then their neutral stance they took before. Like many aspects of this fight to regulate online poker we'll have to wait and see.

Agreed.

To elaborate a little further, I do think the AGA will work to make sure that any new legislation will have built-in benefits for its members; I just don't think those efforts will go so far as to eliminate foreign site competition. How large those "built-in benefits" get is something we have to watch for. As players we know full well that the best way to ensure the best game for players is to ensure the greatest possible competition among licensed sites.

Skallagrim

Please look at these strong words by esteemed gambling expert and lawyer Nelson I. Rose.

http://http://www.glgroup.com/News/C...ing-47331.html

Thoughts anyone?

Michael of NJ

is it just me or is the link broken?

its a dead link

Just an incorrectly copied link. Try this:

http://www.glgroup.com/News/Casino-L...ing-47331.html

Thanks Xanadu...Ha...U always get the credit!!! Anyways...

Thoughts anyone,

Michael of NJ

tysir

"There is already talk of attaching an online poker bill to a piece of must-pass legislation, as was done with the UIGEA itself."

cmon dealer, one time!

seems like a positive analysis

before I really get my hopes up I will see what everyone else thinks, but ONE TIME PLEASE!!

Hey Phils...I like u can't wait for opening day...How about Rose implying that Reid (like some of the big casinos in vegas) are softening their position to online gambling...He's not just conjuring that out of this air...The AGA guy Frank commented on something similar...If Reid does in fact change his stance, it will seem like a huge coup d'etait...Here's one thing to think about. If Congress could pass this healthcare with democratic representatives and senators putting their proverbial necks and careers on the line, you mean to tell me they can't pass an online legislation...Listen i'm not comparing poker to healthcare, my point is if they buried themselves with a healthcare vote, you think anyone is going to care if they voted for online poker? We all know the answer to that...Honestly, the more quiet things are the more I feel like a quiet storm is brewing! Interesting regarding the amount of somewhat positive news that has come out since geitner allegedly promised kyl no more delays...Just goes to show the PPA is still hard @ work and perhaps we have some more allies in the fight...

Michael of NJ

I dont think people grasp in full how much of this is directly due to the PPA. Cant wait for the next thread that says they are failures and doing nothing.

btw if youre a phils fan come to this thread...

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...lladay-422546/

It's one man's opinion although someone likely to be plugged in to a lot of sources. Those sources are also likely to be pro-I-gaming and their hope could color his opinion (just like our opinion can be influenced for the same reason).

His take on chances of passing something in the House seem extremely optimistic. ("can already get any online gaming bill they want through the House"). While that might be overstating we've known that the odds were decent. We've also known that the Senate was a problem. His analysis there is interesting. If it is correct then getting something through in order for Reid to get support from the major B&Ms may be a positive although it could also lead to something that favors those same interests too much.

Although overall his analysis seems positive and possibly more optimistic than the concensus opinion of the more knowledgeable posters here there is one extreme downside in his analysis. It sounds as if there is a very short window to get something passed before the landscape might change making it far less likely.

Yeah...As u know...He is as plugged in as good as most ppl in the industry...

IMO this one was a layup...One where any exaggeration probably wouldn't come back to bite him due to the relative plausibility of the statement...And as u said...We've known the odds were decent...

The Reid scenario is the most interesting point...He would easily be the most important figure in the senate...


I think this is only because he says the Dems are sure to lose some seats in congress...while this may be so...I don't think it is as many as was once thought by ppl and the political pundits...The healthcare debate has gotten suprisingly more positive points than previously thought for the President and the democratic party...The November elections are still 6 mos. away...And we haven't even seen the best of the campaigning to come and all the mudslinging that will come with it...It is still wide open for both parties to claim pole position...

Michael of NJ