How has this been demonstrated? They took down the big 3 but people from the US are still playing online poker. IMHO this will just show how ridiculous these efforts are when these 3 are replaced by the next big 3.

If anything this bolsters our argument as players are forced to go to shadier and shadier companies to keep playing the game that they love.

Just as with UIGEA, there will be a temporary decrease in players playing and then (already happening) the players will return and traffic will be back where it was. I wish I had the numbers for the weeks after UIGEA passed in terms of US traffic.

I only hope that as players realize they can still play they do not lose the zeal to fight for legislation.

I agree. Though I don't know the money moving mechanics that will emerge, I am sure there will be some innovation on that front and two to five sites will emerge as the clear industry leaders.

This whole thing could be resolved so gracefully and quickly if politicians were reasonable and businesses didn't have so much undue influence over the political process in the US.

I don't have any statistics to refer to either, but I'd be surprised if even 25% of the active US players (which is already a lot smaller than pre-UIGEA) returned to play on the remaining sites. There is a big difference between being kicked off due to the voluntary decision of sites to stop their US-facing business and being kicked off due to the DOJ indicting the sites and seizing the bank accounts.

People are tlaking about HR 1174 but my congressmen responded w the following when I sent him the generic ppa letter

Steve Israel has been a longtime supporter of your right to play. HR 1174 is identical to the HR 2267 (amended in the House Financial Services Committee) this bill is from last Congress. I would respond and urge him to cosponsor the new bill (HR 1174) in the new 111th Congress.

Thanks,

John Pappas
ED, PPA

Yes I remember him being one of the first co sponsors on the Frank bill which is why I was so confused as to why he wasn't signed on. I sent him an email asking him to sponsor 1174

This is going to be long, but I know that a lot of people are struggling with where to play online, or whether to play online at all, so I think it's worth a lengthy post. I've struggled with this, and for anyone else considering these issues, here's how I made my decision:

This year I've been playing full-time, almost all online, strictly tournaments. If I do something else to make money for more than half a year, then I probably won't be a full-time player for income tax purposes, and net loss tournaments will not be a deductible business expense. My wife and I normally do not itemize, and if we did, we would have very few itemizable deuctions except for net loss poker tournaments. I don't want to get too much into the weeds on this, but my tax situation would be very unfavorable if I abandon full-time playing after less than half a year. Bottom line, a full-time job outside of poker is not a great option at this time.

My first thought was to play live full-time, but:

1. The options are bad.
2. I don't have a big enough bankroll.

I'm more than 100 miles from the nearest casino, and most of the semi-nearby casinos only have tournaments once a week anyway. We have some very fishy charity rooms in my city, but the last time that I checked they were open only Thursday and Friday nights, with afternoon and evening tournaments on Saturday and Sunday--a little different that sitting down at the computer and playing whenever I want!

Still, unless they get a huge influx of tough online refugess, there might be a decent chance to make some money there. I would think there would be at least one or 2 fish at every table even if a lot of good online players start showing up. But the other issue is bankroll.

The highest I play online is $10 tournaments. The cheapest local tournament is $40, which means that I would need a bankroll 4 times as large as the one I use(d) to play online. Plus, I don't have my online funds yet, so I would have an even smaller bankroll than usual to work with. I would basically be taking shots and hoping to cash in one of my first few tournaments. That's certainly possible, as the $40 tournaments are seldom more than 4 tables, but it's a risk.

With no great options to choose from, I've decided to play online, then transition to live. I'm researching my options, and there are a ton of sites out there dangling big bonuses to get the Stars and FTP refugees. A Google search shows a lot of outfits that review poker sites, and I'm going over that information very carefully, especially where it concerns depositing and cashing out. There are a lot of sites that I've never heard of, for example, the famous Lovin Poker (probably a skin on one of the networks).

I'm not too worried about the small sites getting the same treatment as the Big Three, at least for a while. The Big Three got hit because the DOJ had an inside guy who could give detailed information on site operations.

The DOJ might want to eventually close all the small sights down, but building a legal case takes time, and they don't have the same inside information to use against a hundered different small sites. Besides, I don't plan to be on them too long. There are problems with small sites, such as poor game selection and limits on the number of tables. But I can be on more than one site at a time, so that's no big deal.

My plan is bonus whoring. I'm going to be on a site long enough to grind SNGs, clear a bonus, and go on to the next site. Some of the sites are offering bonuses that, when cleared, will match deposits as large as $1,000.

Once I have cash set aide to bankroll regular shots at the $40 tournaments, my first live cash will be the beginning of a separate bankroll for live tournaments. If all goes well, I will be playing live whenever it's available, perhaps even visiting the charity rooms in nearby cities if they are open when the ones in my city are not.

Once online poker is a going concern, I will take much of my online money off the sites and add it to my live bankroll, so that I can have a safe live bankroll and work on moving up, as well as lowering my exposure on sites that might eventually get shut down.

Unless I get hit with some nasty early variance when playing live, I think it will work. I don't think it would have worked under different circumstances, but the bonuses and rakeback being offered by the small sites (I saw 40% rakeback offered on one site) are just crazy right now.

There are two charity rooms in town that offer $40 tournaments, so I should be able to put in a significant number of hours playing live. If I bust out of a tournament early, there might be one starting soon at the other charity room, which is only 5 miles away.

That's the plan. We'll see what happens.

i agree. tons of recreational players have money tied up, and probably have all kinds of awful thoughts running through their head. will they get in trouble with the IRS, are they breaking the law themselves by playing...risking prosecution?

on april 15th, the player pool of america was shattered. it will be a while before your average joe feels okay with depositing money online again. especially while the sites he or she loved (stars, and full tilt) face serious legal troubles. its a bad environment.

we might get 1 big site to come out of this, and it will still be smaller than Stars or FTP ever was. there isnt room for much more at the moment.

http://www.worldmarketmedia.com/779/...ng-association

This is interesting. Started a new thread on this here for more discussion:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...er-us-1026512/

Wrote a letter to my congressman/senators. Feel free to tweak and use it.

Well written,thanks, I will use this to send more letters out!

Seriously, without approved legislation for regulation and protection in the very near future, it's time to investigate moving to another country!!

The shock of the indictments is wearing off and many are realizing this is serious. Income is gone. More US jobs have been lost.

And for what crime??? Bank fraud with no one gaining extra millions of dollars - with no one being unsafe because of it??

So i have been spamming congress like everyone else since black friday. Here is one response i got on the matter. I was curious if anyone knew anything else about how this bill was going and how it looked for the votes? Here is the response i got from a congressmen.

Why do news outlets tell me that the PPA wants to repeal (or has repealed) the Barney Frank bill?

You know the irony is that Pokerstars already has these safeguards in place as part of their licencing requirements from the Isle of Man.

So true. But figured it was easier not to argue that point, esp since this bill has licensing built into it. We could email our representatives saying the UIGEA is dumb, vague, and has no business being enforced, but the DOJ disagrees. Seeing as congress makes the laws, we should be (mostly) forward looking stressing the benefits of this legislation.

So are there any specific dates the poker community is looking forward to in terms of legislation?

Not yet. We are waiting for a taxation bill to be introduced in the House as a companion bill to HR 1174. After that, we can look for scheduling in the House committees for hearings/committee votes HR 1174 and the companion bill.

We are underdogs to get a committee vote IMHO.

Yes, yes we are. I *could* see the Subcommittee recommending it, but once it gets to a full committee vote... well, guess who's in charge of the House Financial Services Committee? Our good friend Spencer Bachus. He will do everything he can to make sure this legislation dies, unfortunately.

Dear ChipsAhoya:

Thank you for contacting me regarding legislation to license and regulate Internet gaming.

As you know, the "Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act" (H.R. 1174) was introduced by Reps. John Campbell and Barney Frank. I am a cosponsor of this bill. This legislation would repeal the current ban on internet gaming established in 2006 by the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). Instead, this bill would institute reasonable regulations for online gaming and provide for the licensing of Internet gambling activities by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Current law, which amounts to a prohibition against online gaming, is unwise and unrealistic. Rather than prevent the public from participating in online gaming, UIGEA only serves to push this industry offshore, increasing the likelihood of associated criminal activity and leaving consumers vulnerable to unscrupulous companies. This legislation would strike the appropriate balance between ensuring an individual's freedom to participate in online gaming and providing consumers with strong protections against fraud and abuse.

Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue.

Sincerely,
James P. Moran

P.S. I invite you to visit my website at www.moran.house.gov that contains information on many topics of interest and allows you to sign up for the Moran e-News.

JPM/ja

Well that doesn't really tell us anything.

Sure it does. It tells us that Representative James P. Moran supports HR 1174. What else do you want him to say?

HR1174 has been assigned to 3 committees. One is House Financial Services (also reassigned to one of its subcommittees), which is chaired by Bachus.

Another is the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which I know nothing about.

But the third is the House Judiciary Committee, which we saw in action yesterday with the hearing on D0J oversight. We saw two committee members make what appeared to be pro-poker statements and lines of questioning, with no resistance or counter-questioning from other members.

I tried to refer to http://www.congressionalpoker.org/ to see how the Committee members rate, but unfortunately, the site is down for updating, apparently since last year. Lamar Smith (R-TX) is the chair. The ranking Dem is John Conyers (D-MI), who I believe to be highly rated by the PPA, but again, I'm unable to confirm because their ratings are no longer available at the PPA site.

It seems to me that Financial Services is unlikely to consider this bill, but there is hope that Judiciary may, and if so, may be a receptive audience based on the small sample we saw yesterday and Pappas' positive comments about follow up with and by Committee members.

It's my understanding only ONE Committee needs to refer the bill to the Committee as a Whole. Is this correct?