I would think so yes, but really it just says "the current law is bad." He doesn't really say if it's bad because he supports online gambling legalization, or if it's bad because he is against online gambling and thinks the current law should be more clear and restrictive.

I'll agree that the tone of his message definitely sounds like he's on our side. The only responses I've gotten are essentially "HR1174 does what you want. I will keep your views in mind."

He says in the letter that he is a cosponsor of the bill (HR1174)
Did you miss that line?

FWIW, govtrack says otherwise

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1174

No. Each committee has to pass the bill through for the bill to arrive at the full floor of the House. However, even if a bill is passed by all committees, the Speaker of the House can still have control over whether or not it makes it onto the schedule of the full floor for debate and vote. Likewise, the chairperson of each committee determines which bills get scheduled for hearings and votes. In both instances, there are political means to get around these requirements.

So Bachus, as chairperson of the House Financial Services Committee, can block progress of HR 1174. But I believe that there is a chance that political pressure or maneuvering can get through or around this.

The worst stance for us to take is that there is no chance for the bill to get through so we should not waste our effort. In the short term, our effort may result in advancement of the bill. In the long term, our effort demonstrates a political will to get a bill passed - if our (players') interest appears to wane, the political will of our allies in Congress to push the issue may falter as well, which can hurt the chance of a federal bill being passed or even introduced in future years.

He was probably a co-sponsor of the last Frank bill, so thinks of himself as a co-sponsor of this one as well since HR 1174 is just the continuation of the original Frank bill. It would be a good idea to point out to him that he does not appear as a co-sponsor of HR 1174.

MGM CEO expresses his interests in online gambling:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/...s_8449967.html

Shocker. (And another reason the blackout period was nothing but protectionism)

I spoke with an LA in his office who said that he had spoken w/ Campbell's office and was putting in for cosponsorship when they got back to session so maybe it hasn't updated or whatever.

Actually, as a Penn Gaming shareholder, I was surprised to read that their CEO is somewhat reluctant on their last earnings call:

I have a message in to the investor relations department to get some more info on that; I suppose I should try again...

Heard back from Patrick Leahy today. He supports our right to play all the online poker we want as long as we dont do it for money.

So count him as a no vote in the Senate.

Excellent!

This is actually something I've thought about quite a bit. Playing devil's advocate, why is it that poker has to be played for money? Why do chips have to have cash value? Why can't it be played like other card games like what are seen on Yahoo where players are rated? Sure, the game is different in that there is in hand betting but I can't really formulate a strong argument on why the game would be incredibly fundamentally different without cash value.

Another question:

I'm probably not as much of a political junkie as most people on this board, but I am anxiously following this bill as it seems to be our best chance of playing safe online poker anytime soon. As I understand it the UIGEA was pushed through the senate by a couple determined a-holes who stuck it on to a port security bill. The thought at the time was that online gambling was such a pointless issue that it would likely never make it to the floor and that was its only chance. What is there to stop some dedicated senators/reps from passing pro poker legislation in the same fashion? Just stick it on to something else and let it ride?

What is stopping it is that there are people in Congress who vehemently oppose us. In 2006 we did not have anyone who vehemently opposed its attachment.

For the same reason that I don't work my full time job for pats on the back.

Here's about 10000 posts on the subject.


http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...2010-a-930754/

Not many full time jobs involve taking money from other people trying to do the exact same thing as you. We are trying to argue poker as a game of skill. A counter argument is that millions of Americans play games of skill all the time with main difference that they are rarely played for money except at the very highest levels, and almost never played for real money over the internet. What makes poker different from these games (chess, bridge, spades, etc.)? Betting/wagering in game is a part of, but it in my opinion it's similar to bidding for tricks in spades in terms of luck/skill.

I know it's been pointed out that you can legally play spades for money over the internet, but I don't think those make great examples. It's kind of like when you get in trouble for doing something at school and you point out that someone else is doing the same thing. Did that ever get you out of trouble? No, it usually just gets the other person in trouble too. It's not usually a good argument. Pointing out hypocrisy, while satisfying, usually doesn't get the job done all by itself. I would feel better if we had a convincing argument on why play money isn't a viable solution for the game.

play money = someone all in pre every hand

And why does the stock market have to be played for real money as well. Everyone should only be able to wager in the stock market for play money.

If I can play poker at my local casino for money and buy lottery tickets, then there is absolutely no reason for why I shouldn't be allowed to do the same exact thing online. End of discussion.

If I have a right to play any sport professionally, or chess professionally, then there is absolutely no reason for why I shouldn't be allowed to play poker online professionally.

And in online poker, not everyone is playing with the sole purpose of profit. Not everyone is playing with the intent of optimal results (which is why it is so profitable for even not-so-top players like myself). Some people play just to get away from the wife for a couple hours. It is entertainment. Some people buy drugs, some people pay for hookers, some people buy movie tickets, some people buy sporting event tickets, some people buy-in to a poker tournament.

And all jobs involve taking money from people trying to do the same thing to you. It's called our economy. Poker is included.

Well, sounds like you've got a gold mine on your hands. You cold call it pokerstars.net or something.

Steve Cohen *cough*or the aide who makes his posts*cough* posted on his facebook page that he's a co-sponsor of HR 1174 as well. I don't see him on govtrack, but the PPA may want to reach out to him if his support isn't official.

http://www.facebook.com/CongressmanS...t=feed_comment

Received e-mail from representative Carolyn McCarthy, who serves on the House Financial Services Committee. McCarthy's long been a supporter of us, but figured I'll post her reply in case anyone is doing research.

I can't speak to how many people have a job where they try to win other's people money full-time, but some do, and there are many more who do it part-time.

I'm talking about chess tournaments, marathons, and many other types of tournament-type competitions that are exactly the same as a poker tournament:

1. Everyone pays an entry fee. Some of the entry fee might be raked, for example, to pay for t-shirts for eveyone that runs in the marathon, but most of the money goes toward a prize pool.

2. A few of the top chess players/New York City marathon runners/poker players win a portion of the prize pool.

I play poker and I play only tournaments. I have worked with addicts for 12 years, and I don't want to deal with someone needing a rush, and shoving the rent money against me--and I already know what you're thinking--because whenever I say like that, I am slammed for suggesting that tournament play is morally superior to cash play (I never say that, I say that it is my personal preference).

So, the logical analysis of this situation is:

1. By consensus among poker players, cash and tournament poker are morally eqivalent, and
2. Tournament poker must be morally equvalent to tournament chess or competive running, since they exactly the same basic assumptions (you pay an entry fee, and you understand that you might not cash), therefore,
3.Trying to win money at poker must be morally equvalent to trying to win money in any other kind of competition.

I'm not equating playing poker for money with playing spades for money, because competition for money is much more pervasive than that. People play all kinds of games for money, they do it all the time, and no one thinks of it as wrong.

A top Scrabble player can win $50K in a tournament. The winner of the Scripps-Howard National Spelling Bee wins five figures, in the form of a college scholarship. There might not be a significant entry fee paid for spellers, but there is often an significant financial investment in the competition, for example, the parents paying for a spelling coach, or for lessons in different languages.

My cousin is a competitive ballroom dancer. My barber has played both poker and pool tournaments for money. A mathematician (master's degree, working on his Ph.D.) in my National Guard unit plays blackjack for fun and profit at a casino once a month.

The truth is, most people have at least one family member who pays to engage in some type of game or competition, with the possibility of profit. It's everywhere. And poker is just one part of that landscape.

Every single job is a fight over money, every business has a competition. Just because you might not engage in that part of your company doesn't mean y. The difference is in the service rendered in the name of profit. I have fun playing poker, and and I'm sure the losers I take money from have fun playing poker. That's all there is to it, we're in the entertainment business, though not in the most typical of ways.

What do professional chess players, go players, etc offer that we don't? How about just normal jobs. What do people in marketing, models, any celebrity, some politicians, most lobbyists, people running tv shows, etc do that makes them better than us because their job isn't poker.

The only thing that makes everyone think poker is a completely useless job is that the church doesn't like it when people gamble on outcomes, so it's been stigmatized since it's inception. Plus, people like to talk **** about things they can't do well, and everyone likes to talk down about stuff, as if they're better than it.

The reality is, we provide as much if not more of a service than a lot of jobs. Life is just all about what you do with your down time, and a lot of people would have a lot more fun playing poker than they would watching celebrity apprentice or whatever bull**** on TV. So, I guess if you want to deem all jobs that focus on preoccupying people and giving us something enjoyable to do while we're not busy as useless, then poker is useless. Old people are useless too. As are dogs, cats, etc.

I think my point is made, but I'll spell it out. Either everything in life that doesn't provide an important health/safety benefit is useless, or perhaps enjoyment belongs on the list of things people need to survive, thus we provide a necessary service.

Google whatever game you want to play with "for money online" and you'll be surprised, but you can play virtually any game online for money. A lot of them are played in sweepstakes, contest, and tournament styles, which is why it's fine for them to do it. There's nothing federally that says you can't play a skill game for money online, though I think direct cash games might be closer to the boundary due to hick logic. Some states do have laws which ban skill games for money online, but many sites just don't service those states. It's not a legal grey area, it's an undefined legal area in most states, which makes it completely fine to do at this point in time.