Cool. Maybe that's something the PPA can bring up when they discuss their desire to remove the criminalization of players using software against the terms and conditions of the sites. Pointing out that there is still a legal recourse would be relevant IMO.

It wont be called a blackout period it will be a transition that will be much longer then the blackout period in the Reid bill.

Right, but if this time around there's no "UIGEA Strengthening" bill combined with this one, wouldn't the transition period not be a big deal because Stars/Tilt could stick around in the interim? Or is the Senate version of the bill likely to be just like the last Reid bill?

Florida, California, Nevada, Hawaii, Iowa, New Jersey ALL trying to get internet gambling at the same time. That is a sign to me that some kind of legislation is coming our way eventually. What kind of legislation who knows. But I'm all for it. I'm beginning to really believe it is going to happen. When I don't know but it will happen.

Yeah, that is worth something, but isn't Bahcuas chair it and a problem?

The way this bill is currently written, any site that continues to offer US-facing Ipoker without a license after implementation of the bill - 90 days after the regulations are published by the Treasury - would become ineligible to be licensed. 90 days may not be long enough for PS/FTP to get a license, so there may be a period where they have to shut down to the US to remain eligible for a license.

But, there will probably be some sites licensed and running for US players by the end of that 90 days, so there won't be an actual blackout period.

It has to pass in all the committees unless a discharge petition is signed by 218 members of the House.

Yes, Bacchus is the chairperson for the Financial Services Committee. We will have to wait to see if he will succeed in blocking the bill's advance - which he can do as chairperson simply by keeping it off the committee calendar, or if the bipartisan support for the bill can overcome his weight in the committee agenda. It will be a matter of political maneuvering and the desire of the bill sponsors to negotiate (horse trade) an advance of the bill.

Zero chance this gets done through Bachus' committee.

Geez, as much as I appreciate your input, do you always have to talk in absolutes?

The chance is not zero. Bachus has a price (either monetary of ideological) just like every other politician.

Plus, there are other parliamentary means to advance the bill besides passage through the Financial Services committee.

I am not saying Bachus is not a big obstacle. I am saying that it is possible to get around this big obstacle.

Skallagrim

I'm very comfortable with my statement, I didn't realize everything was taken so literally. If you'd like me to amend it to a 1% chance or 5% chance or w/e, fine, but for our purposes what's the difference? Resources spent trying to get this through the Finance Committee are scarce resources being wasted.

I should note I was referring specifically only to pushing a bill through Bachus committee, not other means to advance the bill. I'm assuming there is another plan, you may not want to speak in absolute terms but I'm pretty sure the PPA knows they need to find another route.

Right LG. But giving up that few percent points of possibility also means that there are possible "pot odds" (sorry, couldn't resist) where "calling" is appropriate.

There are just as many Rs pushing this move as Ds. That might make all the difference.

Then again it might not. But the possibility is not so small as to ignore.

Skallagrim

Given how stretched the PPA is resource wise, I'd be very surprised if pursuing those odds are a good use of resources. JMHO. I don't think a House bill goes anywhere this Congress, getting it introduced for defense was fine.

I'm not familiar with anything software related so bear with me.

Even if pokersites stop providing documented hand histories, they still need to "transmit" server data (I believe that data is called packets?) to clients (players) that "x" actions by "y" players are occurring at "z" tables. Would skilled programmers be capable of intercepting that data and therefore provide the information necessary for programs like HEM and HUD?

I also do not know a lot about computer stuff.

So I guess it is still possible for someone to do something and get information like that.

But they would have to go out of their way to break the T&C of the site. Instead of just accedently using a software that they figured was legal but found out latter it wasnt.

Just like is it possible to hack into my banks account information and get my CC#.

Regarding software capabilities, if you as a person are capable of doing something, like noting the action, then a computer is also capable. It may take some fancy programming to do it, but it's possible. Look at all the problems with CAPTCHA. They are usually good at first, but once someone gets it in their head to circumvent it, they usually can. The same would be true of poker and with poker there would be more motivation to do so.

HUDS shouldn't be illegal partly because of this reason and just all the problems trying to eliminate it would create and that, like it or not, it's part of online poker. It's counter intuitive to try to eliminate HUDS.

You wouldn't be able to intercept the network data because it is encrypted. But you can get the data by having the computer read what is drawn on the screen. Surely people are already doing that for bots.

Not an expert on bots by any means but I believe that the bots(and other software programs) simply read the text posted in the chat box and thats how they know/read what is going on in the hand.

Again, I have almost 0 knowledge of bots but do know computers and this is my thinking, which may be totally wrong.

Well assuming that the text is available, then yes that would be far easier then trying to read the actual table.

My position isn't necessarily that HUD's should be illegal, but that sites can define them as "cheating" if they want to and should be able to ban them if they wish.

But more generally, you are actually quite wrong about how this all plays out. Putting state power behind anti-cheating initiatives doesn't eliminate cheating, but it actually would reduce it. Right now, the worst that can happen to a cheater is getting kicked off a site and forfeiting some money that belonged to other players to begin with. Going to jail is a very serious incentive not to do things.

In old days of PT2 , I used to use the GameTime HUD thing that wasn't a HUD per se but ran in a separate window (and was only 1 table) and before that used pencil and paper sometimes whilst HUDless for quite some time.

People should be allowed to track their own stats/results at very least and an argument can additionally be made that given one has to keep records for tax purposes allowing software that does this is very sensible and reasonable.

So my congressman is on the House Financial Services Committee, and whenever I get a PPA alert, I email him regarding whatever bill is up.
I can't point to any specific language, but in going back to like middle of 09, his tone has changed quite a bit from being against, to neutral or possibly a very slight positive.
Just good to see someone changing their opinions.

So you think that Cake shouldn't be able to set the rules the way it does?

BTW, tax records are different than HUD's. You can track wins and losses per session without necessarily allowing HUD's.

Look, in reality, I suspect most or all licensed sites are going to allow HUD's. But if a site decides not to and becomes popular, why shouldn't its rules be obeyed?

What would be the reason for wanting to ban a HUD? We get the stats and we want to use them.

People would ask to see every hand you mucked LIVE if it was socially acceptable. But, online, you don't think twice about reviewing the hand to see what they mucked.

So, too HUDS would exist in LIVE poker if it was socially acceptable. There's no way to ban HUDS and no site should seek to do that. The fact is, you play a hand and you get to see, whether you are actually paying attention or not, everything that happens and have to tools to contruct stats. From those stats, you can now construct a HUD, whether if it's done with a calculator, pen and paper, or a sophisticated piece of software like HEM. And HEM has real time tools that are not HUDS like the active player window that could be used as a HUD alternative and there's lots of things that could be done to legally or illegally circumvent it.

Players and sites should accept the fact that HUDS are a part of online poker. The only thing realistic thing a site could do to help the "online poker experience" is reduce the number of allowable tables to play at one time. Imagine how soft the games would be on a site if poker was LEGAL in the US AND a site only had a maximum of 4 tables to play. Not saying I necessarily want that as a restriction, but I'm just saying there's only so much a site can realistically prohibit and HUDS isn't one of them. It's a logistically, unenforceable nightmare.

Yes, Cake shouldn't ban HUDS. That's one of many bad decisions they've made and why they continue fail.

Why do you say it's unenforceable? If sites can take screen captures and monitor running processes on your machine then it's going to be pretty difficult to have a useful HUD. The best I could see there is if you have poker running on a virtual machine with a HUD running on your physical machine that can overlay an image on the virtual machine's window. Then it might be impossible to detect, but if it's a criminal offense then you run the risk of them just getting a warrant and busting down your door and locking you up. How many people are going to really take that risk?

In a regulated world things can get far more real than just having an account banned. Heck we could even see a regulation where once you're banned you are banned from all licensed sites. That would be a pretty big deterrent as well.

I don't think it's as cut and dry as you make it out to be. I think sites should be allow to say what poker software you can and can't run. Seems good for the game to me.

As long as it's the sites that are doing this, I have no problem with it. The problem comes when the government starts writing poker rules.

I live in the state of Michigan, USA. We have charity poker rooms that are regulated by the state. A percentage of the poker room's take goes to the charity sponsoring that day's tournaments and cash games. The charity and the poker room management must both have workers present.

The state has at various times come up with all kinds of stupid poker rules. Some were so messed up, and changed/revised so often, that I've seen tournament directors read corrections to the posted rules before the start of a tournament. Here are a few of those gems:

1. Limits on maximum tournament prizes that seriously flattened out the pay structure of MTTs. (You can't have the same first prize for a 50-player tournament and a 200-player tournament with the same buy-in. I played in one that was over 200-players, held in a gymnasium.)

2. If you don't have enough chips to post the blinds, you're out of the tournament--no "chip and a chair".

3. Lying about your hand is OK. Telling the truth about your hand is not, and is punishable by being kicked out of the tournament.

Government overseeing poker, OK. Writing the rules of how games should be conducted at the TD level--you don't want to go there.