Next week.

I think its a matter of working out who all gets a piece of the money. So many different people involved is making it a bureaucratic nightmare. It could be one year or 5 years before it gets worked out. Either way keeping my fingers crossed.

He means Boehner since Boehner is the Speaker of the House and could influence companion legislation in that chamber.

Needs more love.

"Webpoker" became so extinct for me that I didn't even get the reference...
*Selffaceplam

Barton's comments in early December:
By "clean" I think they meant keeping the tax cuts clean and not finding a clean bill for a poker attachment. Not sure though.
Lots of vagueness. I do remember former NV Rep John Porter saying Boehner had a say in the matter back in November but I can't remember now.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...yroll-tax-bill

This is not good. If poker cannot be attached to must pass legislation because it causes it to be too controversial, what bill can it be attached to?

Well, for all you guys wondering why my friends were so bullish... here you go.

That's very unfortunate.

still any chance it could get added to the payroll bill in committee UIGEA-style after both houses vote on it?

would be fitting IMO

+1 we have to be massive massive underdogs this year :-/

never doubted you or your sources for a minute karak.

Translation:

Your friends were optimistic because our bill was gonna be attached to a must-pass? But you've sorta hinted that it's not necessarily this bill it was gonna be attached to.
*scratching my head.

And I would attribute it more to partisan games than I would members who actually really oppose online poker legislation like they would have 6 years ago. The payroll tax cut took on a contentious role for both parties. I really hope it doesn't happen to this degree on other bills this year.

Big politics are getting in the way of this poker bill. It's not the poker bill itself imo.

they just never specified what bill. all they said was (well they said more than this, but paraphrasing) "things look very good right now. a lot has happened this week. we're very optimistic. something is very likely to pass soon" i deducted it was the payroll tax just because i didnt see any other piece of legislation that made sense. i guess i was right (although i later doubted myself, but berge correctly pointed out my error along with that other guy)

there are other vehicles i think (cybersecurity maybe?), but ill defer to berge when he says the lame duck is the next best options

It's not a "which vehicle is poker suitable to attach to" problem. It's a "poker is too controversial in general" problem. This is why when I do the DAP I always talk about in my facebook comments how poker is not like traditional gambling and that there will be safeguards against addictive and underage play. Most of these idiots still think poker is like roulette and that half the country is going to get addicted to it. That is their view of this when poker comes up. Romney and Santorum said it themselves, and Gingrich alluded to it. They are worried about people getting addicted and losing too much. We need to concentrate our comments on obliterating their "but the social costs!" reasoning. IMO.

Are your friends no longer optimistic for the near-term?

Karak, I guess the natural question is what those folks are saying atm...

Yep. If it's too controversial in a must-pass, then it has to be a huge dog to get through on a lesser bill. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee the states win, the whole thing will be a complete cluster**** with a handful of states even going live in the next few years. *gg*

So we had a pretty good shot eh? Reid is looking to attach it to something - he will be weighing his options with each bill.

But what is 'it' that he's going to attach? It'd be nice to read the bill he wants to propose.

We need a Port Security type bill that has no deeply tied partisan dimension to it. Something all that is mutually agreeable by both parties and has the sort of language that matches up well with a poker bill. The Stock Act is a measure that will pass by a landslide but unfortunately isn't very related to regulating online poker.

Been reading the forum non-stop like the rest for a few days regularly, semi-regularly always.

Thanks to Karak and others willing to go out on a limb, and offer educated conjecture at the risk of having a few whine when things don't go smoothly.

Berge as always solid as a rock, and I long for the day when he says it's a go, because we know it's a go at that point.

Anyways, just wanted to thank everyone with some insight, and connections, for offering their opinions. Whatever way the tides shift, as in politics they are apt to do, I trust all your judgement, and trust your evaluation of sources and percentages, and we should all remember we have a collective interest in the outcome, and everyone here who is respected has earned that respect for being right far more than wrong, and I like when they go out on a limb and vocalize their gut feel.

Thanks to all those who continue to put in concentrated effort to weed through this.

Our day will come, and it's always been a marathon, not a sprint.

Can we all please take a moment to wish horrible things upon Bill Frist please? God I hate that ****ing toolbag *********** ****wad dickhead ******* mother****er.

I mean I am not a huge don't tread on me type or anything but come on. I'm a boring approaching middle age dude who just wants to donk off some money in tournaments like twice a week. Butnahhhhhhhhhhhhh. **** you politicians, **** you Congress, **** you religitards, **** everyone. Land of the free.

Solid rant.

havent talked to them (about this) since. ill ask around tonight.

I dont know, there's some evidence that we dont yet have enough agreement from stakeholders to attach a bill to anything. Maybe it was something specific to the bill, maybe not.

I never thought this was the right bill, but its possible that there is still just too much opposition to poker to get something done this year.