FWIW Harrah's debt has traded like our chances havent changed at all over the course of the week (i.e. didnt spike early in the week and hasnt traded off now)

I find that hard to believe unless Kyl doesn't care if states start offering all forms of igaming. Doesn't mean they'll get it done but I bet they keep trying.

The only reasonable explanation for him backing off is if he thinks the R's will take the House and Senate and some sort of UIEGA2/Wire Act interpretation bill gets done in the next Congress.

I don't think he's that hopeful.

Why is it a given that Kyl was the holdup?

Didn't say he was. According to sources he felt snuffed and left out of the payroll tax discussions.

OK, I just didnt understand where you got "Kyl was backing off" from.

Just make take regarding that Stutz tweet about a deal being off for 2012. It may be done in practicality but I don't think Reid/Kyl is close to being done trying.



I'll lay good odds we have one or two more sweats this year.

This means nothing to me that he "planned" to propose online poker....I "planned" to bang 10 supermodels by the time I was 21. I "planned" to be a billionaire by now. So yeah, big ****ing deal.

This is just more posturing by this scumbag to string along the casinos and keep the money flowing. I refuse to believe that he couldn't get this attached. He is so full of ****. My God he's lucky the mob doesn't run Vegas anymore. I don't think they'd allow this little dog and pony show to go on.

I didnt read that as Reid/Kyl no longer wanting i-poker. Just that for whatever reason (Kyl, lotteries, whatever) the analyst didnt think it could happen.

Could be there is no agreement with Kyl and he is taking his chances

Could be that enough lottery commissioners have gotten in the ear of their reps and said to kill anything with i-poker attached

Could be that Obama has told Harry Reid he doesnt want to make this an election year issue.

Tons of reasons why i-poker attachment might not be feasible. Laws are just so hard to pass that we're always going to be big underdogs even in good sweats.

Doubt the analyst is doing more than guessing FWIW.

Bipartisan cyber bill now the center of partisan turf war



Dunno if this bill is going to fast track or not. Of course we can't let it get too bipartisan lol. If somehow both sides come together quickly on it next month it might be the one sweat we can have until December.

This doesn't exactly sound like a slam dunk bill. Even if we get our wish, and IPoker is included, it probably won't pass anyway.

You know what's really ironic? If we wanted to boycott lotteries in reply to their opposition it would have little affect because I doubt many of us play anyway......which would basically prove our point that one has very little to do with the other, yet they would never know it.

Also, I thought the NFL had dropped their opposition to us. I didn't watch an NFL game for almost 3 years until this season and made sure I told everyone the reason too.

The exact bill may not pass but some sort of cyber security bill will pass at some point. This is something both sides want to get done for national security.

I hope you're right.

The first bill we don't sweat will be the one...

It's unfortunate, but I think a lot of people have used up their "one time" already.

I still send my letters every couple of months and will make the occasional phone call, but it's becoming really difficult to get too excited about these things anymore. I'm still rooting, but at this point it will probably take:
- a law that actually gets passed
- my state (NJ) to opt in
- a time frame for implementation
before I get excited again. It's sad, but I'm too used to disappointment and have very little faith in our leaders or those who would run against them.

2 of them are about to happen at the state level in New Jersey I think. The bill also states it superseded by any federal law so they are basically auto-opting in. The law has support from both houses and governor so I'd expect it to pass. I agree that the federal level is hard to follow closely and slightly dejecting. No reason to not keep trying. I do wish we could do more on a state level. Maybe have to form my own action plan for NJ. Can't hurt to have some (if tiny) player input.

First everyone is so upset including me because he wanted to attach this to a bill that was a must pass and said he could not because there was too much opposition.

So taking that information why would you think it would have a good chance of getting done anytime soon and especially to a bill that isn't must and has allot of bitching moaning surrounding it? The information that came out after this all went down makes it look like Ipoker is even further out than we expected.

Second it was likely to happen as the rumors we were hearing were obviously true as he came out and said after he tried but couldn't.

I just can't believe that some are so nieve to think that after it couldn't go here it has some great chance with the cyber bill or even as a stand alone.

Personaly I have suspision as to wether or not he is even really putting the effort to it ot if he's just making half ass attempts to appease certain people.

Wall Street "analysts" are ridiculous. If they were that good at analyzing they wouldn't be analysts.

Everyone is assuming that Reid proposed a bill and it was met with opposition.

1)We don't know if he actually proposed the bill. He's a smart guy. Why would he press the issue if he felt the timing was off?
2)If he did propose the bill how much did he push the issue? and how strong was the opposition and in what context?

Every single report I've read lacks anything definitive.

I said it earlier in this thread, but right now we should be watching what FairPlayUSA is doing. They've been quiet and stocking up support from outside organizations. They ARE the big money. Whether you're on FairPlay's side or not (I'm neutral) they are 100% the best indicator we have. They know way more than any of us. When they start making serious moves and start requesting action from members = time to watch.

It's not a coincidence that 24hrs after the smoke cleared things like these started to pop up:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinio...ded-now/280441

"Unlicensed and unregulated online gambling websites may very well now proliferate more than ever, all still lacking safeguards against fraud, underage gambling and money laundering.

And unfortunately individual states simply do not possess the necessary law enforcement tools to effectively police gambling in a borderless Internet."


http://www.prolibraries.com/g2e/?sel...&utm_campaign=

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...48IR_blog.html

Harry Reid, Cyber Security, Tom Ridge->FairPlay->Caesars. It's all speculation on my part (we are still the underdogs) but it makes sense. The quote above is absolutely the most valuable argument in our favor and it will be leveraged.

Yeah, maybe I should have rephrased. When I write and call my Senator's office, Bob Menendez tells me that he's already introduced pro poker legislation so it actually even frustrates me a little that all I'm doing is saying thanks for trying. I have a little bit of faith in the leaders I have a say in, I have none in the ones I can't even vote for/against who have control over my life.

UUUUUH we are not assuming, He stated that he did!


Edit: You have 3 posts and just made your account recently AND 2 of them mention fair play usa. HMMMM

If they can get the ball rollin'.........

Go Fair Play, go fair play, go fair play, GO!

Agreed! The wording of this persons posts gives some hope to cyber bill.

but this just keeps me from being too positive:

"Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) planned to propose an amendment to the bill to include online poker regulation, but the last ditch effort fell short when it became apparent that it could put the entire legislation in jeopardy. "

Lotteries don't historically "compete" in the sense of competing against similar offerings. Given a choice between a monopoly on online poker and competing against others, it seems they'll wish to take the monopoly.

Then much of the impetus behind anti-gaming lawmakers willing to trade online poker for a reduction in other gaming goes away. Additionally, IMO they've love to the online online game in town (notwithstanding online horse racing).

They are very formidable. They think they own 100% of this as a state asset.

Agreed, its why Ive been worried about the lotteries for years.

I was afraid that was going to be the answer. That means we still dont have a deal even if Kyl is aboard since we dont have an available compromise with the lotteries.

Well, they're correct right now. Particularly post DOJ ruling, which is why I thought that was a big blow to our chances.

We have always needed to come up with incentives on why states would rather join a Federal licensing scheme rather than run their own intrastate business. Sounds like there is still work to do there before we can get a bill passed.

I think jamming a bill in over lottery (and some tribal) objections is a real, real long shot, so hope there are creative solutions available.