We've all been. Unfortunately, the discussion here often seems to have been, "how to we show them poker won't compete with physical ticket sales?", when the real issue is, "how to we convince lotteries to choose not to expand into new areas where they can demand a monopoly?"

It's really not a compromise when we're asking the lotteries to give up stuff without getting anything in return.

We gained a lot and lost a little. We'll never have 100% of the nation behind us, nor do we need that.

Too many unanswered questions. Nothing solid at all.

And NO. I have nothing to do with FairPlay. I've ghosted this forum for years. I didn't really care to participate until now because I felt I had a different perspective that was worth sharing. Plus like the rest of you I miss playing poker.

I don't want to make anyone optimistic or pessimistic. I'm just stating what is obvious. FairPlay initiative lines up perfectly with what could take place in the upcoming cyber security legislation. Casino interests know that the biggest obstacle for federal regulation is this:

If they can convince our representatives that state run online gambling will be bad for citizens (help from Kyl) and even slightly convince them that federal poker will not hurt lottery revenues then we have a good shot. However, it's an uphill battle.

IMO this is why FairPlay was formed. The casinos and Reid are 10 moves ahead of us at all times (as well as our opposition). It's funny that Reid will be leading the cyber security talks and Tom Ridge (FairPlay) is presenting something about the DOJ's decision and consumer protection. The moderator? Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr., president and CEO of the AGA.

What I'm saying IS speculative, but IT DOES make sense. The evidence is there.

The impetus in Congress for this could be the reason for quoted. According to Politico there was a big stink about tacking anything seemingly unrelated to the tax cuts. This could prevent us all year long unless we find a bill that fits well as a vehicle as the PPA source did say.

Ive focused more on the first, but you bring up a really good point.

Isnt this a really big problem if we have zero to offer the lotteries? Especially since they have a prominent seat at any state opt-in/opt-out decision?

At the very least, aren't they going to demand that if this passes they reserve their right to offer poker and online sales intrastate?

If so, aren't they just going to push their states to opt-out if we cant show them a Federal licensing scheme is more profitable?

No, we dont need everyone behind us, but lotteries seem like a real, real big hurdle to get over since they can do damage even after we pass a bill.

What Im hearing here is that there isnt a path to get lotteries on board, and that's very discouraging (although probably not unexpected)

I doubt that bill had anything to do with it.

@TE: I have gotten confused. I thought the UIGEA II part of this "compromise" was aimed at casino style games (blackjack, roulette, ...) and wasn't going to touch the online sale of lottery tickets.

Some of your posts suggest this is the case, and some suggest that online lottery tickets would be restricted or outright outlawed.

To the best of your knowledge, which is the case?

I know. Not the bill specifically but the idea behind it. I'm just saying Congress and the public are becoming more suspect of unrelated amendments. Especially compared to 2006.

A very good basic read. BUT, what IS FPUSA doing ?

My concern voiced the other day is that this CyberSecurity bill is the vehicle for Wire Act poker ban (pending eventual regulation which has yet to be worked out, next year maybe ....) That is too neat a scenario to blithely assume that the only outcome MUST include fed poker this session.

Cyber Security = LawEnforcement = FPUSA pitch, which does NOT mean affirmative legalization,only "lawenforcement" ....

If you do not think this is a real scenario, you're naive.

Be careful what you wish for before you know who that ball is going to roll over.

Marisa is very perplexed you would think thats an option because Fairplay has PLAY in their name.

EDIT: Half-kidding, but she did say that exasperatingly when pressed on that type of scenario.

She also will not commit to tying Wire Act strengthening to regulating online poker, so draw your own conclusions.


If the PPA couldnt block THAT attachment, it would be a pretty epic fail, so I dont think it will actually happen.

I think a ton of poker players who do not currently participate in the social media effort would step up and make a stink to block a poker ban, but that it wouldn't be anything close to the hell raised against SOPA/PIPA or Komen recently.

Digress as they passed that new insider trading law (when it goes into effect and how much teeth it has, not sure).

Que sera, sera.

If she is pissed at my read of FPUSA's hand during its play, that may be because her job is to obfuscate and avoid that sort of public read ?

I never said it was their ideal outcome, but it is one they would leap to take in a heartbeat, to pass lawenforcement and stymie multi-state pooling .....That "all 10 principles or nothing" nonsense is NOT what they have been pushing in the media .... They clearly would like to get some points on the Board in this quarter, like Principle 1 (Wire Act triage/fix).

An"epic fail" to follow would be post-hoc rationalization by folks here on how amending the Wire Act was really in players' interests because it moved everyone a step closer to passage in 2012 of a regulatory bill..

Your worries are legitimate and it doesn't help that they won't shoot them down. I can't say this isn't a setup or that they won't flip flop if things don't go the right way. The game is dirty. I do however think their 1st to priority is to leverage the "consumer protection argument" for the sake of federally regulated poker quickly. Until I see evidence of them going rouge I will stick with my read and remain neutral in regard to the organization as a whole. This is a neat scenario and hopefully it turns out to be good for poker. I guess will find out over the next couple of months.

BTW I don't want to be at fault for turning this thread into a discussion about FairPlay.

i honestly have to admit knowing next to nothing about FairPlayUSA

a group caesars/mgm jointly funded to make regulating online poker look like a good idea in informational hearings in the congress. they don't support any legislation and they're a diverse group who are all really really concerned about children; safety.

I agree as to the FPUSA "ideal" legislative outcome, look who bankrolls them.

I just think their backers, as there really is no FPUSA "they", would take a Wire Act re-ban of poker as a good-sized win in their game against the lotteries AND offshore competition.

I thought it was really odd to hear in Nevada and in London recently that the Nevada interests STILL fear offshore competition, as they worry their emerging licensed product won't be competitive. (I happen to think that fear is way unfounded, but it has been expressed acouple of times.) That would encourage them ti accept drivng a Wire Act stake into offshore hearts, while they perfect their own products and try and work out a passable federal licensing bill for the lame duck session.

To clarify, I was perplexed that any of you were concerned that FPUSA would be the influential voice in that conversation given how almost all of our board members have talked about the need for poker regulation.

People seemed overly concerned that FPUSA in some way has a new mission and it's to support strengthening the Wire Act without regulating online poker at the same time.

What I was suggesting is that given the brand we've built on the idea that protecting consumers MUST include regulating online poker and that prohibition alone hasn't been working, it didn't seem like a likely scenario that we're going to be the driving coalition in a push to strengthen the Wire Act without regulating online poker.

-Marisa

I admit I do not know much about FairplayUSA.

However, with respect to the bolded, I think that people are not concerned that FairPlayUSA has a new mission along the lines of strengthening the Wire Act without regulating online poker. I don't think people are concerned about them actively seeking that as opposed to seeking that poker regulation is included.

What I think people are concerned about is that if it turns out, despite everyone's efforts (FairPlayUSA included) to get poker regulation included, that at some point the poker regulation can not be had, but the strengthening of the Wire Act can be had, then FairPlayUSA will still support the bill that strengthens the Wire Act.

Whether or not that is what FairplayUSA would do, I do not know. Whether or not that is actually people's concern I am not completely sure. However I THINK that, that is the concern.

Correct Lego. Read prnciple 1

http://www.fairplayusa.com/about-us

It is a legitimate concern. And it is a simple question. If some day there is a chance to strengthen the Wire Act, but there is no chance to include poker regulation would FairPlayUSA support jumping on the chance and strengthening the Wire Act without poker regulation?



P.S. (off-topic)

I always find it a little amusing when people talk about having to pass new laws to stop "illegal gambling" (or illegal whatever). If it is already illegal ......

It can make sense in passing new penalties or enforcement mechanisms or whatever, but it still sounds funny when phrased some ways (and sometimes people aren't talking about new penalties or enforcement mechanisms).

FairPlayUSA does not support any legislation at this time.

FairPlay won't comment on hypotheticals.

Yes.

Not if the legislation prohibits opt-out states from offering online services.

That remains to be seen. FWIW, I'm all in favor of them offering services in competition with other providers in an open market. Unfortunately, they tend to desire monopolies enforced by law enforcement.


They don't run the states. It's not like state lotteries are building B&M casinos or anything like that. It's sad that they want to socialize gaming and shred the Constitution in the process, especially as this is not what voters were seeking when authorized these lotteries, but that's where we are.

Not everyone will be our friend. We will have to battle it out with some opponents. Fortunately, casinos and tribal gaming interests are pushing back against socialized online gaming, as are players seeking competition in the market.

I honestly don't know at this point where that will go.