+1

What happens to Merge, Revolution, and Bovada?

We have to worry about our cashouts being confiscated any more than we do now?

This is not a bill poker needs or wants.

All that is needed on the federal level is a simple bill clarifying states that have online wagering and any companies licensed in the state can offer the games in other states that do so, more like the Federal Interstate Wine law.

If the feds feel the need, tack on a 2% gross receipts tax along with the normal federal income tax.

obg

yeah but this will never happen

This is all they need, but it's not feasible, so why bring it up?

Simple, oppose the bill, no bill is better than this.

Stick with the AG opinion we have, KEEP the current AG and lobby for an expanded opinion treating poker the same as skill games that are currently all over the internet.

Those games now are in 34 states AND international player pools.

obg

See above post.

obg

Hate to sound pessimistic but this new revised version sounds like crap.

I mean where's the compromise? It's so one sided it's not even funny...

yeah that's not gonna stand either. something will happen. it's just a question of whether poker is involved in that something or not.

Not if you're from Texas, or Illinois, or...

Pat Quinn, the IL governor, if I'm not mistaken, opposed the state effort because the regulations ~"weren't efficient enough". Perhaps this should be?

So if the bill passes it would effectively shut down poker in the US except for states that already have poker.

If you play on merge, lock etc you will not be able to get your money and it's unlikely those sites would continue to support US players.

If memory serves UIGA was supposed to be implemented in 12 months. Took 4 years. Easy to assume, with our government efficiency, that the new legislation will take longer than 15 months.

I can't see how Reid's corporate sponsors can support this. The payoff is beyound their horizon. They are better off with a state by state approach.

Existing US poker players will not be able to play in the US for, realistically, 4 to 5 years. How can this be a good thing?

I know a lot of very smart people put a lot of time, money, and energy into federal legislation and I appreciate it, but this simply will not work. It will kill poker in the US for at least 4 years and it would take some time to recover after that, if ever.

Based on the outline we are better off letting the "poker is skill" debate fight through the courts and letting the states decide what they want to do.

But is it good enough? I'm pretty sure, based on your bill summary cliffs (thanks!) that I will stand opposed to this bill. Here are the new aspects to this bill which make me likely to oppose it:

1. Wire Act amendment:

Previously, "UIGEA-strengthening" meant simply additional enforcement tools for the UIGEA provisions (like a poker site black list) and putting the enforcement of the UIGEA squarely on the shoulders of the feds rather than the banks. An actual Wire Act amendment will make new crimes under federal law, including unlicensed real-money online poker sites. There will probably be no access to online poker to anyone in the US who isn't in an opt-in state as it will no longer be any sort of grey area.

And, although I am personally opposed to the proliferation of Internet casino gambling, I don't feel it falls to our government to make it a federal crime. The Wire Act was enacted to curb crime syndicates, not to impose moral choices.

2. The 16% fee on "eligible online poker receipts":

Without the definition from the actual bill, it's hard to say how good or bad this is. If "receipts" means gross profits (rake and fees collected), it's a reasonable "gross revenue tax". But more likely it follows previous versions of federal poker bills, where the site fees imposed are based on deposits. Assuming "receipts" means money received from players for online play, i.e. deposits, this will be a crippling amount of site tax as it will be equivalent to something in the neighborhood of a 40% gross revenue tax. Forget about beatable rake under this fee. And, forget about high stakes play - there will be no large deposits feasible under an uncapped deposit tax.

Still, until the actual definition of "receipts" is known, the jury (my jury) is still out on this fee.

3. Funds forfeitures on players:

This is the straw that breaks the camels back, imo. In order for "gamblers" (i.e. players) to be subject to funds forfeitures for play on unlicensed sites, the bill must criminalize such players. So, it will become a federal crime to play on an unlicensed site, subject to funds forfeiture.

Extrapolating what such powers of funds forfeiture mean under usual federal law, if you are caught playing on an unlicensed site (even a site which claims to be licensed but actually isn't), the federal govt will be able to seize your assets - bank accounts, computer equipment and anything you potentially bought with your winnings. Any such seizures will be done before any court proof of your culpability as in the case of such asset seizures, you are guilty until proven innocent. You have to sue in court to get anything back.

4. The current political climate:

The GOP has maintained complete opposition in their platform to all forms of Internet gambling. Heller & Kyl want an anti-online gambling bill to get passed through the House first, and then supposedly get amended in the Senate with a poker carveout. Alarm bells anyone!?

Subject to reading the actual bill text, I stand opposed to the Reid/Kyl bill. I think we would be much better offer in both the short and the long run progressing through the state-by-state legislation mess than under this federal bill, particularly now with the change of the DOJ stance on the Wire Act and the skill vs. chance win in federal court. Keep in mind that it is much easier to fix a state statute (e.g., adjust tax rates to make sites viable, increase the number of licensed sites to increase market competition or authorize interstate compacting) than it is to amend a standing federal statute once the federal bill is passed.

I hate to ask the question that was asked two years ago, because two years ago the answer was obvious, and it was a stupid question but, is the status quo really that bad at this point? It doesn`t appear that the DOJ has any interest(AKA they can`t make any money) off going after these other sites at this point, and the clarification makes it even less likely that they target these sites.

I get that 15 months is "optimistic" for the feds to get licensing done, but Nevada isn`t taking 15 months and is working on an infrastructure that could work with other states.

Last time around i definitely was ready to take on a 15 month black out to have the previous bill, this time around I am not so sure... Any bill that puts any liabilities on a poker player for playing poker I am not a fan of.

+2, the tax issue is a real concern as they divvy up the the revenue 30% to the site's State and 70% to the player's State, other than taxing based on deposits, how are they determining how much of (e.g.) Caesar's profits came from (e.g.) CA?

Obviously it could be done in theory, every pot won by a CA player = rake paid by CA, but are other States really ready to trust Vegas casinos to fairly calculate and distribute the revenue?

Even before reaching that question, why is NV entitled to 30% even if they do trust that the calculation was done properly?

The tax issue is going to need clarification and/or complete restructuring.

Issues 1, and 3 don't concern me, technically the DOJ could have charged the BF sites AND players under the Travel Act from the onset, and sought forfeiture of winning US player assets under that statute at any point, but politically they realized how absurd that would be, so altering the Wire Act to allow the same option that already existed (but they went out of their way not to exercise) shouldn't be a concern.

Issue 4 worries me even less, Republicans see an opportunity to deprive States from revenue for social programs by turning one sector of internet gambling over to private industry - while allowing them to cast a socially conservative vote that denies other forms of online gambling - seems right up their (and Adelson's) alley.

In fact, 'issue' number four is what I consider the saving grace of this bill, because unlike all prior leaked versions of a Reid bill, this one appears to have the 'pandora's box' concerns of Adelson covered, which to me means that this bill actually had a chance of passing.

Unfortunately all this may be irrelevant now that Reid decided to use this issue to get something more important to himself (Heller's defeat/his own Majority position), but if Heller were to somehow survive Reid's attack and the Democrats still hold control of the Senate, we could be looking at the first legitimate Federal poker legislation 'coin-flip' in the lame duck.

I don't think I support this bill.

1. Do you really think illicit sites are going to go away? Vpns become a thing of the past? I mean it's possible it will be extremely difficult but not impossible.

2. This is just too unclear at the moment for any sure speculation. 16 percent is really high obviously.

3. This is being really paranoid. That won't happen.

4. Your state by state thing would be nice but it will either result in something like this or a complete prohibition. The Wire Act opinion changed things imo.

Cliffs on the differences between the Reid bill and the Barton bill please.

And which one should we support? And which one is more likely to pass?

You don't have to go to Politico Pro and pay for the text of the Summary, QuakJacks has it at

http://quadjacks.com/2012/09/12/here.../#comment-1046

Actually, I think TE will oppose this bill if the summary is correct.

Penalties against players have been the PPA's line in the sand in the past and the reason the PPA has opposed state bills.

If that's changed Id be interested to know why. I dont think I can support a bill that turns players into criminals and puts players assets at risk.

Anyways, I'll be interested to hear TE's thoughts.

EDIT:

TE's post from earlier this week. Id expect the PPA comes out against this bill if the player penalties aren't removed. The question is whether we keep supporting legislation without assurances that this provision will be removed.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=205

Why do you think this...

You think the fbi is going to seize the computers of players in raids?

Hehe... only the winning players...

So we ignore the new law and continue playing on sites that will now clearly be operating illegally?

Karak, you must not have ever actually looked, these games have been running for years under the auspices of the FTC and an exemption from the "lottery" rules based on skill elements.

The big players are World Winner, King, and Game Colony.

They have all kinds of "skill" games such as solitaire, hearts, spades, puzzle games, board games and more.

Try YAHOO! click games then skill or AOL and cash or MSN and the same.

All that has ever been needed was a ruling to treat poker the same.

Now the NY court has ruled (may need to win the appeals) and the AG opinion, this is the best direction.

obg

Required opt in and lack of international player pools are awful IMO.

I'm in TX there's no way we get an opt in until years later when it's an obvious windfall for other states and we need it to balance our budget.

How did we gain so much traction over the past couple of years only to have the proposed bill get worse for us?