I was all for the 2010 lame duck bill. I would have thrown in my one time if it would have helped. However, we've had 2 years of pretty positive developments for our cause and all this bill has done is make further concessions. If we had stood pat that would be fine. Instead we've crossed the line into unacceptable territory. It may be all we can get but sometimes nothing really is better than something.

ok lets say im a sports better like many americans that bet on offshore sites.

so if gov't comes closing down these sites, i will be losing my entire roll there, plus any winnings i might have gotten? and obviously no reimbursements for losses.

lol this is a joke of a compromise. did kyl write everything?

This bill has lots of negatives, especially the opt-in provision. OTOH, without this bill, states must pass a more difficult to pass legislation anyway.

If I thought that any reputable, reliable firm would use the Weinstein decision to start up a poker site, take US citizens and have reasonable deposit and withdrawal methods, then I might oppose this bill, but it is too late for that now.

This bad bill is better than the alternatives.

So we should just settle for it? Or even embrace our good fortune? I'm not so sure.

I think too many people are reflexively opposing this bill because they want a better federal bill. You're not gonna get a better bill out of the feds. In the real world however we all need to be pragmatic about REALITY.

The real question is which future is better for you. One where this bill passes, the other where the feds do nothing and the status quo continues. This entire debate over whether to support it or not needs to be carried out in that context.

What about the government saying "**** it! Make it all illegal, including poker."

When the DOJ restated their claim in answer to Lederer et al's attempt to take advantage of the Weinstein IGBA ruling, they accused the BF companies of violating the Travel Act.

Under the Travel Act, the status quo is now that the DOJ already has the authority to go after players for unlawful proceeds of interstate gambling.

This bill doesn't make a player on an unlicensed site any more vulnerable than he is right now, now that the DOJ has shown a willingness to use the Travel Act.

This (SDNY/Obama's) DOJ went out of their way to hold players harmless, they would likely continue to do so even under this new bill, but all bets are off if Romney becomes POTUS - whether this bill passes or not, forfeiture of assets traceable to online gambling winnings is already an option.

Under the Travel Act, ALL the money is dirty, the only reason players got money back after BF is that not allowing it would have been bad politics for a liberal administration.

This bill isn't perfect, but the forfeiture feature is not a reason to oppose the bill.

The status quo isn't continuing. Both NV and DE are about to change the status quo on a STATE level. Therefore your point is flawed. And I also believe given the financial troubles of Caesars, if NV started out as intra-state it could quickly move to global if the NV poker sites start running a lot of red ink.

I'm not saying I prefer state over federal, I'm just saying it isn't federal or nothing. Plus, I believe it is this state push that is finally getting the feds to get serious.

Above won't happen LV interests and some ca interests can block full gaming prohibition.

As for criminalization it is the winnings forfieture that is the biggest issue if u continue your roll is gone but that may be the current status quo. Having big brother take anything else they can get has got to go

Agree travel act is troubling, kind of seems like Doj is scrambling also post decision.

I'm pretty sure I stand with PX on all of this.

Yup. If it happens. Reid's recent comments are not going to help things.

While this bill isn't perfect it's beter then nothing and I acttually hope it passes.

We need legilsation(federal or state) in order to secure the future of our game...There is no alternative.

You either support the idea of legilsation or you don't. This is the bill we have been wanting to pass(give or take) by sending letters and calling our lawmakers.

While it's not ideal we don't get to dictate to lawmakerswe want This and that but not X,Y and Z in the bill. All we can do is make our case and hope they listen but other factors besides ours will be factored in the finial product. If you don't support this bill then you likely aren't going support any other fedral bill.


I really wish this bill or something similar would pass federally. That said I still think it's very unlikley that this or any federal poker bill has much of a chance now or in the near future.
I just hope Congress doesn't decide to strengthen the Wire-Act/UIGEA without a poker carve out.

State-by State is going to be they likely path for US online poker,That is our realitiy not some federal magic online poker bill that's never going to pass. State-by-State isn't going to happen fast for most and it's going to be messy and not everyone in every state will get what they want but the state path is the only realisic path for the foreseeable future,IMO.

Messy state by state might be better. I know this i can play tonight and I only put my roll at risk not my boat. Even passes its state by state with optin. Finally I play now and tomorrow and not in 18 months plus state time to opt. It's not a fed crime to play once this bill passes it is illegal to play.

I agree nothing better is coming at fed just can't support this bill

Its so much better than what we have now. Ill take it and the 15 month blackout ;(

I wish I could believe that with a state by state approach most Americans would be playing poker in 3-4 years. I just think it will likely be much, much longer. With special interests all vying for the largest peice of the pie, many of which won't support any bill that doesn't give them a monopoly. Plus even if you get 20 states to pass legislation they may have compacts, just not with each other. Some may join a NV regulated pool, others a NJ regulated pool. So we may still face segregated player pools.

+100

(To be entirely candid however, this bill could be read to bless Nevada going global, meaning ROW not other US; but not allow anyone else who had not passed a State bill before May 1, 2012..... Delaware is screwed under the bill, it did not pass its internet gaming bill until June, 2012. That should cost the bill two votes on the Dem side, . )

I think the powerball process, which almost every State joined, provided almost every State with a boost up the learning curve. Nelson Rose has a painful to hear mantra he repeats over and over , but it is apt here ..... igaming years are like dog years.

Remember 11 years ago, there was almost no real ipoker...... The "status quo ante BF" everyone misses grew up in only 4 years, max, from 2001 - 2005.

If you think States will NOT be driven to hunt for revenue, we have to disagree on the likely economy over the next three years.

Yes, I think there may be more than one pool around in the timeframe I offered, but if each covers say 35% of the US players, 70%+ of US players would have substantial pools ......that is hardly the "post BF status quo" boogeyman used to stampede support for a bad federal bill.

Add in the very real possibility of ROW pooling, and that is not too shabby a very possible future 3 years out.

It's all about the Benjamins in the Amended Civil complaint, not proving a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I did not really read thru the Amended Civil complaint, but it would be REALLY odd for DOJ not to have also included a UIGEA count as the basis for finding a criminal predicate to forfeiture, as Judge Weinstein basically said in the EDNY in dicta NY State law was violated by poker.

Your reaction to this bill is the only thing I find surprising, I had reservations all along because I understood that this is what a Federal bill with a legitimate 'coin flip' chance of passing would have to look like, so I guess I wasn't caught off guard.

I think state by state will take 10 years plus to be legal to half of the us population. The lottery isn't a good indicator, there is no anti-lottery movement in the republican party. If this doesn't pass I hope you are right about the state by state approach. But for now I think this bill is our best option.

The UIGEA has no forfeiture feature and is not a money laundering SUA.

Why haven't we heard from the PPA on this? Usually Rich or Skall are right out there when these things break.

Rich is on vacation. Skall posted his thoughts in NVG. Don't expect any conclusions from the PPA until the full draft of the bill is released, which might not be until December.

TE is going to be offline for a week or so.