I am a bit surprised that no one from the Online Poker Community (as far as I can find) has taken up the act of writing a proposed bill. Instead, we all seem to be waiting and relying on corporate hacks to write a bill we mostly will not like (Reid/Kyl for example). And sorry PPA, we haven't seen even you guys offer a proposal that the ONLINE players can evaluate.

It is usually possible to appease one interest, but usually you end up angering other interests. Convenience stores, Walmarts, restaurants and bars all would have a problem with this kind of favoritism for an industry that already is allowed a powerful draw that they are barred from offering.

As hard as I try, I can not fathom a reason that 7-11 or Walmart would have any real grounds for opposing online poker. Other than some moral reason only they currently know about.

Each state could provide laws requiring some sort of iron clad personal verification, and in that case, if Walmart or 7-11 wanted to get into that business ....welll far out man!

But then 7-11 might want to get into the new car dealership business.......doh

I'm kind of on the same page here. I don't understand why there have been no ballot initiatives written by the poker community to spring forth at this point. There is always talk of the opposition coming out against stuff like this, but I think maybe the opposition is overestimated while we underestimate ourselves. Also, if we bring forth some legislation and get crushed, it will still be a good learning experience that can be used to move forward. Relying on Congress/Senate to get this stuff done seems like a long painful road to mediocrity at best.

So, who are the major player involved?;

-Obviously we the players
-B&M Casino's
-Indian gaming..(and how the hell did they get some sort of special rights to gaming anyway?)
-Moralists concerned about gaming addictions and underage players.
-The Gov, which seems most interested in preventing money laundering (thus the UIGEA)

Who else?

I didn't say they would oppose online poker. I said they would oppose the favoritism given to casinos--- allowing them a monopoly on deposit and withdraw locations. Players could go to a store and deposit and the store could benefit from the collateral business. Doh.

I would think we players would want to keep it in the 'family'. Else, the local Police could be involved in the verification process, as they could easily do an iron clad verification. But they and any other entity would want a fee for doing it.

My point is that Casino's and Online can find a win win situation pretty easily.

I donot understand the bolded part??? Either way the police department is not going to get involved in handling money...

Facepalm... Sarcasm...

Tangled had brought up objections that convenience stores or Walmart might have about a monopolistic system he perceives, I just stretched it to include other 'might wannabe's'.

Yes, I understand that is what your saying, I just don't agree doing deposits/cashouts at casinos only is that way.

And there is nothing about freeing up online poker that can be done "pretty easily". Do you really think all the smart people involved in online poker would miss any path to online poker expansion that can be done pretty easily?

Ideas are always wanted, but, likely, thought of before and have failed.

Are you familiar with HR 2366, the Barton bill?

Will be very shortly, ty for the #

I also wonder if there would be some Dormant Commerce Clause problem with only the casinos being allowed to handle both deposits and cash outs. (?)

I also suspect many state constitutions would have prohibitions against giving out this kind of naked, government-enforced monopoly.

And casinos are often owned/run by out-of-state companies. The idea that in-state businesses would be barred from selling access to Ipoker, while some out-of-state businesses are not, would meet with some resistance I bet.

One of the better arguments against my idea.

My idea could allow dedicated live verification businesses, but my counter would be that shortly after the initial rush of folks going thru the live verification process, any biz that had taken that process up, would find the cost/reward ratio going negative unless they were already a casino.

In the case of B&M casino's, the marketing opportunities in conjunction with OLP sites, would offset that cost/benefit to be neutral at worst, and win/win at best...JMHO.

And live gambling is already a State sanctioned near monopoly. In this case, it would not change the monopolistic situations that would already exist in regard to who and where gambling exists legally.