FYP.

If the states are allowed to consider online gaming a different animal than B&M gaming, then I would imagine that many states would protect their in-state B&M gaming based on potential tax revenue ramifications. They likely don't understand that B&M gaming doesn't necessarily need to fall in response to the growth of online gaming.

I think that a bill that offers states revenue as a result for opting in (or not opting out, whatever the case ends up being) would make this decision easier for folks, but if that's not an option, I truly think the word "online" needs to be stricken.

Great points.

I agree, but I just think that is asking for too much.

The status quo is indeed eroding incrementally. States are attacking, the DoJ is attacking, and Congress refused even to delay UIGEA enactment last session. And, full implementation of the UIGEA regs are on the horizon.

I'm not saying the sky is falling. It's not. What I am saying is that if we cannot get something from this Congress, when will we have a more friendly one?

IMO, it seems best to start the analysis at where we want to end up. IMO we won't be stable until US-based sites can participate in the market. For that to happen, we need federal enabling legislation, a repeal or positive court ruling on the scope of the Wire Act, or state licensing for instate poker. I think we should work toward getting one of those.

I don't recommend blind support of all bills. In fact, I am prepared to oppose a bad bill. However, we don't yet know what the final bill will look like. The Senate version hasn't even been introduced yet. Amendments have yet to be proposed. I do know that we need to support the overall effort, as that's how we'll get the best possible bill.

I don't know, as the final form of the opt-out is not yet known. However, it seems unlikely that Congress will pass a bill that is widely opposed by the states.

I think it will depend on how UIGEA is implemented, if it gets to that point. There are a lot of variables between now and then.

It would be rather foolish to announce non-support before the fight starts! Let's push this, see the amendments, evaluate the Senate bill, and then see where we are.

Right this very minute, 22% of the states in the union have laws against playing in skill games for money. So when/if the bill is passed, I (for one) will not be able to play poker for money at a licensed site. If the bill includes the 50% fee language, I will not be able to play elsewhere either. Therefore the language of the bill depends on whether I will support the bills or give everything I have to get them defeated.

It is not unreasonable to expect that other states will pass similar laws (against playing in skill games for money) if the Frank/Menendez bills are passed.

As TE points out, there are a lot of variables and unknowns. My posts and warnings are all of the nature of caution and be ready to fight for what is good for us and against what is bad for us.

On the other hand, waiting to see what shape the legislation takes before lending our support is a bad road to take. We must get behind the drive towards licensing and regulation now so that: 1)we don't end up with nothing, and 2) we will have clout with the lawmakers so we can bring about the amendments that we need.

It the final bill that comes to the floor for a vote is bad for us, we will just have to take the extreme measure of reversing course and fight against it. But I doubt very much that such an extreme measure will be required. Our voice is being heard now and we do have the influence to get the changes we need.

This isn't at all self-evident to me. Feds right now receive zero tax dollars from taxing online gambling. They would receive some % from licensing fees. States, in the bills we have seen, receive zero from licensing online gaming.

Why wouldnt the Feds be better off passing a bill that bans unlicensed foreign sites even if 1 state opts in and 49 hate it and opt out? Congress has different actors with COMPLETELY different incentives than state officials.
There's a difference between announcing our opposition to a specific bill and an attempt to regulate, which would be foolish, and pushing a bill we don't like. Right now a specific "good" bill doesnt exist as far as I can tell. So beyond boilerplate support for regulating poker and supporting the concept of regulation in these bills, which I am happy and do support and push, what are we supposed to be pushing?

Im not going to tell my reps to vote for the bills on the table because I don't know yet if they are good for poker or terrible for poker.

Mostly agreed, but I think you are overestimating the chances we dont get the desired changes in the bill. I don't doubt the PPA is working at it, but that's an uphill fight. We have literally zero public comments from anyone in Congress related to or supporting the changes we want.

Not to mention that sports bettors are going to come out en masse against this bill when they figure out what is going on. Not that we should be carrying the water for sports bettors, but any time you take a group that should naturally be an ally and turn it into a group that is going to be fully opposed, it makes the fight harder. Especially since you know the NFL is still going to oppose any bill if prior history is any guide.

You cant just assume things. Its unclear what the incentives will be for states to opt in. We dont know how difficult it will be for states to opt out. Also as TE points out i cant see them passing a bill with language that half the states oppose.

If and when we get to a point where we clearly see your scenario is playing out ill be against the bill, you can be sure of that. Regulation isnt worth losing half the player pool.

Do you have concerns that if we support the bill fully as is, we will have limited opportunities to ammend it later? My fear is getting the bill on the cusp, and hating it. Perhaps that is a irrational fear, idk really.

Hard to support the bill till I see what the final draft is. Even if the bill changes and we get a few things we want we will still not know what the regulations will be until put in place by the regulators.

It's not hard to imagine something along the lines of what they did in Italy. What if several states opt-out, what if some states (or the feds)want only mtt's,sng's, limits on cash games, ect.
Regulation will bring some good but there will be much online players wont like about it. If you think they are just going to say to stars, tilt or any other sites here is your license now go about your business your crazy.

If the US regulates online poker, you can bet there will be terms that will have to be met. The prob is we do not know what regulated poker will look like, good or bad most likely some of both. The Us is like 50 different countries not all states are going to agree if or what online poker should look like. We may end up with many sates even if they allow online poker to resrict it very much. Might have to have a .com1 for some states and .com 2 for others ect. Just do not expect online poker in your state to look the same as it does now if it is regulated, you may find Durrr playing Ziigmund at 5/10 PLO instead of plaing 3k/6k PLO

Im sure many in congress who would support the bill, really do not care what the states think. IF they pass this or another bill then all the pressure is off of them and on the states. If they pass it and every state or many opt-out what then? write letters to the congress? they will say, hey we did our part nothing more we can do go fight it out with each individual state.

In the end no matter what bill comes up or how it is written our fight is going to be with the states to get all 50 to support online poker and to get all 50 to support some uniform online poker not 50 different reg's for 50 different states.

exactly, i don't understand why PS is acting like they now finally offer fair games because it was regulated.Does this mean they didnt have those before that law in italy was passed.
seems really shady to me....

Its not that there are saying now that Italy passed a law and we have a license, that our games are fair and they werent before. It's to show that stars will follow the law of a country.

Stars wants regulation in the US and other countries so they can operate legally. If they want a license at a futre date in the US or any place else they can not just ignore the law in Italy. The US would say why should we give you a license in the US, why would we think you will follow US regulations when you did not follow the law in Italy.

Also If they ever want to go public with there stock or sell the company to inestors they will have to show they are complying with the laws of the places they do business with. So Do not expect stars to thumb there noses at any GOV. even the US if we ever get out of the legal gray area and the US has regulated poker or if the US bans online poker stars will most likely comply with the laws as will many other sites.

The 50% tax is terrible for us. We'll have to get that out of the bill.

It is sort of funny to see how completely deluded and head in the sand a lot of you are.

It may come as a complete shock to some of you but the legislators and regulators are not the least bit worried if you can make a living off poker. They are not the least bit aware that you need access to Stars and FTP, and that Stars and FTP need to keep doing business exactly as they are now.

They are aware however that a lot of US money is going offshore. They will:

a) Just stop it.
b) Divert it back to the US in some form or other, with the various governments getting a cut of unknown size.


The facts of life are:

The best you can possibly hope for from the federal level is regulated, taxed poker with state opt outs. It will be simply too hard to pass something that looks remotely like what most of you want.

If regulated, taxed poker with state opt outs fails, you will soon be left trying to play and cash out without FTP and Stars knowing you are in the US. Think not? Keep dreaming.

Better let your legislators know you simply worship the idea of regulated, taxed poker. And you better let them know in loud and uncertain terms, and in great numbers. Else you get a) above.

As is noted, the PPA has given us a seat at the table and a chance to have our say.

But every time a legislator hears some nonsense about "well I will only support legislation that allows me to continue playing at unlicensed off shore site just like right now" you lose all credibility.

If you don't like the facts of life, well...., nobody that counts actually gives a s**t.

Tuff

like they stopped the sportsbooks, right?

Sportsbooks do not depend on the masses and "fish" like poker site and poker players do...Poker relies on a constant flow of new players and new money...

I will go out on a limb and predict that within one year:

ANY and ALL internet gambling in the US will be conducted under federal and/or state regulation.

OR:

There will be no internet gambling to speak of conducted in the US.

They can stop it tomorrow if they so choose. And they wiil choose soon - one way or another.

Keep dreaming...

Grind fast...

Tuff

really? So why have they let it continue for so long then?

Signing my post as LeapFrog in case anyone had any doubt as to who wrote the post.

LeapFrog

.

My head isnt in the sand. Im aware legislation doesnt assure this. If legislation prevents this, I will actively oppose it. Ive said before, Id rather have no online poker than let the government make it unprofitable for players, then profit off of it.

Yeah, this is way, way overstating how easy it would be to stop internet gambling. Bill Frist and company would have done it years ago if it were as simple as "choosing to stop it".

Sometimes I think that a bill prohibiting all online gambling might be better for us than one like the Rep. Franks bill. A former bill could be challenged in court on privacy grounds and other grounds. Such challenge is more likely to succeed if it bans the player rather than just the site, but it is a long shot.

However, with a clear ban, like sport books face, the online poker sites serving the US market would know the future. They would know that they cannot be publicly traded. They would know that their owners and employees would not be able to visit the US. They would know that they will have to get around credit card restrictions, issue foreign checks or use bank wire transfers through foreign banks and otherwise ignore US law. IMO, most of the current US sites would accept these issues for the vast profit to be made by serving the US market like many online sports books, WSEX and Bodog currently do.

OTOH, a bill with easy state opt outs and heavy penalties to unlicensed sites and its players leaves many questions for online poker sites. Is it worth attempting to obtain a US license whose value depends on how many states opt out? Can the site get a US license? Will more states opt out in the future? Will taxation be increased in the future? What happens if a site like PS gets a license and then so many states opt out that it cannot become publicly traded on the LSE? Is the license worth being subject to the jurisdiction of US courts which are perceived, around the world, to be as much a lottery as a system of justice. (Sorry Skall and other lawyers, but see Jay Cohen case, Duke rape case, OJ Simpson murder case and many other ones)

I agree with the current approach to support Rep. Franks bill and his efforts until a more final version is revealed. I, also, wonder if the PPA can withdraw its support from the final version if it is not much better than the current bill? Wouldn't this end its lobbying efforts for the future? If it cannot obtain more favorable provisions in a final regulation and licensing bill, then can the PPA end its lobbying efforts and concentrate on litigation like iMEGA? Also, all these questions are further complicated by the litigation in the seizure case.

The rest of this year will be interesting.

Im not sure this is the case. I don't think the evidence suggests Stars, for one, would stick around.


This is where I don't envy the PPA leadership. Walking away from the bill puts us back on defense at the Federal level but a bad bill, as you point out, is worse than no bill. Tough, tough, tough spot.

you raise some good points.

Ive wondered about the question you posed for a while now.

My concern is can the PPA actually reject a bill and do something to stop it if it hurts us?