Why would a state opt out?

one example: someone aligned with tribal interests throws a sack of money at the governor

I just sent the following email to my Senators and Congressman, and Obama and Biden (through safeandsecure.org):

One item of note, that previously slipped my attention:

H.R. 2268, for taxing deposits, does not specify in its wording that only deposits by U.S. residents are taxed. If this isn't changed, we'll probably end up with Pokerstars.us, etc., and be allowed by the sites to play only against other U.S. players. Let's not let this one slip by as is.

.

I think the real ? is why wouldn't they opt-out if the frank bill stays as-is.

There is really no financial incentives in the bill for states not to opt-out. unless the states can get some of those license fee's and or taxes from the sites, many would see it as competing with there B&M rooms, lottery, ect. and without any of the revenue.

It may come down to how easy it is for states to opt-out and if they can given the time frame to do so. I would think there is a real possibility many will find a way to opt-out unless there is some direct "MONIES" for there state.

What does the State Opt out really mean to the player????

If a State Opts out...

-Is there magically a Federal Law making the player in that State a criminal??
-By an "opt out" does the State automatically create a Law against the player??
-Will the onus to block players solely be on the "registered" sites??
-Does the Govern or State Legislator have this power??? Will there need to be at least in several States be a vote????

I guess what I am trying to say is the States Opt out seems to have a lot of open question and could open the States(or Federal Gov't) to a number of Legal challenges..I am no Lawyer so I am just guessing...

Why would anyone consider to support this bill then?

[QUOTE=KEW;12184643]What does the State Opt out really mean to the player????

If a State Opts out...

I would guess Tilt, Stars and any US facing sight would block that state so they could operate in the legal states.

If a state opts out, then an online gambling site cannot legally accept US citizens from that state. FYP, PS and other online poker sites may, or may not, obey this law depending on how many states opt out.

Keep in mind that Rep. Franks bill will probably be amended and merged with Rep. McDermott's tax bill with changes before a final version reaches the full house. Then it must be reconciled with anything that passes the Senate. So the odds of anything becoming law are likely less than hitting a flush draw on the flop by the river.

Good point, I don't know what the plan is to get around Kyl killing this in the Senate.

I don’t think this is automatically true. If a state that has no law prohibiting online gambling opts out why would it then become illegal in that state?

Not sure if "illegal" online poker in the opt-out state would matter as far as having a specific law on online poker. The effect would be that licensed sites (in the US) would not allow players from opt-out states. This would be a term in the sites getting a license in the US that they could not offer poker to players in opt-out states. So the net effect would be the same for licensed sites any way, state law or not if they opt-out. IMO this is what would happen reading the current bill as it stands now.

Methinks you should check out the Japanese and Chinese- I think they're much better at your "capitalism" than we are.

Japan is still in a recession that has lasted much longer than ours. And I don't think what's going on in China is sustainable, that is, I don't believe that China's current rate of economic growth is sustainable in a country where the internet is officially moitored and censored.

I think he was referring to protectionist laws. In that arena they probably are better. Maybe they're paying for it now with their economic woes.

B I N G O

That's exactly why I think threads like this one only serve to separate us as a community !

We need to just shut the hell up and act as a single cohesive unit in support for pro legislation and then iron out the details later.

This is critical because the opposition will capitalize on any weakness they find.

Wake up people !

Well, unfortunately the "details" in the current bill would make internet poker worse for most US players. Sort of important to note that!

People don't realize that though. The PPA should make everyone aware of this. If this goes through and people find out what they have been supporting with donations and mail it will really bite the PPA in the ass.

We should be united for "legal" online poker for US players, but the details of what legal online poker will look like are what we should be debating, and what we would like to see in any bill by congress.

Just to blindly unite behind any bill in congress without debating the pro's and con's is idiotic. As is fully supporting a bill in hopes the details of the bill will be changed in our favor along the way in the legislative process. We should support the idea of regulated online poker and work with those in the congress to get the best bill we can, and work with them to make the proper changes to any bill so its the best for the players.

Discussion in threads like this are good, to educate, inform, and debate so we can help get the best legislation we can, and inform players about the poss outcome of any legislation and how it may effect them.

You make it sound like the sites are not regulated at all. Pokerstars for example is regulated by the Isle of Man gambling supervision commission which in my eyes is much more respectable than the US government.

I still recommend that we support these bills as a means of coalescing support around our general position. As we gain more support, we'll have that much more strength to push for the changes we need. We'll see the Senate bill soon enough, and we'll have chances to amend the Frank licensing bill.

For future bills, if we stand up for ourselves now we will be in a much better position to insist that these bills not give the states Congressional authorization to prohibit interstate/international online poker.

IMO, state opt-outs should be just that -- opt-outs from the entire bill, such that the status of online poker in states choosing to opt out does not change. I don't understand why our allies keep providing for statewide prohibitions of online poker in our bills, but thus far it's failed to bring any of our opponents over to our side.

not saying different just was responding to the bad idea thst the details dont matter

I wasn't disagreeing with you. That what my assumption.

2. The bill should specify that a license cannot be denied to any person or entity, domestic or foreign, on the basis that they previously offered online gambling facilities to U.S. citizens.


Will never happen in a million years. Why do you think Party paid all that moeny to the DOJ. To settle past sins.

The US government is not going to ignore what has happened in the past.

A bit of good news:

YouBet plans Euro expansion, seeks local partners

Youbet is a US online horse betting site. They plan on partnering with a European company, probably offering poker and other games. This is good for us because it makes protectionism harder if a US company is already paired with an overseas provider. (Also helpful is that Betfair bought TVG, another US online horse betting site, a while ago.) On the down side, however:

The tie up could be with a company targeting one European country or many, but must be one with an untarnished reputation with authorities, Goldberg specified. “In this space there have been plenty of people who have dabbled in online gambling, sometimes in the face of regulators, but we want someone who is squeaky clean,” he said.

Sites that accept US players, like PokerStars and FTP, and maybe even settlers like Party, will probably be gone for us, so the largest network we'd have access to (never took US players) under this scenario might be Everest. They're the ranked #6, with 1/12 the traffic of Stars.