Sites available to players would change, but the legal status quo would remain. I realize it would affect players in opt-out states but, of everything suggested so far, it seems like the best approach.

Every bill introduced so far has had an opt-out, and that has been written about. I agree with posting summaries of what the bills do and don't do on the PPA site, but it's probably premature now, as the bills are nowhere near final form. The Frank bill will be amended. We don't yet know what will change, but we know it will.

Another problem with the Barney Frank bill:

The state opt-out is currently worded to exclude anyone that "resides" in the opted-out state. Per this wording, players will be excluded based on their residency, not strictly their location.

For example, if you reside in Florida but travel to New York, you can't play internet poker while in New York if Florida is an opt out state.

Current wording of the bill:

My recommendation:

Sorry, I do not monitor for all the new skill game sites, they all make the same claim. I do notice their list is 11 states which highlights the confusion, some block 14 while others block 14 PLUS 2 additional for cards only.

obg

would have to look at the details to make a decision on whether u're plan would be significantly better than today. from the top of my head these questions i would ask (not directed at u necessarily) to help me assess the situation:

will there be any federal/state criminal or civil sanctions for players that play at unlicensed sites?

will this federal regulatory scheme allow the states that opt-in any power to manage, restrict and/or set online gaming rules (i.e rake, game limits, betting limits, deposit limits, etc.) inside their state? will the federal guvment have blanket power in this regard for all opt-in states? will anyone in the usa guvment (local/state/federal) have any of this power other than the sites themselves?

what will the federal excise (sin) tax be like and will it apply specifically to businesses or players or both? will there be any change or additional state/federal income taxes for players engaging in online gambling? will the states have free reign to manage their own statewide tax policy in additional to any federal tax policy as it relates to licensed sites and the players who play there?

will a tax be imposed on any foreigner (non-resident and non-citizen) playing at a site licensed and incorporated inside the usa?

will foreign sites that get licensed but have no incorporation status inside the usa have access to usa courts in regards to outstanding and collection of gambling debts incurred by usa players?

I think I can answer these questions, being extremely familiar with the proposed legislation.

There are no criminal sanctions in the bills for either players or sites. There are some monetary ones for violations. The only one for players is the 50% tax on deposits for playing at an unlicensed site (there is some debate whether this tax will fall on the players' liability per the wording of the bill, but it is quite likely that is the intent). Skall proposes that only the site and not the player should be liable for this 50% tax. Also, if the player plays at an unlicensed site, they are liable for the 2% tax as well if it isn't paid by the site. The bill does give authority to the Secretary of the Interior to set regulations for the enforcement of the licensing and regulation program. These regulations may turn out to include criminal penalties - we won't know that until they are proposed.

The current bills give neither the states nor the federal government the power to manage, restrict and/or set online gaming rules. Per the current Frank bill, sites cannot take any bets from players in states that opt out (i.e., states that inform the Secretary of the Treasury that the state "limits" internet gambling). The wording in the bill is a little bit ambiguous and needs some tweaking to make this perfectly clear.

The excise tax, as currently proposed, is 2% if deposits. It can't be taken from player deposits directly - the sites have to pay it. There are no changes to income taxes proposed as part of the current bills. Licensed sites will have to comply with federal and state income tax regulations as to reporting and withholding. As is the case with non-Internet gambling, each state and the federal government can set the rules for taxes on gambling income, just as they do now. The bills don't change this.

Yes. As the bill is written, all player deposits at a licensed site are taxed. Sites can easily get around this by opening a different skin to be used by U.S. players. The bill does not prevent sites from having a player base that includes players from both a licensed site (i.e., U.S. skin) and a non-licensed site (i.e., foreign skin). The non-licensed site can't take bets from any players located in the U.S. (including a foreign player who is just visitng at the time in the U.S.).

There are no provisions in the bills addressing this issue. However, since sites do not let players make any wagers greater than the money they currently have on deposit, I don't think this is of any concern.

PokerXanadu said:

"The current bills give neither the states nor the federal government the power to manage, restrict and/or set online gaming rules. Per the current Frank bill, sites cannot take any bets from players in states that opt out (i.e., states that inform the Secretary of the Treasury that the state "limits" internet gambling). The wording in the bill is a little bit ambiguous and needs some tweaking to make this perfectly clear."

While the current bill doesn't give the gov. power to regulate any specifics, most likely by the time the bill are finalized there will be some regulatory body set up. I can't see them just saying, pay for a license and now do whatever. The gov. will give some kind of regulatory authority to someone to develop reg's. and have some kind of over site.

It's hard to use the status quo as a yardstick, given that is has been under attack by various states and the DoJ. It would probably more realistic to compare the bills to a new status quo with access to fewer (but still some) sites and tougher times with financial transfers.

My proposal has none. Unlicensed sites offering services in states that do not opt out would be liable for a deposit tax. For states that opt-out, there would be no change in the law from today (there would be a practical change in that licensed sites would not serve opt-out states).
No.

Yes.

The Treasury Dept. would own the regulations.

The Frank bill now calls for a 2% tax on deposits to licensed sites, payable by the sites. This is just my opinion, but I predict this will rise to add money for states.

That bill includes a tax of 2% on players who play on unlicensed sites. I'd retain that, but on for states that do not opt out only.

I'd also retain the 50% tax on play at unlicensed sites, but would assess it only to sites and only for play from states that do not opt out.

The Frank bill contains no additional state or federal income taxes.

No new ability. States have free reign over their own income tax policies now and will retain that.

I imagine sites will have US-only skins.

The Frank bill does not create a new means of collection, but does not reduce it, either.

Engineer, I think the 50% needs to go. I don't even want it in states that don't opt out. Its too extreme.

Think down the road. What if another game becomes popular that you like to play but can't get a license and you live in a state that didn't opt out? It can come back to bite you or me in the ass big time. I just think the 50% needs to go all-together, or be reduced to around say 2%.

Poker could lose its popularity. Then a new game comes in and is falsely deemed a non skill game. Then you have to pay 50% to deposit.

A fee that extreme is anti internet freedom, even for states that opt in.

The version of the change I posted here earlier keeps that 50%, but my communications to PPA advocate lobbying to remove the 50% penalty in its entirety. As I don't think that will happen, I felt it important to provide a modified version to at least ask that it not be applied to players and that it not be applied at all in opt-out states.

Oh ok, you are putting the 50% burden on the SITES. Ok this would be much better.

I'm from London England this really sucks i miss them American fish LOL please keep fighting for your rights

FFS, all the people who think there is a "status quo" please understand that there is no such thing! There never was!

Before the UIGEA, we used to be able to deposit via PayPal and any credit card. Gone.

Then came UIGEA, byebye PartyPoker, easy bonus whoring, hello loss of fish and concentration of USA regulars to PokerStars and Full Tilt.

There was FirePay, gone.

There was NETeller, gone.

There was ePassporte, gone.

MoneyGram? Lasted like a week.

There are checks and echecks, both getting hassled by the DoJ, SDNY, whothe****ever, 2-3 times in the past two years and many had to go 3 weeks to a month without receiving a withdrawal in each instance.

If a bank hears or thinks the word "poker" or "gambling" they shriek. They overblock now. We won't even know the full wrath of the UIGEA until December (I personally am not too worried about this, but WTF do I or any of us know with 100% confidence?)

At no point was there ever a status quo. Yes, I get my money on time 99% of the time. But for the past 5-6 years playing online, the games have (outside of the drastic change from the UIGEA) gradually gotten less soft (not in the sense zomg I can't pwn fish anymore, but in that there are less recreational players b/c they think it's illegal and the Feds are gonna barge through their front door, whereas us regulars are playing everyday thinking the polar opposite), transaction methods are periodically attacked, and powers that oppose are simply never gonna stop. Period.

I know some of these bills look like they suck now, but firstly they're not etched in stone. Secondly, you have a choice to support them, or not. There's not some amazing option available as a panacea for online poker's freedom. It's pretty much like when choosing between Obama and McCain. You may not like either candidate for the aggregate of their policies, but if your sole issue was OLP, you knew that McCain was blatantly for banning it all, and Obama was neutral/non committal.

I'll finish this rant with a special thanks to posters of valuable contribution here on 2+2, Skall, TE, the PPA, even iMEGA and martyrs like Jay Cohen for maintaining what semblance of a "status quo" there is ATM.

Yes, that would be much better than putting it on players.

Besides, it's not me. If it were up to me, government would keep out of it altogether. Congress has made it very clear that they will not stay out of it, so we have to draft legislation that Congress will pass.

cant say OP didnt warn us

Hello, I agree with most of what you are saying but I oppose opt outs and blackout periods altogether and they should not be a part of the discussion after all what other civil and human rights laws are we going to let states opt out of.
Secondly I oppose any regulation of the internet which Italy and France have been for years trying to do.
We must also fight against this disturbing trend of economical fragementation which has reared its ugly head in online Poker. Imagine if this were to happen in the craft beer market what would happen to prices and consumer choices.
Say Goobye to Philly Beer Week or the San Diego bar festivals.
And while I agree that all online poker rooms should have a domestic anchor so they can employ Americans the problem with Intrastate Poker or even US Poker leaves us with two dilemas. One the only site that is big enough to do this is Pokerstars(Pokerstars.it, Pokerstars.fr how about Pokerstars.PA, Pokerstars.CA or Pokerstars.NJ) make it worldwide online poker monopoly hurting homegrown business who may be better to serve customers
Second if Pokerstars never returns for legal reason the all online pokersites would have to be subsidized by the US Government until they become profitable which under current legislation proposals would a long way off making it a taxpayer money trap. The purpose of this legislation should to generate revenue not provide more uneeded subsides to the wealthy.
In closing must not settle for anything less than what we had and it all goes back to this if we can let the government regulate or censure or in some cases impose internet bans what else will we let them do.

Post #212 speaketh the truth.

Adding to my list...

Full Tilt Poker? Gone.
Cereus? Gone.
PokerStars? Gone.
Everleaf? Gone.
My FTPs and cash worth $4-5k? Gone.
eChecks? Gone.

All we got left are shady checks, WU, and like 5 sites of questionable integrity. Looks like two wolves are eating my dinner these days...

what can we do now?

Is there any current legislation to help us get back our right to play?

I haven't even played since the PS, UB got shut down to US players...a few games live but 2 hours to the closest casino...now im trying these new sites, Lock, Carbon, etc., but cant get any money in to them and really question there integrity since they seem to have absolutely no customer service whatsoever......

Really sucks.....

Check out these threads:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...-12-a-1163341/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...ls-faq-651375/

and, of course:

The Daily Action Plan

Keep the minimum necessary to play online. Cash out all profits ASAP and be prepared for any and all sites to get shut down at any moment, because they may.

Every site is shady, depositing and withdrawing is incognito and shady, but nobody really gets ripped off. It took me less than 30 minutes to deposit $500 on RPM (top notch customer support there btw), and every withdrawal request has been completed with zero issues over the past year. Even if a check bounces, they refund your account, so really it's just a matter of if you're willing to deal with the aggravation that happens maybe once of twice a year.

I'm going to join Bovada (old Bodog) and Intertops (old Cake Network, now Revolution Network with Lock and Cake) very soon and don't expect to have any difficulty with deposits and withdrawals, but I'm perfectly ready to move on if the money I have on any of those sites disappear overnight.

I had thought about bovada but wound up going with carbon because it had more traffic but now i see that it's customer service is the worst i've ever seen.

How is bovada? Good choice? Advantages vs disadvantages?

I haven't joined either site yet, but will reply when I do.

An interesting development is that some EU countries are discussing consolidation:
http://pokerfuse.com/news/law-and-re...red-liquidity/

Very interesting. US states will probably end up consolidating as well if and when states legalize.

The past is gone with a new licensing and regulating procedures why not let everyone in if the US standards would be strict if they are caught cheating etc etc.. IMO.