HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) - Page 7 - Poker Legislation

I agree, the devil is in the details. I think sites like PS/FT will certainly be able to apply for a license and will be able to argue their case, whether they receive a license is not 100% certain.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:09 AM

#153

eersfan

journeyman

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 391

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

Exactly what I have been wondering. Stars and FTilt might be ok even if this amendment does get added to the bill. I think at this point they believe they are not breaking any current law.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:10 AM

#154

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivey10k

Slow down...We haven't even gotten there yet...The amendment was withdrawn and the committee members should be on to it.

Michael of NJ

Not sure it was withdrawn because of lack of support for the idea but rather due to wording that would prevent US companies from entering the market. Frank seemed to agree with banning offshore operators, which is bad.

TE, Bachus specifically mentioned poker in the amendment. Not sure this will be less restrictive for poker sites, although I do agree with Skall that the wording of the amendment matters.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:10 AM

#155

eersfan

journeyman

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 391

Mr. Campbell seems to be the most level headed person in this whole room.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:10 AM

#156

sofocused978

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 6,765

Quote:

Originally Posted by nsdjoe

Lol Bachus: "Why let the people decide for themselves what they want???"

This guy really needs to shut his mouth

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:11 AM

#157

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

94% freedom to gamble, 6% to tax

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:12 AM

#158

Sly Caveat

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,635

Quote:

Originally Posted by sofocused978

This guy really needs to be swallowed by the ground and the furniture in a scene straight out of a ghostbusters script

fyp

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:12 AM

#159

SkandarAkbar

grinder

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 406

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

94% freedom to gamble, 6% to tax

Sounds like good odds to me tax needs a outer to beat my freedom. Burn it and turn it baby.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:12 AM

#160

Rich Muny

Former PPA President

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,010

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

TE, Bachus specifically mentioned poker in the amendment. Not sure this will be less restrictive for poker sites, although I do agree with Skall that the wording of the amendment matters.

Of course. I said a poker-only bill would be less onerous than one allowing all gaming. I didn't say an all-gaming bill would differentiate between poker and games of chance.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:12 AM

#161

ivey10k

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 472

Sherman sounds like a communist...He and Bachus are arguing their own personal interests as Frank already pointed out...

Michael of NJ

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:12 AM

#162

BetzPH

grinder

Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 436

couldn't FT/PS just create a whole new company with the exact same software/schedule to operate in the US?

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:13 AM

#163

Sly Caveat

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,635

If they allow only certain sites, wouldn't that effectively allow all sites? If they can't stop Stars and FTP now, would they even bother to try to stop them if other sites are allowed?

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:13 AM

#164

Jakea7137

journeyman

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 241

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

94% freedom to gamble, 6% to tax

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:13 AM

#165

Zophar

adept

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 928

This is tilting the hell out of me that I can't get any stream to run.

Thanks for the updates though.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:13 AM

#166

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

Details matter on the withdrawn amendment. If the licensing is based on "taking unlawful bets or wagers" both Stars and FTP will have the ability to argue that they never did that by making the case that online poker is not against current law.

The opt-in amendment is both more and less dangerous. Opt-in is bad momentum wise. But requiring a legislative action is good procedure-wise.

Skallagrim

Opt-in is an absolute killer and would probably be a dealbreaker. It puts us on the wrong end of legislative inertia. Everything in the opt-out thread that was debatable (i.e. legislature seems favorable, but bad Governor or vice versa) would mean an opt out state. We wouldnt even get critical mass to add states onto later.

Legislative process with an opt-out would be a big win. Even if its extended to a whole legislative session from 90 days it could work as you would then force states and lawmakers to take a vote refusing revenue and take legislative time to opt out.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:13 AM

#167

ivey10k

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 472

Maffei from NY looks like a multi-tabler grinder...

Michael of NJ

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:14 AM

#168

sofocused978

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 6,765

Mr. Cleaver "Speaking of freedom, What do you think this is America??????"

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:15 AM

#169

antneye

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 7,119

Quote:

Originally Posted by BetzPH

couldn't FT/PS either just create a whole new company with the exact same software/schedule to operate in the US

Or simply enter into a partnership with Trump or Harrahs or whoever......We really need not get hung up on this. The key is legalized/regulated online poker. Businesses (new and existing) will find a way to bring it to us.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:15 AM

#170

WaltrSobchak

enthusiast

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 57

Quote:

Originally Posted by BetzPH

couldn't FT/PS either just create a whole new company with the exact same software/schedule to operate in the US

THIS

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:15 AM

#171

numberline

enthusiast

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 80

Cleaver can barely get a sentence out...how did this guy get elected? I'm not sure which side of this amendment he's on.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:16 AM

#172

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

Of course. I said a poker-only bill would be less onerous than one allowing all gaming. I didn't say an all-gaming bill would differentiate between poker and games of chance.

See, if Frank didnt support the amendment this might be a good line of reasoning.

Since our biggest supporter in the House thinks that banning all foreign operators is a good idea, and is known not to differentiate between poker and casino games, why do we think that he will not support a similar amendment to a poker only bill?