HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) - Page 8 - Poker Legislation

I'm afraid that with the opt-in proposal will mean only 5 states will start opted in and states like mine will take a decade to finally opt in, if ever.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:17 AM

#178

SkandarAkbar

grinder

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 406

the NO's have it. That's very good news.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:18 AM

#179

Punker

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 8,344

Recess! And good to win the opt-out.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:19 AM

#180

Steelerman

old hand

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1,287

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

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?

Why have Stars and Tilt supported Frank and the PPA if his position has been clear that they wouldn't be eligible for a license?

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:20 AM

#181

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by antneye

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.

Because we are very unlikely to get a law passed during this Congress.

To continue to push for a player friendly bill, we need funding. FT/PS fund much of the PPA's budget through the IGC.

Sure, Harrah's and company will still push for regulation, but their interests are not necessarily aligned with ours. Its possible to get regulation that kills the games. See what happened in France.

I think this amendment will end up reducing PPA influence in the next Congress while increasing the B&M influence. That's not good IMO. I dont want to be paying 7% rake on Harrahs.us in 2018.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:20 AM

#182

ivey10k

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 472

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

TE, Correct me if i'm wrong but the definition of foreign operators has not been defined or established...It is not found in HR 2267 nor has it been accepted in any amendment...What constitutes a foreign operator will still need to be determined.

Michael of NJ

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:20 AM

#183

Rich Muny

Former PPA President

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,010

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

I didn't say Frank will. However, he's not the one pushing those amendments.

A main goal we had was to keep this opt out vs. opt in. Defeating the Baca amendment was great for us.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:20 AM

#184

cardboardvox

enthusiast

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 69

No's have it but a recorded vote was requested. Most seemed opposed so I assume the official recorded vote will our way too.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:22 AM

#185

novahunterpa

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 5,244

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly Caveat

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?

Maybe, UIGEA would still be the law used to block unlicensed operators. This bill would create "legal" operators and give some clarity to UIGEA. Banks and other financial institutions would have 2 lists, one for legal licensed sites and one with clearly "illegal" unlicensed sites, which makes blocking online gaming transactions to the unlicensed sites easier then the way it is today

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:22 AM

#186

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steelerman

Why have Stars and Tilt supported Frank and the PPA if his position has been clear that they wouldn't be eligible for a license?

His position has been clear that he doesn't differentiate between poker and other gaming.

This is the first I've heard of him supporting the idea of banning foreign operators.

Good news the opt-in got killed. Why pass a bill that is going to generate no revenue? We should work to codify the process though.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:22 AM

#187

numberline

enthusiast

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 80

And....they're on break. So far this is going well. There have been no amendments so far that restrict legitimate poker playing activity. Bachus/Bachmann's poison pill amendment was withdrawn...we may see it again in a weaker form. Baca's amendment failed. All other amendments actually improve the prospects of passage by the House.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:22 AM

#188

ivey10k

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 472

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steelerman

Why have Stars and Tilt supported Frank and the PPA if his position has been clear that they wouldn't be eligible for a license?

To no longer be foreign...They may simply need to be incorporated in the U.S...We have not seen any language as of yet pertaining to these foreign operators...

Michael of NJ

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:23 AM

#189

TruFloridaGator

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 22,791

Cliff notes guys? had to head out for a while, when do they begin again?

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:24 AM

#190

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

I didn't say Frank will. However, he's not the one pushing those amendments.

A main goal we had was to keep this opt out vs. opt in. Defeating the Baca amendment was great for us.

Yup, that's a win.

Frank just said earlier in the hearing that he "was in general agreement" with banning foreign operators didnt he?

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:24 AM

#191

Rich Muny

Former PPA President

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,010

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivey10k

To no longer be foreign...They may simply need to be incorporated in the U.S...We have not seen any language as of yet pertaining to these foreign operators...

Michael of NJ

That's what the Bachus/Bachmann amendment did, by taking individuals out rather than corporate entities. Glad it was withdrawn.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:24 AM

#192

Seven7s

adept

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 910

Quote:

Originally Posted by numberline

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.

Yeah lol I was thinking the same thing. First few minutes I didn't know which side he was on, but if you understood his freedom joke, that was foreshadowing for his allegiance. However I must admit I didn't understand the joke lol, his delivery was a bit off, but anyone for freedom of choice is a friend of mine.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:25 AM

#193

Rich Muny

Former PPA President

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,010

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Frank just said earlier in the hearing that he "was in general agreement" with banning foreign operators didnt he?

I think he said he was in general agreement with banning foreign operators that broke U.S. laws. I guess someone will have to prove offering poker violates U.S. law.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:25 AM

#194

sofocused978

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 6,765

Believe me there Stars and Tilt will find a loophole in this bill to keep their operations moving.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:25 AM

#195

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivey10k

To no longer be foreign...They may simply need to be incorporated in the U.S...We have not seen any language as of yet pertaining to these foreign operators...

Michael of NJ

I believe the language wasnt based on where the site was located, but whether they have taken bets from US players. At least according to the way Bachus framed it about following the rule of law, etc

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:26 AM

#196

danxxx1

journeyman

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 395

anyone have a link to this?

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:26 AM

#197

Rich Muny

Former PPA President

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 28,010

Well, time for me to head home from Louisville. Hope I don't miss too much of this.

Quote

07-28-2010 , 11:28 AM

#198

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

I think he said he was in general agreement with banning foreign operators that broke U.S. laws. I guess someone will have to prove offering poker violates U.S. law.

Yeah the language is definitely going to matter then. We do not want to lose Stars/Tilt for future Congress unless we can replace the funding.

Should also add, you dont need to prove it in a legal sense most likely. If the licensing board decides it was illegal, Stars/Tilt are out.