Lightning could strike I guess, but that's about what we're hoping for.

We arent close to QQ against AJs in the Senate IMO.

i dont think anywhere in this it states you cant open a b&m casino\poker room that has purely online play or
did
it
say
no intranet
gambling? i see a table full of monitors the future for most states that doesnt allow gambling but allows internet gambling

I've criticized stars quite a bit, but the fact remains it is the best/safest/most secure site out there and I'd much rather rely on their security team to sort out and compensate for colluders & bots than I would some Indian tribe that just got high-speed internet a couple years ago and who can't wait to put all their friends/family in positions of authority they are not qualified to hold...

Can someone be super awesome and provide cliffs for those of us who slept through most of the markup?

It seems to go pretty badly IMO. Everything that was amended was pretty negative as far as I could tell. There wasn't even a hint of opposition when I was listening.

I especially don't like them saying that the entire organization needs to be located and operated in the US to get a license. The guy who proposed that said that if it's anywhere else we can't regulate them. That makes no sense. If we have a licensing process then the regulation is that they lose their license if they don't comply. We don't need to send CIA agents to hunt down offenders. We just yank their license and block them from operating in the US. I'm assuming the real intent was to create jobs in the US. Why not just say that?

Thanks to TE, skall, everyone as usual..

doesn't anyone think FT/PS would say... "Hey guys we're closing down effective 11:59 PM tonight.. we also fully support the new American based site that will be opening at 12:00 midnight (wink wink)"

i dont see why there wouldnt be deals made between FT/PS and new American based companies. I mean the sites are good because of their software/schedule/relative safety. if FT says they're closing but we think you should play at XX site, you better believe i'm going to be joining that site really fast

I wouldn't think of arguing any of those points as void of fact.

But it seems odd that you're making the giant leap that a US-regulated system will yield the result you predict. Don't you think Harrah's, MGM and Wynn might end up being the big players and not the silly hypothetical scenario you offer?

Perhaps you've been drinking the Kool Aid Mr. Bachus has been serving up?

Welcome to politics.

Have they voted yet?

Why is any of this inherently a bad thing? I'd prefer the server I play on being located in the US and I would CERTAINLY prefer the customer service be located onshore.

You sort of have this backward Leapfrog. If we go to court and lose, its end of status quo right then and there. FTP and Stars shut down to US players immediately, no question. Many others too. Now some, my guess is Bodog at least, will continue to accept US players. And you can expect the sports book sites to start offering poker (those that do not already).

Note that this is precisely what you will have if legislation passes and you are in an opt-out state. Lose in court and we ALL, not just 1/2 of us, effectively become residents of opt-out states.

And so then we begin the battle for legislation. Only we begin it as either breakers of the law or as poker players no longer playing. And as you said, passing laws takes time.

Now if we win in court, oh glorious DAY. But the very next day every gaming interest in the US will be up in arms about why US citizens can play on foreign sites but not US sites (as will every other anti-gaming interest). Maybe they start opening totally unregulated and untaxed sites themselves, maybe they just complain with every single lobbying dollar they have. I think either of those things would be quite effective at speeding up the otherwise slow pace of Congressional law making. And writing a banning bill is a lot easier and simpler than writing a licensing/regulation bill.

Sorry, litigation will always be a means to an end in this process, it will never be an end unto itself.

Skallagrim

this. companies will adapt to wherever they have to be located. there is way too much money to be made in the US to think otherwise.

It will be too late to start building support at that time. Support is something you build over time, not something you seek the day you need it.

Yes, the status quo is crumbling, but we want it in place while we fight for poker legislation. The fact that we're all playing anyway is a key driver to Congress revisiting the issue. It's also key to keeping players motivated to fight back for this.

Keep in mind that our legislation and the efforts of all the poker players are propping up the status quo.

Have you been to any court hearings on this issue? I have. I watched a state judge rule listen to 30 lawyers explain that Internet domain names are not gambling devices under Kentucky law and then rule that they are. He had no problem at all ruling that foreign sites' domain names were something Kentucky had a right to seize. You know why? Because in his mind, if KY wanted online poker and online casino gaming, they would have authorized it. Even the Court of Appeals saw it our way by only 2-1.

Can you imagine how a federal case would go with most state attorneys general, the DoJ, the FBI, and a bunch of congressmen all stating that online poker is illegal in the United States, versus only foreign sites and the PPA claiming it is not? Yes, we could possibly win this, but it's not a slam dunk by any means.

Congress would pass something there in a heartbeat, either to provide a mechanism for U.S. sites to participate or to reverse the court ruling.

We'll just have to keep working at the state level.

I realize it's tempting to wish to run over the states in this matter, but surely you saw today how unlikely that is.

Every movement has people who don't like pragmatism, believing it should be all or nothing. For example, there are gun owners and libertarians who are disgusted with the NRA for seeking state bills for concealed weapons permits, as they believe we already have the right to carry concealed weapons under the Second Amendment.

I appreciate your passion, but I don't believe your suggested path is the way to victory. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Right, that's kind of what I'm thinking. Someone help me though if I'm being a typical American, but it sure seems like the world will follow the US lead.

The details matter.

If its the server and a presence, its not a big deal.

If its ALL facilities, its going to drastically limit the market.

The bigger picture to me is that there is a clear push to eliminate all foreign competition. That is bad news for players IMO. The more open the market, the better and more profitable the games.

IMO, this bill has not been substantially changed.

Not permitting credit cards does not matter because most banks did not allow credit cards for online gambling due to charge back issues (which is what In Re MasterCard was all about).

Permitting a full legislative session to opt-out seems to imply that most committee members interpret the opt-out procedure to require state legislation. So it makes sense to give a state a full legislative session to opt out. This amendment supports the legal argument that governors do not have the power to opt out on their own prerogative.

The amendment requiring all licensees to have not violated US gambling laws will limit competition. OTOH, so many US companies like Harrah's, WorldWinner, Google and Facebook will join the industry that rake will not be higher than present and may be lower. Besides PS and FTP have a good case which they can make in court, if necessary. Also, Party Poker has no case because it admitted to violating US law which serves them right. The only really bad thing about this amendment is that it may not be good for PPA's finances.

Requiring facilities and employees to be located in US is not good for online poker players because it reduces competition. OTOH, the current online poker sites operate in jurisdictions which are expensive in labor costs. IMO, many will be happy to locate to the US. It's not like most operate from Mexico, India or China. I doubt that even after taxes operating in the US will cost sites much money from operating on the Isle of Man etc.

but since the status quo is crumbling as you constantly remind us, why does it matter? Plus it could be years before we see an legal decision, right? Is the status quo going to last for years?

I got knocked out of a 2000 person tournament in 10th place with QQ vs AJ.

There is a difference between pragmatism and passing a bad bill.

We're pretty close to the line IMO, if not on the wrong side of it, if this were actually a bill with a chance of becoming law.

1) I didn't see Harrah's, MGM or Wynn speaking during deliberations (I did see a rep from the craptawoa nation)

2) I wasn't aware of the poker sites being operated by Harrah's, MGM and Wynn with proven RNGs, secure connections, algorithms and rules for detecting collusion and bots, etc. And I'm sure Harrah's, MGM and Wynn would like to direct their customers to play poker rather than some house game, right? I mean that is why poker rooms are prominently displayed in the main floor of most casinos rather than some dark back corner...

I don't think the credit card thing is a big deal at all. Credit card companies try to stay away from gambling anyway. If we can use debit cards or something like netteller then we'll be fine.

Well stated.

As for the bolded quote, it seems likely that Harrah's et al would prefer Tilt and Stars not be competitors. If this amendment makes it more likely to have the financial and political backing of the US companies like Harrah's, I've got to believe that trumps any influence Tilt and Stars have on the big picture. Granted, maybe it trivializes the PPA, but it seems like it would improve the big picture.

For getting a bill passed, possibly.

For getting a bill that players will like passed, I doubt it. B&M left to their own devices and with a trivialized PPA will lead to a bill that we do not like.

Shortsighted and racist. Nice.