Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

07-28-2010 , 03:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahSD
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.
I agree in principle on Credit Cards. Gone are the Wild Wild West days of 2004. That was the gold rush. But I'd like to see online turn into what we have at a live card room which is why I'm in favor of US regulation.

The big issue is state opt-outs. It must a major process for them and it must be done by the legislature.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool
OK, but the state revenue component is in the bill that has the 50% tax.

Right now we have a bill providing no revenue to the states but where states can opt out. Does that sound like a good plan?

So, at some point we have to get that tax out in order to include the state revenue. Anything from today's hearing give you hope we can accomplish that?
There is no short cut. This goes through Congress.

I like being a full time player. Please don't make be go back to driving through the winter snow to be in the office at 7:30 am or earlier just because we fear winning this. I realize you'll all enjoy the remaining year or two of status quo we'd get if we gave up passing legislation and went straight to defense, but I wasn't planning on retiring in two years. Thanks.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dblgutted
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...
A complete straw man argument. What makes you think this will actually happen? You think anybody would play at such a site?

What would be likely is that there would be a gold rush for a few years. Eventually the sites with the best games and best reputation will win out...just like we have now. As long as there isn't some ridiculous monopoly granted - and nothing in the current bill suggests there would be - then the market will sort out the best sites.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPFisher55
The only really bad thing about this amendment is that it may not be good for PPA's finances.
Good news. I can confirm that Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars continue to support this bill 100%.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:17 PM
Frank says we're up for votes after the recess, still right at 3:20.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer
Good news. I can confirm that Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars continue to support this bill 100%.
Terrific news!
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:18 PM
here we go....
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer
Good news. I can confirm that Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars continue to support this bill 100%.
vamooooooooooooooooooooooooo
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog
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?
The status quo probably lasts for as long as we're able to keep pro-poker legislation in Congress. That's been our best defense from bills that seek to take the status quo from us.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:20 PM
The video is back, recess over.

obg
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer
Good news. I can confirm that Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars continue to support this bill 100%.

This is huge. Do the naysayers really think they would support a bill that would have them on the outside looking in?

I am all warm and tingly right now. I know we have a long fight ahead....but jus think back to where we were just a few short years ago.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer
There is no short cut. This goes through Congress.

I like being a full time player. Please don't make be go back to driving through the winter snow to be in the office at 7:30 am or earlier just because we fear winning this. I realize you'll all enjoy the remaining year or two of status quo we'd get if we gave up passing legislation and went straight to defense, but I wasn't planning on retiring in two years. Thanks.
How much freaking snow do you get in Kentucky?
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:20 PM
What are the chances of this bill passing the committee? What can we expect from all the other House members that have no clue about this bill?
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by numberline
A complete straw man argument. What makes you think this will actually happen?
I'm saying that's how Indian casinos work, and Indian tribes have a much more powerful lobby than anyone else at the table.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:22 PM
I agree that litigation has risk. Skall put our odds equal to QQ v. AJ. I agree and these odds apply to the whole case after appeal; not to the trial court decision which IMO is 50-50. I don't trust or like trial court judges; just look at the AZ case preliminary decision.

OTOH, I disagree about the results of losing and winning. A loss would provide the clarity that online poker=sports betting under US law. However, more sports books serve the US market than poker rooms. A win would cause many new US companies to establish poker rooms serving the US market. These new companies would not want Congress to go backward to the alleged UIGEA days. IMO, legislation overturning a litigation win would not be likely or quick. More likely, Congress would entertain a bill similar to HR 2267 or S1597, but the PPA's position for positive terms would be greater.

I am disappointed that the PPA was not able to get any favorable amendments, like state opt out requires a state law, introduced or passed. At least the present amendments do not ruin the bill, but it is still a gamble. But IMO, it is a better gamble than litigation.

However, what happens if it does not become law and the GOP takes over one or both houses of Congress?
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halstad
How much freaking snow do you get in Kentucky?
I have to drive over the Ohio river to get to work (if I do go back to engineering, it will be in Cincinnati). It doesn't take much to make the drive horribly crappy.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:24 PM
Is there a link to watch the live vote?

thanks
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:24 PM
What is Barney doing?
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogglor
What is Barney doing?
This is one of the amendments from Bachus I believe. We want no.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eersfan
This is one of the amendments from Bachus I believe. We want no.
TY. It wasn't clear just coming in to the broadcast and hearing a bunch of Is and Nos
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPFisher55
I agree that litigation has risk. Skall put our odds equal to QQ v. AJ. I agree and these odds apply to the whole case after appeal; not to the trial court decision which IMO is 50-50. I don't trust or like trial court judges; just look at the AZ case preliminary decision.

OTOH, I disagree about the results of losing and winning. A loss would provide the clarity that online poker=sports betting under US law. However, more sports books serve the US market than poker rooms. A win would cause many new US companies to establish poker rooms serving the US market. These new companies would not want Congress to go backward to the alleged UIGEA days. IMO, legislation overturning a litigation win would not be likely or quick. More likely, Congress would entertain a bill similar to HR 2267 or S1597, but the PPA's position for positive terms would be greater.

I am disappointed that the PPA was not able to get any favorable amendments, like state opt out requires a state law, introduced or passed. At least the present amendments do not ruin the bill, but it is still a gamble. But IMO, it is a better gamble than litigation.

However, what happens if it does not become law and the GOP takes over one or both houses of Congress?
You like New-Zealand?
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:27 PM
lol they really need a better system for doing this.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:27 PM
I like this clerk a lot more. Speed vote taking ftw.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:27 PM
What was the Bacca amendmant that was defeated?
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 03:27 PM
First amendment was no, but I don't know what it was - I just tuned in at the end of the vote.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote

      
m