Believe me, its not banonlinepoker's name I find objectionable.

Without referring to anyone specific, I just hate when stupid, ignorant, racist people spread their views. There are many ways to debate this subject where people can agree to disagree.

There are also a small number of posters (perhaps one) who are very ignorant, stupid, and racist.

America would be better off without these people, so I hope they dont reproduce.

I agree completely. I want to play against my fellow Americans, Canadians would be welcome too but thats it.

Yes, I see that you don't understand. Can you please explain what crime Stars and FT committed? I would be very interested to see that.

Good to hear we have lawful IP operators. Would someone tell me where these operators are lawful?

If it is in the U.S., where can I read the statutes and regulations? Internet operators offering race betting have statutes and regulations making them lawful; ditto state lottery...I just can't find the info for poker business. Since the PPA says whatever makes them lawful must exist, why do these lawful poker sites now need even more regulations and a second license? Why aren't there more poker operators under these existing rules? Are all lawful operators wanting more rules and taxes?

Maybe PPA means the operators are lawful in some other country and some now seek a new Fed framework and state approval to someday be lawful in the U.S.? That would mean operating in the U.S. is currently unlawful which fits better with the consensus saying the status quo is iffy, why there isn't more competition, reality, why it's hard to move funds, etc.

Again, where are the trusted operators lawful?

The erosion of the freedom to be a dead beat parent? Yeah, you know, I am ok with eroding that freedom.

If you owe back support, then, yes, I am fine with the appropriate agency taking whatever money you have in the market or whatever money you have on a poker site.

The only acceptable explanation for owing back child support is that you don't have any money.

In the larger sense, we should be supporting amendments such as this one that a. make the bill more politically palatable to the general public, b. actually might help some children c. only "erode" the "freedom," to be a criminal.*

________________________

*dead beat-ism is jailable in my state, and I put lots of dead beat parents in jail; can't speak for any other state.

can I get cliffs of what this law does for the newcomers? I have questions such as:

-Is the 50% tax just on deposits, not on cashout?
-How will such a tax effect traffic on sites like Stars and FTP? Predictions about the future of Stars and FTP post legislation?
-Will this create another influx of poker players from the US?
-Basically, what are the pros and cons?

Where does it say in statute that they are not lawful? That is the more appropriate question.

1) Yes, as currently stands, for depositing on an unlicensed operator. For licensed operators, there is a tax on deposits payable by the site.
2) Much depend on if Stars/FT can get licensed. That is an open question. If they cant, there is a good chance they leave the US market
3) In licensed states, most likely.

Pros and cons are too complicated to address.

So where am I wrong here: if the tax bill is not implemented, there likely won't be a licensing bill right? Or am I missing something there? If true, what you're saying is that you're willing to sacrifice a licensing bill that will likely improve our rights from what they are likely to be if no licensing bill is passed b/c a minority of states citizens won't be able to play.

TE, again, I may be missing something here but I am very worried about this. It seems to me that a large reason this licensing bill MAY succeed is because legislators believe that it do a better job of protecting citizens and because it will generate revenue. The reality is that any licensing bill for any "thing" needs to effectively say: "it is illegal to do this thing unless you are licensed." However that particular conditional prohibition is enforced is in many respects irrelevant. We can't say on the one hand that we need a federal licensing bill and on the other say its OK to gamble on an unlicensed site.

Sure we should try to improve or remove this particular enforcement mechanism, but should we risk the whole enchilada to do so? I would argue "no" and I would think that the PPA should be taking efforts to improve the poker legal landscape for the majority of US citizens, rather than for all of them if reaching for the utopia is likely to cost the majority to lose their rights.

Its not a joke. My brother in law was one of the pioneers of developing an RNG. He said after they developed one in 2001 they had potential sites asking them if there was a way to set the RNG so a player entering a pot behind had a better chance to win than usual. Thus evening the playing field and allowing weaker players to stay around. That was the only way to build a sustainable player base is what he was told. This is why playing lagtard is the only way to beat the games.

Try this:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...95&postcount=2

I would argue yes, and will be working against any final bill that has this provision it in by telling my reps they will lose votes from both poker players and social conservatives by supporting this bill.

Hopefully it doesnt come to that. I applaud the PPA's stance on this issue. Its definitely on the right side of the balance between a desire for regulation and protecting all players rights. This is especially true because we have no idea which states will opt out.

Good job PPA!

In the U.S.

For poker sites, it's the absence of such laws that make these lawful. This is because activities that violate no laws are not unlawful by definition.

The DoJ is stopping U.S. based sites from opening. It is our belief that the status quo will fail if U.S. based sites cannot compete. We also believe lawmakers will come after online poker if they cannot figure out ways to license, regulate, and tax them.

No, we didn't mean that.

The problems arise from the fact that the DoJ has chosen to act as if online poker is unlawful.

Where they are not prohibited by law.

Our opponents are not seeking this penalty. Even UIGEA did not seek to make players the target of enforcement. It's not clear that we'd lose a single vote in dumping this provision. There can easily be a licensing bill without this provision.

This is the wrong forum for an "online poker is rigged" discussion.

You can discuss legislation requiring RNG verification and audits all day long, of course, but I'll delete any future "online poker is rigged" posts. Thanks.

What does this bill mean for online sports gambling players? Any change at all?

What about the tax bill for online sports gambling players?

The real risk is in turning every player from a potential opt-out state into an opponent of the bill. We in potential opt-out states can stomach losing the bigger sites. After all, they want this bill and, at least IMO, it's in bad form to seek to hold them hostage to the status quo by opposing bills they support. What we can't stomach is our own bill doing what even Jon Kyl and Jim Leach didn't seek in 2006 -- penalize players.

We also don't wish to set a precedent that players are appropriate targets of federal enforcement efforts.

No offense intended, but this kind of thinking is a large part of the reason America is in the sorry state it's in these days. Sir, the Government's role is to SERVE THE PEOPLE, not the other way around. If they choose to license sites, the sole reason should be to PROTECT THE PLAYERS. That is, ensure that the sites are fiscally viable, not offering fraudulent games, equipped with adequate security to prevent/detect fraud, etc. If I as a player wish to take undue risk by playing at an unlicensed site, then it is my decision and I take full responsibility for putting my funds in possible jeopardy.

Excellent post deuce, it is nice to find someone who understands the meaning of the word "freedom."

I completely disagree. I can't stomach losing the bigger sites because if they are licensed (as you seem to think they will be) then I think it is logical the feds will turn their eyes to the processors of the smaller, unlicensed sites. Not only will you have drastically smaller player pools but transferring money could well be more difficult.

I find it really, really hard to believe that smaller sites are going to thrive in this climate. Plus, as I have said, I think that among casual players, the idea that the smaller sites are shady or illegal will be reinforced and I expect their will be further attrition of their numbers. The bumhunting on those sites is going to be epic and I'm sure will make for excellent games both for casual and professional players.

Also lol at it being 'bad form to seek and hold them hostage to the status quo by opposing the bills they support'. Is it bad form for the people who think their state will opt-out to stand up for their right to play poker, to have access to a decent game? Ridiculous and insulting. Ah well if nothing else I guess they can move, it is pretty trivial for most, right?

This is shocking to me. It completely flies in the face or your argument FOR the opt-out clause. In other threads you've stated that you aren't willing to abandon a piece of legislation if the bill is for the greater good.

Your argument is that those in the opt-out states will maintain the status quo, which I might add you've also mentioned is unsustainable. So you're willing to support the opt-out at the ultimate detriment to a minority of the players, but not the tax in opt-out states, because you're not willing to cause harm to the minority of players.

I will be irate if this effort fails because the PPA pulls support for the legislation simply based on the 50% tax on non-licensed sites.

All that said, I applaud and appreciate the efforts of you and the PPA. Keep up the good work. Just don't eff it up.

FYP

I think overall things will be great for those in opt-in states, I do think the games will look a bit different then they do today but overall should be good. If you live in an opt-out state it's going to suck, any sites serving those in opt-out states will be on the banned list and it's going to be much harder then it is today to process financial transactions.

You're entitled to your opinion that the status quo is golden and permanent. PPA and the sites disagree.

What's LOL? The sites want legislation. You want to force them to serve the status quo until legislation is passed banning them.

I had to move from Florida to Kentucky for work. That's the real world.

PPA's job is to get rigor into opt outs and to encourage states to participate, so we get a long lasting, stable poker environment. It's not to force PS and FTP to stay in the status quo against their will because we want to play their sites.

PPA is also fighting for tougher opt outs. However, we recognize the Congress will not force poker on states with no commercial gaming. We cannot fight that which cannot be fought.

Again, it's not like we got anything in exchange for this 50% tax. It gains us nothing, while harming our efforts by costing us player support. It's a bad provision and it needs to go.

We really don't have to fear standing up for ourselves. If we can fight here, how can we fight for tax fairness or other issues? This is why we have an advocacy group.

Thanks, I think.