http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profess...on_Act_of_1992

One of the amendments to HR 2267:

TE, PX, etc:

Just to clarify, the 50% tax for unlicensed sites appears in McDermott's HR 2268, a bill that hasn't been marked up in the House Ways and Means Committee.

This isn't a site issue. It's a player issue.

Agree on both points.

I vehemently disagree with cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

We may have to agree to disagree. I know for me personally, I'd have a hell of a time getting a job here that pays anywhere near what online poker offers. If I fell behind a month, that legislation would essentially create a permanent dead beat.

At the very least a clause could be added to it allowing an exception for users who have withdrawn more than they have deposited.


Still, I find the underlying assumption that poker is wrong (with all the negative connotations of "gambling") reprehensible. I might not feel the same way if laws also prevented dead beats from going out to eat, to the bars, or to the movies. But the fact that they want to exclude poker (and you so readily accept it) indicates that you feel comfortable with the idea that poker is somehow less than deserving of the same treatment as other forms of entertainment or occupations.

Thanks.

It's not to spite one's face. It's an important principle, especially as it is in our own bill. If this lays the groundwork to make players the targets of enforcement, where will it end? According to that Commerce clown, it will end with us in a 4 X 8 cells. Again, even Kyl didn't seek this in 2006 (he abandoned that in the late '90s).

TE, serious question. Why don't you move back to Florida now that you play for a living, or anywhere but Kentucky for that matter?

First of all, congrats to the PPA and all involved in achieving this significant win. I feel it is truely awesome how this organisation has formed and now has such influence after 2.5 years.

With regard to opt out states, they are not going to IP ban presumably. So to play on a licenced site, don't you just need to pop over to an opt in state, rent a property for a few weeks/months, send utility bills, evidence of address to site, and then simply move back to your home state and continue playing? Or am I missing something?

Then the status quo for the smaller unlicensed sites is going to be awful, unlike the rosy picture you paint of them 'growing'. So, if you are in an opt-out state that is pretty much the end of your poker playing. Unless of course some horrible intrastate room with insane rake springs up.
I'm not forcing them to do anything. I think this bill is not in the best interest of players in potential opt-out states. I could care less if the sites support this because they think they will make more money from the rest or whatever their motivations are. I don't think they always have the players best interests at heart, see PS.fr. The PPA should be fighting for the players.
forgetting for a moment the professional players who could possibly move, what about the casual ones? Oh right, straight under the bus.

You have to file an accurate state tax return. That seems like it could squelch that or lead to a heap of trouble if you try.

If you're a pro player, moving shouldn't be a problem.

Like TE said, that's life. If your job required you to move somewhere, you'd do it without thinking twice (or quit, or get fired)

If you're a recreational player, you're playing for fun and not for (serious) profit, so why would you care so much whether you eventually have access to the biggest player pools out there?
Surely, there will always be enough games for you to play just for fun on the weekend anyway.

http://www.coinflip.com/news/pokerst...ling-laws.html

check out the link apparently pokerstars isnt to worried

LG:

TE, PX, and Skall have stated explicitly (or implied) that I'm clueless with my half-baked "conspiracy theory" since both Stars and Full Tilt are urging their players to support the PPA and the passage of Barney Frank's HR 2267. Considering HR 2267's rather harsh sanctions against "illegal operators" - along with amendments expressly stating that [present] "offshore operators" should not be granted a license to operate in the U.S. market - one might wonder why Stars and Full Tilt would be supporting a bill that is a loaded gun aimed right at their heads?

One can never know what is going on behind the scenes, but it wouldn't surprise me if Stars and Full Tilt have already made secret deals with MGM/Mirage and another soon-to-be-legal U.S. land-based operator to provide the software and back room services once these "new" sites are licensed. (I think Harrah's will contract with [or buy] Party Gaming for obvious reasons.) For players the brand name on the table will be "Harrah's" or "MGM/Mirage," but the software will be the same client software that is currently running on the Stars and Full Tilt web sites.

The current owners of Stars and Full Tilt would go with such an arrangement since they would still be making money for providing their "service" [to the licensed and legal operators] plus they avoid continuing legal hassles from the U.S. government. All of this is pure speculation on my part, but it's the only plausible explanation for why Stars and Full Tilt would urge their U.S. players to support legislation that is obstensively aimed at excluding them from the American market. Put another way, if HR 2267 really was a knife aimed at Stars and Full Tilt's throats, I don't think they would be encouraging their U.S. customers to support its passage.

How else does one explain Stars and Full Tilt's support for a bill that seems so squarely aimed against them?

Former DJ

http://www.coinflip.com/news/pokerst...ling-laws.html



Read that pokerstars doesn't believe they have done anything wrong. Thats why they are supporting it.

DJ, Skall TE and PX have already given you many arguments as to why they think PS and FTP are supporting the bill, specifically why they (PS and FTP) believe they have not broken the law (yes, despite the WA issue, because it's not clear whether WA had authority to do what they did, etc...)

But it seems you either can't read, or can't make sense out of what you do read. It's safe to say that you have no idea or close of what you're talking about.

Just let it go. We'll see what happens.

PX's analysis of the amendments explains why this probably isnt true. If they cant get licensed, then someone that buys them can't get licensed.

Stars and Tilt think they can win an argument that they are serving the market legally and, therefore, can get licensed. I dont think they are going to get licensed, but I can see the sites deciding that the chance of licensing is worth the risk of losing the status quo. They are also at the same point we are: if they do outright oppose the bill, they feed into their opponents hands, hurt the chances of regulation, and pretty much assure they are never getting licensed. This way they are perceived as supporters of regulated online poker. Again, I dont think it will work, but I dont think it needs a grand conspiracy theory to explain their behavior.

FWIW, a decent bit of what you write does seem to be based on half-baked conspiracy theories and it drowns out some of the substance that you add. There is a world of difference between questioning strategy and tactics, debating likely outcomes, and questioning the motives of people who are (in TE and Skall's case, for free) donating a **** load of their time and effort towards improving poker rights.

If you scale back the conspiracies and accusations and focus more on the substance (which I you have done at times) and less on wild theories about payouts and backroom deals, you will find these guys pretty responsive even when they disagree with you.

probably this (you always have to assign some % to crazy theories) and I'm sure it doesn't hurt their licensing efforts and/or image in other countries to appear to be for 'law and order'.

No, it indicates only that we oppose the idea of some dead beat having a pile of money lying around anywhere while he has defaulted on his financial obligation to his children.

I can't wait till there's an HR 2268 and S.1597 Markup thread to argue about amendments and the overall bill in

Out of curiosity, why do you (and everyone else, presumably) want international player pools?

I haven't thought about it much but my gut is that US only sites would be better. The fishiness of a country depends on its wealth and the government's attitude towards poker. While the US is the wealthiest country in the world, its players right now are not fishy because of the perception that online poker is illegal and the difficulty players have in depositing. Once this bill passes, I would think the US would be the biggest fishpond in the world, and adding other countries to the player pool would only dilute that. In addition, players from foreign countries (especially Asia) are much more likely to be cheaters than US players. This difference will only become more pronounced once poker is regulated in the US since US players would then be facing legal penalties for cheating which they are not now. International players would add liquidity, but I think this country is big enough that we'd have sufficient player pools for the majority of the games people here play.

1) the poker boom hit the US before many other countries, so the average american poker player is more skilled than the average player in other countries.
2) saying asians are more likely to be cheaters, therefore we should ban asians from playing is wrong on so many levels.
3) most of twoplustwo is in english. most foreigners can't even read the best strategy available on the internet. we would like to play against them

1. Will anyone who thinks Harrahs will buy Party PLEASE reaad the news ....

a. Party is officially meging into bwin.....

b. Harrahs could not afford or further leverage itself to buy any large online operator.

c. Someone taking over Harrahs, via its debt, is much more likely.

2. Both Stars and FTP received licenses in France.

PASPA, like the wire act, is directed towards the books. My question was for the players. The Wikipedia article is very misleading.

Going by the quote you gave on the amendment to the bill, if that is all that is included in the bill about sports wagering, nothing changes for the players. It is still federally legal to gamble on sports even if the bill is passed.

Good question.

My wife likes her job and we like the neighborhood. We're close to Cincinnati (we pretty much live in suburban/exurban Cincinnati) and with 40 minutes of two casinos with decent card rooms. We also have good nonstop flights to Vegas and Fort Lauderdale, so it's easy to get away for a week or so.

TE no matter how you twist or turn it, for players in opt out states:

It is better to be able to play poker online and not know what the future holds than it is for the bill to pass, not have poker, and still not know what the future holds.

I think over 95% of players in opt out states will agree with me.

All of that beats a federal ban.

If PPA were to stop pushing legislation in Congress, which is what you're advocating (no one will introduce a bill forcing poker on Utah), Congress would ban unlicensed poker within two years. You know why? Because they think they already did just that with UIGEA. Perhaps they'd then license U.S. sites, or perhaps they wouldn't, but none of that would be preferable to the bills we're getting with a seat at the table.

You can fight for two more years of a status quo if you want, but we'll fight for a stable, growing system into which states will wish to enter. That's fighting for the players.