for the love of god, can you please stop putting words in my mouth? Please? Just because I oppose bills with state opt-outs doesn't mean I don't want to push good legislation.

They do not believe this applies to them, and the have legal opinions backing that up. They also know that the status quo will not last forever, so they wish to move forward while continuing to build support for the overall pro-poker position.

That should be the signature for all your posts.

Pick up a high school civics textbook. Congress simply does not force things like this on the states, especially ones with no commercial gaming. Sorry. I wish they would.

With that, can you share with us the type of bill you'd like to see before Congress and how you'd expect it to pass?

nice crystal ball btw, do you know where I can get one?

well sorry, I'm unwilling to throw millions of poker players under the bus with state opt outs. Seems ironic you are, but we live in strange times.

I would rather fight for legislation unlikely to pass, then sell out millions of poker players who just want to be able to enjoy a reasonable (quality that is) game from their homes.

Why do you think the banned list will be worse then what we have now?

Also, if it's close, I imagine some sort of settlement could be negotiated. After all, it's in Congress' interest to have FTP's and PS's players join the system. That's not the case for the current online casino gaming sites, which are probably the intended targets of that amendment.

I'm not twisting anything. There's no denying that PPA's efforts, which included pushing bills with opt outs, have stopped Congress from taking further action against online poker. Imagine if we decided we'd not press for federal legislation in 2007. Where would we be now?

This effort has clearly extended the status quo in opt out states. And, if we stop now, this will clearly cause the failure of the status quo in those same states (as well as all the others). How is that better?

At this point, I think you need to take up your bitterness with the states who opt out. Better some states make the wrong choice, than the entire union.

Sure do. Just look at the recent past and the present. You saw Congress oppose us 317-93 on the UIGEA House vote. You saw 45 state attorneys general oppose our right to play. You saw FoF, the NFL, the states, lotteries, and B&Ms all arguing against this. You also heard the testimony yesterday, where there was no love of the status quo evident in the entire room. That's all we need to know.

As an engineer, if I looked at a structure with no real foundation, I'd be able to provide a decent prediction of how long it would stand. As that's what we have, I'm offering up the same analysis.

This is somewhat simple. Either U.S. based B&Ms are getting in or it's all getting banned. There is no possible alternative. The only debate is the length of time.

I am very confident that I live in an opt-in state (New Hampshire) but I agree with you Jussureal: online poker for those in opt-out states will not be as good as it is under the status quo

But it is not wrong for TE to also note that it is not the falling of the sky for those players either. We have, and are continuing to work, to make sure that nothing in any new bill changes anything for PLAYERS in opt-out states except for one thing (and I agree its a big thing): players in opt-out states will not be able to play on the big international sites licensed with the US; those sites will have to respect the state's opt-out.

So if you live in a state that opts-out the best way to envision your future is to take your status quo situation and subtract FTP and Stars for certain. Also subtract those smaller sites/networks that may well chose to seek a license. Can you still play poker? Yes. Is it near as good as being able to play the large sites/networks? No.

But a good number of people do like Bodog Poker (for example). There will always be some sites for those in opt-out states to play at, just like there are plenty of sites for you to make sports bets. And it would hardly be surprising if some new poker-only site in a (safe) foreign jurisdiction emerged specifically to service the opt-out states.

That is a basic factual summary of what to expect in an opt-out state. Folks are free to spin it either way, of course.

In my mind the long term effort requires moving past a few states. Some will always opt-out. Those that truly opt-out for moral reasons will probably take generations to change. But most will opt-out because of fear (regarding the cost to either B&Ms, Tribes, State Lotteries, or State social services, etc...). When the rest of the country demonstrates that legal online poker is nothing to fear for any of the legitimate interests, most states will opt back in.

Skallagrim

That's exactly what you're advocating, but for all of us.

How can you fight for a bill no one will introduce? How would you rally players around an all-or-nothing pipe dream?

Why do you fear fighting at the state level for states to participate? I guarantee that's more doable than hoping you can get someone to introduce a bill to force poker on Utah.

I thought it was within 2 years. Where is the debate?

if there would have been legal challenges years ago we at least would have another avenue. I know you keep mumbling about new legislation trumping that, but again, you don't have a crystal ball.

Thanks for your efforts.

I have to cry BS on this one. They tried to Ban it before and we still have a bunch of sites that we can play US.

My only problem with the bill is if they, the US govt, Try to shut out Stars and Full Tilt I feel that this would be anti-competitive. Why not have Harrarhs and The Sands complete against Stars and FT? Are they scared of the competition?

Also, Wouldn't it be further violation of the WTO agreement by banning Stars and FT? We can be looking at an all and out Trade war over On-line poker.


Excuse me if I'm way off with this. I'm only reading in bits and pieces and I'm not a lawyer.

Right now FI (financial institutions) don't have any idea what or who to block under UIGEA. They also have no idea what constitutes unlawful online gambling and it's up to the FI to figure out who to block.

Once there's is a list of lawful licensed sites it will be easy for banks to process these legal transactions, as well as a "bad" list of unlawful unlicensed sites that they can easily block. These lists be readily available to law enforcement and financial institutions, it will allow them to enforce UIGEA, they will finally have a clear definition of the U (unlawful) in UIGEA. Everyone will know who the lawful and unlawful sites are.

Also this leaves little doubt as to the legality of online poker in the US for sites as well as processors. If this bill passes sites can longer say they aren't violating any US laws if they offer online poker to US players and the site doesn't have a US license. If say PS/FT don't get a US license and continue to allow US players they can no longer claim they are not breaking US law.

I'm doing my part. I requested that PPA implement a letter to state officials and wrote the letter we're using myself. I encouraged PPA to lobby various states at specific opportunities. I even helped lead the attack on the Minnesota online poker ISP block effort, including writing virtually all of the talking points.

Here's a shot of me on Monday, on my own donated time, speaking at the National Council of State Legislators (I looked for you...I must have missed you):

Why do you think that? They'll just join on Harrah's.com instead of Pokerstars.

Thank you TPCEO, Ive argued over this in the past and it puts me on life tilt when the counterargument is "Harrah's has deep pockets and will just buy ____". Not after LBO'ng at the cyclical and leverage peak.

If the UnLicense site is better than the Licensed site where do you think I'll be playing? I'm sure they'll still be able to send a check to some Lawyer in FLA to make sure I get paid. How are the banks going to determine where a check is from?

That's my opinion. It's certainly debatable.

If that were a slam dunk, sites would have done it a long time ago.

Just to be fair we have also seen online sports gambling go on untouched for about 15 years now. Sports gambling was banned before online sports gambling was even an option. They do go after the operators and processors but any person with a computer can make a sports bet tomorrow for about as much as they want to bet. They can get paid out for the win and they aren't breaking any federal laws. In most states they are committing a misdemeanor and that is a grey area because it is on the internet. 1 person has been arrested for this and it was because they thought he was a bookie.

Why then would congress ban something that has actual court wins as far as it being a game of skill?

The UIGEA is something that most of congress regrets now. It was passed without a vote in the senate. A few men made the UIGEA happen.

Its not like online poker has a huge opposition. And yes part of that has to do with the PPA. I just don't think online poker would be outlawed. Poker was recently totally legalized in a state considered conservative.

Yes, they did try to ban it. However, they had to water down the bill that became UIGEA because they couldn't get the finer points negotiated. Immediately after it passed, Bob Goodlatte promised to introduce legislation to finish what UIGEA started.

We were very fortunate to get a bill strong enough to wake us up but too weak to deliver the knock-out punch.

FTP and PS have lobbyists on the Hill representing them. They also have a large customer base that any licensed U.S. system would like to see absorbed into it. That would improve compliance greatly.

I blame Bush, Jon Kyl and Bill Frist, all Republicans BTW which kills me because out of one side of there mouth they talk about less Gov't Regulation than BANG! UIEGA(more gov't regulation). I'm done my rant now

Congress fears that some won't. They have expressed concern over how to ensure compliance. I'm sure they'd love to take players who already have offshore accounts and transition them into the licensed system so that they don't have current accounts at offshore sites.

Same here.