and you would win since they have already started to form a partnership with 888.com

It is more than this. Congress trying to force internet gaming on a state that has no commercial gaming would almost certainly be unconstitutional. The state opt outs are a constitutional requirement; they're not in there because Congress is full of nice folks who respect state sovereignty.

Short blurb on police powers; this stuff will get really complicated if states with some commercial gaming try to opt-out. But the principle that a federal bill without an opt-out would be blatantly unconstitutional is pretty simple, imo:

good legislation could be a repeal of UIGEA or whatever. It doesn't have to force gaming on the states. If you want to say it would never pass, that is fine.

It is already public knowledge that they do.

from Annie Dukes twitter a couple min. ago:

AnnieDuke I'll be on MSNBC today at 12:40 eastern talking about HR 2267. Should be a fun debate.

this^^^ is why Annie Duke was such a good candidate to pick to talk in front of the commitee for HR 2267.....she will kill it on MSNBC, she already has TV experience, and is very knowledgable about the topics of HR 2267 that people care about.....can you imagine Raymer in her spot loooool. On top of everything she is a mother, which holds more weight IMO especially with all the fear-mongering going on with poker and children.

looking forward to checking this out, thx for the update

What's the earliest this bill could go into effect? I'm concerned about the age restriction. I won't be 21 for another 2 years and the majority of my income comes from online poker. Would old users possibly be "grandfathered" in and be allowed to continue playing? Maybe an age check would only be run on new accounts?

highly unlikely.....it will stay at 21, security measures and no access for minors are huge concerns for this bill, if it does goes through at some point 21 will be the age. good thing for you is I would assume even if it went through it could take 1-3 years to be fully implemented

found an msnbc stream here:

http://www.epctv.com/channels/MSNBC-...Watch-4744.htm


it's safe. hope that's okay.

Hopefully it takes that long. Guess I shouldn't have told stars my real age . Would I still be able to play on unlicensed sites? If so would it be legal or will this bill make all unlicensed sites illegal to play on?

Why not? The status quo fails for us because of actions the federal government will take against it across America, either in bringing in U.S. based sites or in banning it all.

I don't see the feds taking similar actions against sites serving opt out states.

I guess now you're turned off because you feel we can pass a bill that forces poker on Utah but are somehow refusing? Do you think this is a conspiracy?

Anyway, I don't recall the PPA doing any of what you say here. It sounds more like you're talking about me. If I turn you off to PPA, so be it.

Yes, I do express my opinions on why we're doing what we're doing. I doubt too many here are shocked to learn of this.

That's all PPA does.

The Menendez bill contains language that appears to allow amatuers to net.

She is also the poster child for a site that cheated players out of millions of dollars while they hid offshore to circumvent US laws and the players had no recourse once they were exposed. She needs to shut her mouth and stop with the propaganda. If she had half a brain she would abandon UB and get in bed with a US company ready to launch because this law will pass and she will be on the beach if she doesn't.

really? They are just going to ignore the processors once they stop serving stars and tilt and now just serve UB and whomever? I find that very hard to believe. Can you provide some sort of legal explanation for your prediction?
I've already explained my dissatisfaction in regard to the lack of a legal push and not every form of positive legislation will push poker on Utah. I have also explained quite clearly other reasons why I am 'turned off to the PPA'.
stop trying to marginalize my arguments by lumping me in with the freak posters please.

leapfrog is on a downswing imo.

Party Poker has a problem relative to the specific verbiage of the bill as it stands today in that they admitted wrongdoing as part of their settlement with the U.S. Party Poker may seek changes in the bill not to prohibit sites that "showed good faith" (so they say) by leaving the U.S. market after UIGEA passed. They've tried that before.

Also, as many have mentioned already, Harrah's is in no position to buy Party Poker.

Thanks! I'm glad we're all fighting together. We're starting to see the fruits of our efforts.

I believe the wording stated illegal activities after the passage of the UIGEA. Since Party withdrew at that time I would think they would be fine.

I guess it would be a pretty good bet then.

Thanks for finally posting a starting point for the discussion.

I do have a comment. No one in Congress will introduce a bill repealing UIGEA. That would not allow U.S. based sites in, so who'd vote for it? There's a reason UIGEA passed the House 317-93.

You're observing the democratic process in action. We want some things, but other groups want things as well. I realize the fact that we have the status quo now leads some to conclude that the status quo is the logical starting point. IMO, that's a fallacy. Congress and the other stakeholders to not take this to be the starting point.

No. The DoJ will continue its actions.

There are two problems with the status quo. You addressed only one. On that one point, Congress is less likely to push a bill implementing a federal ban on online poker in opt out states, and they would certainly be less likely to make playing poker in opt out states a federal crime than they would were they addressing this nationwide.

The other point -- the one about U.S. based sites wanting to participate -- would now work on our favor, as states could achieve that by opting in.

Explain why no site has sought a declaratory judgement ruling that online poker is not covered by the Wire Act.

PPA is on record as being prepared to join such a suit. Prospective player plaintiffs have even posted here stating that they were prepped for the suit and were ready to go.

Perhaps it's not the slam dunk you seem to think it would be. Then again, you continually underestimate our opponents.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your opinions on the matter. I will keep your thoughts in mind as we proceed forward in this fight.

congressional members that believe it places an unnecessary and onerous burden on banks? I doubt it would have much support.

Look, this is very simple. I believe that all Americans should have the right to play poker online, at a decent room. I will not support legislation which further endangers that right or organization that advocates for it.

If it weren't for PPA, you wouldn't even know banks didn't want the burden of UIGEA.

I understand that. There are all-or-nothing zealots in every movement. Just don't expect PPA to adopt losing strategies based on your strong feelings in this matter.

TE, it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to say the status quo is doomed but for opt out states it will last just fine.

The DOJ will take the exact same actions against processors, and may even have a blacklist to help them do so.

Poker only processors in opt out states now clearly would violate UIGEA.

As you have said, powerful interests will look to increase the penalties against players in opt out states (50% tax, comments of the casino exec at the hearing, etc).

Do you think that instituting a state lottery made it more or less likely that authorities would go after a private numbers operation? I think the answer is pretty clearly more.

Its OK to admit that if this bill passes, some people are going to have much less and worse access to online poker. Not everything has to be a positive spin for legislation. If you live in an opt-out state, this bill is bad in the short-run. Good for the industry in the long-run and such, probably, lots of pros, unquestionably. The bill has potentially significant downsides. If the PPA ignores this, they are going to lose credibility long-term, IMO.

This is also very, very simple. I feel that this would be the best course of action for poker players. The sites have for whatever reason decided on a different tack. The minors perhaps because they are waiting for someone else to carry the water, who knows. There a many reasons why they may have decided this and the probability of the success of such an action is just one factor.

PPA, fighting for the sites!™