Some just want to fight this with hopes and dreams.

Also, no one is giving up on the opt-out states. Rather, we simply see the fight moving to those battlefields.

So simple!!! Just move!! Why do we even care about legislation then?? Lets just give up and we can all move to Canada, with 0% tax on poker winnings!!!! Or one of the hundreds of other countries in the world that allow online poker!!! Problem solved!!!

Bye

Move to Canada and your US federal tax liabilities move with you. But at least you wouldn't be paying Canadian taxes (for now, anyway).

Sometimes people do have to move to continue to work in their chosen professions. That's not to minimize the disruption and cost of moving, its merely recognizing that sometimes that is a fact of life.

Those of you who are absolutely convinced that your state will opt-out need to consider the points that have been made in this thread and others. I think most of you are far more worried about your state opting out than you need to be. But even if that is not true, the PPA will continue to fight with you, state by state as needed.

The only states I really see opting out for the long term are those totally run by the christian-right wing. I concede those moralists will probably never see the light of reason. But if you live in one of those states you also need to consider that those same political forces could totally ban online gaming and/or poker tomorrow (assuming they were smart enough to do it right).

IOW, the danger you see from any new Federal legislation is not really much different from the danger you face from State legislation right now.

If you are a professional online poker player in one of those states, you might want to consider moving anyway, whether or not any Federal legislation is passed.

Skallagrim

+1

Everyone,

States can criminalize your play now. We can fight this in court (as Lee Rousso is in Wash. state), but no PPA = no real court challenge.

If you think your state is a problem, you can't just sit back and pretend Congress -- the same Congress that voted 317-93 against us in 2006 -- will force this on your state. They won't. You have to fight at the state level, too.

Without PPA, poker in those states won't get better. It will get worse.

Again, can we please move away from saying disagree with a provision of a proposed bill=wish there was no PPA?

This isnt close to true.

To add to what TE added, while I am confident we can win our case in Washington state, I certainly can't guarantee it.

And WA is a little unique. Their biggest problem is that they banned online poker while allowing poker in their casinos and also allowing online betting on horse racing. That kind of protectionist discrimination is what we can fight in court.

But if your state has no casinos, no licensed online gaming of any kind, and (maybe) only a state lottery. Thats a much tougher court case for us.

Skallagrim

I think RainMan, Leaf Frog, and Former DJ wish there were no PPA.

I wish there weren't PPA officials that constantly put words in the mouths of others and feel the need to demonize any opposition rather then let their arguments stand on merit alone.

THIS

Also, the issue isn't over a mere provision in a broader bill. As it's a necessary provision of any poker-enabling legislation, opponents of the provision actually oppose passing ANY pro-poker federal legislation, preferring that we fight only for legislation repealing the Wire Act and UIGEA.

Which part of "I think...." was confusing?

+1

Most posters are just raising legitimate concerns and questions about specifics in the bill or legislation in general. Not bashing the PPA or wishing they didn't exist.

Of course. Most with questions are seeking discussion. Just a few are not.

If he lives in central Ohio he's about four hours driving distance to FIVE different states.

Here is where you put 'words' in my mouth, or are you going to take exception to the phrasing because this is an internet forum? I had said that I lost respect for you, not that you were unworthy of my respect. It also had nothing to do with a disagreement about the status quo, but about the effects of state opt outs on players. A complete mischaracterization of my post.
And right here on this page can be seen your efforts to demonize the 'opposition' and squash discussion.

This is a discussion forum. You can expect vigorous debate here. If you you don't like that, it's too bad.

People like you allowed UIGEA. Too many poker players felt bills from Congress could only hurt poker and suggested that we all stay nice and quiet. Well, we saw what that got us.

Many of us have no intention of allowing that to happen again. You should expect tough, challenging responses to your anti-poker legislation posts.

im confused are you just saying 33% as in your income tax rate or 33% on top of that?

Even if this was true which I dont think it is, its still not the same as saying that the PPA shouldnt exist or the PPA is a negative influence.

The structure of opt outs, whether the 50% tax is a dealbreaker, whether opt outs should drive us to other options (states, legislation, etc) are all debatable points.

PPA has their viewpoints, and thats fine, but sometimes it seems like everyone needs to take a loyalty oath where they agree with everything the PPA does or else they dont want the organization to exist. Or it seems like you feel the need to justify the PPA's existence.

That shouldnt be the case, IMHO. The PPA's positive influence speaks for itself.

Yes, we're working on the 50%. That's not what the discussion here is. Rather, LeapFrog says he objects to FTP or PS pulling out of opt-out states.

Skallagrim and I speak for ourselves here. I've been posting here since prior even to joining the PPA as a member and I didn't relinquish that right when I joined the PPA Board.

Yes and you should also expect vigorous debate and not feel a need to demonize other's opinions or discredit them by calling them trolls etc...

I don't suggest we stay quiet, but I also suggest we don't pursue bad legislation that hurts poker players. Especially when status-quo isn't so bad right now.

We are PPA members too, and I think a good organization should listen to its members and encourage debate, and be sympathetic to other's concerns.

There's little if any debate going on, a certain subset of posters keep repeating the same point(s) over and over and over and over again, ad infinitum.

That's why this forum exists.

That's all part of the debate.

History is littered with gaming that failed because it was not recognized as legitimate by the jurisdictions in which it operated. If you honestly believe the status quo will last for twenty years, you can make that case here.

The PPA will definitely hear you out. Feel free to email them anytime.

However, this is not the PPA forum and I'm not here solely to represent PPA. While I do share with you all what PPA is doing, I post my own opinions.

This distinction is doubly important for my modding here. I don't represent PPA in my modding at all. Rather, I mod as an individual poster on behalf of Mason, Mat, and Two Plus Two.

I do not think the PPA has an obligation to be sympathetic to the opposition it is facing in this thread. The fact of the matter is that most of the opposition they have faced in the week since the mark up has been from players who either do not understand the limitations on congressional power, or do not understand the risk of doing nothing or think they live in opt out states.

Just my opinion, but: I have not seen a single opposing viewpoint on this bill that did not begin from one of those three premises.

The counter arguments have all been made time and again:

1. Opt outs are constitutionally required, and even if they weren't, they are a political necessity.

2. Doing nothing means giving a clear field for opponents to push for a ban. The push for this legislation took the initiative from our opponents, forcing them onto the defensive. Thus, even if this were a bad bill, trying to push it through Congress is an effective way of preserving the status quo for the time being.

3. Some players will take a hit when their state opts out. The number of players who take this hit can be kept to a minimum by existing and future lobbying in those states that might opt out. In any event, most states are expected to opt in, and, therefore, supporting this bill is what is best for the majority of PPA's membership.

A small minority of posters have completely ignored these arguments and continued to attack the PPA, TE and Skallagrim. In my view, any obligation they have to demonstrate sympathy for the ignorance and selfishness-based concerns of a tiny minority arguing from fear and ignorance and without a single fact behind them has long since been met.

Thanks for the insult TE. No, what I wish is that the PPA would not support a bill that will make me a criminal if I choose to remain in the state where I have lived for 55 years, that state (Alabama) chooses to opt-out, and I still want to play online poker. If my state opts out, then I'm relegated to playing on "illegal" unlicensed sites - in addition to being subjected to a 50 percent deposit tax if I do choose (or risk) playing on one of the unlicensed (overseas) sites. I don't know of any other major member-supported organization - such as the AARP or the NRA - that supports legislation that would, in effect, turn some of their members into criminals.

As for those of you who believe that opt-outs will only occur in a handful of states dominated by "Christian right-wing conservative fundamentalists," there's an excellent chance that California will opt out - along with Texas and Massachusetts. That's at least a quarter of the current online poker market here in the United States. All you folks ready to move?

Former DJ