On that topic, let's remember that our fight has helped preserved the right to play in Mass. (and possibly Ohio as well).

Limits???

Once we pass legislation and the prospective license holders are identified, expect lots of lobbying! In fact, I imagine state lobbyists will be as happy as poker players once this passes.

I hope everyone will visit www.theppa.org/takeaction and send both letters. Once done, we should each should call every recipient, as those are the ones we need to convince.

tl;dr, so here's the cliffs:

I'm in Texas and I hope it passes. I guess I've lost the shortsightedness and selfishness of my youth. In my opinion this bill will greatly help the majority of players in this country. If it hurts me, so be it.

Is Texas a likely opt-out state? Probably. Not because a majority of citizens of the state are against gambling/poker, they're not. But the Governor (who was for gambling before he was against it - he indicated his support for slot machines at horse tracks circa 2003) and his Democratic opponent have both stated they're against the expansion of gambling. We all know why, to get the religious vote. I'll leave it to the reader to decide if the millions ($800,000 to the current Governor) that Oklahoma tribes have donated to Texas politicians might also have something to do with it.

Texas might be interesting though. Some of my more strident Baptist friends have come a long way. When the lottery was proposed in the early 90's, they gave their best doom and gloom speeches and proclaimed the world was going to end (a slight exaggeration on my part, but you get the flavor of the times). Several months ago we added Powerball to the six other lottery games that exist and they didn't complain at all. I was very surprised to hear the spokesperson for one of the religious groups that they always go to for his anti-gambling/poker quotes actually state that since we already had a state lottery and Mega Millions, it wasn't really that big of a deal. I think since online poker is something that isn't seen as a Vegas style casino with flashing lights on every corner, they may not be as opposed as they have been to putting casinos and card rooms in Texas.

Will I move? If I need to, but I don't think I will. I've got friends and family in several probable opt-in states who are ready to assist if need be.

The governor's political stance on gambling probably has little to do with whether or not the state opts out. The state by default will be opted in. To opt out, it will probably take an act of the state legislature. The governor can just sit back and do nothing. As long as the legislature can't pass a bill/referendum to opt out, the state will remain opted in.

Could anyone save me 74 pages of reading with a one word answer? xD



Will this bill be good/bad/no change

Yes.

FYP

Not exactly one word. And this is the "worst-case-scenario, doomsday" viewpoint.

Many of us expect, along with the sites themselves, that PS and FTP will get a license.

Many of us expect most of the states to remain part of the licensing sytem, and most of those that do opt out to opt back in before long.

About a half dozen of the regular posters are of the opinion that this licensing bill will be worse than not passing any bill. As a counter point, I expect online poker to be all but dead in the U.S. within 8 years if no federal licensing bill is passed, with the exception of some intrastate protectionist sites. (However, I do expect federal licensing to pass within that timeframe.)

The bill markup and Yes vote in committee was a win, and a big step in the direction of passing federal legislation.

PX presents the best case scenario.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between with 25ish states opting in, most of the rest coming back to the system over 10-20 years, and maybe a couple of intrastate sites.

Stars and FTP are more likely than not NOT to get a license. Im not sure that's really going to matter for players long-term, but when you have supporters of the bill saying "We wouldnt let Al Capone have a license after prohibition" or something to that effect, its pretty clear which direction the final bill is going to push.

We are almost certainly, in the aggregate, better off over the long-term (10 years plus) passing something like the current bill. Over the short and medium term we are likely better off, but its not certain and there are more winners and losers.

So, you think legalized, regulated poker with some states opting out would in "half the player pool" that you currently have now?

m wondering about the article i read on pokerstars setting up an office in santa monica. if this bill goes through will we see pokerstars.ca where you only play against californians like in france?

So will people under 21 not be able to play at all? Like if my friend is 19 can he play and then transfer me the money or will pokerstars ban his account. I would think they would only know about age when withdrawing.

Well I guess it would be better for people in opt-out states if FT and Stars can't get a license, as they would continue to offer play to people in those states. If they do get a license, they're sure to not allow people in opt-out states to play even if they do pay a deposit penalty in order to keep there licenses.

No, this creates a federal network (that will likely accept international players as well) and will not segregate by state. Each individual state will have the choice of whether or not to allow its citizens to play on this federal network, but it won't be separate networks by state.
It is pretty clear that the sites will not accept accounts from players under 21, as part of whatever age/identity verification process they go through. Why would they only know about age when withdrawing?

There will probably be age verification for all accounts, not just for withdrawals.

No. This federal bill is for one license for all states, except states have the option to opt out. Players will be altogether on one site, probably with an combined international player pool as well.

IF CA decides to opt out of federal license, they will probably start their own intrastate licensing program. If PS can get a CA license, they will likely start PS.ca, which might or might not be allowed to have a combined player pool with other PS sites. However, the CA intrastate system is likely to be protectionist for in-state b&m casinos, restricting licenses and shutting out sites like PS.

Thank you to all of the people fighting for our freedom to play online poker out of our own homes.

I am trying to get caught up to speed on a state's ability to opt out and if you people thought that Illinois would likely opt-in or opt-out?

Also if you thought Illinois were likely to opt-out who I could contact or what I could do to help in the fight?

Thanks.

A licensed site will lose their license if they allow players from opt out states.

Here is the thread about predicting individual state opt outs:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...thread-835530/

I can't say for sure they would leave If they don't get a license but it's possible that sites like ps/ft would pull out of the US if denied a license.

Right now they have legal opinions that say they aren't violating any US laws,IF they don't get license and still allowed US players they could no longer say they aren't violating US law.

I just wonder if they might have to leave (if clearly unlawful) or it might effect their standing in places where they are licensed or wish to be.

The interesting question is that if HR 2267 becomes law and CA can opt out of the federal licensing system, then does that give CA the power to establish its own online poker system that discriminates against outside companies in favor of in state companies? I'm not sure that it does. IMO CA can opt out, but establishing a clearly protectionist online poker network would still violate the commerce clause.

You might be correct if they only allow or grant license to certain intrastate interests. But what if they allowed open competition (nationally or internationally) for a CA license to operate in an CA intrastate online poker system.

how will they be verifying ages?




have alot of friends worried about this.

Ianal, but I thought the commerce clause says that congress can regulate interstate commerce, not that states vcant. For example, ny and nj have a port authority that does lots of stuff with transit between the two. I think that their allowed to do that unless congress passes a law contradicting something the port authority does.

Of course, the specific language of the bill may prevent california from doing something like that. I don't think it does tho.

That system might be lawful. OTOH, judging from the last bill, could it be passed?

States can regulate interstate commerce to some degree, but not if preempted by the federal government and not if the state discriminates against out of state interests in favor of in state interests.

And of course, a state cannot do anything to counter illegal immigration, after all a federal judge just ruled that it cannot?

I've been under the impression that this bill concerned online poker and no other forms of gambling. From what I've been reading in NYT and other mainstream newspapers, they seem to believe that you'd be able to play blackjack, roulette, etc. and do sports betting if this law passed. They've got their information wrong, correct?