They are correct (except for sports betting which wouldn't be allowed), HR 2267 is for all gaming. Casino and poker, though states can choose to opt out of whatever games they choose.

Pretty safe to assume that the answer to your question is "completely accurately" IMO.

The House bill that just passed a committee vote (the Barney Frank bill) covers both casino gambling and poker, but not sports betting. The Senate bill (the Menendez bill) covers just skill games, including poker.

The final bill is undetermined, but the important thing is that it will include poker sites.

I would be absolutely shocked if Pokerstars continued to operate in the U.S. if they were denied a license. They are much too reputable a company to operate in a country with an explicit licensing and regulation regime as an unlicensed provider, imo.

I'm really not concerned with that, though. I think they will get a license, as will FT, and deservedly so. But even if they don't, I think there would have to be creative ways for them to sell their U.S. facing business or perhaps reincorporate under a new umbrella with a U.S. partner. FT, in particular, since the majority of their business is U.S., would make a pretty easy sale to someone like Wynn that wants to instantly enter the market as a leading force.

I thought the bill made it so that unlicensed providers cant sell their software or business or anything to someone who was a licensed provider? Or more accurately that someone wishing to be licensed couldnt purchase such a business or such software.

Close. The bill disqualifies a site from getting a license if they have purchased the software, business or mailing list of a site that has engaged in illegal gambling activity.

So there's no way that a Wynn or someone would do this because they'd be tied up in court for years proving FT/PS weren't engaging in illegal activity. If it didnt need a court battle, Stars/FT would just enter the market.

Yeah, I wasn't aware of that language. I agree with what you are saying above. Stars/FT will just have to prevail in the licensing process.

So I've been thinking about this:

Couldn't there be a provision for states that opt-out where players that have filed as professional gamblers and payed their taxes for say 3 years be allowed to stay in their state and continue playing poker? It should be obvious at that point that these people aren't degenerate gamblers and they're willing to pay taxes to the state so where's the harm in continuing to let them play?

I doubt this would happen or they would care what you did for the last three years.

So I asked a few people this but I would like a few more opinions. Do you think this will take effect by the end of the year?

So whats the latest on this bill getting revised, passed through, or whatever they were going to have done by the end of today?

FYP.

Nothing this week. Congress is in recess until September.

Oh my bad. I listened to 2+2 podcast and I thought they were supposed to do something by today but I see that was for last week.

so you dont think it will be done by december

Not at all what I said or meant. I think there is about a 25% chance of a bill passing by the end of this legislative session this year. Just my guess.

What was the % chance that people thought this bill would be passed anyway? Never really kept up with it

I doubt it would happen either but if there's a chance it would, then I think it's worth pursuing. And I do think they would care because it shows a track record of being a profitable self-employed individual playing poker and not a degenerate gambler.

I think there is zero chance of a two-tier system in any state. I don't even know how a state would track a list of residents permitted to play.

I believe you but why?

There are several reasons. One is that there is no mechanism in the opt-out process for a state to provide Treasury with a list of individuals authorized by that state to play online poker on licensed sites from within that state. Another is that states have no reason at all to go through that effort.

Yet another is the fact that a state is likely to decide either to participate or not to participate. They are either in or out of each area (poker, casino gaming, etc.). One more issue is figuring out how to add or subtract players from this list year after year.

As I believe the state would have to pass a law implementing all this, it seems extremely unlikely.

I think he's asking why you guys cant push to have this feature included in the opt out clause, not whether its possible as the bill is currently structured.

Obviously i dont think there is support for this within Congress, but he's asking to amend the bill.

We don't write the bills. We tell lawmakers what we want, but they have to incorporate it. I can't imagine any of them adding this to the opt-out. Also, I can't imagine any state deciding to opt out because they don't wish to participate, yet then going through the trouble of maintaining a list of authorized players.

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to politics but why would the treasury need the list? The IRS and state would have the list because the "exempted" players would have filed taxes for at least three years.

I don't think the states would necessarily have to do anything. Someone (maybe the state, maybe not) would give the poker sites the list of exempted players and the only thing the state would do is collect taxes. I do think they have some incentive to do this because a lot of professional players will be leaving their state and paying taxes somewhere else.

Adding or subtracting players could be handled through an application or license process where the applicant is granted a temporary playing status until they're able to prove they can be profitable for an extended period of time. I doubt many of the recreational players would take the time to go through the process although it's possible some of the degenerate gamblers would. Depending on how strict the application requirements were though, you could probably weed out most of the degenerates.

Add to the fact that not many players would support this, except for the select few professionals that would benefit. Almost like letting in more sharks, but keeping out fish