Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Legislation for Poker & Income Taxes for Poker Players Discussions of various poker-related laws and steps players can take to push for better laws.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-2010, 03:13 PM   #476
txbarbarossa
grinder
 
txbarbarossa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 430
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahSD View Post
I don't think the credit card thing is a big deal at all. Credit card companies try to stay away from gambling anyway. If we can use debit cards or something like netteller then we'll be fine.
I agree in principle on Credit Cards. Gone are the Wild Wild West days of 2004. That was the gold rush. But I'd like to see online turn into what we have at a live card room which is why I'm in favor of US regulation.

The big issue is state opt-outs. It must a major process for them and it must be done by the legislature.
txbarbarossa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:14 PM   #477
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
OK, but the state revenue component is in the bill that has the 50% tax.

Right now we have a bill providing no revenue to the states but where states can opt out. Does that sound like a good plan?

So, at some point we have to get that tax out in order to include the state revenue. Anything from today's hearing give you hope we can accomplish that?
There is no short cut. This goes through Congress.

I like being a full time player. Please don't make be go back to driving through the winter snow to be in the office at 7:30 am or earlier just because we fear winning this. I realize you'll all enjoy the remaining year or two of status quo we'd get if we gave up passing legislation and went straight to defense, but I wasn't planning on retiring in two years. Thanks.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:15 PM   #478
numberline
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 80
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by dblgutted View Post
I've criticized stars quite a bit, but the fact remains it is the best/safest/most secure site out there and I'd much rather rely on their security team to sort out and compensate for colluders & bots than I would some Indian tribe that just got high-speed internet a couple years ago and who can't wait to put all their friends/family in positions of authority they are not qualified to hold...
A complete straw man argument. What makes you think this will actually happen? You think anybody would play at such a site?

What would be likely is that there would be a gold rush for a few years. Eventually the sites with the best games and best reputation will win out...just like we have now. As long as there isn't some ridiculous monopoly granted - and nothing in the current bill suggests there would be - then the market will sort out the best sites.
numberline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:15 PM   #479
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPFisher55 View Post
The only really bad thing about this amendment is that it may not be good for PPA's finances.
Good news. I can confirm that Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars continue to support this bill 100%.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:17 PM   #480
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Frank says we're up for votes after the recess, still right at 3:20.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:18 PM   #481
nuts busted
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 349
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Good news. I can confirm that Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars continue to support this bill 100%.
Terrific news!
nuts busted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:18 PM   #482
sluggger5x
John Connor of poker
 
sluggger5x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fight for Poker Rights Action Thred
Posts: 5,592
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

here we go....
sluggger5x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:18 PM   #483
BetzPH
grinder
 
BetzPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 435
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Good news. I can confirm that Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars continue to support this bill 100%.
vamooooooooooooooooooooooooo
BetzPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:19 PM   #484
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
but since the status quo is crumbling as you constantly remind us, why does it matter? Plus it could be years before we see an legal decision, right? Is the status quo going to last for years?
The status quo probably lasts for as long as we're able to keep pro-poker legislation in Congress. That's been our best defense from bills that seek to take the status quo from us.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:20 PM   #485
oldbookguy
veteran
 
oldbookguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,025
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

The video is back, recess over.

obg
oldbookguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:20 PM   #486
antneye
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
antneye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Fighting for my right to play poker
Posts: 6,881
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Good news. I can confirm that Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars continue to support this bill 100%.

This is huge. Do the naysayers really think they would support a bill that would have them on the outside looking in?

I am all warm and tingly right now. I know we have a long fight ahead....but jus think back to where we were just a few short years ago.
antneye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:20 PM   #487
Halstad
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Halstad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,563
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
There is no short cut. This goes through Congress.

I like being a full time player. Please don't make be go back to driving through the winter snow to be in the office at 7:30 am or earlier just because we fear winning this. I realize you'll all enjoy the remaining year or two of status quo we'd get if we gave up passing legislation and went straight to defense, but I wasn't planning on retiring in two years. Thanks.
How much freaking snow do you get in Kentucky?
Halstad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:20 PM   #488
MrAce777
adept
 
MrAce777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 833
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

What are the chances of this bill passing the committee? What can we expect from all the other House members that have no clue about this bill?
MrAce777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:22 PM   #489
dblgutted
adept
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: wenzhou
Posts: 731
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by numberline View Post
A complete straw man argument. What makes you think this will actually happen?
I'm saying that's how Indian casinos work, and Indian tribes have a much more powerful lobby than anyone else at the table.
dblgutted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:22 PM   #490
JPFisher55
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 3,425
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

I agree that litigation has risk. Skall put our odds equal to QQ v. AJ. I agree and these odds apply to the whole case after appeal; not to the trial court decision which IMO is 50-50. I don't trust or like trial court judges; just look at the AZ case preliminary decision.

OTOH, I disagree about the results of losing and winning. A loss would provide the clarity that online poker=sports betting under US law. However, more sports books serve the US market than poker rooms. A win would cause many new US companies to establish poker rooms serving the US market. These new companies would not want Congress to go backward to the alleged UIGEA days. IMO, legislation overturning a litigation win would not be likely or quick. More likely, Congress would entertain a bill similar to HR 2267 or S1597, but the PPA's position for positive terms would be greater.

I am disappointed that the PPA was not able to get any favorable amendments, like state opt out requires a state law, introduced or passed. At least the present amendments do not ruin the bill, but it is still a gamble. But IMO, it is a better gamble than litigation.

However, what happens if it does not become law and the GOP takes over one or both houses of Congress?
JPFisher55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:23 PM   #491
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Halstad View Post
How much freaking snow do you get in Kentucky?
I have to drive over the Ohio river to get to work (if I do go back to engineering, it will be in Cincinnati). It doesn't take much to make the drive horribly crappy.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:24 PM   #492
danxxx1
journeyman
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 2006 WSOP Final Table
Posts: 395
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Is there a link to watch the live vote?

thanks
danxxx1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:24 PM   #493
Bogglor
grinder
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 645
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

What is Barney doing?
Bogglor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:25 PM   #494
eersfan
journeyman
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 386
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogglor View Post
What is Barney doing?
This is one of the amendments from Bachus I believe. We want no.
eersfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:26 PM   #495
Bogglor
grinder
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 645
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by eersfan View Post
This is one of the amendments from Bachus I believe. We want no.
TY. It wasn't clear just coming in to the broadcast and hearing a bunch of Is and Nos
Bogglor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:26 PM   #496
GloupnaktouK
adept
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 749
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPFisher55 View Post
I agree that litigation has risk. Skall put our odds equal to QQ v. AJ. I agree and these odds apply to the whole case after appeal; not to the trial court decision which IMO is 50-50. I don't trust or like trial court judges; just look at the AZ case preliminary decision.

OTOH, I disagree about the results of losing and winning. A loss would provide the clarity that online poker=sports betting under US law. However, more sports books serve the US market than poker rooms. A win would cause many new US companies to establish poker rooms serving the US market. These new companies would not want Congress to go backward to the alleged UIGEA days. IMO, legislation overturning a litigation win would not be likely or quick. More likely, Congress would entertain a bill similar to HR 2267 or S1597, but the PPA's position for positive terms would be greater.

I am disappointed that the PPA was not able to get any favorable amendments, like state opt out requires a state law, introduced or passed. At least the present amendments do not ruin the bill, but it is still a gamble. But IMO, it is a better gamble than litigation.

However, what happens if it does not become law and the GOP takes over one or both houses of Congress?
You like New-Zealand?
GloupnaktouK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:27 PM   #497
NoahSD
Is Right
 
NoahSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,865
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

lol they really need a better system for doing this.
NoahSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:27 PM   #498
Bogglor
grinder
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 645
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

I like this clerk a lot more. Speed vote taking ftw.
Bogglor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:27 PM   #499
Mission810
stranger
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

What was the Bacca amendmant that was defeated?
Mission810 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 03:27 PM   #500
dlk9s
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
dlk9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Correct, as usual.
Posts: 22,491
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

First amendment was no, but I don't know what it was - I just tuned in at the end of the vote.
dlk9s is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive