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 07-29-2010, 11:44 PM   #876
LeapFrog
Pooh-Bah
 
LeapFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rosetta Stoned
Posts: 5,538
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
If PPA were to stop pushing legislation in Congress, which is what you're advocating (no one will introduce a bill forcing poker on Utah),...
for the love of god, can you please stop putting words in my mouth? Please? Just because I oppose bills with state opt-outs doesn't mean I don't want to push good legislation.
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 11:44 PM   #877
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Former DJ View Post
TE, PX, and Skall have stated explicitly (or implied) that I'm clueless with my half-baked "conspiracy theory" since both Stars and Full Tilt are urging their players to support the PPA and the passage of Barney Frank's HR 2267. Considering HR 2267's rather harsh sanctions against "illegal operators" - along with amendments expressly stating that [present] "offshore operators" should not be granted a license to operate in the U.S. market - one might wonder why Stars and Full Tilt would be supporting a bill that is a loaded gun aimed right at their heads?
They do not believe this applies to them, and the have legal opinions backing that up. They also know that the status quo will not last forever, so they wish to move forward while continuing to build support for the overall pro-poker position.

Quote:
All of this is pure speculation on my part
That should be the signature for all your posts.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 11:46 PM   #878
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
for the love of god, can you please stop putting words in my mouth? Please? Just because I oppose bills with state opt-outs doesn't mean I don't want to push good legislation.
Pick up a high school civics textbook. Congress simply does not force things like this on the states, especially ones with no commercial gaming. Sorry. I wish they would.

With that, can you share with us the type of bill you'd like to see before Congress and how you'd expect it to pass?
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 11:47 PM   #879
LeapFrog
Pooh-Bah
 
LeapFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rosetta Stoned
Posts: 5,538
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Congress would ban unlicensed poker within two years.

You can fight for two more years of a status quo if you want, but we'll fight for a stable, growing system into which states will wish to enter.
nice crystal ball btw, do you know where I can get one?
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 11:49 PM   #880
LeapFrog
Pooh-Bah
 
LeapFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rosetta Stoned
Posts: 5,538
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Pick up a high school civics textbook. Congress simply does not force things like this on the states, especially ones with no commercial gaming. Sorry. I wish they would.

With that, can you share with us the type of bill you'd like to see before Congress and how you'd expect it to pass?
well sorry, I'm unwilling to throw millions of poker players under the bus with state opt outs. Seems ironic you are, but we live in strange times.

I would rather fight for legislation unlikely to pass, then sell out millions of poker players who just want to be able to enjoy a reasonable (quality that is) game from their homes.
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 11:51 PM   #881
What?
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 393
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by novahunterpa View Post
I think overall things will be great for those in opt-in states, I do think the games will look a bit different then they do today but overall should be good. If you live in an opt-out state it's going to suck, any sites serving those in opt-out states will be on the banned list and it's going to be much harder then it is today to process financial transactions.
Why do you think the banned list will be worse then what we have now?
What? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2010, 11:52 PM   #882
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
Stars and Tilt think they can win an argument that they are serving the market legally and, therefore, can get licensed. I dont think they are going to get licensed, but I can see the sites deciding that the chance of licensing is worth the risk of losing the status quo. They are also at the same point we are: if they do outright oppose the bill, they feed into their opponents hands, hurt the chances of regulation, and pretty much assure they are never getting licensed. This way they are perceived as supporters of regulated online poker. Again, I dont think it will work, but I dont think it needs a grand conspiracy theory to explain their behavior.
Also, if it's close, I imagine some sort of settlement could be negotiated. After all, it's in Congress' interest to have FTP's and PS's players join the system. That's not the case for the current online casino gaming sites, which are probably the intended targets of that amendment.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:00 AM   #883
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jussurreal View Post
TE no matter how you twist or turn it, for players in opt out states:

It is better to be able to play poker online and not know what the future holds than it is for the bill to pass, not have poker, and still not know what the future holds.

I think over 95% of players in opt out states will agree with me.
I'm not twisting anything. There's no denying that PPA's efforts, which included pushing bills with opt outs, have stopped Congress from taking further action against online poker. Imagine if we decided we'd not press for federal legislation in 2007. Where would we be now?

This effort has clearly extended the status quo in opt out states. And, if we stop now, this will clearly cause the failure of the status quo in those same states (as well as all the others). How is that better?
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:02 AM   #884
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 (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
well sorry, I'm unwilling to throw millions of poker players under the bus with state opt outs. Seems ironic you are, but we live in strange times.

I would rather fight for legislation unlikely to pass, then sell out millions of poker players who just want to be able to enjoy a reasonable (quality that is) game from their homes.
At this point, I think you need to take up your bitterness with the states who opt out. Better some states make the wrong choice, than the entire union.
sluggger5x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:07 AM   #885
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
nice crystal ball btw, do you know where I can get one?
Sure do. Just look at the recent past and the present. You saw Congress oppose us 317-93 on the UIGEA House vote. You saw 45 state attorneys general oppose our right to play. You saw FoF, the NFL, the states, lotteries, and B&Ms all arguing against this. You also heard the testimony yesterday, where there was no love of the status quo evident in the entire room. That's all we need to know.

As an engineer, if I looked at a structure with no real foundation, I'd be able to provide a decent prediction of how long it would stand. As that's what we have, I'm offering up the same analysis.

This is somewhat simple. Either U.S. based B&Ms are getting in or it's all getting banned. There is no possible alternative. The only debate is the length of time.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:11 AM   #886
Skallagrim
PPA Board Member/LSN Dir
 
Skallagrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: It's a PPA post only if so stated
Posts: 6,713
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jussurreal View Post
TE no matter how you twist or turn it, for players in opt out states:

It is better to be able to play poker online and not know what the future holds than it is for the bill to pass, not have poker, and still not know what the future holds.

I think over 95% of players in opt out states will agree with me.
I am very confident that I live in an opt-in state (New Hampshire) but I agree with you Jussureal: online poker for those in opt-out states will not be as good as it is under the status quo

But it is not wrong for TE to also note that it is not the falling of the sky for those players either. We have, and are continuing to work, to make sure that nothing in any new bill changes anything for PLAYERS in opt-out states except for one thing (and I agree its a big thing): players in opt-out states will not be able to play on the big international sites licensed with the US; those sites will have to respect the state's opt-out.

So if you live in a state that opts-out the best way to envision your future is to take your status quo situation and subtract FTP and Stars for certain. Also subtract those smaller sites/networks that may well chose to seek a license. Can you still play poker? Yes. Is it near as good as being able to play the large sites/networks? No.

But a good number of people do like Bodog Poker (for example). There will always be some sites for those in opt-out states to play at, just like there are plenty of sites for you to make sports bets. And it would hardly be surprising if some new poker-only site in a (safe) foreign jurisdiction emerged specifically to service the opt-out states.

That is a basic factual summary of what to expect in an opt-out state. Folks are free to spin it either way, of course.

In my mind the long term effort requires moving past a few states. Some will always opt-out. Those that truly opt-out for moral reasons will probably take generations to change. But most will opt-out because of fear (regarding the cost to either B&Ms, Tribes, State Lotteries, or State social services, etc...). When the rest of the country demonstrates that legal online poker is nothing to fear for any of the legitimate interests, most states will opt back in.

Skallagrim

Last edited by Skallagrim; 07-30-2010 at 12:18 AM.
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:12 AM   #887
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
well sorry, I'm unwilling to throw millions of poker players under the bus with state opt outs. Seems ironic you are, but we live in strange times.
That's exactly what you're advocating, but for all of us.

Quote:
I would rather fight for legislation unlikely to pass, then sell out millions of poker players who just want to be able to enjoy a reasonable (quality that is) game from their homes.
How can you fight for a bill no one will introduce? How would you rally players around an all-or-nothing pipe dream?

Why do you fear fighting at the state level for states to participate? I guarantee that's more doable than hoping you can get someone to introduce a bill to force poker on Utah.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:12 AM   #888
LeapFrog
Pooh-Bah
 
LeapFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rosetta Stoned
Posts: 5,538
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
The only debate is the length of time.
I thought it was within 2 years. Where is the debate?
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:14 AM   #889
LeapFrog
Pooh-Bah
 
LeapFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rosetta Stoned
Posts: 5,538
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
That's exactly what you're advocating, but for all of us.



How can you fight for a bill no one will introduce? How would you rally players around an all-or-nothing pipe dream?

Why do you fear fighting at the state level for states to participate? I guarantee that's more doable than hoping you can get someone to introduce a bill to force poker on Utah.
if there would have been legal challenges years ago we at least would have another avenue. I know you keep mumbling about new legislation trumping that, but again, you don't have a crystal ball.

Thanks for your efforts.
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:15 AM   #890
[x] swanny
formerly Nepa
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Stuck @home
Posts: 2,149
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post

This is somewhat simple. Either U.S. based B&Ms are getting in or it's all getting banned. There is no possible alternative. The only debate is the length of time.
I have to cry BS on this one. They tried to Ban it before and we still have a bunch of sites that we can play US.

My only problem with the bill is if they, the US govt, Try to shut out Stars and Full Tilt I feel that this would be anti-competitive. Why not have Harrarhs and The Sands complete against Stars and FT? Are they scared of the competition?

Also, Wouldn't it be further violation of the WTO agreement by banning Stars and FT? We can be looking at an all and out Trade war over On-line poker.


Excuse me if I'm way off with this. I'm only reading in bits and pieces and I'm not a lawyer.
[x] swanny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:15 AM   #891
novahunterpa
Pooh-Bah
 
novahunterpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Triple Range Merging
Posts: 5,244
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by What? View Post
Why do you think the banned list will be worse then what we have now?
Right now FI (financial institutions) don't have any idea what or who to block under UIGEA. They also have no idea what constitutes unlawful online gambling and it's up to the FI to figure out who to block.

Once there's is a list of lawful licensed sites it will be easy for banks to process these legal transactions, as well as a "bad" list of unlawful unlicensed sites that they can easily block. These lists be readily available to law enforcement and financial institutions, it will allow them to enforce UIGEA, they will finally have a clear definition of the U (unlawful) in UIGEA. Everyone will know who the lawful and unlawful sites are.

Also this leaves little doubt as to the legality of online poker in the US for sites as well as processors. If this bill passes sites can longer say they aren't violating any US laws if they offer online poker to US players and the site doesn't have a US license. If say PS/FT don't get a US license and continue to allow US players they can no longer claim they are not breaking US law.

Last edited by novahunterpa; 07-30-2010 at 12:16 AM. Reason: typo
novahunterpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:18 AM   #892
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
well sorry, I'm unwilling to throw millions of poker players under the bus with state opt outs. Seems ironic you are, but we live in strange times.

I would rather fight for legislation unlikely to pass, then sell out millions of poker players who just want to be able to enjoy a reasonable (quality that is) game from their homes.
I'm doing my part. I requested that PPA implement a letter to state officials and wrote the letter we're using myself. I encouraged PPA to lobby various states at specific opportunities. I even helped lead the attack on the Minnesota online poker ISP block effort, including writing virtually all of the talking points.

Here's a shot of me on Monday, on my own donated time, speaking at the National Council of State Legislators (I looked for you...I must have missed you):

Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:19 AM   #893
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Also, if it's close, I imagine some sort of settlement could be negotiated. After all, it's in Congress' interest to have FTP's and PS's players join the system. That's not the case for the current online casino gaming sites, which are probably the intended targets of that amendment.
Why do you think that? They'll just join on Harrah's.com instead of Pokerstars.

Quote:
1. Will anyone who thinks Harrahs will buy Party PLEASE reaad the news ....

a. Party is officially meging into bwin.....

b. Harrahs could not afford or further leverage itself to buy any large online operator.

c. Someone taking over Harrahs, via its debt, is much more likely.
Thank you TPCEO, Ive argued over this in the past and it puts me on life tilt when the counterargument is "Harrah's has deep pockets and will just buy ____". Not after LBO'ng at the cyclical and leverage peak.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:19 AM   #894
[x] swanny
formerly Nepa
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Stuck @home
Posts: 2,149
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by novahunterpa View Post
Right now FI (financial institutions) don't have any idea what or who to block under UIGEA. They also have no idea what constitutes unlawful online gambling and it's up to the FI to figure out who to block.

Once there's is a list of lawful licensed sites it will be easy for banks to process these legal transactions, as well as a "bad" list of unlawful unlicensed sites that they can easily block. These lists be readily available to law enforcement and financial institutions, it will allow them to enforce UIGEA, they will finally have a clear definition of the U (unlawful) in UIGEA. Everyone will know who the lawful and unlawful sites are.

Also this leaves little doubt as to the legality of online poker in the US for sites as well as processors. If this bill passes sites can longer say they aren't violating any US laws if they offer online poker to US players and the site doesn't have a US license. If say PS/FT don't get a US license and continue to allow US players they can no longer claim they are not breaking US law.
If the UnLicense site is better than the Licensed site where do you think I'll be playing? I'm sure they'll still be able to send a check to some Lawyer in FLA to make sure I get paid. How are the banks going to determine where a check is from?
[x] swanny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:21 AM   #895
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
I thought it was within 2 years. Where is the debate?
That's my opinion. It's certainly debatable.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:23 AM   #896
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
if there would have been legal challenges years ago we at least would have another avenue. I know you keep mumbling about new legislation trumping that, but again, you don't have a crystal ball.

Thanks for your efforts.
If that were a slam dunk, sites would have done it a long time ago.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:26 AM   #897
Jussurreal
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 395
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
Sure do. Just look at the recent past and the present. You saw Congress oppose us 317-93 on the UIGEA House vote. You saw 45 state attorneys general oppose our right to play. You saw FoF, the NFL, the states, lotteries, and B&Ms all arguing against this. You also heard the testimony yesterday, where there was no love of the status quo evident in the entire room. That's all we need to know.

As an engineer, if I looked at a structure with no real foundation, I'd be able to provide a decent prediction of how long it would stand. As that's what we have, I'm offering up the same analysis.

This is somewhat simple. Either U.S. based B&Ms are getting in or it's all getting banned. There is no possible alternative. The only debate is the length of time.
Just to be fair we have also seen online sports gambling go on untouched for about 15 years now. Sports gambling was banned before online sports gambling was even an option. They do go after the operators and processors but any person with a computer can make a sports bet tomorrow for about as much as they want to bet. They can get paid out for the win and they aren't breaking any federal laws. In most states they are committing a misdemeanor and that is a grey area because it is on the internet. 1 person has been arrested for this and it was because they thought he was a bookie.

Why then would congress ban something that has actual court wins as far as it being a game of skill?

The UIGEA is something that most of congress regrets now. It was passed without a vote in the senate. A few men made the UIGEA happen.

Its not like online poker has a huge opposition. And yes part of that has to do with the PPA. I just don't think online poker would be outlawed. Poker was recently totally legalized in a state considered conservative.

Last edited by Jussurreal; 07-30-2010 at 12:32 AM.
Jussurreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:27 AM   #898
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepa View Post
I have to cry BS on this one. They tried to Ban it before and we still have a bunch of sites that we can play US.
Yes, they did try to ban it. However, they had to water down the bill that became UIGEA because they couldn't get the finer points negotiated. Immediately after it passed, Bob Goodlatte promised to introduce legislation to finish what UIGEA started.

We were very fortunate to get a bill strong enough to wake us up but too weak to deliver the knock-out punch.

Quote:
My only problem with the bill is if they, the US govt, Try to shut out Stars and Full Tilt I feel that this would be anti-competitive. Why not have Harrarhs and The Sands complete against Stars and FT? Are they scared of the competition?

Also, Wouldn't it be further violation of the WTO agreement by banning Stars and FT? We can be looking at an all and out Trade war over On-line poker.
FTP and PS have lobbyists on the Hill representing them. They also have a large customer base that any licensed U.S. system would like to see absorbed into it. That would improve compliance greatly.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:31 AM   #899
[x] swanny
formerly Nepa
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Stuck @home
Posts: 2,149
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
A few men made the UIGEA happen.
I blame Bush, Jon Kyl and Bill Frist, all Republicans BTW which kills me because out of one side of there mouth they talk about less Gov't Regulation than BANG! UIEGA(more gov't regulation). I'm done my rant now

Last edited by [x] swanny; 07-30-2010 at 12:31 AM. Reason: ...
[x] swanny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 12:31 AM   #900
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
Why do you think that? They'll just join on Harrah's.com instead of Pokerstars.
Congress fears that some won't. They have expressed concern over how to ensure compliance. I'm sure they'd love to take players who already have offshore accounts and transition them into the licensed system so that they don't have current accounts at offshore sites.

Quote:
Thank you TPCEO, Ive argued over this in the past and it puts me on life tilt when the counterargument is "Harrah's has deep pockets and will just buy ____". Not after LBO'ng at the cyclical and leverage peak.
Same here.
Rich Muny 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 05:03 AM.


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