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 07-30-2010, 02:03 PM   #951
Guthrie
veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Underground
Posts: 2,911
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Maybe this has already been covered in this voluminous thread, but here's my one tiny little suggestion: If the bill is going to have some provision for withholding US income taxes, then how about an amendment that forces the IRS to let all players, not just those who can convince them they are pros, simply net total losses against total winnings and fill in one line on their tax return? They will no doubt be required to provide exactly that same information to the IRS electronically anyway, just like banks do for interest income.
Guthrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 02:11 PM   #952
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 Guthrie View Post
Maybe this has already been covered in this voluminous thread, but here's my one tiny little suggestion: If the bill is going to have some provision for withholding US income taxes, then how about an amendment that forces the IRS to let all players, not just those who can convince them they are pros, simply net total losses against total winnings and fill in one line on their tax return? They will no doubt be required to provide exactly that same information to the IRS electronically anyway, just like banks do for interest income.
A provision in the Senate bill does precisely this (site sends a form to you and IRS indicating net win/loss for the year). PPA will continue to fight for such a provision being in whatever becomes the final law. And, actually, no one on Capitol Hill seems to have a problem with this.

Skallagrim
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 02:15 PM   #953
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 Skallagrim View Post
A provision in the Senate bill does precisely this (site sends a form to you and IRS indicating net win/loss for the year). PPA will continue to fight for such a provision being in whatever becomes the final law. And, actually, no one on Capitol Hill seems to have a problem with this.

Skallagrim
Great to hear,hopefully it stays that way and is in any finial bill.
novahunterpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 02:21 PM   #954
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Thats a super nice little cherry.

Lets hope no in Congress realizes its actually lowering Govt revenue
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 02:23 PM   #955
glassman
journeyman
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 281
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
Thats a super nice little cherry.

Lets hope no in Congress realizes its actually lowering Govt revenue
Shhhhhh.
glassman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 02:23 PM   #956
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
TE, it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to say the status quo is doomed but for opt out states it will last just fine.
I didn't say it will be just fine. It won't be. Rather, I said it will most likely be available.

Quote:
The DOJ will take the exact same actions against processors, and may even have a blacklist to help them do so.

Poker only processors in opt out states now clearly would violate UIGEA.
True. They may or may not be successful. However, many sites will seek to serve the market, just as sports betting sites serve the U.S. today.

Quote:
As you have said, powerful interests will look to increase the penalties against players in opt out states (50% tax, comments of the casino exec at the hearing, etc).
True, but it's less likely that these will be done at the federal level. We'll have to be vigilent at the state level.

Quote:
Do you think that instituting a state lottery made it more or less likely that authorities would go after a private numbers operation? I think the answer is pretty clearly more.
Of course it's more likely. Card rooms like to rat out private games for the same reason. However, that's part of the problem with the status quo as well.

Quote:
Its OK to admit that if this bill passes, some people are going to have much less and worse access to online poker. Not everything has to be a positive spin for legislation. If you live in an opt-out state, this bill is bad in the short-run. Good for the industry in the long-run and such, probably, lots of pros, unquestionably. The bill has potentially significant downsides. If the PPA ignores this, they are going to lose credibility long-term, IMO.
Again, I'm posting on my behalf and not on behalf of the PPA.

Yes, it's obvious that players in opt-out states would see an immediate change versus a more gradual erosion of the status quo. I understand that they will be able to play only on sites choosing not to get licensed. I never claimed differently.

However, that's based on choosing that moment in time as the starting point, which ignores the fact that PPA helped keep the status quo in place for these past few years. My point is simple. Players in opt out states have been better off with this fight than without. That's all I'm saying.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 02:32 PM   #957
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
This is also very, very simple. I feel that this would be the best course of action for poker players. The sites have for whatever reason decided on a different tack. The minors perhaps because they are waiting for someone else to carry the water, who knows. There a many reasons why they may have decided this and the probability of the success of such an action is just one factor.
Then why aren't U.S based B&M interests seeking a declaratory judgement???

A win is anything but guaranteed, and losing this case wouldn't be better for poker players. I fully realize you have no problem fighting an all-or-nothing fight and that you feel everyone else is an unprincipled scumbag. Again, people like you are in every movement. You'd clearly rather lose fighting an all-or-nothing fight than winning less than 100% of what you think you deserve. That's fine, but it's not a winning strategy.

Quote:
PPA, fighting for the sites!
Ridiculous. Yep, it must be a conspiracy. We must be getting sold out, right?

Sorry we're not going to fight the losing fight you want to sign us up for. We're fighting to win.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 02:32 PM   #958
TruePoker ex-CEO
veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: No Superusers
Posts: 2,802
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
No. The DoJ will continue its actions.

Explain why no site has sought a declaratory judgement ruling that online poker is not covered by the Wire Act.

PPA is on record as being prepared to join such a suit. Prospective player plaintiffs have even posted here stating that they were prepped for the suit and were ready to go.

Perhaps it's not the slam dunk you seem to think it would be. Then again, you continually underestimate our opponents.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your opinions on the matter. I will keep your thoughts in mind as we proceed forward in this fight.
Huh ? Kind of wondered why the PPA dropped the ball when its indiviidual members were prepared to litigate coverage.

Will you explain why the PPA, an association of poker players including prospective individual plaintiff volunteers, never brought an action for Declaratory Judgment that neither the UIGEA nor the Wire Act cover poker ?

The ACLU brings statutory challenges on behalf of members all the time, joining in with individual plaintiffs.

(I am asking here for your explanation, not offering mine .... which may be a bit different.)
TruePoker ex-CEO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 02:35 PM   #959
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
Ridiculous. Yep, it must be a conspiracy. We must be getting sold out, right?

Sorry we're not going to fight the losing fight you want to sign us up for. We're fighting to win.
if bitten by a baited bear, how much blame bears the bear?

not super classy I will admit, but also not completely without merit to ponder how much influence the sites have on the PPA.
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 02:38 PM   #960
Foldemlow
banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,716
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
if bitten by a baited bear, how much blame bears the bear?

not super classy I will admit, but also not completely without merit to ponder how much influence the sites have on the PPA.
Even if that were true, which is extremely unlikely, at least to the extent you suggest, aren't we assuming that poker sites want what's best for the game's development over the long term?
Foldemlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 02:41 PM   #961
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 Foldemlow View Post
Even if that were true, which is extremely unlikely, at least to the extent you suggest, aren't we assuming that poker sites want what's best for the game's development over the long term?
yeah sure. PokerStars FR, 50bb tables.
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 03:09 PM   #962
lilysocks
journeyman
 
lilysocks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: stacking off light
Posts: 356
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by parisron View Post
from Annie Dukes twitter a couple min. ago:

AnnieDuke I'll be on MSNBC today at 12:40 eastern talking about HR 2267. Should be a fun debate.
Here's the video of Annie on MSNBC from PPA's youtube channel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B-McFvkcqQ
lilysocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 03:14 PM   #963
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
However, that's based on choosing that moment in time as the starting point, which ignores the fact that PPA helped keep the status quo in place for these past few years. My point is simple. Players in opt out states have been better off with this fight than without. That's all I'm saying.
No one is debating this. The PPA's work has undoubtedly been a net positive.

What I think some of us do tire of is the 100% positive spin that is put on everything that touches this bill. Some of the amendments that got accepted on Wednesday were not positives. The bill is not workable without more changes during markup (which we may get, but we arent there yet). We're making tremendous progress, but we are a looooong way from where we need to be.

State opt-outs are a huge issue, not a mere inconvenience. Saying "well we cant get a bill with no state opt outs", while true, isnt the end of the subject. Saying "we will be vigilant at the state level" and "we will have to fight for our rights", while true, isnt an answer either.

The fact is, the PPA may endorse legislation that will harm the rights of a portion of its membership. I dont think this is necessarily the wrong decision. Im not saying the PPA is doing a bad job. I do think that most efforts in this forum to bring up that issue are softpedaled, or somehow spun into a referendum on the PPA's worth in opt out states. I think the organization needs to be taking the absolute, utmost care to be open and honest about the negative consequences for players in these states.

Its OK to admit that legislation has negative consequences. This is the real world. We arent going to get everything we want. Most of us believe the PPA is a super helpful and good organization.

I think the PPA needs to sell to players in opt out states, without spin, that this is good legislation. It sometimes feels like, instead, membership is being told what is good or being given the best possible spin on legislation.

Just my two cents.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 03:15 PM   #964
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 bitten by a baited bear, how much blame bears the bear?

not super classy I will admit, but also not completely without merit to ponder how much influence the sites have on the PPA.
The sites have no direct influence on the PPA. We hear them out, of course, just as we'd hear out Harrah's, True Poker, MGM, and any other interested party, but we act solely in the interests of the players.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 03:16 PM   #965
Foldemlow
banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,716
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
yeah sure. PokerStars FR, 50bb tables.
I thought it was clear I was talking about the legislative aspects of the game.
I'll make sure to state the obvious from now on, no worries.
Foldemlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 03:16 PM   #966
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 LeapFrog View Post
This is also very, very simple. I feel that this would be the best course of action for poker players. The sites have for whatever reason decided on a different tack. The minors perhaps because they are waiting for someone else to carry the water, who knows. There a many reasons why they may have decided this and the probability of the success of such an action is just one factor.

PPA, fighting for the sites!™
Actually LeapFrog, and I don't mean this in a bad way, its you who are "fighting for the sites!" You are basically fighting to keep your personal access to the 2 main sites, FTP and Stars.

You realize, I hope, that you are eventually going to lose this, one way or another; either
1) a bill like the one currently proposed passes, and clearly you believe your state will opt-out if legislation passes; or,
2) if the PPA changes its stand and demands "no opt-outs or no legislation" then we are not going to get any positive legislation and eventually either:
2a) a real prohibition will be imposed that will also stop you from playing on FTP and Stars or anything like them; or,
2b) a monopoly system will develop either Federally or in some states that will also ban Stars and FTP and anything like them.

If 2a or 2b happens we are all toast. End of online game as we know it; end of "beatable" online game entirely. And that would be for any foreseeable future.

If, on the other hand, possibility 1 happens, you and players like you get screwed in the short run for sure, but millions of other players in other states get a huge benefit and, most importantly, the experience of players in those other states will be the single biggest factor helping you (and the PPA if you let them) continue to work on changing your state from opt-out to opt-in. And that can easily be seen to be do-able within the foreseeable future in all but the most theocratic christian-right states.

And while we are fighting to get your state to opt-in, your situation will not be much different from what you have today except, and I agree it is a big 'except', that Stars, FTP and any other currently US facing site that seeks a license will not be available to you.

And so, LG, there is nothing deceptive about TE trying to make folks in opt-out states understand that they will still have some ability to play while the state fights are going on. It is one of the main reasons the PPA insists on no new player penalties in any Federal Legislation. Its not near as much as we'd like to see the players in those states have, but it is far better than nothing.

I hope laying it out that way helps you understand why the PPA has chosen to proceed the way it has, LeapFrog. Yes, we are asking folks in opt-out states to make an extra sacrifice, but not because we only care about the sites. It is because we do really believe that that is what will work out best for the most players over the long run.

Skallagrim

Last edited by Skallagrim; 07-30-2010 at 03:26 PM.
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 03:22 PM   #967
Former DJ
old hand
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Southern USA
Posts: 1,316
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
TE, it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to say the status quo is doomed but for opt out states it will last just fine.

The DOJ will take the exact same actions against processors, and may even have a blacklist to help them do so.

Poker only processors in opt out states now clearly would violate UIGEA.

As you have said, powerful interests will look to increase the penalties against players in opt out states (50% tax, comments of the casino exec at the hearing, etc).

Do you think that instituting a state lottery made it more or less likely that authorities would go after a private numbers operation? I think the answer is pretty clearly more.

Its OK to admit that if this bill passes, some people are going to have much less and worse access to online poker. Not everything has to be a positive spin for legislation. If you live in an opt-out state, this bill is bad in the short-run. Good for the industry in the long-run and such, probably, lots of pros, unquestionably. The bill has potentially significant downsides. If the PPA ignores this, they are going to lose credibility long-term, IMO.
LG:

Concerning these "potentially significant downsides," there has been quite a bit of discussion in the Individual States Opt Out Prediction Thread as to which states (and how many) may (or will) opt out. One assumption that has been implicit (and in some cases explicit) in this thread is that once internet poker is legalized and regulated, there will be dramatic growth in the number of new players rushing back to online poker "... now that it's legal!" I wonder if that assumption is really valid?

It occurs to me that if just three "big" states, (i.e. California, Massachusetts, and Texas), choose to opt out - and they surely would not be the only three - that will be a lot of [present] online players who are suddenly out of the pool. How can a market "grow" if you rip out up to a third of its members right out of the gate?

Former DJ
Former DJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 03:23 PM   #968
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 TruePoker CEO View Post
Huh ? Kind of wondered why the PPA dropped the ball when its indiviidual members were prepared to litigate coverage.

Will you explain why the PPA, an association of poker players including prospective individual plaintiff volunteers, never brought an action for Declaratory Judgment that neither the UIGEA nor the Wire Act cover poker ?

The ACLU brings statutory challenges on behalf of members all the time, joining in with individual plaintiffs.

(I am asking here for your explanation, not offering mine .... which may be a bit different.)
We didn't drop the ball. A dropped ball is a case where we had an opportunity and missed it. That clearly didn't happen here. The prospective plaintiffs even stated on this forum that lawyers were preparing them for a potential case to gain a declaratory judgement.

Rather, the facts speak for themselves. IMO it's obvious that not pursuing this at that time (i.e, we've certainly not ruled this out) was a strategic decision. After all, we are moving forward in Congress, where we'll have to win anyway.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 03:24 PM   #969
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 Foldemlow View Post
I thought it was clear I was talking about the legislative aspects of the game.
I'll make sure to state the obvious from now on, no worries.
and I thought I was making it clear that the sites want what they think is best for their bottom line, which encompasses legislative aspects. I will also make sure to state the obvious from now on.
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 03:29 PM   #970
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim View Post
And so, LG, there is nothing deceptive about TE trying to make folks in opt-out states understand that they will still have some ability to play while the state fights are going on. It is one of the main reasons the PPA insists on no new player penalties in any Federal Legislation. Its not near as much as we'd like to see the players in those states have, but it is far better than nothing.
Its not untruthful.

But we do get posts saying the status quo will last only for some limited time frame (2 years, say) but then, at the same time, are told that in unlicensed states, with an unambiguous UIGEA violation and potential blacklist of payment processors, the sky will not fall.

I dont get how both of those things are both true.

Again, I commend the PPA for their stance on player penalties. I dont question the organization is trying to get the best deal possible, in aggregate, for all players.


Quote:
I hope laying it out that way helps you understand why the PPA has chosen to proceed the way it has, LeapFrog. Yes, we are asking folks in opt-out states to make an extra sacrifice, but not because we only care about the sites. It is because we do really believe that that is what will work out best for the most players over the long run.
One more point. Yes, I think laying it out like that is great. Id like to see this question actually asked though. I know you guys dont love polls, but has there been any contact with the membership where players are asked to make this sacrifice? Even as simple (and I know this is flawed) as "would you support legislation if you knew you were in an opt out state and would lose access to major sites in the short-term"? You laid it out nice, but I feel we are being told, not asked.

Last edited by LetsGambool; 07-30-2010 at 03:33 PM. Reason: Added point.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 03:36 PM   #971
Foldemlow
banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,716
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeapFrog View Post
and I thought I was making it clear that the sites want what they think is best for their bottom line, which encompasses legislative aspects. I will also make sure to state the obvious from now on.
But there's nothing obvious about that, besides the fact that since they obviously want to reach as many players as possible and they're supporting the bill with everything they have, they must not be as optimistic as you are about the status quo and pretty confident about the long term positive implications of passing this bill.
Foldemlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 03:42 PM   #972
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
What I think some of us do tire of is the 100% positive spin that is put on everything that touches this bill.
It's not spin. Rather, it's my personal opinion on the issue.

Quote:
Some of the amendments that got accepted on Wednesday were not positives. The bill is not workable without more changes during markup (which we may get, but we arent there yet).
I never claimed otherwise.

Quote:
We're making tremendous progress, but we are a looooong way from where we need to be.

State opt-outs are a huge issue, not a mere inconvenience. Saying "well we cant get a bill with no state opt outs", while true, isnt the end of the subject. Saying "we will be vigilant at the state level" and "we will have to fight for our rights", while true, isnt an answer either.
Again, I post for myself here.

Quote:
The fact is, the PPA may endorse legislation that will harm the rights of a portion of its membership. I dont think this is necessarily the wrong decision. Im not saying the PPA is doing a bad job. I do think that most efforts in this forum to bring up that issue are softpedaled, or somehow spun into a referendum on the PPA's worth in opt out states. I think the organization needs to be taking the absolute, utmost care to be open and honest about the negative consequences for players in these states.
I contend that moving bills through Congress helps all American players in keeping the status quo for an extended time, in establishing a solid foundation for American online poker into which opt out states can opt in later, and in giving sites a platform from which to lobby opt out states. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 04:07 PM   #973
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
I contend that moving bills through Congress helps all American players in keeping the status quo for an extended time, in establishing a solid foundation for American online poker into which opt out states can opt in later, and in giving sites a platform from which to lobby opt out states. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.
Moving the bills, to date, has surely helped. No one is disagreeing with that statement. While its right its sort of a strawman.

Actually passing a bill is a different story and brings potential negative consequences along with that foundation.

I urge greater outreach relating to those consequences. I didnt say passing bills in Congress was a negative.

EDIT: Also was not referring just to you personally, but to PPA folks as a whole posting on here. PPADC and PX have definitely made posts characterizing Wednesday's hearing as an unambiguous positive. I dont think that you have.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 04:09 PM   #974
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)

While we're still a long ways from anything becoming law and changes to these bills will be made along the way,right now as the the bill stands if your state opt-out ,you will miss out on all the positives of US regulation

No one can say which or how many states are going to opt-out right now. It may be many states or very few. Even with state opt-outs I believe Federal legislation is the only viable option for online poker in the long term. If my state opts-out it going to suck to be me but for the greater good I'll except that.

Everyone should just assume ,at this point ,that their state is going to opt-out, then decide if you still support Federal legislation,, I still do. IF you only support the bill because you believe you're in an "opt-in" state, then you don't give a **** about anyone else and are willing to throw them under the bus, but guess what your state may be on that opt-out list.

Lets not pretend those in opt-outs states aren't going to get a raw deal,they will.
novahunterpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2010, 04:35 PM   #975
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 LetsGambool View Post
Its not untruthful.

But we do get posts saying the status quo will last only for some limited time frame (2 years, say) but then, at the same time, are told that in unlicensed states, with an unambiguous UIGEA violation and potential blacklist of payment processors, the sky will not fall.

I dont get how both of those things are both true.
Looks like we have to be clear about what we mean by "status quo." In a nutshell, most folks think "status quo" means an ability to play on a large site with a deep, international playing pool. In short, "status quo" essentially means FTP and Stars. If we don't continue momentum in our favor, 2-3 years before either the DOJ or Congress screws around with FTP and Stars sufficiently enough that they leave the US market is probably a fair guess (but still a guess). Losing those 2 for legal or legislative reasons wlll probably lead some of the others to go too. And some others will stay. Bodog, for example, looks like it will always be there. But that will not be the "status quo."

And that also is basically what things will be like in opt-out states, should legislation creating such ever come to pass.


Quote:
One more point. Yes, I think laying it out like that is great. Id like to see this question actually asked though. I know you guys dont love polls, but has there been any contact with the membership where players are asked to make this sacrifice? Even as simple (and I know this is flawed) as "would you support legislation if you knew you were in an opt out state and would lose access to major sites in the short-term"? You laid it out nice, but I feel we are being told, not asked.
With respect to state opt-outs, so far you are. But then again so is the PPA leadership. There is no exaggeration when we tell you that every single member of Congress with an opinion opposed the idea of a Federal Gaming system with no state opt-outs. There is not much point in asking our members whether or not they want us to try and do the impossible; and seeking a Federal bill with no provision for a state to opt-out is "the impossible."

Plus, we are also still a long way from the finish line. I agree other aspects of a final bill may be a closer call. If the final bill has other dangerous provisions I also agree a poll of the membership should be conducted at that time. But things are still too fluid now to really be able to ask meaningful questions of our members - whatever question we ask today is likely going to not matter when things change tomorrow.

No one in the leadership circles of this organization is stupid enough to ask our membership for blind faith. But we do ask a little trust as we move through the process.

Skallagrim
Skallagrim 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 05:17 AM.


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