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 08-02-2010, 11:06 PM   #1101
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
Perhaps, but passing laws is hard.

I would think (for example) that MA would be able to figure out that there was money to be made allowing casinos into the state after seeing CT casinos working.

Like 15 years later, here we are, no casinos even though all our state leaders want expanded gambling.
On that topic, let's remember that our fight has helped preserved the right to play in Mass. (and possibly Ohio as well).

Quote:
Also, given our limited resources, we arent going to be able to battle across 15 or 20 states in a given year. We're going to have to pick our spots, and even there each state probably has a fairly small chance of success in a given year.

Just a neccesary evil of state opt outs.
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.

Quote:
More importantly, given that the PPA will be bringing the battle to the states where opt outs happen, I think its pretty critical that we know all the provisions we are agreeing to in each state before we support a final bill.
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.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 12:14 AM   #1102
sba9630
Pooh-Bah
 
sba9630's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: This space intentionally left blank
Posts: 4,510
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Former DJ View Post
...

As for those of you who believe that opt-outs will only occur in a handful of states dominated by "Christian right-wing conservative fundamentalists," there's an excellent chance that California will opt out - along with Texas and Massachusetts. That's at least a quarter of the current online poker market here in the United States. All you folks ready to move?

Former DJ
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.
sba9630 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 07:44 AM   #1103
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sba9630 View Post
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...
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.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 10:36 AM   #1104
BlitzPlayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,532
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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



Will this bill be good/bad/no change
BlitzPlayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 10:52 AM   #1105
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlitzPlayer View Post
Could anyone save me 74 pages of reading with a one word answer?

Will this bill be good/bad/no change
Yes.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 10:57 AM   #1106
JQPublic777
veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,944
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu View Post
If you don't miss playing on your beloved pokerstars and full tilt websites and don't mind playing against half the united states and thus a significantly less player pool.

Yes.
FYP

Last edited by Rich Muny; 08-03-2010 at 02:37 PM. Reason: added "FYP"
JQPublic777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 11:09 AM   #1107
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Distajo - Not PokerXanadu View Post
If you don't miss playing on your beloved pokerstars and full tilt websites and don't mind playing against half the united states.
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.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 11:59 AM   #1108
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 02:52 PM   #1109
destroBU
grinder
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 432
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Distajo View Post
FYP
So, you think legalized, regulated poker with some states opting out would in "half the player pool" that you currently have now?
destroBU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 04:05 PM   #1110
ferelli
centurion
 
ferelli's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: hollywood
Posts: 156
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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?
ferelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 04:32 PM   #1111
BlitzPlayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,532
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
BlitzPlayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 04:40 PM   #1112
Six Finger Nate
old hand
 
Six Finger Nate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,623
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
Six Finger Nate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 04:49 PM   #1113
repulse
veteran
 
repulse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: VA
Posts: 3,070
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferelli View Post
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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlitzPlayer View Post
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.
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?
repulse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 04:49 PM   #1114
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlitzPlayer View Post
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.
There will probably be age verification for all accounts, not just for withdrawals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferelli View Post
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?
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.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 04:51 PM   #1115
cjm8301
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 60
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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.
cjm8301 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 04:51 PM   #1116
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Six Finger Nate View Post
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.
A licensed site will lose their license if they allow players from opt out states.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 04:53 PM   #1117
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjm8301 View Post
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.
Here is the thread about predicting individual state opt outs:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...thread-835530/
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 04:56 PM   #1118
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 Six Finger Nate View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by novahunterpa; 08-03-2010 at 04:57 PM. Reason: typo
novahunterpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 05:01 PM   #1119
JPFisher55
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 3,425
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu View Post
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.
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.
JPFisher55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 05:10 PM   #1120
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 JPFisher55 View Post
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.
novahunterpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 05:15 PM   #1121
BlitzPlayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,532
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

how will they be verifying ages?




have alot of friends worried about this.
BlitzPlayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 05:17 PM   #1122
NoahSD
Is Right
 
NoahSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,865
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.
NoahSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 06:16 PM   #1123
JPFisher55
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 3,425
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by novahunterpa View Post
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.
That system might be lawful. OTOH, judging from the last bill, could it be passed?
JPFisher55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 06:18 PM   #1124
JPFisher55
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 3,425
Wink Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahSD View Post
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.
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?
JPFisher55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2010, 11:11 AM   #1125
shinzilla
adept
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 941
Re: HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

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?
shinzilla 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 05:01 AM.


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