Quote:
Originally Posted by Former DJ
tool:
Why don't you post your cherry-picked taken-out-of-context "expose" about 50 more times - just in case somebody might have missed it.
Former DJ
None of us missed it. We did miss your response though .... oh, wait, there wasn't one.
I have to admit the only thing I find interesting about you, Former DJ, is your complete willingness to ignore both facts and your personal lack of credibility but still plow forward with your agenda. If was a Platoon leader and needed a volunteer to rush the enemy machine gun nests, you are the guy.
It is true no one knows how many states will opt-out. Still, the forces favoring "opt-out" have been in decline. Theocrats and other fellow nanny-staters have lost a lot of influence lately and, IMHO, will generally continue to do so. Unfortunately there are some places (like, coincidentally, Foamer DJ's alleged home state of Alabama) where those forces do still hold sway (3-5 deep south states, Utah, and maybe Hawaii).
In the vast majority of opt-out scenarios, it is the instate gambling interests that are supposed to use their influence to make this happen. This influence I think most of you are overestimating. IMHO, only California is a real problem in this area. CA is a large enough market to subject to French style law and at least theoretically get away with it. FL also presents an issue, but I think PX can handle Florida (
) and I also think the instate interests in FL can be moved to our side.
Most of the "instate interests force an opt out" scenarios are centered on the idea that instate gambling interests have not paid attention to what has happened over the last 10 years. The idea that they will reflexively try and stop internet competition (which, of course, they can't - they can only slow its growth) assumes that they do not know that the internet is the key to their future long-term success. Admittedly, some don't. I think most of you will be surprised, though, at just how many do think differently.
I think this is especially true if the final bill is poker-only. Poker is fundamentally different from the other casino games. State lotteries might well be interested in having some sort of exclusive right to local online patrons of games of chance against the house. That is not really very different from running a lottery.
But running a successful online poker room is something else entirely. If you think the vast majority of folks in the gaming business, either private or state, fail to understand that, you are wrong. Thus if the final bill is poker-only they will not really see it as competition because they never really wanted to compete there in the first place. And when they realize the benefits of "skins" and local affiliates, I believe they will actually come to support a federal licensing scheme for online poker.
Its all kind of moot, however. No bill will pass anytime in the foreseeable future that does not include (at least) state opt-outs. If we can't accept that fact and decide therefore not to support any bill that includes opt-outs, we become meaningless to the process and whatever ultimately happens will be without our influence.
That's a great plan for success right? That has always worked before, why the history books are full of small groups of people who refused to compromise and were still handed what they wanted on a silver platter (sarcasm, of course).
And none of the other interests in this process would ever put their own interests above the interests of the players, right? (sarcasm again)
We will have state opt-outs and licensing, or we will have the crackdown that will essentially kill recreational online poker in the US. So we have already begun the process of helping to ensure most states opt-in. Our fight will ultimately move there, or it will have failed overall.
And one last thing. The way all of the current federal bills are constructed, the DOJ gains NOTHING in its fight against internet gambling. The harm that will come to those who live in opt-out states is easily described: you will not be able to play on the licensed site because the SITES will block you. Other than that, your
status quo hardly changes (the only other new point is the 50% tax, and if that is amended to not apply to players or only apply to players in "opt-in" states, then truly all such a player loses is access to future licensed sites) (and yes I know
some of you will figure out a way to get around that too
).
Skallagrim