so then why is it not the adult's decision if he/she wants to play poker for money?

I agree, the devil is in the details. I think sites like PS/FT will certainly be able to apply for a license and will be able to argue their case, whether they receive a license is not 100% certain.

Exactly what I have been wondering. Stars and FTilt might be ok even if this amendment does get added to the bill. I think at this point they believe they are not breaking any current law.

Not sure it was withdrawn because of lack of support for the idea but rather due to wording that would prevent US companies from entering the market. Frank seemed to agree with banning offshore operators, which is bad.

TE, Bachus specifically mentioned poker in the amendment. Not sure this will be less restrictive for poker sites, although I do agree with Skall that the wording of the amendment matters.

Mr. Campbell seems to be the most level headed person in this whole room.

This guy really needs to shut his mouth

94% freedom to gamble, 6% to tax

fyp

Sounds like good odds to me tax needs a outer to beat my freedom. Burn it and turn it baby.

Of course. I said a poker-only bill would be less onerous than one allowing all gaming. I didn't say an all-gaming bill would differentiate between poker and games of chance.

Sherman sounds like a communist...He and Bachus are arguing their own personal interests as Frank already pointed out...

Michael of NJ

couldn't FT/PS just create a whole new company with the exact same software/schedule to operate in the US?

If they allow only certain sites, wouldn't that effectively allow all sites? If they can't stop Stars and FTP now, would they even bother to try to stop them if other sites are allowed?

+1

This is tilting the hell out of me that I can't get any stream to run.

Thanks for the updates though.

Opt-in is an absolute killer and would probably be a dealbreaker. It puts us on the wrong end of legislative inertia. Everything in the opt-out thread that was debatable (i.e. legislature seems favorable, but bad Governor or vice versa) would mean an opt out state. We wouldnt even get critical mass to add states onto later.

Legislative process with an opt-out would be a big win. Even if its extended to a whole legislative session from 90 days it could work as you would then force states and lawmakers to take a vote refusing revenue and take legislative time to opt out.

Maffei from NY looks like a multi-tabler grinder...

Michael of NJ

Mr. Cleaver "Speaking of freedom, What do you think this is America??????"

Or simply enter into a partnership with Trump or Harrahs or whoever......We really need not get hung up on this. The key is legalized/regulated online poker. Businesses (new and existing) will find a way to bring it to us.

THIS

Cleaver can barely get a sentence out...how did this guy get elected? I'm not sure which side of this amendment he's on.

See, if Frank didnt support the amendment this might be a good line of reasoning.

Since our biggest supporter in the House thinks that banning all foreign operators is a good idea, and is known not to differentiate between poker and casino games, why do we think that he will not support a similar amendment to a poker only bill?

Cleaver on freedom, what does he think this is, America?

This should be the sound bite and rallying point, make him famous!

obg

No's have it!!!!

The braver the bird, the fatter the cat.