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 07-28-2010, 11:17 AM   #176
eersfan
journeyman
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 386
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Great! That amendment would have been very bad.
eersfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:17 AM   #177
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, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

I'm afraid that with the opt-in proposal will mean only 5 states will start opted in and states like mine will take a decade to finally opt in, if ever.
sluggger5x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:17 AM   #178
SkandarAkbar
grinder
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Nixa, MO
Posts: 406
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

the NO's have it. That's very good news.
SkandarAkbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:18 AM   #179
Punker
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Punker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: McJesus saves
Posts: 7,600
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Recess! And good to win the opt-out.
Punker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:19 AM   #180
Steelerman
old hand
 
Steelerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,287
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
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?
Why have Stars and Tilt supported Frank and the PPA if his position has been clear that they wouldn't be eligible for a license?
Steelerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:20 AM   #181
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by antneye View Post
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.
Because we are very unlikely to get a law passed during this Congress.

To continue to push for a player friendly bill, we need funding. FT/PS fund much of the PPA's budget through the IGC.

Sure, Harrah's and company will still push for regulation, but their interests are not necessarily aligned with ours. Its possible to get regulation that kills the games. See what happened in France.

I think this amendment will end up reducing PPA influence in the next Congress while increasing the B&M influence. That's not good IMO. I dont want to be paying 7% rake on Harrahs.us in 2018.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:20 AM   #182
ivey10k
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 472
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
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?
TE, Correct me if i'm wrong but the definition of foreign operators has not been defined or established...It is not found in HR 2267 nor has it been accepted in any amendment...What constitutes a foreign operator will still need to be determined.

Michael of NJ
ivey10k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:20 AM   #183
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
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?
I didn't say Frank will. However, he's not the one pushing those amendments.

A main goal we had was to keep this opt out vs. opt in. Defeating the Baca amendment was great for us.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:20 AM   #184
cardboardvox
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 69
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

No's have it but a recorded vote was requested. Most seemed opposed so I assume the official recorded vote will our way too.
cardboardvox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:22 AM   #185
novahunterpa
Pooh-Bah
 
novahunterpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Triple Range Merging
Posts: 5,244
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Caveat View Post
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?
Maybe, UIGEA would still be the law used to block unlicensed operators. This bill would create "legal" operators and give some clarity to UIGEA. Banks and other financial institutions would have 2 lists, one for legal licensed sites and one with clearly "illegal" unlicensed sites, which makes blocking online gaming transactions to the unlicensed sites easier then the way it is today
novahunterpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:22 AM   #186
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelerman View Post
Why have Stars and Tilt supported Frank and the PPA if his position has been clear that they wouldn't be eligible for a license?
His position has been clear that he doesn't differentiate between poker and other gaming.

This is the first I've heard of him supporting the idea of banning foreign operators.

Good news the opt-in got killed. Why pass a bill that is going to generate no revenue? We should work to codify the process though.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:22 AM   #187
numberline
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 80
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

And....they're on break. So far this is going well. There have been no amendments so far that restrict legitimate poker playing activity. Bachus/Bachmann's poison pill amendment was withdrawn...we may see it again in a weaker form. Baca's amendment failed. All other amendments actually improve the prospects of passage by the House.
numberline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:22 AM   #188
ivey10k
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 472
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelerman View Post
Why have Stars and Tilt supported Frank and the PPA if his position has been clear that they wouldn't be eligible for a license?
To no longer be foreign...They may simply need to be incorporated in the U.S...We have not seen any language as of yet pertaining to these foreign operators...

Michael of NJ
ivey10k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:23 AM   #189
TruFloridaGator
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: IRL
Posts: 22,791
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Cliff notes guys? had to head out for a while, when do they begin again?
TruFloridaGator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:24 AM   #190
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
I didn't say Frank will. However, he's not the one pushing those amendments.

A main goal we had was to keep this opt out vs. opt in. Defeating the Baca amendment was great for us.
Yup, that's a win.

Frank just said earlier in the hearing that he "was in general agreement" with banning foreign operators didnt he?
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:24 AM   #191
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivey10k View Post
To no longer be foreign...They may simply need to be incorporated in the U.S...We have not seen any language as of yet pertaining to these foreign operators...

Michael of NJ
That's what the Bachus/Bachmann amendment did, by taking individuals out rather than corporate entities. Glad it was withdrawn.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:24 AM   #192
Seven7s
adept
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 909
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by numberline View Post
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.
Yeah lol I was thinking the same thing. First few minutes I didn't know which side he was on, but if you understood his freedom joke, that was foreshadowing for his allegiance. However I must admit I didn't understand the joke lol, his delivery was a bit off, but anyone for freedom of choice is a friend of mine.
Seven7s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:25 AM   #193
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
Frank just said earlier in the hearing that he "was in general agreement" with banning foreign operators didnt he?
I think he said he was in general agreement with banning foreign operators that broke U.S. laws. I guess someone will have to prove offering poker violates U.S. law.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:25 AM   #194
sofocused978
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
sofocused978's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,765
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Believe me there Stars and Tilt will find a loophole in this bill to keep their operations moving.
sofocused978 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:25 AM   #195
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivey10k View Post
To no longer be foreign...They may simply need to be incorporated in the U.S...We have not seen any language as of yet pertaining to these foreign operators...

Michael of NJ
I believe the language wasnt based on where the site was located, but whether they have taken bets from US players. At least according to the way Bachus framed it about following the rule of law, etc
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:26 AM   #196
danxxx1
journeyman
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 2006 WSOP Final Table
Posts: 395
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

anyone have a link to this?
danxxx1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:26 AM   #197
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Well, time for me to head home from Louisville. Hope I don't miss too much of this.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:28 AM   #198
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
I think he said he was in general agreement with banning foreign operators that broke U.S. laws. I guess someone will have to prove offering poker violates U.S. law.
Yeah the language is definitely going to matter then. We do not want to lose Stars/Tilt for future Congress unless we can replace the funding.

Should also add, you dont need to prove it in a legal sense most likely. If the licensing board decides it was illegal, Stars/Tilt are out.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:29 AM   #199
Zenzor
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,366
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Just woke up. What time will they be back from recess?
Zenzor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 11:29 AM   #200
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by sofocused978 View Post
Believe me there Stars and Tilt will find a loophole in this bill to keep their operations moving.
The B&M guys and Party Poker's of the world will be looking for loopholes to keep them out.
LetsGambool 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 03:26 AM.


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