I am curious what everyone's personal opinion is on what the chances a poker bill passes in the lame duck session are.

The idea of this thread is to say what you think the percent chance is and then give your reasoning.

I'll start. I am going to say 50%. I think the election went as well as possible for us. 1) Reid stayed in power 2) Heller got reelected giving us a voice on the Republican side to speak to our interests.

These two elements allow Reid and Heller a lot more clout than they would have otherwise been afforded had Reid lost the Senate or Heller his seat, so people will deal with them now knowing they'll have some power still later.

That said, I still worry about some unseen opposition coming in at the last minute and throwing a lot of wrenches and questions into this that makes the politicians back off.

If Kyl wants it to happen it happens. And as one of TIME magazine's "World's 100 Most Influential People" in 2010, he doesn't have to tell us what he's thinking.

LloydChristmas.gif

People that think it's 50/50 are getting their hopes up too high imo. I would be in shock if it passes and probably would continue to be in disbelief for months.

I wouldn't be able to handle sweating which states opt out lol

Puggy Pearson theorem says it's 50/50. that feels right.

My gut has stuck around 10-20%, mostly from synthesizing other people's opinions. I'll call it 20% with how the elections have gone.

One in a million? So you're saying there is chance.

My opinion changes by the minute ranging from 0% chance to a lock...The powers of Congress change like the weather and are even more unpredictable...

What it boils down to is how much do Reid and Kyl want it...Then there is Boahner and the House...

To many unknowns to make an accurate guess with any degree of certainity..I'll just go with a coin flip sounds right..

I'll go with 25%, about the same odds as a deal on the so-called fiscal cliff issues.

just the fact that is is a bill that increases revenue without raising taxes probably gives it a 50-50 chance wrt the fiscal cliff

I'd estimate about 25-30%. The election going well and the desire to raise government revenue without increased taxes made this much more likely.

~2-4%

Why pass legislation, no incentive. Plus Lotto's and States don't want it.

I believe you mean opt in.

Yep.

Because I'm always wrong I'll give it 0%.

i thought it all depends if we can find a bill to attach the poker bill 2.

Harry Reid Wants To Try One More Time To Force Cybersecurity Bill Through Congress

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...congress.shtml

"Reid is aiming to bring the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 to the floor at the end of next week after the Senate votes on Sen. Jon Tester's (D-Mont.) sportsmen's bill, according to Senate aides."

Everything I'm reading says cybersecurity is DOA.

Politico outlines 5 fiscal cliff scenarios. Here’s how I would grade each scenario’s impact on a poker bill:

1. Go over the cliff- Congress does nothing and lets all of the tax cuts expire. Boehner doesn't want any lame duck lawmakers working on something this big anyways. He wants to extend all the rates on a short term basis (under a year) but Democrats probably won’t allow any extension of these rates on the wealthy. So Democrats may see a strategic advantage in letting them expire (doing nothing) and then they can propose tax cuts on everyone except the wealthy. Republicans would not come out looking so good if they voted against this in 2013.


Who wins? Nobody, at least not until 2013.
Poker bill chances under this plan? Impossible. F


2. A big, comprehensive deal- Boehner wants something comprehensive,but not until 2013. Reid and Obama probably want this right now. Potentially Republicans will finally fold on keeping taxes low on the wealthy, but with some conditions: maybe instead of raising them on those making $250k or more, raise the threshold to $1 million and more. This would cause a "bonanza" of corporate interests lobbying to protect their interests in the lame duck. Republicans would have to get enough spending cuts that they want in order for this to get by, but raising the rates on the wealthy even at a higher income level would be a big win for Democrats.

Who wins? Democrats.
Poker bill chances under this plan? Not good, unless Republicans get some big spending cut concessions . D+

3. Tax free strategy with a 1 yr. extension- Just push the expiration date back a year. Doing this would be a big win for Republicans, but Democrats would want other issues dealt with. Potentially a substitute for this would be keeping a tax cut in the payroll tax cut (expires Dec. 31) or unemployment benefits and loopholes.


Who wins? Republicans
Poker bill chances under this plan? Best shot. A

4. Buy a little time- This would be an extension for only a few months and probably would put off tax reform of any kind so that the 2013 Congress can just deal with it. Obama and Dem leadership are unlikely to go for this.


Who wins? Republicans
Poker bill chances under this plan? Good. B+

5. Buy a little time, but with a down payment-Congress extends the tax cuts a few months with a small package of spending cuts and other revenue increases. Dems will want tax loophole closed (especially for the wealthy) if they are going to let all the tax rates stay low and allow some spending cuts.


Who wins? Republicans
Poker bill chances under this plan? Okay. C



Disclaimer: My grade for each scenario doesn't predict whether a poker bill has a mutual agreement in Congress. I'm simply forecasting what each scenario means assuming it does.

+1

The bill as written (leaked draft), zero % chance.

A reworked version much more state friendly, who knows until it is seen.

I personally feel this since senators represent states and states interests.

If states are pretty much against it, they will let this be known to the senator(s) from their state along with House Members.
A governor, state AG and other state officials have much more influence than we do at this point.

Remember, UIGEA was passed with the urging of states to protect their states right to regulate gambling.
Also remember the letter from 40+ State AG'S opposing the Frank Bill back in 2006=08 time frame.
FoF and others were just extra icing on the cake for many in congress.

Now there is a state friendly USAG Office opinion on the Wire Act, states like this.

The Reid / Kyl DRAFT takes almost all of this away.

OBG

If our only shot to pass this is attach it to something fiscal cliff related, we're toast.

What made the Safe Ports Act or w/e it was called a good vehicle for the UIGEA was the fact that virtually no one was going to vote against it ever.

Our plan is to get something the Republicans opposed in their party platform and that Reid politicized during election season attached to a highly contentious compromise? Really? People think that's a coin-flip to happen?

I mean, I guess it would be possible if Democrats were willing to take i-poker in exchange for Republican concessions, but Im pretty sure Obama isnt going to be like "OK, we can keep tax rates where they are IF you allow for regulated i-poker". Hell, I dont think Harry Reid would make that trade off.

If that was the plan all along, then we never had a chance.

The Reid/Kyl bill is more of a Kyl/Reid bill. The concessions to the Republicans have already happened. IMO, this is still more about the interests involved rather than Democrat vs Republican. If the casinos, tribes, lotteries, and players haven't all agreed on what's acceptable, it's not going to happen. If they have, it will.

I personally gave 0% chance to Urban Meyer going to Columbus Ohio. I made it a lock.

I was sure quite sure that Romney would win the election. Not quite a lock, but quite sure.

I will go off and make it a lock, and say that there is 0% chance this bill passes: here's why....

I always look at the money. Where will it come from, and how much more will it be when you factor in the costs of regulating the industry in the first place. Plus, is there a perception that online poker will cut into other revenue that would have been greater (e.g. lottery)?

Anyone who thinks it's some type of moral deal is wrong, imo. It mostly boils down to "stopping" online poker if it's a threat to other revenue.

Since we don't really hear enough talk from politicians as to how this helps the country (they wouldn't talk money), I think it's clear that this bill never makes it.

And, four years from now, we still won't have regulated online poker.

If I was a bookmaker, I'd lay 30-1 against passage. The end product is not at all what I expected. If this was an actual compromise Ipoker bill, I'd flip the odds, but as it stands there is just no one to support this.

There is a bookmaker in all of us. Or something like that. I'll take your 30-1 against up to a $100, if you're willing.