International
192 members and 766 guests - online now
Reply posted on PLEASE No more postings about online poker being.. - 7 minutes ago
Compete for $5.875 in the Spring Weekend Series III, an exclusive freeroll league hosted by Poker.org!
$150 Freeroll
Starts in 3 days
Carbon Poker
$150 Freeroll
Starts in 4 days
Carbon Poker
Hot & New
Test your skills vs. the clock
with our Turbo Quizzes!
with our Turbo Quizzes!
Open free account!
Poker.org
General Poker
Poker Games
Online Poker
Live Poker
Gambling & Sports
Off-Topic
Poker.org Languages
Is ANY bill a good bill?
127
8 months ago
Sounds very much like protectionism Curt, but one thing is certain like you say only a moron could write such crap.
How simple things are with UK gambling laws...no bs...its for the people written in plain english hehehehehe
and we dont pay taxes on the winnings only the profit made from interest :)
How simple things are with UK gambling laws...no bs...its for the people written in plain english hehehehehe
and we dont pay taxes on the winnings only the profit made from interest :)
I'm concerned about rumors that language in the bill will criminalize the act of playing poker on unlicensed sites -- making it a crime for players, and making our winnings and "any instruments that aid in the illegal gambling" subject to forfeiture. That may mean not only that our online bankrolls are at risk -- as they already are -- but that our personal assets may be as well. Pretty hard to get behind that. I mean, with a 15-month blackout and the possibility of those types of penalties for players for playing on sites like Merge and Revolution? I don't like it one bit.
Edited by Mentor 8 months ago
315
8 months ago
I dont like the thought of being blocked out of all poker sites for the next 18 months but if this is a step towards making it legal to play online then I would support it. If this is only for those state that have large based casinos then I would be totally agaist it. I hope they figure this out and quite putting it off. I love this country but they sure do a lot of stupid things and banning internet poker is one of them
898
8 months ago
aarowebs (#4) wrote: I dont like the thought of being blocked out of all poker sites for the next 18 months but if this is a step towards making it legal to play online then I would support it. If this is only for those state that have large based casinos then I would be totally agaist it. I hope they figure this out and quite putting it off. I love this country but they sure do a lot of stupid things and banning internet poker is one of them
There is a lot of complacency out there among poker players, and that is the reason for our current situation. Too many are waiting on the sidelines for whatever crumb we may be given by our government.Many feel that groups like the PPA have our interests at heart and are working on our behalf, when in fact it seem obvious that they are impotent anyway, and just exist to exist and not really going to accomplish anything.
We have to be able to say "no" to bad bills, and not just accept what they give us. We are the consumers, and any bill should first focus on consumer protections, instead of focusing on how they will divide the pie.
.
242
8 months ago
I think they just need to get this sht moving!! These offshore sites are rap*ng us and we cant do sht about it! I just want a trustworthy loyal site to play on... Is that too much to ask ffs? TRUE RNG'S!! True software tests by trusted companies.... Just legalize it already, tax it, and lets find some true games we can depend on... Dont hold us hostage from our freedom bc some snakes ruined it for all of us! Charge them of their crimes and leave us to our freedom....... grrr it angers me deeply!
Edited by ChrisRomeo68 8 months ago
206
8 months ago
So is the government regulating poker because of the companies or because they just don't like poker? Because they can't ban poker just because they don't like it and they are infringing on rights at that point. I mean Full Tilt was starting to "pull money out of thin air." That kind of stuff needs to be monitored, as well as money laundering but I think the government needs to help legitimate companies to come up with solutions to these problems. Poker legislation is frustrating I agree, but I don't think that its always bad.
898
8 months ago
My view is this . . .
The UIGEA was passed as an attempt to stop the proliferation of gambling online, by those who would oppose gambling on principle, and by those who would benefit from having their interests protected. The Vegas and Tribal casinos were no fans of online betting, and used their lobby to stop it.
The same year the UIGEA was passed, WA State changed their gambling laws to make it a "C" felony to gamble online, which implicitly included poker. This law in particular was spurred by Tribal gaming interests, specifically the Tulalip Tribe, one of the most influential of tribes
Enactment of the UIGEA was delayed by the Treasury Department, and the WA law was challenged in court, both of these coming ot a head in 2009. At that time, first Pokerstars, then FTP pulled out of WA State. Meanwhile the WA Gaming Commission helped form a task force with the DoJ, and they started seizing funds from processors. This ultimately culminated with the Black Friday seizures.
Those actions served dual purposes. Not only was it a great cash grab for the respective Governments, it also attempted to clear the way of offshore gambling outfits, leaving a potential market that could be filled by Tribal and Vegas casino interests.
The UIGEA was passed as an attempt to stop the proliferation of gambling online, by those who would oppose gambling on principle, and by those who would benefit from having their interests protected. The Vegas and Tribal casinos were no fans of online betting, and used their lobby to stop it.
The same year the UIGEA was passed, WA State changed their gambling laws to make it a "C" felony to gamble online, which implicitly included poker. This law in particular was spurred by Tribal gaming interests, specifically the Tulalip Tribe, one of the most influential of tribes
Enactment of the UIGEA was delayed by the Treasury Department, and the WA law was challenged in court, both of these coming ot a head in 2009. At that time, first Pokerstars, then FTP pulled out of WA State. Meanwhile the WA Gaming Commission helped form a task force with the DoJ, and they started seizing funds from processors. This ultimately culminated with the Black Friday seizures.
Those actions served dual purposes. Not only was it a great cash grab for the respective Governments, it also attempted to clear the way of offshore gambling outfits, leaving a potential market that could be filled by Tribal and Vegas casino interests.
898
8 months ago
Now the government doesn't have a true moral objection to gambling. If they did, there would be not State run lotteries, no horse tracks, no tribal casinos. No, when the money is right, the right amount in the right hands, gambling is then "industry" and "jobs". Now they can talk about how to make it legal.
But here is where I take issue. If you read up on the Barton bill in the House, and especially the summary of the Reid proposal in the Senate, it becomes clear that they are already dividing up the spoils, and they don't concern themselves with the players one bit. What should be a consumer protection bill is nothing but a "how can we get paid" bill.
This is why we must do all we can to be heard, not just sit on the sidelines and hope they give us something
But here is where I take issue. If you read up on the Barton bill in the House, and especially the summary of the Reid proposal in the Senate, it becomes clear that they are already dividing up the spoils, and they don't concern themselves with the players one bit. What should be a consumer protection bill is nothing but a "how can we get paid" bill.
This is why we must do all we can to be heard, not just sit on the sidelines and hope they give us something
206
8 months ago
Hmmm, that is a very interesting. You say "view" but this is a very detailed analysis. I had no idea that washington state was leading the way in this movement. So does your view allot much hope for the future of poker or do you have any information on counter movements to the banning of gambling or an appeal of people moving their interests. And my last question, I understand the part where they are trying to eliminate offshore competition, but many markets have been moving to convenience and the online market. Is it possible that any of these casinos will follow in suit and make an online market of their own?
314
8 months ago
I dont see this happening for a long time, i mean one state might get it running and states will watch and watch and watch and if it proves that all these in one state will flock to it maybe one or two more states might join. Why didnt the govt just overtake this shit back before i started to play 2010 when these sites were booming and get in nationally run and divide row and american players then (ala pokerstarsusa fulltiltusa whateverusa). NOw you have a bunch of disheatened 25-35 year olds that really thought this was their life and doubt they would go back to it after its been down so long. All the DOJ was make it seem like online poker was a scam from the start when the had non stop cash making machines in play. yea pools would of been divided but how thriving would all this be if the govt just nationally made this stuff happen in 2007 when everyone believed in it
curtinsea (#1) wrote: Third, a five year lockout for sites like Pokerstars and others. This is just more protectionist nonsense. The experienced sites are in a better position to offer a quality product, and as the consumer, we should have access to that product.
I highly doubt this would happen. It would stir up so much shit between EU and US, much like the Steel trade laws. But then again, I don't really understand the US like I used to. So much has changed in the past decade.
This thread has been closed for new replies since it was either first created over 3 weeks ago or the last reply was posted more than 5 days ago.
23
In this piece being discussed, there are some issues I see a problem with.
First and foremost, States are automatically opted out, and can only opt in with a majority vote of the State legislature. This is a problem, because you effectively have to fight the same fight in your state that you are facing with no federal bill. And, if you have somehow changed the law in your state through the initiative process, it could mean you are still locked out. Many states will simply not go along with this, and we will end up with a patchwork of states allowing poker, with probably most not. This clause is clearly to give Nevada an edge on the market. Further, any action by states after May of this year, meaning all pending plans, are meaningless.
Secondly, for the first two years, only land based casinos of a certain size will be able to offer online poker, which means only Nevada, possibly New Jersey. Again, Reid protecting the home state and forsaking the rest of us.
Third, a five year lockout for sites like Pokerstars and others. This is just more protectionist nonsense. The experienced sites are in a better position to offer a quality product, and as the consumer, we should have access to that product.
Fourth, there is a 15 month blackout period between the bill being enacted and rooms being licensed. Which means more than another year before we can play legally. This buys Nevada casinos time to develop their product, again all the while the players are forsaken.
This is a bad bill any way you look at it, and if it were to pass would do more harm than good to the game. This is what happens when you let morons write the rules.
We should oppose this bill.