wat?

Well said, TE. Aside from being shallow minded doofuses, why would state lotteries and the NFL be threatened by ppl wanting to play poker on their computer?

 

Originally Posted by kasilof

I think you are referring to the Frank/Wexler Bills. I am referring to the 1 year extension. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has now received a petition from the PPA �interest group� requesting an extension of one year to the December deadline under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

So, you want us all to stop playing? I don't get how that helps anyone but those who'd like to stop us. If it did succeed, IMO it would remove a lot of the drive to license and regulate the game.

 

WPEX is not a rakefree site.

Not anymore. My point was that it was at one time.

 

You also said in earlier post you are not worried about the Dec 1st. deadline. How are we going to be able to get cashouts?

I didn't say anything about not being concerned. PPA is spending a lot of effort on the delay. Rather, I said I believe sites will figure out ways to keep transactions going.

 

FTP says they are for poker players, I think with their growth they could afford my model of 25% of withdrawals and no rake. I hope they see the light and want to help poker players.

Do you have data on that? FT spends a lot on marketing, legal bills, lobbying, keeping transactions moving, etc. Again, if there is a driver for it, the free market will respond.

That being said, if you got your wish and online poker were effectively prohibited in the US, who'd vote to make it lawful without a decent tax chunk (one higher than in the bills now)? If that happens, you'll wish you had $3 rake (minus rakeback).

 

Why dosen't the PPA write a proposition and put it on the California ballot. One has already been written and approved, but the guy did nothing to get signatures? Once California legalizes online poker, all other states would follow

PPA proposed an amendment in Mass. a couple of months ago. It was rejected by anti-gaming AG Martha Coakley on a technicality. The CA initiative was authored by a friend of mine. That being said, it wasn't very good, for a number of reasons.

Passing an amendment in CA is expensive (especially this one, as it would be widely opposed politically and in court by anti-gaming types). Who are you seeking to fund it, given that you want no help from current sites?

"According to my estimates over 80% of each dollar deposited to these sites gos to the sites, less than 20% is returned to the winning players." <-- pretty big leap for me to make without some sort of proof, if your going to post numbers you authored you should most definitely post the proofs of your work.

the flow of money is not cyclical in the overall since, it flows upward. your deposit is taken by someone better than you, his by someone better than him and so on. at the upper levels of online poker the rake is capped and as a percentage is much, much smaller than the lower levels. While I do believe the site's profit considerably I don't think a flat back end tax or fee is in anyway positive for poker. Players who make considerable money in poker are already paying income taxes on there winnings in the United States, whether you believe that or not (most don't btw) .

Poker is the epitome of the capitalist theory, your idea would turn the poker landscape into more of a socialist economy (think Sweden.) those who make the most are taxed astronomical amounts to subsidize the massive government program spending on items such as welfare (or unemployment if you want to call it that.)

In other words say I was a great player, your asking me to fully support the infrastructure of the likes of full tilt so that when you occasionally want to play you don't have to pay quite so much? sorry, I'm not seeing the advantage for me.

many of the new players that wonder over to FT or PS do so because of the guys they see on TV. the world series of poker is bigger than it ever has been, and there's a reason, more and more regulars have the money to buy in to the biggest tournaments, more regs mean larger average prize pools, which draws even more new players. take away the incentive to excel (25% backend fee plus up to 35% fed and additional state taxes) by charging 60%+ I have no incentive to put in the time or money to build the bankroll to play bigger tournaments.

 

Originally Posted by WrongWayJerry

With that said. I do agree that we should allow Dec 1 to happen. I have read articles recently that suggest that rather than risk fines from the govt financial institutions are blocking a lot more transactions than they should be including clearly defined legal transactions dictated by the UIGEA. This has caused groups such as the horse and dog racing assocations to jump on the band wagon with the PPA to have the legislation removed altogether. In my opinion the UIGEA coming into effect could be the best thing to happen to poker legislation in recent months. Let everyone start to mess things up and when money stops flowing you will see some quick action.

The problem with that is that the UIGEA regs can't be pulled once they come into full effect. Changing the regs at that point would require a revision, and that process involves public commenting, etc. Changing the law would require Congressional action, and it seems they'd be more likely to move on the cut-and-dry parts of the issue like horse racing than they'd be for us.

Also, keep in mind that this is just a delay. The issue doesn't go away. If they delay is granted and then expires without further action on either the regs or the underlying law, parimutuels will still get overblocked. So, with the delay we get the best of both. We'll also have another victory under our belts, and we can use that to keep momentum on our side.

UIGEA has been pushed back, so it now doesn't go into effect until June 2010 (I believe). However, I think the idea that poker sites take 80% of the winnings from their sites is totally ridiculous. Why then would any site be having financial difficulty as some of them are?

 

Originally Posted by poker22

UIGEA has been pushed back, so it now doesn't go into effect until June 2010 (I believe). However, I think the idea that poker sites take 80% of the winnings from their sites is totally ridiculous. Why then would any site be having financial difficulty as some of them are?

Why do you think 5% of the pot, $3 max, and $1 or so of that back in rakeback is 80%?

I am amazed at the small group of people who think governments ought to rein in rakes (as if that would ever happen), yet don't even stop to ask themselves why others aren't stepping in to grab what would appear to be an excellent business opportunity.