Originally Posted by badbeatmenow

It's ironic how so many elected Republicans who claim to care about "small government" stand in opposition to potential legislation that would allow people to do what they want with their own money.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...75298a9bf884d3

Barney Frank & Harry Reid, FTW!!!!!!!

if i thought your sentiment was correct i'd say that your logic could easily be reversed to say democrats suck for ironically supporting legislation that would give the government less control over how people spend their money... but i don't since regulating and licensing the online poker industry makes government bigger, not smaller.

this isn't a strictly partisan issue, it can just look that way because republicans are more disposed to be against the morality of gambling period.

 

Originally Posted by gamma21

As a poker player, you should hope the GOP succeeds here because this legislation is beyond horrible. The PPA is so far off base supporting a bill that would prevent US citizens from playing online for 15 months and prevent a lot of citizens from playing permenantly because states can opt out. Why isn't the PPA sticking up for poker players rights? How can they support legislation that will prevent a significant amount of American citizens from playing poker for 15 months and beyond? Just because we want legislation, it doesn't mean we have to settle for a pile of crap. Shame on you PPA and Harry Reid.

Exactly this. I love the PPA but this legislation would be the furthest thing from a victory possible.

 

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

Passing legislation at the Federal level will undeniably require us to make concessions. As this whole process has shown, it is likely to take some very serious and very painful concessions.

The concessions they are forcing on us are a high price indeed. I would agree they are a "pile of crap." And its a pile we are being told to eat.

But the bill itself is not a pile of crap or of course we would never suggest accepting it. The bill does create what we want: and openly legal, consumer protected, US online poker market with excellent competition. The pile of crap, the concessions, are what they are making us pay to get there.

If this bill doesn't pass, the prospects for a better bill in the next 2 years are not in our favor (not impossible, just not likely).

During that same 2 year period the deterioration of the statue quo will continue to one degree or another. Most prognosticators think that if the status quo (meaning, basically, that everyone except those in WA can still play on stars and FTP) is still here in 2 years that will be a great victory for us and great defeat for the DOJ.

This legislation is by no means a "victory" and no one from the PPA is claiming otherwise. What the PPA is saying is that it may be our best chance to get what we want for the long term and so, despite the unfair and outrageous short term costs, accepting the bill is still the best play.

Reasonable minds can differ. It is a close call. But you have to be realistic, especially those whose play is a primary source of income. If the status quo crumbles in the next 15 months you may well find yourself saying that the Reid bill might not have been that bad of a deal after all.

Skallagrim

The problem is that we won't have a job for those 15 months and to be honest it would likely be MUCH longer than 15 months before playing professionally was a viable option again. Two years minimum. I'd rather take my chances with the shitty status quo than take a sure defeat, which is exactly what the passing of this bill would be. With the status quo, playing professionally is possible, for now. The minute this bill passes, I certainly have to look for a new job because my career was killed.

Make no mistake about it: If this bill passes, and you are a professional poker player, your career is DEAD for at least two years, and possibly forever. There is no argument that can be made to dispute that fact.

Please reconsider supporting this bill. It's not helping us. The blackout period is unacceptable and is too great of a concession to make. No legislation is clearly better than the passing of this bill. It's not close.

Not to mention that after fifteen months (plus however long it takes for a site to get up and runninng), there is still no guarantee that your state doesn't opt-out of the bill. There will also be a building period for these sites. They won't have million dollar+ guarantees overnight. We don't know who the government would give licenses to and they may give them to nobody for all we know. And also there is still the possibility that the hammer would drop and another piece of legislation could come along and kill this.

I encourage everyone reading this to call your senator and encourage them NOT to vote for this bill. It's a horrible piece of legislation, and pinning our hopes on a solution that doesn't come until 2013 and isn't even a guarantee is a really bad idea.

 

Originally Posted by Jennifear

The problem is that we won't have a job for those 15 months and to be honest it would likely be MUCH longer than 15 months before playing professionally was a viable option again. Two years minimum. I'd rather take my chances with the shitty status quo than take a sure defeat, which is exactly what the passing of this bill would be. With the status quo, playing professionally is possible, for now. The minute this bill passes, I certainly have to look for a new job because my career was killed.

Make no mistake about it: If this bill passes, and you are a professional poker player, your career is DEAD for at least two years, and possibly forever. There is no argument that can be made to dispute that fact.

Please reconsider supporting this bill. It's not helping us. The blackout period is unacceptable and is too great of a concession to make. No legislation is clearly better than the passing of this bill. It's not close.

Not to mention that after fifteen months (plus however long it takes for a site to get up and runninng), there is still no guarantee that your state doesn't opt-out of the bill. There will also be a building period for these sites. They won't have million dollar+ guarantees overnight. We don't know who the government would give licenses to and they may give them to nobody for all we know. And also there is still the possibility that the hammer would drop and another piece of legislation could come along and kill this.

I encourage everyone reading this to call your senator and encourage them NOT to vote for this bill. It's a horrible piece of legislation, and pinning our hopes on a solution that doesn't come until 2013 and isn't even a guarantee is a really bad idea.

I might quibble with the part of your statement that says "2 years." I do not think it will take an extra 7 months for pros to be able to start playing profitably again. That minor point aside, as far as online poker goes, your statement in bold is true. You do not know how much I wish it were otherwise, nor how much the PPA fought to make it otherwise.

What you are seeing is the limits of the PPA's ability to influence events at this time. We have some real influence, but it should be clear that other interests have far more influence than us.

One absolute limitation on our part is the ability of states to opt-out and make online poker illegal in their state. ANY FEDERAL BILL THAT EVER PASSES WILL INCLUDE THE ABILITY OF STATES TO OPT OUT. No congressman would even consider proposing a bill that forced Utah to allow its citizens to play online poker legally. None. And many constitutional scholars believe it would be unconstitutional for the Feds to try and force Utah (for example) to do that.

State opt outs are not a "bad part" of the Reid bill, they are a necessary component of ANY Federal bill. If you live in a bad anti-poker state, you need to realize this NOW. You need to also realize that the most likely reason your state is not passing laws against you now (like the one in WA) is because they think online poker is already illegal. That won't last forever. If you live in a bad state for poker, your ability to play in a bad state is very, very precarious, whether a bill passes or not.

The bad parts of the Reid bill are the 14 month black out (you do get 30 days to wind down, thanks to PPA efforts - not much I agree, but that shows what I mean by limited influence) and the various delays in full competition and implementing an international player pool.

But assuming you live in an opt-in state, wouldn't you pros simply love the idea of playing at "CaesersWSOP.com" or "MGMPoker.com" the day after they are announced during Sunday football games in 2012? Especially when it gives the recreational players assurance that it is legal, regulated by the government, and deposits can be made by credit card?

Is the trade off worth it? I say its a very close call. The price is absurdly high. For some, as a personal matter, it is indeed too high. But is it too high for most? Reasonable minds can differ. But given the instability of the status quo and the relentless attacks on it by Federal and state authorities, in the long run accepting the bill is the most +EV play in my reluctant opinion.

I wish I saw a way to guarantee you a better result. I really do. But I don't. If this bill fails I can promise that the PPA (and myself) will continue to fight for a better deal and to keep the status quo running as long as possible. But I would be lying to you if I said we thought we had more than a 50% chance of achieving those results over the next two years.

I do feel the need to say one final thing - my reluctant support for this bill, and the PPA's, is premised on the bill being basically similar to versions we have seen and have been made public. This bill has been through so many versions with so many changes that I admit it possible that a final version will go so far as to make me change my mind about the cost/benefit analysis. But on that we can only wait and see how this dance among the Senators plays out.

Skallagrim

 

Originally Posted by illinicubs23

this isn't a strictly partisan issue, it can just look that way because republicans are more disposed to be against the morality of gambling period.

I think the GOP is missing out on pleasing their base here. It's not morality they should be touting as their platform, its government oversight into personal rights. Its fighting big government that their base would back as an issue. As it stands between Reid's special interest folly and the GOP's morality platform, I agree that this is not an issue of partisan politics as it is power plays and special interest driven.

The fact that the PPA is willing to jump on the leg of any legislation (like Reid's) that says its for the rights of poker players is defining them as desperate.

And yes, I fully accept the fact that my first post on Pocket Fives will most likely get me flamed! :)

Dominic

hello? This is the USA! We don't need a some bill to regulate poker sites. There are already laws in place that protect against false identification, stealing..etc. Just make it legal and let the customer decide if the site is safe and legit. Pretty sure the free market is what created this country, don't forget that.

Plus don't listen to every thing ppl like (D) Barny Frank or any representative for that matter tell you. For all you know he was the one that presented this to the DOJ, so after shit hit the fan he could be the one with the solution. There already is a solution and its called freedom.