1. Thanks for posting the Wall Street Journal article. Here's our feature article including industry reaction to it:
    Add Dan to Rail
  2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like this bill would be disastrous for current US players who make their living playing online, at least for the first two years. After two years I could see this being a net gain as many new US players, who perhaps didn't feel comfortable about playing online because of the current legal grey-area, would have started playing in the new regulated environment.
    Add JMaster130 to Rail
  3. Nice article good read.
    Add TonyJ to Rail
  4. I feel this could be a huge money maker for players in the U.S. who play for a living. Think of just how many people who really don't play that much will be opening an account for one of these new poker sites that are legal in the U.S., owned by a U.S. company, regulated, and their money stays in the U.S. If you play poker online for a living this could be huge for your bankroll! I hope it happens, but I wonder if there is enough time to get it done.
    Add danwin22 to Rail
    Originally Posted by JMaster130 View Post

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like this bill would be disastrous for current US players who make their living playing online, at least for the first two years. After two years I could see this being a net gain as many new US players, who perhaps didn't feel comfortable about playing online because of the current legal grey-area, would have started playing in the new regulated environment.

    The "bill" that is going around is an initial draft from last month. Since that time a lot of effort has been expended by the PPA and its allies to address the provisions that make the transition period potentially "disastrous" for online pros. In fact my understanding is that those efforts are still ongoing as I post this Saturday morning. I have also been told that a good number of the provisions that make the transition period difficult will be changed for the better, but I have yet to see actual specific changes.

    Ultimately though, there is no doubt that the transition period will be difficult for many if not all players. The only open question is just HOW difficult. It will be better than what is in the draft, but I don't know how much better.

    But once the transition period is over, this bill gives us pretty much everything we want: open, competitive, licensed, consumer-protected US and ultimately International online poker. And the tax provisions, when considered against the lowered cost of doing business in an openly legal market, should not have much impact. We in the US will still have to deal with individual states that may want to prevent their residents from participating in this system by "opting-out" of the system, but we have known for a long time that any Federal bill would have that result and we have been preparing for that state by state fight.

    So the real bottom line with respect to the proposal is: can we put up with a year or two of hurt in order to obtain a long term system that really benefits us?

    Given that the current system is unstable, cannot last, and is only going to get more difficult as time goes on, I think the answer to my question is a clear "YES."

    Edited By: Skallagrim Dec 4th, 2010 at 06:20 PM
    Add Skallagrim to Rail
  6. Skallagrim,

    Thanks for posting here. Not quite sure what the problem is with this site, but we've got the biggest news (BY FAR) regarding the political landscape and the focus of pocketfives, and there is virtually no discussion. Which is fine I suppose, because in the 60+ page thread on the other site there are there are only a small handful of posts worth reading, including everything by Skallagrim and TE.

    So pocketfives, you have the most informed posters on this subject in Skall and the Engineer, maybe you could make a sticky link in PD or something? IDK, but you're definitely missing the boat here.

    Oh yeah, one more thing. ONE TIME HARRY REID! (Even though your career seems to be dedicated to destroying the US, at least you can give us online poker sir.)
    Add hrk to Rail
  7. Wow. Is this the only page on this topic at this site?
    Add sajeffe to Rail
  8. ^^^^THIS^^^^
    Add Got All Day to Rail
  9. why 2 years of no pokerstars...pokerstars should be rewarded for their efforts to stay in the U.S. market for as long as they have...I understand the long term benefits this bill would provide, but I can't support the bill if it means me having to find another site to play even though stars has always performed perfect customer service
    Add ponyboyscott to Rail
  10. The U.S. government didn't want Pokerstars or any other poker site to stay in the U.S., they was the intent of the bill that made transactions through banks harder. As far as the government was concerned, Pokerstars was breaking the law. They will punish Pokerstars and other websites that kept accepting U.S. players. I know it is stupid but that is the way it is. I'm willing to take a year without a site to be able to make easy withdrawals and deposits, and not worry if I'm going to get my money.
    Add danwin22 to Rail
  11. Its all over for this legislation it appears, really no surprise that a guy who has been the enemy of online poker for a long time would put the end to this...

    Harry Reid tries to add online poker to tax bill

    Kyl, a leading opponent of online gambling, told POLITICO he intends to block Reid’s proposal and vowed there is "zero chance — no chance whatsoever that would be part of the tax deal."
    Edited By: WEC Dec 8th, 2010 at 02:03 AM
    Add WEC to Rail
  12. so for 80k a corporation can even write legislation for the "super power" of the world? LOL

    how things have gone down the shit hole pretty bad for you americans I guess

    what I can't figure out is this, why aren't states doing their own online poker?

    or a few of them banding together and coming up with a site for online poker gamblers?

    kind of like what they have already done with power ball etc?

    in canada some of the provinces are going to be setting up their own online gambling sites for better or worse

    nothing wrong with competition imo, what is bad is having these B&Ms in LV trying to screw everyone just because they have a dirty politician in their pocket.

    hey harrah, get out there and compete; if you have a good product, am sure you will succeed in having a profitable operation.
    Edited By: rivertyme Dec 8th, 2010 at 04:56 AM
    Add rivertyme to Rail
  13. Any attempt to provide American casino's with an advantage by way of unfair licensing practices will be met with the strong opposition internationally by the world trade organization and any number of economic treaties the U.S. is currently bound by. This would likely mean a serious potential global economic impact for not only for the U.S. government but also its companies operating abroad. I'm shocked that Senator Reid would not have considered these implications, leading me to assume he is not vested in this bill or never intended for that clause to reach the final draft.

    It also concerns me greatly that such a blatant departure from capitalistic ideals has not been met with more of a public outcry. It seems to be in line with the current atmosphere of price tag politics, backroom glad handing, and moral dictation in Washington these days. It's sad to think how far our political leaders and the system they facilitate has fallen from the ideals on which it was founded such as capitalism and legislative duty. At what point will congress tell the special interest groups and self appointed moral police to pipe down and do not only what is clearly necessary but also required of them by virtue of the office they hold?

    If Senator Reid is concerned with the ability of U.S. based operations to compete with well established international firms he should have thought of that when the UIGEA was passed in 2006. Using legislation to undo the vast mistakes made by lawmakers at the expense of our integrity is not acceptable. Former president Bush and his congress showed considerably poor judgment that the American economy and taxpayers have long suffered for. Congress should accept that they have failed and move on.

    Further, Senator Kyle should heed the lessons learned by President Bush. While your constituency may not have evolved enough to realize the simple truth that prohibitions never work, you don't speak for the rest of the country. The people of your country should not suffer the trechery of your moral hangups and special interest obligations.
    Add dgillis to Rail