What is your definition of Regulation?

[*TT*]

The more I think about the road that lays ahead of us, the more I have begun to realize that the vast majority of current players won't be happy when and if regulation of our industry takes place allowing online poker to exist legally.

Therefore hypothetically if next year a partial repeal of the Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling provision was voted on, what would you as a lobbyist(I know your probably not a lobbyist, this is hypothetical remember?) recommend to congress should be included in the legislation?

Think carefully before answering... there is no way in hell congress will permit us to operate like we were before, but we might have a chance if proper regulation is in place, the government gets a tax cut, and monies are put aside for reforming problem gamblers. What regulations would you recommend? Would you advise foreign operation of poker rooms to continue, be banned, or work side by side with companies based on US soil? How would you deal with tax issues, would you recommend a tax on all winnings in addition to income tax? What about states that don't permit gambling? What give backs would you give to the anti-gambling lobby to pacify their needs?

Don't let me down 2+2, show me your well thought out strategy to save the online poker industry!

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[j2zooted]

Why not propose that the online casinos be regulated something like tobacco and alcohol companies, with similar requirements for the community outreach stuff. I really dont know how this junk works, but it seems like that would be a good place to start. I also think there would need to be some sort of agency making sure the sites aren't cheating, are paying people out, etc.

I think foreign poker room operations should be allowed to do business here as long as they follow the rules that are set out. Free trade is a net benefit for consumers, and if they are not allowed it causes more headaches for the US with the WTO.

I think an extra tax on winnings is excessive. Dont some people have to pay federal and state income tax on winnings? If my understanding is correct, then an additional wiinings tax could be a third tax on some people. Maybe something like a capital gains tax for poker winnings could be established instead of having to deal with income tax (something in the neighborhood of 25%?).

Dealing with states that dont allow gambling, I would initially try some sort of argument where it was implied that the games are played on the internet not in that state. I dont think this would be effective, and I think some states might just be SOL. Hopefully a couple reputable sites would stick around to pick up these players.

As far as give backs to the anti-gambling lobby, they get lip service and promises until we get our bill. Then they get nothing. They will always be opposed to us, I have no interest in helping or strengthening their cause.

[Uglyowl]

You pose a great question TT. I think life may be better as we currently stand than if the government continues to get involved in our lives at this level.

I don't have a clue how regulated horse racing is, maybe someone could fill us in.

I guess it all depends how the enforcement of UIGEA goes. If this bill is only a paper tiger, maybe nothing is better than regulation? With regulations you never know the silly rules that could be thrown in.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
I think an extra tax on winnings is excessive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think that online gambling will ever be legalized and regulated without a "gambling tax"??? Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Question is, who pays the tax? How will it be levied? And at what percent? Based on past experience with the IRS's stance on tracking gambling sessions they may look to tax either each individual hand, or each table session. This will of course would be in addition to income taxes.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
You pose a great question TT. I think life may be better as we currently stand than if the government continues to get involved in our lives at this level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! Some day we will look back and wish that online poker was banned, because those were the good old days when there were back-door methods to fund an account. Do we really want the government regulating and taxing our games? What if they screw it all up? What if the compromise is a situation similar to the games in Florida right now?

Keep it coming 2+2.... lets brainstorm, how do we encourage regulation without damaging out game?

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[j2zooted]

How about a 20% increase on the rake, that would be set aside as a "gambling tax." This being in addition to any corporate taxes the poker room would owe. This would be unfair to international players, but maybe that could be the price they pay to play with americans.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You pose a great question TT. I think life may be better as we currently stand than if the government continues to get involved in our lives at this level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! Some day we will look back and wish that online poker was banned, because those were the good old days when there were back-door methods to fund an account. Do we really want the government regulating and taxing our games? What if they screw it all up? What if the compromise is a situation similar to the games in Florida right now?

Keep it coming 2+2.... lets brainstorm, how do we encourage regulation without damaging out game?

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[/ QUOTE ]We already pay taxes.The real crush of regulation would be on the sites.Those are the ones who are not paying taxes,not the players.Although,this taxing of poker sites could effect us as well,by companies who try to pass their new burden to players through higher rake.Free market would hopefully control this to an extent.At least this would seem logical.How exactly does it work in other countries where it is regulated and sites are taxed???If someone who lives somewhere like this could chime in and explain the actual effects that would be great.It is a very interesting question,and id like to hear from someone who is living it,what the reality of playing online poker under government regulation is.

[*TT*]

[/ QUOTE ]We already pay taxes.The real crush of regulation would be on the sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

And don't you think the sites will pass the buck to the end user? After all their foreign customers don't force the company to pay additional taxes.

I don't think the burden will be via higher rake, it will have to be implemented as a dedicated and separate rake that only kicks in when the player is a US citizen.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
if regulation of our industry takes place allowing online poker to exist legally.


[/ QUOTE ]


As your honest Washington lobbyist, I would tell you to talk to the State people.

Gambling is legalized and regulated at the state level. Congress is only enforcing the State's unlawful gambling laws with the UIGEA, not changing them.

Yes, if States allow something as retarded as Powerball to exist, there is great hope for regulated online poker. But like Powerball, it has to be at a State level IMHO.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
How about a 20% increase on the rake

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that Congress cares about the rake, I doubt they will legislate a percentage increase of rake when each and every site charges for rake differently.

thinking caps.. thinking caps...

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if regulation of our industry takes place allowing online poker to exist legally.


[/ QUOTE ]


As your honest Washington lobbyist, I would tell you to talk to the State people.

Gambling is legalized and regulated at the state level. Congress is only enforcing the State's unlawful gambling laws with the UIGEA, not changing them.

Yes, if States allow something as retarded as Powerball to exist, there is great hope for regulated online poker. But like Powerball, it has to be at a State level IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just advised us to what we currently have. Online Gambling is legal at the state level, not at the national level (technically).

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]We already pay taxes.The real crush of regulation would be on the sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

And don't you think the sites will pass the buck to the end user? After all their foreign customers don't force the company to pay additional taxes.

I don't think the burden will be via higher rake, it will have to be implemented as a dedicated and separate rake that only kicks in when the player is a US citizen.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[/ QUOTE ]I see your point,but we are assuming an off shore company in this scenario???Thats also another factor that would greatly be affected by legalizing and regulating online poker.We might safely assume that if given the green light alot of american casinos and other companies would swoop in like hawks on this profitable market.So your point is well taken,but would be a completely different scenario for taxing sites if they were an american company on american soil.

[ericicecream]

1) Charge the sites for an annual u.s. licensing fee. Any site not paying the fee will not be allowed. The fee will be high enough to be valuable to the gov't, low enough that the major sites can afford it. They will surely pass it on to us by way of rake increase.

2) Certain deposit limits/clock on time played (like the UK is recommending)

3) Sites contribute to problem gambling programs.

4) Accuracy in advertising, in other words no "join titan poker and become the next millionaire". Advertisements state something to the affect of "This is a gambling site and most players lose"

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Charge the sites for an annual u.s. licensing fee. Any site not paying the fee will not be allowed. The fee will be high enough to be valuable to the gov't, low enough that the major sites can afford it. They will surely pass it on to us by way of rake increase.

2) Certain deposit limits/clock on time played (like the UK is recommending)

3) Sites contribute to problem gambling programs.

4) Accuracy in advertising, in other words no "join titan poker and become the next millionaire". Advertisements state something to the affect of "This is a gambling site and most players lose"

[/ QUOTE ]Nice thoughts,but #4,if i was in charge of marketing id just pass on the advertisements all together.Kinda like making budweiser state "This is an alcoholic beverage and most people will end up with a 350lb. girl and crabs,not this supermodel" /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[5thStreetHog]

Btw TT...good thread.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if regulation of our industry takes place allowing online poker to exist legally.


[/ QUOTE ]


As your honest Washington lobbyist, I would tell you to talk to the State people.

Gambling is legalized and regulated at the state level. Congress is only enforcing the State's unlawful gambling laws with the UIGEA, not changing them.

Yes, if States allow something as retarded as Powerball to exist, there is great hope for regulated online poker. But like Powerball, it has to be at a State level IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just advised us to what we currently have. Online Gambling is legal at the state level, not at the national level (technically).

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


If online gambling (poker) is legal at the State level, when did that happen, who is licensed and what are the regulations?

What do you think is making it illegal at the national level given the State's legality?

[j2zooted]

You know how states have a hunting or fishing liscense you must buy? Could you have something like that where you had to annually or monthly buy a permit from some federal agency to play online poker, or do whatever form of gambling you prefer? That could be the consumer end of the tax.

[jlkrusty]

Regulations should try to mirror how actual B&M casinoes are regulated. Here are two main points that would make online casinoes more like B&M casinoes:

1. The sites themselves would be taxed for every dollar of american money made. Thus, for each $1 of American money earned by a site, the site would have to pay say 25 cents of that to the government. The sites could then decide how to pass that onto the customer. Since there would be free market competition, hopefully the effect on the player would not be great.

2. Have a commission that oversees all the sites to ensure that the games are fair and secure--just like there is a gaming commission that oversees B&M casinoes.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

I don't share your pessimism on the regulation scenario. I imagine the model would be something very much like the B&M scenario that exists today, where there are a designated number of licensees that would be taxed and regulated like any other legitimate business.

[ericicecream]

[ QUOTE ]
You know how states have a hunting or fishing liscense you must buy? Could you have something like that where you had to annually or monthly buy a permit from some federal agency to play online poker, or do whatever form of gambling you prefer? That could be the consumer end of the tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

Follow this up with smoking licenses, coffee drinking licenses, steak-eaters license...

[Sniper]

Interesting question TT...

I can forsee a time when Poker Sites will report W2G earnings based on table session winnings, and withhold 25% of win$ everytime you get up from the table. Leaving the player to have to calculate and prove losses for deduction purposes, when they file taxes, as it is today.

[Exsubmariner]

Banning = regulation.

Just ask the ACers in the politics forum. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting question TT...

I can forsee a time when Poker Sites will report W2G earnings based on table session winnings, and withhold 25% of win$ everytime you get up from the table. Leaving the player to have to calculate and prove losses for deduction purposes, when they file taxes, as it is today.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see we share the same vision.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[Moneyline]

There was a lengthy discussion on this around the time of the House vote. I think there are both pros and cons to legislation, with the pros outweighing the cons. At the time most people seemed to share my opinion on this.

The pros:
1) Insured deposits
2) Governement would monitor the integrity of the games/shuffle
3) Easier payment access
4) Better safeguards to stop underage and problem gamblers.
5) Explosion in the numbers of casual players for above 4 reasons.

Essentially, the pros are that online gambling will be legitimized, and the base of casual players will increase. Also, no payment problems like the current Pokes Poker fiasco.

The Cons:
1) Automatic witholding of taxes.
2) States potentially limiting the maximum amount that can be bet.

Automatic witholding would be a pain in the ass because it amounts to giving the gov't an interest free loan instead of allowing me to put that money in my bankroll and use it to generate more income. Individual states placing limits on bets would obviously keep players from those states from playing higher stakes games.

The concern about the gov't taking a piece of every hand a player wins as opposed to every session is not a credible concern IMO. Not only does it seem like a logistical nightmare for the IRS, but it would go against current protocol of accounting by session.

[4_2_it]

TT,

Since the government has failed to properly ever regulate anything, I am very much for the status quo. If the WTO case could blow up that would be a good thing.

This is going to be a state by state issue as I do not see how gambling could be considered interstate commerce unless they figure out a way to allow me to be present in one state while 'legally' placing a bet in another.

I think a situation like this would 'seem' to be close to a techincal violation of the Wire Act for some.

Right now, I think that banks will influence this process to make it very easy (read: inexpensive) for them to just make a token effort. The poker sites will develop and communicate workarounds and the Democrat Congress will have no inclination to modify the law to take these into account.

My definition of regulation? That's a tough one. I wonder what the Internet sites would want. Seems it would easy for them to generate W2s that include wins and losses and 1099s for bonuses. I wonder if we would also get 1099s from our rakeback affiliates?

[Ace upmy Slv]

Just a quick statement/question:

I have cashed at several live tournaments including a close to 6 figure cash at this years WSOP. I have always just received a W2G form with no taxes taken at the time of the cash. I will pay taxes on those at the end of the year. What would be the difference with online poker?

What would prevent each site sending all US customers one W2G at the end of the year for their poker winnings on their site? Each site would have to monitor each players accounts for the whole year and send a W2G accordingly. We each would then pay taxes on this at the end of the year just like any other W2G. The online sites would be regulated and taxed like any other B&M casino. Obviously their increased costs would be passed down to the players through added rake or larger tourney fees.

Each site could send a yearly statement showing all deposit amounts, winnings, rake paid, tourney buyin fees, etc for tax purposes. Think of it like buying and selling stocks. You don't automatically pay taxes every time you buy and sell a stock during the year. You pay taxes or deduct taxes at the end of each year based on the overall profit or losses from buying and selling stocks.

Am I offbase here or missing something?

[dragonystic]

Some people have stated it should be regulated like "tobacco and firearms" or that it should be regulated like regular B&M's. But as I think about this more, it all seems absurd.

We don't regulate FOREIGN B&M's or foreign tobacco. And that's what these online casinos are right now! Why should the US get any sort of cut?? If the US can get a cut, why not the UK or Sweden or Germany? This doesn't make sense. Online casinos service dozens (hundreds?) of countries! What is to stop each and every government from sticking it's hand out?

If the US wants a cut, they'd have to have the servers in the US, as the UK is attempting to do. Otherwise they are entitled to nothing.

[John_Manley]

Regulation would have to incorporate/address all the issues that the goverment has sited as a reason to ban online gaming (underage gambling, regulations to prevent as much as possible money laundering, a method to tract online player winnings and losing so that taxes can be collected, gambling addiction, etc.). Other issues like gaming site fairness/cheating would have to be addressed and I suspect there would be some sort of gambling commision that would have to be formed to monitor the online gambling sites. Along with the regulations, I suspect would come stiffer penalties to sites and users who violate any of the gambling laws. I'm sure the big Vegas casios will lobby to be the sole operators of online gaming but in my opinion that would violate free trade.

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
Gambling is legalized and regulated at the state level.

[/ QUOTE ]
Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. They could easily pass a law with respect to internet gambling that preempts state laws.

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people have stated it should be regulated like "tobacco and firearms" or that it should be regulated like regular B&M's. But as I think about this more, it all seems absurd.

We don't regulate FOREIGN B&M's or foreign tobacco. And that's what these online casinos are right now! Why should the US get any sort of cut?? If the US can get a cut, why not the UK or Sweden or Germany? This doesn't make sense. Online casinos service dozens (hundreds?) of countries! What is to stop each and every government from sticking it's hand out?

If the US wants a cut, they'd have to have the servers in the US, as the UK is attempting to do. Otherwise they are entitled to nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the idea is that the US government would only get a cut of the earnings made off US gamblers. If other countries wanted to regulate poker as well, they would only get a piece of the profits from gamblers from their specific country.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gambling is legalized and regulated at the state level.

[/ QUOTE ]
Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. They could easily pass a law with respect to internet gambling that preempts state laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the 535 people sent BY THE 50 STATES to congress are going to pass a law that throws out gambling laws in those 50 STATES?

[Bilgefisher]

I think this thread has slightly derailed from the intended purpose.

Some suggestions? The taxation on internet gambling needs to be clear cut. How much should you be taxed, what is considered a business expense, what can you deduct, what should you include etc etc.

I think regulation and taxation will happen. The biggest problem is as poker player convincing congress on how much. Most people see a winning session and think that taking a chunk of that is no big issue. Poker players see the long run and how deeply that affects our profits and can take a winning player and make them a losing player. Heck many poker players don't fully understand variance and how it affects your profits. I think that should be the biggest consideration down the road. Competition between sites should fix any other regulation issues that may come into play.

On a side note(not to derail here): I don't think people fully appreciate how explosive the game will become if mgm or harrah's were to open to US players. Even joe pessimist will consider playing then.

[dustyn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gambling is legalized and regulated at the state level.

[/ QUOTE ]
Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. They could easily pass a law with respect to internet gambling that preempts state laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the 535 people sent BY THE 50 STATES to congress are going to pass a law that throws out gambling laws in those 50 STATES?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not saying they will, he's saying they can.

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
The taxation on internet gambling needs to be clear cut. How much should you be taxed, what is considered a business expense, what can you deduct, what should you include etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

The tax guidelines for gamblers/poker players are already well established. I wasn't aware that there was any possibility of these changing.

Taxation will be on the industry, i.e. the sites. The players are already required to pay taxes.

The sites will likely trickle down the costs of taxes to the customers, but what form this takes and how much is anyones guess.

I personally do NOT want regulation. The major sites are plenty safe. Regulation is just a fancy word for big brother to say 'gimme gimme gimme.'

[MrWookie]

[ QUOTE ]
Just a quick statement/question:

I have cashed at several live tournaments including a close to 6 figure cash at this years WSOP. I have always just received a W2G form with no taxes taken at the time of the cash. I will pay taxes on those at the end of the year. What would be the difference with online poker?

What would prevent each site sending all US customers one W2G at the end of the year for their poker winnings on their site? Each site would have to monitor each players accounts for the whole year and send a W2G accordingly. We each would then pay taxes on this at the end of the year just like any other W2G. The online sites would be regulated and taxed like any other B&M casino. Obviously their increased costs would be passed down to the players through added rake or larger tourney fees.

Each site could send a yearly statement showing all deposit amounts, winnings, rake paid, tourney buyin fees, etc for tax purposes. Think of it like buying and selling stocks. You don't automatically pay taxes every time you buy and sell a stock during the year. You pay taxes or deduct taxes at the end of each year based on the overall profit or losses from buying and selling stocks.

Am I offbase here or missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the vision I had. The site sends you a W2G every January with your gross winnings by session. Then you submit that along with the rest of your income tax stuff, which includes your itemized deductions. The online casinos (the ones based in the US, anyway) are taxed just like B&M casinos.

[Vidocq]

I agree with much of what has been said above. In an ideal world, there would be the "US Online Gaming Commission" -- a federal agency. The agency would:

* Charge sites a heafty annual license fee to cover the costs of the Commission.

* Have reasonable licensing requirements for operators, perhaps modeled on existing state gaming commission requirements.

* Have the ability to inspect the books and records of licensed companies.

The regulated sites would be required to:

* Keep all customer funds in a segregated account, i.e., not use them for operating purposes.

* Provide an annual W2G or other tax document to players, which the players would use for filing taxes.

* Pay taxes in the US.

* Have verifiably random dealing procedures.

* Comply with AML laws and OFAC regulations.

Another thing the Commission could do would be to have the power to combat cheating by players -- collusion, bots, etc.

Of course, it is extremely unlikely that any of this will ever happen. There is no real precedent for this type of federal regulation of a leisure time or sporting activity. There has, from time to time, been talk of a federal boxing regulator (something that is probably a good idea) but it has never gotten off the ground.

[ericicecream]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally do NOT want regulation. The major sites are plenty safe. Regulation is just a fancy word for big brother to say 'gimme gimme gimme.'

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but I don't think we will stay status quo. If their is not a successful challenge by the WTO or other means, then I doubt we have seen the last anti-internet-gaming legislation.

Regulation may not be better than what we have today, but may be better than what is to come (assuming no successful challenge).

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you advise foreign operation of poker rooms to continue, be banned, or work side by side with companies based on US soil?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure about U.S. trade law, but many countries require that foreign companies operating in certain business segments take on a minority ownership role only. For example, my employer's operation in India is a joint venture, and we own a noncontrolling stake of 49%. The joint venture partner is the primary party that is held accountable for proper market conduct.

I envision a scenario where a company such as Harrah's would partner with Stars or Party, with Stars or Party owning 49%. Harrah's would then be held accountable for tax reporting, audits, and other regulatory requirements.

[permafrost]

Article about the new law and how it will lead to regulation (http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/Ciaffone-UIGEA.htm)

This is a great read if you have not seen it.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
I envision a scenario where a company such as Harrah's would partner with Stars or Party, with Stars or Party owning 49%. Harrah's would then be held accountable for tax reporting, audits, and other regulatory requirements.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is protectionisim. See the WTO case of Antigua vs USA for more info.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[SNOWBALL]

I think regulations could potentially be very very bad. They might make the highest limit available 5/10 LHE or 100NL. They might tax it so badly that the rake goes up really high. They might place waiting periods on sign-ups. The more I think about it the more sick I get.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
We already pay taxes.The real crush of regulation would be on the sites.Those are the ones who are not paying taxes,not the players.Although,this taxing of poker sites could effect us as well,by companies who try to pass their new burden to players through higher rake.Free market would hopefully control this to an extent.At least this would seem logical.How exactly does it work in other countries where it is regulated and sites are taxed???If someone who lives somewhere like this could chime in and explain the actual effects that would be great.It is a very interesting question,and id like to hear from someone who is living it,what the reality of playing online poker under government regulation is.

[/ QUOTE ]

The situation in the UK is like this. The betting shops (William Hill, Ladbrokes etc) pay a 15% levy of their take to the taxman, this is on top of their normal corporation tax etc. This replaced a 9% tax on all bets (you could pay it placing a bet or lose it from your winnings, this was the only UK tax on gambling winnings). The bookies agreed to this deal a few years back and have since concentrated on upping their revenues via electronic terminals in shops etc so that both the bookies and the taxman get more - as a result of an increase in gambling. The punters are happy as they feel 9% better off and given the competition of betting exchanges the bookies have not been able to fix the book by anything like 9%.

In Gibraltar/Antigua etc it is a bit less clear as they don't talk about it but the scuttle but is that taxes are about 1% of revenues. The UK gov is yet to outline what tax regime they would have for dedicated online operations, they would like 15% as this way it matches the B&M operations but it's unlikely anyone would come onshore at this rate. The problem for the UK is if they set a lower rate the local firms will go "Oi, what about us" and the treasury wants the money. It's likely they will need an online/B&M difference but this would make all the bookies try and push all the punters online.

Anyway the conference was not just about regulation it was also about taxation. They will not admit it but the 32 governments were trying to get a cartel where they all agreed a minimum tax take. Gib/Antigua may not be keen to lose their competitive advantage but today's press with gov ministers putting pressure on the Treasury by talking about nobody coming onshore suggests they made progress but not near 15%.

My guess 5% and an agreement to work on joint regulation so that a licence in 1 country can be ported to another for a fee and a cut of the 5% on revenues from that market. This is just a guess though, the negotiations will be long.

In short though the tax on the companies should not really hit the rake or the punter much, it is likely to hit the house margin in a competitive market. We all know they are making superprofits today, the market will push the rake down and because only authorised sites will be allowed to advertise the real market will be of regulated sites.

[5thStreetHog]

Thanks for the reply.

[AAAA]

representative kasper from ND indicated he thought the state could get the IRS to accept a Net win/loss for the year instead of each session. IMO it would be better for the government to run the room rather than try to tax it. there is an extra level of expense if the companies try to run the rooms.

perhaps in its infancy, this would have been a bad idea, but now that things have pretty much settled down with changes in software and such...i think it is a reasonable thing for a government to do.

years ago i read a book where there were no taxes at all except for a voluntary gambling game that people enjoyed playing! perhaps the time has come!

[pig4bill]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gambling is legalized and regulated at the state level.

[/ QUOTE ]
Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. They could easily pass a law with respect to internet gambling that preempts state laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the 535 people sent BY THE 50 STATES to congress are going to pass a law that throws out gambling laws in those 50 STATES?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not saying they will, he's saying they can.

[/ QUOTE ]

They will? They can?

They did.

Most of you are dreaming. The intent of the law they passed was not to regulate or tax internet gambling, it was to ban it.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gambling is legalized and regulated at the state level.

[/ QUOTE ]
Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. They could easily pass a law with respect to internet gambling that preempts state laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the 535 people sent BY THE 50 STATES to congress are going to pass a law that throws out gambling laws in those 50 STATES?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not saying they will, he's saying they can.

[/ QUOTE ]

They will? They can?

They did.

Most of you are dreaming. The intent of the law they passed was not to regulate or tax internet gambling, it was to ban it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's look at reality. The new law


1. does not "ban" internet gambling or have any affect unless an old Federal or State law already "banned" it, then perhaps we can agree it "bans it more" if you insist

2. helps enforce old laws, making them more effective, does not throw them out at all

3. adds more possible penalties for existing lawbreakers

4. does not apply to current and future lawful internet gambling if a State has that

5. might lead to "disabling of access" to websites

6. does not change whether your play is illegal or legal

7. prohibits a site from accepting funds in relation to previously "banned" gambling

and more.

Nothing about what Congress did changes anti-gambling laws that have been in place for years; gambling was "banned" by these and some has been legalized. The only way I see a blanket change of State law is a Federal Constitutional amendment.

[jackaaron]

I do not want, and never have wanted regulation. I've said in other posts that it would be worse than what we have even right now. Two quick points...

First, I don't think fish are going to stop coming to play with us. New fish will not come for a while, however. I CERTAINLY haven't seen a drop off of bad players that I've been playing against recently. Fish like to play, and they don't know they're fish. Some of them come to this site, for that matter.

Second, if we were to regulate, ONLY the good players would be harmed. The fish lose money, so I don't consider them being harmed any more than they already were. We lose money because I would have to imagine we would pay higher rake in some way. Or, in more general terms, with regulation, we will pay more money to play.

As has been stated before, nothing really changes for us in terms of playing. Depositing will be "different" but I don't think it will be harder for fish. They're fish, but that just means they can't play poker well. It doesn't mean they can't find ways to get their money on sites. I do not want our government to regulate online poker.

[Doom_Switch]

I couldn't disagree with you more. There are so many benefits to US regulation:

1. Would bring legitimacy to sites
2. Legitimacy would spawn a huge influx of new US players
3. Would bring English speaking support and likely phone support to the sites
4. Help US government generate additional revenue from taxes. ND is proposing legalization and regulation to lower property taxes. Sweden Svenka is a good example of a government run site that has already generated millions.
5. Eliminate delayed cashouts from sites
6. Additional deposit methods (credit card, etc..) would create huge influx of deposits
7. Would create huge influx of international players
8. Would put a stop to most "poker is rigged" discussions
9. Would end valuable politicians' time in banning poker so they can concentrate their efforts on more meaningful issues
10. Would help me avoid shady underground cardrooms
11. Would help me save gas on driving to nearest casino an hour north of me
12. Would end all doom switches
13. It would mean more competition which in turn would probably significantly lower rake
14. More competition would probably create better bonuses
15. Help prevent any offshore mafia run operations
16. Create new job opportunities for software programmers, audit consultants in US
17. Prevent Neteller cashout delays
18. Licensing would prevent shady characters such as Ruth Parasoul and Carlos Ayre from running billion dollar businesses

[Ace upmy Slv]

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't disagree with you more. There are so many benefits to US regulation:

1. Would bring legitimacy to sites
2. Legitimacy would spawn a huge influx of new US players
3. Would bring English speaking support and likely phone support to the sites
4. Help US government generate additional revenue from taxes. ND is proposing legalization and regulation to lower property taxes. Sweden Svenka is a good example of a government run site that has already generated millions.
5. Eliminate delayed cashouts from sites
6. Additional deposit methods (credit card, etc..) would create huge influx of deposits
7. Would create huge influx of international players
8. Would put a stop to most "poker is rigged" discussions
9. Would end valuable politicians' time in banning poker so they can concentrate their efforts on more meaningful issues
10. Would help me avoid shady underground cardrooms
11. Would help me save gas on driving to nearest casino an hour north of me
12. Would end all doom switches
13. It would mean more competition which in turn would probably significantly lower rake
14. More competition would probably create better bonuses
15. Help prevent any offshore mafia run operations
16. Create new job opportunities for software programmers, audit consultants in US
17. Prevent Neteller cashout delays
18. Licensing would prevent shady characters such as Ruth Parasoul and Carlos Ayre from running billion dollar businesses

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with most of these points. Look at it this way. Was poker(especially Holdem) better off in back rooms, shady settings and smoke filled basements before it was a popular Casino game? Or, is it better off at the casinos now, with 100 tables per casino and fish everywhere? Although it's not quite the same, I think regulation would have a similiar effect to online poker.

P.S. Doom, can you please leave at least 1 or 2 5/10 games at FT open for me? Lol. 8 tables, 5 sharks per table and 1 little itty bitty fish swimming around all those tanks. What the hell happened! Guess it's omaha for a while where people sometimes can't help themselves....