Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

I realize there will be significant public pressure but still it would seem that they will either be coming with their hand out or just opt out of Frank's law.

Though I think the real benefit of Frank's law is repealing previous legislation.

I know some people know more about this than I do so am anxious to hear people's opinion.

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

picture a trough.

ok ok...now picture a bunch of pigs wearing US colors.

got it? u sure? think harder.

pour some money in the trough, with the bucket labeled "RAKE FROM GAMBLING SITES"

zomg wait. wait. am i being annoying yet? cuz ur annoying.

ok now what do u think will happen when the piggies see the monies in their food trough. wtf wow. light bulb?!

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

The states aren't so much against gambling as they are against gambling they don't get paid on. 48 states have some form of gambling. Additionally, when state lawmakers see that the feds are giving them the option to 'allow' gambling and that they can't stop it anyway, they're more likely to get on board.

A state like Utah is obviously a different story.

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

States opting out will not bring the US into compliance with the WTO!!!! The WTO may except the opt outs for Hawaii and Utah since they have no gambling..Beyond those 2 it's a guessing game..

I think a better question would be why would a State opt out and do the States have the right to opt out???

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

[ QUOTE ]


zomg wait. wait. am i being annoying yet? cuz ur annoying.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is it douche day and I just didn't get the memo?

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

[ QUOTE ]
States opting out will not bring the US into compliance with the WTO!!!! The WTO may except the opt outs for Hawaii and Utah since they have no gambling..Beyond those 2 it's a guessing game..

I think a better question would be why would a State opt out and do the States have the right to opt out???

[/ QUOTE ]

The Frank bill allows opt outs supposedly I guess part of my question is can they opt out for just internet gaming and still have horse racing and lottery.

I think I can answer why they will opt out, because they won't benefit from it and it is not positive for their constituents. My understanding is that giving the states the right to opt out does comply with the WTO because the precedent is already set with Utah and Hawaii but I could be wrong.

This article suggests that it is not the 48 state rule like you guys are saying

http://www.ogpaper.com/news/news-0283.html

This article seems to say that if you are in Louisiana and Internet Gambling is prohibited there you will not be able to play.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press...ss042607.shtml

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
States opting out will not bring the US into compliance with the WTO!!!! The WTO may except the opt outs for Hawaii and Utah since they have no gambling..Beyond those 2 it's a guessing game..

I think a better question would be why would a State opt out and do the States have the right to opt out???

[/ QUOTE ]

The Frank bill allows opt outs supposedly I guess part of my question is can they opt out for just internet gaming and still have horse racing and lottery.

I think I can answer why they will opt out, because they won't benefit from it and it is not positive for their constituents. My understanding is that giving the states the right to opt out does comply with the WTO because the precedent is already set with Utah and Hawaii but I could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the eyes of the WTO states have no rights...This is well documented..The US or any other country can not "hide" behind States and/or regional laws..The US signed an agreement that bonds the entire nation...

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

[ QUOTE ]
picture a trough.

ok ok...now picture a bunch of pigs wearing US colors.

got it? u sure? think harder.

pour some money in the trough, with the bucket labeled "RAKE FROM GAMBLING SITES"

zomg wait. wait. am i being annoying yet? cuz ur annoying.

ok now what do u think will happen when the piggies see the monies in their food trough. wtf wow. light bulb?!

[/ QUOTE ]

Remind me never to answer any questions you might have.

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

I hear you with that but looking at the Barney Frank bill which Annie Duke repeatedly talked about it would seem sites like Full Tilt and Poker Stars are left in the cold.

So forget the WTO for just a second, this bill does not address our problems and specifically says it will track players on IP address.

That doesn't seem good.

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hear you with that but looking at the Barney Frank bill which Annie Duke repeatedly talked about it would seem sites like Full Tilt and Poker Stars are left in the cold.

So forget the WTO for just a second, this bill does not address our problems and specifically says it will track players on IP address.

That doesn't seem good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do not understand your question???? What problems and what's wrong with IP tracking????

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I can answer why they will opt out, because they won't benefit from it and it is not positive for their constituents. My understanding is that giving the states the right to opt out does comply with the WTO because the precedent is already set with Utah and Hawaii but I could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the eyes of the WTO states have no rights...This is well documented..The US or any other country can not "hide" behind States and/or regional laws..The US signed an agreement that bonds the entire nation...

[/ QUOTE ]

The WTO applies to all states and it is signed up to at the federal level the WTO does not recognise the individual states at all, the executive has signed up to the treaty. It gets a bit more complicated in the real world, in practice Antigua et al are not that concerned about Utah and Hawaii and would likely settle for access to the rest. The Frank bill is not WTO compliant but it is likely to be attractive enough to settle the dispute, the WTO would likely stop demanding sanctions or concessions if it were just Utah, simply not worth the grief and the WTO deals rely on a bit of give and take, getting access to most would be chalked up as a win.

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

but the Frank bill doesn't allow it for 48 states and it would seem that B&M casino's might lobby against internet gaming for competitive reasons. Or is that not an option, if you are in for live poker you are in for internet poker?

In an ideal world I would love to see the WTO force the hand but if the law is just similar to the states laws that is way too restrictive.

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

beanie, I agree with you that the IGREA is not a great improvement over the present situation. One big reason is the state opt out provision. Also, it does not comply with the WTO decision.

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

All of the above is why we should really be pushing for the Wexler Bill, HR 2610, the "Skill Games Protection Act." It would allow online poker in all states and by all sites (so long as they met the age verification and other safetty requirements). It does not make the US WTO compliant, but it also does not make the US any less compliant.

Something LIKE the Frank bill will be required for the WTO, the Frank Bill aint near there yet.

But passing Wexler Bill is simply the best possible thing for us poker players, no question.

Skallagrim

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

[ QUOTE ]
All of the above is why we should really be pushing for the Wexler Bill, HR 2610, the "Skill Games Protection Act." It would allow online poker in all states and by all sites (so long as they met the age verification and other safetty requirements). It does not make the US WTO compliant, but it also does not make the US any less compliant.

Something LIKE the Frank bill will be required for the WTO, the Frank Bill aint near there yet.

But passing Wexler Bill is simply the best possible thing for us poker players, no question.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen to what he said.

Tuff

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

I tend to agree. It looks like to me that the Frank bill could be worse than the original bill because at the moment the Full Tilt's and Poker Stars's of the world aren't taking money from anyone at this point. I doubt either of them will shut down the doors and then try and lobby each state to be legal.

The Frank bill talks like a personal freedom's bill but there seems to be a lot in the bill about IP addresses and verifying information. I remember when poker became legal in MN the first thing they did was bust all the private games. The message was sent loud and clear.

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

You're right the states will likely just opt out.

Legislators are biased against gambling more than the general public, because FOF-type voters are much more likely to weight gambling issues more heavily than pro gambling voters. FOF types are motivated by paranoia and threat of divine judgment. They see gambling as a threat to society, or a threat to “the fabric of the family” as Frist said. In addition, they believe that God himself wants the wickedness of gambling to end and will make judgement day difficult for believers who fail to fight against gambling expansion. Pro gambling voters put gambling issues way down on the list of things that are important when voting. To put it simply, in general, it is politically safer for politicians to be against gambling expansion than for it.

Internet gambling has been painted as being particularly evil and destructive. Like it or not, their catch phrases about clicking away your house and the crack cocaine of gambling have been very effective.

Internet gambling interests have lost every single legislative vote that has occurred and have lost them in landslide proportions. This is why the Wexler bill is far superior to IGREA because it does much less to tempt or provoke the individual states’ legislatures to take up the issue.

As far as the tax issue: Legislators value political survival even more than increased revenues. Further, the monies that will be available do not represent “Rake” but “ Rakeback”. Our opponents will argue that states lose more money than they get back, and that that difference would have generated tax revenue as well as economic benefits if it was kept within the states and not lost to out-of-state gambling bosses (their jargon). Also, states will likely see internet gambling as a threat to the money that they bring in from the gambling they already peddle.

Yes, there has been an expansion of gambling within the states in the last 20 years but that has been caused much more by a stick than by a carrot. There has been an increase in the number of Native American Casinos in the last 20 years, and pro-gambling forces have used that to argue that people are going to these casinos , leaving their money, and only bringing back the problems that gambling causes. If states allow casinos in their own states, they argue, than at least there will be money available to treat problem gamblers. They have effectively turned around the issue of problem gamblers as a pro gambling argument and not an anti gambling argument.

This dynamic has played out vividly here in Kansas. For 15 years pro casino interests have tried to get the legislature to expand gambling to allow casinos. The legislature has steadfastly resisted this initiative despite popular polls showing that the people strongly favor casinos. Then, one year recently, there was a huge shortfall in the school budget that the legislature did not want to make up. The Kansas Supreme Court stepped in and required the legislature to make up this shortfall somehow. This was a big problem for the legislature, a problem that gambling expansion would have solved. Still, the legislature refused to allow casinos. Many people thought that if the legislature did not approve casinos that year, then they never would. Then Native American Casinos went up all over in Oklahoma sucking a great deal of money from Kansas. Finally, the legislature approved allowing the voters to approve casinos. And within a few days of this positive legislative action, Missouri started considering liberalizing their own gambling scheme citing the expansion of gambling in Kansas as the reason.

The stick is more powerful than the carrot in gambling issues. Just pointing out the tax money that internet gambling will bring in is not likely to be enough. A more compelling argument is to point out that people will gamble on the internet anyways, and at least legalizing gambling will keep some of that money within the state. Also, we should do everything possible to get the decision to opt out or in decided directly by the people. States with referendum laws are much more likely to do this (a la Tuff Fish).

But of course the Wexler bill is still best.

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

I agree we need the biggest stick we can get, i.e. WTO grants IP sanction to Antiqua. Other than court rulings in our favor, I cannot think of any stick that will beat the Congress and the states into accepting online gambling for the next 2+ years.

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

FOF = Foes of Fun

"Rep Cohen (TN): Is there any kind of fun you are for?"
FOF guy: ..... what?"

Skallagrim

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree we need the biggest stick we can get, i.e. WTO grants IP sanction to Antiqua. Other than court rulings in our favor, I cannot think of any stick that will beat the Congress and the states into accepting online gambling for the next 2+ years.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree that Congress passing IGREA is a long shot. My post assumed the hypothetical posed by op, that even if it does pass....

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

[ QUOTE ]
FOF = Foes of Fun

"Rep Cohen (TN): Is there any kind of fun you are for?"
FOF guy: ..... what?"

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]
I like that:"Foes of Fun"

They are too busy saving us from ourselves and the evils that they only can see to allow any fun in.

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

They won't all opt out. Nevada might opt in. Just for some breathing space the total should be around 45, but still bet the over. Have you ever looked at or talked to state Reps and Senators? They make Max Bauchus seem tolerant and open-minded.

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

I tried to make my post accurate as I could and to choose my words carefully, but I just missed that one. I should have typed "most of the states" will likely opt out. I agree specifically about Nevada. Oh btw, I hope I am dead wrong.

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

I would take the way under on 45. Unless the states get serious money we might just have a worse scenario than we have now.

More and more it looks like we need a hail mary from the WTO to maintain some sense of normalcy otherwise the sports betting sites will have a big head start on sites like FTP or PS which will have to operate more outside the law. Right now they can hide behind the ambiguity of the wire act towards poker. This new law would define that.

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

There may be some opt outs, and some in's as well.
Remember, the Wexler bill will make us a lot of allies, there are many who play other games and state opt outs will rile them as well since I do not think it logical if the Wexler bill passes states can opt out by the game.

Opt outs then will affect Chess, Backgammon and many other games plus all thiose who play those board games as well, heck, I'd bet there are between all those other gamers, more of them than us.

obg

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

[ QUOTE ]
They won't all opt out. Nevada might opt in. Just for some breathing space the total should be around 45, but still bet the over. Have you ever looked at or talked to state Reps and Senators? They make Max Bauchus seem tolerant and open-minded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Add in the State Attorney Generals and a few nutball Govenors and you begin to see how much "local" politics can significantly affect national issues.

Not to continue to beat a long dead almost pertrefied horse, but you can see fairly quickly the need for organized State efforts if nothing else but to combat the FoF types who are already organized.

A PAC could be useful as well.

Both take a good deal of commitment, time and money. Time is the only element that is always in short supply, and can not be replenished.


D$D

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

WTO granting Antiqua the IP sanctions is not a Hail Mary. But it's not a sure thing. On the one hand, the credibility of the WTO is at stake. On the other hand, taking on the biggest member is hazardous too.
The WTO might come out with a strong statement like we either ban all gambling or allow online gambling, grant Antiqua lots of trade compensation $, but then wimp out by not granting the IP sanction to enforce the judgment.
If it was the UN, it would be more than a Hail Mary for us. I'm hoping that the panel or whoever decides are not French or Italian. Call it a coin flip with us having the pocket pair.

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm hoping that the panel or whoever decides are not French or Italian. Call it a coin flip with us having the pocket pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope for all of us that whoever is on the panel plays small to mid pair against an overly agressive player like the Bush Administration who politically is freerolling with "us" the only ones with anything at risk. Not my opinion of major +EV action there.

But I as part of "we" only stand to loose as a "major" win would be back to the pre-UIGEA "stalemate" with Hanaway types still opining that all on-line is illegal. Well not for the individual players, depending on their State of domicile, and not for off-shore operators who can't be touched. Stuck with some form of e-pass tax, because the US banking system can't figure out how to get enough of the poker pie.

Like Doyle's saying he was comming back, just another semi-US friendly clone of the current status quo. No major US banking for transfers, still fighting the Foes of Fun types spouting off about the crack of on-line gaming, but now with most on-line grinders happy to know they will get their monthly checks, and the fish still confused, even with MGM or other US based but non-bank backed e-pass type deposits.

Yeah that is a rosey picture for future PPA fundraisers. Just barely enough entertainment $10 a week players to keep the grinder's monthly nut covered, just enough US legitimaticy for even the causal player to continue and no spark left for potential political action. Bryan guess you'd get to go skiing after all!

Not my idea of a major pot or much of a hand worth playing for +EV!

Hey Tuff, you think I could get poli-sci majors to watch me screaming at my monitor to 2+2 legislative posts they way you rose to fame cussing at idiots playing on-line? That or psych majors doing doctoral work! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]


D$D<-- looking for those mostly ignored home game invites

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

[ QUOTE ]

..
.

Hey Tuff, you think I could get poli-sci majors to watch me screaming at my monitor to 2+2 legislative posts they way you rose to fame cussing at idiots playing on-line? That or psych majors doing doctoral work! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]




D$D<-- looking for those mostly ignored home game invites

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recommend my method for reaching fame. Rob a bank instead. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Keep the faith, I am still thinking.

Go Here for a good time

Wild ass new idea, but.....

Notice the handbiters flocking out of the woodwork. Amazing.

Tuff

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

[ QUOTE ]

WTO granting Antiqua the IP sanctions is not a Hail Mary. But it's not a sure thing. On the one hand, the credibility of the WTO is at stake. On the other hand, taking on the biggest member is hazardous too.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the USA is the "biggest member" - but is it bigger than the rest combined? hell no!

Not to mention it's economy is tanking beyond expectation... time is not on your side.

In addition, the USA is claiming is it not a single entity, merely a collection of disparate "states" that enact their own laws... as far as the rest of the world is concerned, I'm not sure anyone believes this BS. I am in fact fairly certain the rest of the world does not even recognise the states as legal entities... they are simply regions, or counties / whatever - of the USA.

In no way can the USA act as a giant when threatening others, but when threatened itself claim to be an independent collection of disparate entities... lol.

Oh, and yes - the WTO reputation is at stake. Do not underestimate it, based solely on the the fact that Antigua is the complainant. WTO+Antigua is at most testing the waters. Is it already forgotten hoe manny millions were wipes from the London stock exchange due to UIGEA?

To us in the UK, the USA banning gambling is like France banning British cheese! Gambling is a totally normal thing over here - to ban international commerce to serve your own vested interests (Lotteries, horse racing etc.) is not a fair thing to do IM(continent's)O.

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

Dave, I agree with your entire post. I hope that you are 100% correct about the WTO protecting its viability.

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

me 2, to me the WTO angle is a homerun. The Wexler bill is a triple and everything else is just being in the ballpark.

I actually think the Frank Bill in its current form is a big loss for players that play on sites right now. If free trade in the US means that we can't play where we have been playing then I doubt anyone supports this.

If the likes of Harrah's and MGM eventually come in that is fine but if you talk to online players and ask them the worst day for them in online poker many of them will tell you when Party Poker left. And they still feel that way until this day.

Unfortunately, I believe the Frank bill is the one that can be passed because it doesn't piss off the states. In other words, from my chair, the biggest 3 supporters of the PPA, Party Poker, Full Tilt and Poker Stars, get the shaft while big American Corps get to come in and rake us to death.

I hope I am wrong but I doubt I am.

Go WTO

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

Beanie, without the WTO, no bill will have a chance until at least 2009. Even then, the Frank bill would be less than 50/50 and I agree with you that it does not improve the situation.
So the backup plan to the WTO is litigation. The iMEGA case, the BetOnSports case and the case by Mr. Rousso against the State of Washington's ban on Internet gambling are the beginning of this litigation. I think that if the WTO fails to cause positive change and the present litigation fails, then by 2009-2010, the PPA should iniate an action for declaratory judgment that seeks to have online poker declared legal under federal law.
However, the work that the PPA is doing in the political arena, especially at the state level, is very important to keep the situation from getting worse. Thus, in the beginning of 2008, I will be renewing and upgrading my membership to a higher level than my current full membership.

Re: Why won\'t all the states just opt out
 

tell me where to sign? That isn't the issue. I think we need to be very clear about what we are and what we are against and any law that makes poker players criminals ANYWHERE the PPA should be against.