Proposed internet poker ban in MA

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you engineer, the Ma. bill makes ALL, including skill and fantasy wagering contests illegal.

What I have said is poker / skill gaming is legal in most states.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume MA is one of your states that you think has legal 'skill gaming'. What in this bill says that 'skill gaming' contests will be illegal? And do they consider lawful fantasy sports to be 'wagering'?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait, I thought you earlier said World Winner games needed no regs since they are 'skill'. Why would a new MA Gaming Control Authority statute make them unlawful? Why would the change make lawful fantasy sports unlawful for that matter. Are these activities gaming and not skill ?

[/ QUOTE ]

The bill proposed by Gov. Patrick doesn't make a distinction between games of skill and games of chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

No distinction needed since the pertinent part of the proposed new statute only gives penalties for internet gaming and wagering, not OBG's 'skill' games unless he's now saying they are banking or percentage or otherwise gaming. See proposed definition of gaming below:

"SECTION 3. Section 7 of chapter 4 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by deleting lines 63 through 65 and inserting in place thereof the following paragraphs:-
Tenth, “Gaming,” any banking or percentage game played with cards, dice, tiles, dominoes, or any electronic, electrical, or mechanical device or machine for money, property, checks, credit or any representative of value, but excluding:
(a) the game of bingo conducted pursuant to chapter 271;
(b) any charitable gaming, so called, conducted pursuant to chapter 271;
(c) pari-mutuel wagering on horse and dog races, whether live or simulcast, authorized under chapter 128A and chapter 128C; and
(d) any lottery game conducted by the state lottery commission, in accordance with section 24 of chapter 10.
“Illegal gaming” or “unlawful gaming” shall include every act punishable under any law relative to lotteries and the buying and selling of pools or registering of bets, except those acts permitted under section 24 of chapter 10, chapter 12B, chapter 128A, chapter 128C, and chapter 271."

[/ QUOTE ]

You asked "Are these activities gaming and not skill?", which I answered.

I still wonder why you post here. I asked you once and you refused to answer. All you do is try to get us to give up. I did a quick search of your 2+2 posts since April. ALL of these posts (200 of them) are generally devoted to either telling us to not fight at the federal level or to explaining how dumb you think we are. There are no poker hand posts or poker playing posts, either. Do you even play?

I found not a single positive post from you. Nor did I find a post where you have a positive plan to help the state of Internet poker. When you recommended that we focus on the state level, I asked you what you would do. You were silent, as usual. Are you here from FoF or something? I don't think any of us get your purpose here. Do you even want poker explicitly legalized? That's a serious question.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
I swear, I have no idea why sports bettors believe we are out to harm them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love the work you are doing here Randy. However, I feel that this stance is a bit naive. Sports bettors have a right to feel hurt by the fact that we are fighting selfishly for our own rights and not the greater right of personal freedom. We would happily "throw sports bettors under the bus" to get a poker exemption from IG laws. They know that so they are pissed. You shouldn't be shocked at their reaction.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I swear, I have no idea why sports bettors believe we are out to harm them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love the work you are doing here Randy. However, I feel that this stance is a bit naive. Sports bettors have a right to feel hurt by the fact that we are fighting selfishly for our own rights and not the greater right of personal freedom. We would happily "throw sports bettors under the bus" to get a poker exemption from IG laws. They know that so they are pissed. You shouldn't be shocked at their reaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know where you're coming from. I think sports betting should be legal as well, just as a basic freedom issue. I've even tried to help them out in the past where I could. That being said, I really don't see us as selfish. After all, the NRA doesn't fight for all of our freedoms either. They fight only for Second Amendment rights. Likewise, we fight for poker rights. We're really not throwing them under the bus, as none of our actions make sports betting any more illegal than it is today.

To be honest, we're doing more to advance sports betting than they are, as explicitly legalized poker would obviously do more for them long-term than their goal of keeping us hostage to their desire to "sports betting now or nothing". They don't appreciate the incremental approach, for sure. And, while we poker players do support the Wexler bill, we are concurrently supporting legalizing all Internet gaming.

Also, please keep in mind that these guys think Barney Frank threw them under the bus as well with IGREA (they hate the sporting league and state opt-outs). They're asking us (telling us, really) to disregard the impact of the Wire Act as well as the power of the sports lobby, both of which are considerable.

Aside from all of that, I've posted customized action items (substituting "gaming" for "poker") on EOG and on other sports betting sites in the past, but got no traction at all. They didn't want to do anything but call me naive. The sports betting guys have a much tougher (almost impossible at the present time) fight than we do, yet they've done far less to fight back than we have. I'm surprised that they expect us to carry their water for them.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
"SECTION 3. Section 7 of chapter 4 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by deleting lines 63 through 65 and inserting in place thereof the following paragraphs:-
Tenth, “Gaming,” any banking or percentage game played with cards, dice, tiles, dominoes, or any electronic, electrical, or mechanical device or machine for money, property, checks, credit or any representative of value, but excluding:

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, Perma, READ what you posted and then try and actually think, 'skill' gaming = gaming and this includes ALL internet gaming, period, skill or not.

The proposal does NOT distinguish between or specify chance as most state statutes do, it is inclusive of ALL gaming.

obg

[MassPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you even want poker explicitly legalized? That's a serious question.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the ultimate question... And thank you Engineer for driving that point home!

When I post a thread on this forum, I do so with the very specific intent of communicating, sharing and collectively brainstorming with other like minded online poker players so that we can save online poker for MA citizens. The hypothetical questions posed as to whether the proposed bill explicity reaches to those games that are considered skill is really a mute point. The purpose of this particular thread is clear; Those of us with a vested interest in protecting our right to play online poker will be irrevocably harmed by the proposed bill and as such we utilize this thread as a basis for our common goal to change the language of the bill that explicitly seeks to criminalize online poker, period...amen!

At the risk of sounding crass, this is a selfish endeavor for me. I stand firm that my only purpose on this thread is to protect mine and other MA citizens' rights to play poker online. I do not play fantasy sports, nor do I have any interest in it's salvation. I think we can all agree that we do know that the bill specifically proposes to criminalize online poker and that is where I narrow my concerns.

All In,

Randy C~
MA PPA Rep

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of sounding crass, this is a selfish endeavor for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Crass, heck no! We all are involved in this for personal reasons, it is just we have common personal reasons.

Myself, I hated seeing the UIGEA passed and was involved long before my 2+2 days or anywhere else, calling and writing in the weeks leading up to passage warning the GOP of the 'straw' so to speak I felt would break the camels back and cost the Senate as the house was already gone.

To me, poker, yes. More important, I just cannot stand the woman running for president and wish the GOP would do an about face on this issue, perhaps....

Ah, enough ranting.

Again, we are in this ALl for personal reasons, mine are poker and politics.

obg

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To me, poker, yes. More important, I just cannot stand the woman running for president and wish the GOP would do an about face on this issue, perhaps....


obg

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't either, but I wish that I could believe that she, and her husband, are that much worse than a lot of politicians and that her election, rather than Guiliani or Romney, will make that much difference.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, I really don't see us as selfish. After all, the NRA doesn't fight for all of our freedoms either. They fight only for Second Amendment rights. Likewise, we fight for poker rights.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. I don't consider what we are doing as being selfish either, though I'm sure many sports bettors do.

[ QUOTE ]
We're really not throwing them under the bus, as none of our actions make sports betting any more illegal than it is today. To be honest, we're doing more to advance sports betting than they are, as explicitly legalized poker would obviously do more for them long-term than their goal of keeping us hostage to their desire to "sports betting now or nothing". They don't appreciate the incremental approach, for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]
But we do not have an incremental approach. Once we get poker on solid ground I won't be doing much to fight for sports betting (since that would save me from donking off money on the games). And I assume you and the majority of PPA members feel the same way. And it's possible the opposition and laws to sports betting could be even more entrenched as a result of some compromise that we support. Our success in practical terms does not help the sports bettors' cause, and it may even hurt it.

[Skallagrim]

I think its the sports bettor's who are being selfish: "If I cant play, no one should." In this they are being small minded and counterproductive. If poker becomes openly legal, the act of gaming for money, especially skill gaming, becomes more acceptable. Sports bettors have a good argument that their game also requires skill, and if they are ever to have a legal way to bet that is how they will achieve it.

But they have huge difficulties to overcome, the most obvious being the sports leagues.

Plus, the Wire Act clearly makes anyone accepting sports bets on the internet (in the US at least) a FEDERAL criminal, so state law changes are irrelevant.

The sports bettors have farther to go, IMHO, than us poker players, but if we get there first that can only help them in the long run. Sad they dont see that.

In one sense, its like cocaine users opposing the legalization of marijuana.

Skallagrim