AGA likely to decide Dec. 6th on lobbying for IG study bill

[meleader2]

you know this isn't a blessing or a good thing. you should still be [censored] pissed off that the legislation ever went through because of the hypocrisy in the first place. so wtf is going to happen once it is regulated? offshore casinos will still be banned? jesus christ.

[metsandfinsfan]

[ QUOTE ]
you know this isn't a blessing or a good thing. you should still be [censored] pissed off that the legislation ever went through because of the hypocrisy in the first place. so wtf is going to happen once it is regulated? offshore casinos will still be banned? jesus christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

basically. If passed we would basically have Harrah's online casino, MGM online casino, etc

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
Two questions perhaps for our Capitol Hill insiders.

-Is there even a slim possibility that a bill setting up a study of IG could also include language that would put UIGEA "on hold" pending outcome of the study? This would not undo what has happened so far, but it might put people's minds at ease about being able to continue to play online. Just wondering if it is even possible to put a previous bill "on hold."

-The AGA has plenty of lobbying experience and bucks. Are they connected enough to get a study bill passed in the upcoming session?

When online players tried to fight UIGEA, it felt like we were the newbie fish at the poker table of lobbying---under bankrolled and inexperienced. The AGA surely in better shape than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression that the AGA basically wrote the IG study bill (HR 5474) that Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV) introduced this year. Could be wrong though.

To your questions:
- I would be very surprised if any study bill language puts any of the current things on hold.

- The AGA is connected enough to get people to give a bill like that a serious look. That doesn't mean it will be enough or a lock just because they ask.

Finally, there is also a difference between supporting something verbally and actively working to get a bill passed.

[MJL]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, there is also a difference between supporting something verbally and actively working to get a bill passed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Note Harry Reed's position.
Poker Gazette

[KittyLiquor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you know this isn't a blessing or a good thing. you should still be [censored] pissed off that the legislation ever went through because of the hypocrisy in the first place. so wtf is going to happen once it is regulated? offshore casinos will still be banned? jesus christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

basically. If passed we would basically have Harrah's online casino, MGM online casino, etc

[/ QUOTE ]

How much do you think the US will tax the online gaming sites and what will the rake be because of it????

Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. I love things the way they are now. I would prefer that our congress not jump in and "fix" things for us. They have [censored] up everything else.

[Doom_Switch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you know this isn't a blessing or a good thing. you should still be [censored] pissed off that the legislation ever went through because of the hypocrisy in the first place. so wtf is going to happen once it is regulated? offshore casinos will still be banned? jesus christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

basically. If passed we would basically have Harrah's online casino, MGM online casino, etc

[/ QUOTE ]

How much do you think the US will tax the online gaming sites and what will the rake be because of it????

Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. I love things the way they are now. I would prefer that our congress not jump in and "fix" things for us. They have [censored] up everything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be fantastic. I really hope this takes place soon. I can think of countless reasons why this would be a great move for the poker world. I think most importantly it would create trustworthy sites and in turn it would bring in a huge influx of new players to the game. With a free market competition would force rake down and even if it not I'd be more than happy to pay extra. The extra revenue from taxation on sites may help the government ease up other taxation such as property taxes. Here is a short list of the reasons US regulations would be beneficial. Unlike you, I don't care for the online poker's current state:

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