Online Poker Inches Closer to Exemption

[groo]

For what it's worth, I've spent the last couple of days calling various Senators and Reps and speaking with their aides. All of them, both for and against online poker, have mentioned the PPA.

[Berge20]

I don't really understand the enthusiasm.

If it's a press release from the PPA saying they've got someone (Porter or Berkley probably) to introduce this legislation to do a poker carveout, happy day. Thousands of bills get introduced each Congress and most don't move an inch.

I suppose it is a necessary step, but I would hold reservations on how much progress this really is.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
For what it's worth, I've spent the last couple of days calling various Senators and Reps and speaking with their aides. All of them, both for and against online poker, have mentioned the PPA.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm intested in hearing more.

What was the general sentiment towards both online poker and the PPA?

[flafishy]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really understand the enthusiasm.

If it's a press release from the PPA saying they've got someone (Porter or Berkley probably) to introduce this legislation to do a poker carveout, happy day. Thousands of bills get introduced each Congress and most don't move an inch.

I suppose it is a necessary step, but I would hold reservations on how much progress this really is.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all posturing, IMO. There would be no motivation for US lawmakers to do an online poker carveout. PPA might be making some noise around Capitol Hill these days, but I doubt they have any real political clout. It doesn't seem to me that any politician would be all that concerned with going after the online poker playing voter bloc. And by carving out online poker, that just means leaving the gates open for a flow of money out of our economy.

I think this is all just wishful thinking on our part.

[yeahright]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really understand the enthusiasm.

If it's a press release from the PPA saying they've got someone (Porter or Berkley probably) to introduce this legislation to do a poker carveout, happy day. Thousands of bills get introduced each Congress and most don't move an inch.

I suppose it is a necessary step, but I would hold reservations on how much progress this really is.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it doesn't get introduced soon to stop the bleeding of all the sites wanting to pull out.....none of this will matter.

Coming from someone who's spoken to top management at several rooms...it's REALLY important that something positive happens in the next 3-6 months.....and I mean positive as in just getting the bill introduced.

Obviously that doesn't mean it will pass, but if it doesn't get introduced, you can say good bye to at least 2 other rooms I know of.

[Berge20]

If rooms are basing their decisions based upon a bill being introduced or not, they really are grasping IMO.

[yeahright]

[ QUOTE ]
If rooms are basing their decisions based upon a bill being introduced or not, they really are grasping IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling it grasping or whatever, it's a fact.

If there is no reason to believe the US is interested in considering making poker legal and it appear the full scale war on gambling will continue, more sites will pull out. I know of 2 that are discussing it right now.

And I'm not saying that to scare anyone, I'm trying to show the importance of getting some momentum in congress.

[ekdikeo]

Considering Gambling911 often posts pictures of midgets attempting sexual encounters with the subjects of their articles, I consider them less than reputable. They do at least post a lot of stuff that is better than the OTHER things that come up on my News Alert for "poker", where I often see these nebulous two or three line press releases forming or announcing some thing or other that has no clear reason for existing.

[Skallagrim]

The negativity of the "green" postings here at 2+2 is really beginning to annoy me. Talking about getting a bill introduced is indeed a small step. BUT IT IS A STEP. The longest journey begins with a single step (sorry - couldn't help myself on that one ). A bill introduced then gets our representatives to pay some attention, and us something specific to tell them to support. Much has been made (usually by green posters and long time posters) of the supposed political insignificance of US poker players. I will point out one thing - Homosexuals make up anywhere from 3 to 10% of the US population. And a large number of them remain in the closet. Yet 25 years ago homosexual acts were crimes in almost every state in this country - but now we argue over whether they should be allowed to get married. Dont underestimate the political clout of a determined 5% of the country. To save this game, rather than go softly into the goodnight (sorry again), we must support these kinds of efforts, not knock them or simply try to express our supposed intellectual superiority by predicting they will al fail. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really understand the enthusiasm.

If it's a press release from the PPA saying they've got someone (Porter or Berkley probably) to introduce this legislation to do a poker carveout, happy day. Thousands of bills get introduced each Congress and most don't move an inch.

I suppose it is a necessary step, but I would hold reservations on how much progress this really is.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't have any problem with it, but i'm certainly not wetting my pants with excitement. it's basically the ppa guy saying "this is what i've been up to."

one roadblock i see (besides the obvious one of nobody in congress being on our side) is that sites could set up faux poker games that act as total luck games. 7-card stud with 1-ante stacks, etc.