thinktank says US will owe $100 billion

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The out of the box solution would be for Congress to authorize (and maybe regulate) all online skill gaming (and include their pet projects like pari-mutual horse racing and fantasy sports as skill games - and hopefully poker) while banning all online games of chance (and define sportsbetting as a game of chance to placate the leagues). This isnt quite the Wexler bill, but the Wexler bill is a good place to start.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a horrible idea.

1> It is not up to Congress to "authorize" anything. Everything is supposed to be legal unless it is made illegal by law, not the other way around.

2> Splitting hairs is dangerous. What if poker ends up on the wrong side of the skill vs. chance split? Facts don't matter here; they rarely do in politics.

3> It is not up to Congress or anyone else in the Federal Government to determine what is or isn't gambling. That's a state power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong

1) the choice Congress will be forced to make if the WTO sanctions are significant is simple: Ban all online gaming or ban none. Which do you really think is more likely, especially with the NFL/FOF/nanny-staters putting the pressure on? Your otherwise correct statement that congress doesnt authorize things is irrelevant.

2) Poker could end up on the wrong side, yes. But you have to play politics - if all online gaming is banned to comply with the WTO, poker is already on the wrong side.

3) States rights are not relevant here - the internet is by definition and design "interstate commerce." Thats a Federal responsibility under the Constitution. A state can say what it wants about gambling within its borders, but the Feds get to say what they want about gambling across borders. Plus states rights are irrelevant to the WTO.

The major point is that there is virtually zero support for legalized online sportsbetting, and plenty of well financed opposition. My "out of the box" idea was to find a way to keep poker OK without having to make sportsbetting OK. You got a better idea? Lets hear it if you do.


Skallagrim

[bwehrm]

There has to be some relevance in regards to states rights and the WTO, at least indirectly. If the Feds allow gambling but a state does not, won't that still cause free trade conflicts with the WTO?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although I could see a Wexler type poker on-line solution making all this go away for the US and the current administration.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

A Wexler-type poker solution does not make the WTO issue go away. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is DUCY? Dumb Unknowing Chatty Yahoo?

Wexler type bill makes a good potion of the WTO go away on the skills game bit. Congress might be able to live with that. We don't know unless they can some how complete the circle.

The US then says it is established law long before GATT that unresitricted sports type betting is and had been illegal. (almost 50 years of established Wire Act law)


First Congress has to repeal the UIGEA.

Then Congress writes a decent bill that creates a level playing field for all prospective, past and current operators can operate under. The easy solution...

This will not happen as the B&M's figure they have the muscle to keep anyone who "violated" the UIGEA from getting a shot at the US market. This is why PP got out of the market, they want a future on-line room.

If Mason and Bluff are right this is why control of the PPA board is important as FT & PS are the most likey to be thrown under the bus and have the most to loose.

So forget and ignore the unrestricted sports book hype, it just isn't going to happen, if they push too hard they will gum up the works for the on-line poker world. We have enough problems as it is without their help!


D$D

[AKA Squared]

[ QUOTE ]
Only macro and micro economics at university level, a quite bit beyond the 101 stuff you get in college.

So I guess that you teach post grad economics? Or hold a doctorate in economics? Or?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's rewind the tape, shall we?

[ QUOTE ]
No US exports, no US economy. ... How is the US trade deficit...

[/ QUOTE ]

So we're in the weaker position because we sell things to the rest of the world, and we're in the weaker position because the rest of the world sells things to us. I guess "university level" doesn't teach you how to manage a coherent paragraph.

[JPFisher55]

Congress will not ban off-track pari-mutual horse racing because the horse racing lobby and industry donate too much to Congress. Congress will not ban online fantasy sports because the operators and sports leagues, major donors, want online fantasy sports. Congress will not ban online state lotteries because the affected states would leave the union and we cannot fight a civil war again. Ok the affected states could not afford all the federal mandated spending and would go bankrupt; same thing.
So the only alternative is permit all online gambling. Then after a few years, Congress will pass a law permitting licensed and regulated online gambling businesses to operate from US at high tax rate. Ok Congress might try a IGREA solution, but this will not fly with WTO. No other nation taxes or regulates foreign online gambling sites, not even UK.
But I think that the granting of the IP sanction is only 50/50 and now Jay says decision may take to 1st quarter of 2008. So anything will take a long time.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
What is DUCY? Dumb Unknowing Chatty Yahoo?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do U C Y -- I think it's a Sklansky thing.

[ QUOTE ]
The US then says it is established law long before GATT that unresitricted sports type betting is and had been illegal. (almost 50 years of established Wire Act law)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no international trade lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this argument doesn't make the WTO issue go away.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although I could see a Wexler type poker on-line solution making all this go away for the US and the current administration.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

A Wexler-type poker solution does not make the WTO issue go away. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wexler type bill makes a good potion of the WTO go away on the skills game bit. The US then says it is established law long before GATT that unresitricted sports type betting is and had been illegal. (almost 50 years of established Wire Act law)

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite to the contrary, the Wexler bill would bring the US further out of compliance with the WTO decision.

If the US is claiming they have a moral problem with remote gaming, adding more while still blocking foreign competitors does not bring them closer to compliance.

The WTO doesn't make any artificial distinctions among types of gambling. If it were about skill, lotteries would be gone way before sports.

[Skallagrim]

Jay, as usual, is absolutely right on this issue.

But he isn't as sneaky as me. The part of GATTS at issue does not specifically define "gambling" but it does pretty much require all online gambling or no online gambling.

So the US Congress defines "gambling." And does it in a way that allows things most people support (which Al D. and the PPA will insure includes poker) and excludes things most people dislike (sports betting and to a lesser extent slots and other classic "against the house" games). Of course everything not defined as gambling has to allow for foreign competition.

At the very least, the US CAN THEN ARGUE that it is complying with the WTO ruling. And poor Antigua and Jay can start another round of litigation. I dont like what that does to Antigua and JC, but I feel I have to think of us poker players first.

Skallagrim

[AKA Squared]

There are, of course, non-arbitrary reasons to distinguish poker from player-vs-house games.

[JPFisher55]

Skall, I think you know that argument has already been settled by the WTO. Their panel decision used a very broad definition of gambling. The WTO will not accept a narrower definition of gambling. I agree that it is all or nothing. But I don't see how the US could be further out of compliance with the WTO; more hypocritical maybe, but that would be difficult.
But I am not sure that the WTO will really enforce its ruling by IP trade sanction. Like most international organizations, with the UN in the lead, it may take a lesser action that renders its decisions meaningless. I hope not, but I think it's a coin flip.