PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you asked I want the PPA to allow me to play on-line poker without having to worry about a lot of idiotic hurdles; be it paying 5% to deposit, worrying about Foreign account disclosures, worrying about if my bank will cash my withdraw check with out closing my account or fining me, I'd like to see in the future someone other than Kawanee Game Commission which is located in Canada, I would love it if the PPA at some point was strong enough to attempt changing the tax treatment of poker winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA wants the same thing as far as I can see. They've clearly advocated both the Wexler bill and IGREA, both of which eliminate the need for e-wallets and the rest. As for tax law, there is PPA action now on the recent changes on taxation of tournament winnings. We'll see where that leads.

[JPFisher55]

TE, I like your comment. The only basic difference between it and mine was that I urged that for state law only online gambling expressly prohibited by state statute by defined as UIG. Your term unambiguous is good, but sometimes parties disagree about what is unambiguous. Also, I left out the words online poker because I did not want the Agencies to know that my comment was from an online poker player. I hoped (small hope-2 outer) to fool them into adopting a definition of UIG favorable to online poker without realizing it. But your approach if just as good.
I really like your explanation about the whole problem. Now the Agencies have two comments proposing essentially the same definition for UIG. But I wish I could say that I was hopeful about any favorable change.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, I like your comment. The only basic difference between it and mine was that I urged that for state law only online gambling expressly prohibited by state statute by defined as UIG. Your term unambiguous is good, but sometimes parties disagree about what is unambiguous. Also, I left out the words online poker because I did not want the Agencies to know that my comment was from an online poker player. I hoped (small hope-2 outer) to fool them into adopting a definition of UIG favorable to online poker without realizing it. But your approach if just as good.
I really like your explanation about the whole problem. Now the Agencies have two comments proposing essentially the same definition for UIG. But I wish I could say that I was hopeful about any favorable change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I liked your earlier comment about the definition of UIG. I was going to use it, but then figured our goal is to send a lot of different letters, so I didn't use it so you could. After all, it's yours. I did use your phrase about federal case law, which has propagated through to the PPA comments (we all leverage each others' best ideas, as we should...that's why we post here).

I liked "unambiguous" because it may lead to the feds disregarding anything not clearly defined. Yours is similar, so you should write that as well. Let's post lots of comments generally focused in similar areas, but different enough to keep the feds busy replying.

[JPFisher55]

TE, I agree. If our comments are identical then the regulators will count them as one comment not many. Gee I just hope the feds read our comments, I'm not expecting any reply.

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope I am wrong, but I haven't seen a single thing to show me the PPA wants anyting but a pre-UIGEA world or a US regulatory scheme that specifically does not exlude FT or PS from staying in the market. Which is exactly what PP and every other room feared when they left the US market about a year ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would they? Until your post, no one here had proposed anything but either returning to pre-UGIEA or to a U.S. regulatory scheme that does not specifically exclude FT or PS from staying in the market. It seems that's what the Internet poker community wants.

As for PP, [censored] them for leaving the U.S. market! I'll play if they come back, but I don't see why they should be rewarded for leaving.

[/ QUOTE ]

TheEngineer - you put up a poll with one of two choices being "D$D's Idea" - but none of us can tell what he's saying, because his writing is so confusing - with all the rambling, triple negatives, mixed tenses and basic grammar/spelling errors.

If you understand whatever it is that he is trying to say, could you post a short note explaining it?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
TheEngineer - you put up a poll with one of two choices being "D$D's Idea" - but none of us can tell what he's saying, because his writing is so confusing - with all the rambling, triple negatives, mixed tenses and basic grammar/spelling errors.

If you understand whatever it is that he is trying to say, could you post a short note explaining it?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's actually why I called it "D$D's Idea".

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Me to my kids: "Maybe."
Kids: "Does that mean yes?"
Me: "It means I don't know yet."
Kids: "But it doesn't mean no right?"
Me: "I can give you an answer right now, but you might not like it..."
Kids: "Maybe works."

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA: "But we have to know RIGHT NOW!"
Regulators: "Then the answer is NO, and that's final."

It's nothing short of insanity to think that the regulators won't go for the broadest (safest) definition of which forms of online gambling are unlawful.

The PPA might just succeed in getting the rest of the poker sites cut off from the US. Good job, guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can tell you a lot of effort was put into generating the points. While it may seem wonderful to have UIG undefined, the regs put banks in the position of either overblocking or of having to prove allowed transactions are "lawful". Also, the reg authors admitted they were unable to define UIG. Given this admission, it seems we could gain by pushing them in this area. There are other pro-poker reasons to support a definition as well.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
#2 is a terrible idea. You certainly *don't* want the regulations to spell out what 'unlawful' gambling is - what happens if they take you up on it and reach a conclusion you don't like? Up until the WTO matter is dealt with, I'd like my online poker gray, not black, thanks. Keep in mind that a bad result will have to be litigated in court by somebody whose bank account is directly affected, possibly even in every appellate circuit.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've all been wondering where we should stand on asking for this to be defined. The PPA has reviewed this, and they feel we should request a definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has now gone past 'terrible idea' and is well on its way to 'one of the worst ideas I've ever heard'.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? There are a lot of merits to trying to force these reg writers to try to do what they say can't be done. The regs as written practically force banks to overblock. I'd personally prefer to keep these regs in review for a while longer than to start getting overblocked without recourse.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TheEngineer - you put up a poll with one of two choices being "D$D's Idea" - but none of us can tell what he's saying, because his writing is so confusing - with all the rambling, triple negatives, mixed tenses and basic grammar/spelling errors.

If you understand whatever it is that he is trying to say, could you post a short note explaining it?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's actually why I called it "D$D's Idea".

[/ QUOTE ]

I've suggested a number of ways to put pressure on the Banks and comment that the regs are unworkable, poorly founded in regulation regulations and IMO quite likely unconsitutional.

You suggest that we help the Agiences do their job by helping them better design a system to block the flow of funds on the hope that by doing so they will exclude poker money?

You are better off simply suggesting that poker should be excluded and let the Agencies do their own job.


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
TE, I like your comment. The only basic difference between it and mine was that I urged that for state law only online gambling expressly prohibited by state statute by defined as UIG. Your term unambiguous is good, but sometimes parties disagree about what is unambiguous. Also, I left out the words online poker because I did not want the Agencies to know that my comment was from an online poker player. I hoped (small hope-2 outer) to fool them into adopting a definition of UIG favorable to online poker without realizing it. But your approach if just as good.
I really like your explanation about the whole problem. Now the Agencies have two comments proposing essentially the same definition for UIG. But I wish I could say that I was hopeful about any favorable change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can the Federal Gov't tell the states that they have to have a uniform set of codes for gambling? Let alone the Agencies.

Seems about the only power that could do that would be Congress with a Wexler type bill. Well I guess if we had the right law suit the SC could declare poker a skills game.