Proposed internet poker ban in MA

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone looked into the changes made to tax rules/wagering deductions towards the end of this bill?

[/ QUOTE ]

No why?


D$D

[Uglyowl]

I received a snail mail response from Steve Brewer (Mass. State Senator) discussing the casino bill, but no mention of my concern about criminalizing online gambling. The full page letter discussed other issues dealing with the bill (similar to all radio, newspapers, and TV). I hope this changes real soon.

Also more importantly can we please keep this thread on track with only posts about the Mass. casino bill? Sports gambling is a Federal issue. The sports vs. poker angle may be worth discussing, but maybe a new thread is in line for it.

Thanks!

[Skallagrim]

Perma, I done see anything that limits "any wagers on the internet" to "any wagers on the internet on banking or percentage games." It could POSSIBLY be interpreted that way, but it is more likely it will be interpreted broadly as written.

Also, as OBG pointed out, most skill games are run as "percentage" games: a percentage of the players' wagers is kept by the house.

Skallagrim

[catlover]

There is no way in the world we should accept a bill that could be interpreted as banning us. And this bill could.

I don't know who perma is. But I do know that anyone who argues in favor of this bill as it stands is no friend of ours.

[MassPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know who perma is. But I do know that anyone who argues in favor of this bill as it stands is no friend of ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen!

Randy C
MA PPA REP

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way in the world we should accept a bill that could be interpreted as banning us. And this bill could.

I don't know who perma is. But I do know that anyone who argues in favor of this bill as it stands is no friend of ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

He told us we should accept UIGEA as it stands now as well.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way in the world we should accept a bill that could be interpreted as banning us. And this bill could.

I don't know who perma is. But I do know that anyone who argues in favor of this bill as it stands is no friend of ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree the bill would reinforce the MA gaming laws penalizing unlawful poker sites and players. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's a fact.

No, I never argued in favor of the bill.

No, it would not cover true skill games.

[icfishies2]

[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate the less inflammatory post icfishies, so I will respond in kind.

Sometimes you say and do what you need to say and do. If that means letting a legislator adamantly opposed to sports betting know that they can keep that position and still exempt poker, so be it.

I dont see how this "hurts" the sports betting industry, because in the US sports betting, unlike poker, is clearly illegal everywhere except in licensed casino sports books.

And that is your problem, not mine. I can tell the casinos and the sports leagues (who oppose you with BIG money) that their fight is not with me; even if I disagree with their position, I dont want to take these interests on if I dont have to. And they are the problem for you guys, not us. If they were not there pushing to have sports betting kept illegal, us poker players would not have to assure them their concerns dont apply to us.

Nobody here goes around saying or arguing to our legislators that sports betting SHOULD be illegal, but we will say if you insist on sports betting being illegal, that logic does not apply to poker.

If you cant live with that, then you are saying "all or nothing." No pro-poker legislation proposed says anything bad about sports betting, it says pro-poker things. Pro sports betting things are not included only because it starts a different fight.

Convince the leagues with their million dollar lobbyists that you pose no threat to them, and you may get somewhere. Until then I have no desire to make your enemies my enemies if they dont have to be. Equally, however, I have no desire to make my friends your enemies either, and I wont.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Skall,

I appreciate the honesty...and I totally understand your (and the PPA's) position on the subject. The stigma that is still attached to sports betting (by prior law, current lawmakers, and society in general) is likely to be damaging to the possible legality of anything sports-betting related in the near future. If I were the PPA, I wouldn't want anything to do with it either.

Since it would make sense for the PPA to separate itself from the sports industry, I've asssumed that your directors are purposely including sports in the "games of chance" realm to do just that. If I were in your shoes and were that passionate about your own causes, I'd probably want to do the same thing. And based on your comments above about how you would handle the legislators about this subject, I'd guess that my assumption is correct. Especially since no one (you, Randy, or any other PPA member) has ever addressed my point about "why continue to include sports w/ online slots/roulette/etc in your lobbying?"

Also: regardless of whether of or not this should be construed as the PPA "throwing us under a bus" (you guys are really splitting hairs with your rebuttals about that)....you've got to realize that your "online slots, roulette, and sportsbetting" type statements is still only going to make things worse for that industry. Lawmakers are already ignorant enough about it! So when such a well-spoken, respected organization basically infers that it's a game of chance....well, that's only going to enhance false assumptions and make it that much more difficult for the sports industry to be considered legitimate.

So, as mentioned...you gotta do what you gotta do. But don't continue to act like I have no reason to be disturbed by the PPA's MA case lobbying (and by their stance on sports betting in general) and that I have no reason to publicize such concerns. On the contrary, the responses in this thread have only strengthened (rather than alleviated) those original inclinations.

[Skallagrim]

Icfishies, the one thing I dont get is why you keep saying "the PPA's stand on sports betting" and the like. As far as I know, there is no PPA stand on sports betting.

I have a stand on it, I think it should be legal and regulated.

But I am not a sports bettor, and am not going to fight the issue for you. I am a poker player, and I am fighting for my right to legally remain a poker player.

The only time I distinguish sports betting from poker is when faced with someone who would rather eat bugs than see sports betting legalized. To those people I admittedly dont stand up for your rights, I stand up for mine.

But no where do I go around saying sports betting SHOULD be illegal and poker legal, neither does the PPA.

And to bring it back home (for uglyowl's sake) that is not what we are doing in MA. There is virtually no chance of the MA legislature any time in the near future (or probably in my lifetime) passing a law that makes online sports betting legal. Recognizing that fact, all we are doing is saying to the MA legislature, well poker is different, you can have legal online poker and keep online sports betting (and the other "casino" games) illegal if thats what you like.

I think you would do the same if the circumstances were reversed.

Skallagrim

[MassPoker]

Sobefuddled;

First, let me sincerely apologize for not responding to you straight away. Somehow, I missed your post until someone pointed it out to me. I certainly don't want you to think that I was, in anyway, ignoring you. Please accept my humblest apology.

In reponse to your email to Dan Rea, I have also emailed Dan Rea with a few talking points, etc... I have sent you a PM with my home phone number because I would like to talk to you personally if that would be ok. If you prefer, you can PM me your phone # and I can call you. Again, I am so sorry for the lack of acknowledgement. Don't think for even a second that I (we) don't appreciate the efforts you have put forth.

Also, on a slightly different note, I gave an interview to Matt (Leyser?I think that's his last name...)from the Boston Globe. He is writing a piece on our plight and he is going to write the story up in a very favorable light for us. We spoke for about 20 minutes and I used many of the points made on this very forum from all of you as the basis of our position.

I'll update this again tomorrow.

All In,

Randy C~
MA PPA Rep