Proposed internet poker ban in MA

[sobefuddled]

Randy, lesson learned. Don't worry. The fact of the matter is that most of us do feel the bill is laughable. I do. It's totally unenforceable. They need to separate out the Gaming Commission issue from the Casino bill. We need two separate bills and then we need to be intimately involved with that prcess so that any sneaky little gaming regulations don't get by us. It's going to be a long drawn out process. The bill as written as very like the UIGEA tag on the ports bill.
For the record I wish the Globe had not pulled their usual "mugwump" tactic by printing this on Saturday. Newspaper readership is way down on Saturdays. It's the day they generally choose to print the "well, we need to get this out and see how it flys but let's not offend too many people" stories.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record I wish the Globe had not pulled their usual "mugwump" tactic by printing this on Saturday. Newspaper readership is way down on Saturdays. It's the day they generally choose to print the "well, we need to get this out and see how it flys but let's not offend too many people" stories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be happy you didn't get a reporter who set you up and trashed you. His treatment of the current state of the PPA was really very nice. Send him a thank you card and keep his name in your roledex.

This could be folowed up with a number of letters to the editor as I'm sure the other side will.

Keep the reporter up to date on your progress and if you have any events or press releases make sure he or anyone else who is good to you gets them first.


D$D

I really enjoyed following an "expert" and finding The most Important Poker Hand in History. by Mason of all people! Small world.......

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
I apologize to all if anyone feels as though I have let them down, because I feel as though I was completely misrepresented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Randy, I applaud you for helping getting this important issue into the media and the largest Massachusetts newspaper no less.

I think Matt Viser did a pretty good job. Although what the Wire Act is based on court rulings could be more accurate, I think he layed everything else out very good (I am sure you helped him on the key issues and the framework even if you weren't quoted extentsively.


Overall the article was very supportive of our cause. The Barney Frank comment was fantastic.

This is a great article to forward to my casual poker playing friends in the state (err Commonwealth). Nice work, I don't know what you expected from a major newspaper, but this far exceeded my expectations. I think Matt Viser should be thanked for taking the time and effort to write about this issue. Better would be if Jeff Jacoby would take this on in an editorial.

Also maybe in the future, as part of a Mass. update by the PPA this link can be forwarded to it's Mass. residents.

[MassPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Also maybe in the future, as part of a Mass. update by the PPA this link can be forwarded to it's Mass. residents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great idea, Owl! I think this would be a great gesture to show those residents who sent in letters that people are starting to pay attention.

All In,

Randy C~
MA PPA Rep

[Skallagrim]

Its a Saturday folks, so I am not going into the office to provide citations for the following, just working from memory. Current MA gambling laws are somewhat unique in their emphasis on places of gambling. Pretty clearly gambling among friends in a private residence is not covered. But pretty much every place where strangers might meet is covered. MA law does not say anything specific about poker. But MA lower courts have interpreted the word "illegal lottery" to include any game that is mostly chance. There is no MA supreme court opinion directly on point, but that normally means if poker is mostly skill its a legal game. If its mostly chance, your "quasi-legal" cardrooms are, in fact, illegal.

Skill v. Chance pretty much goes out the window under the new bill. Instead it concerns "banking or percentage games," similar to California law. Thus a game of poker is covered by the law if a percentage of the wagers is kept by the house (if its raked). A game of poker with no rake (say a membership fee, or possibly even a time fee) is no longer a percentage game, and would be legal (provided it did not violate any other statute - I have not researched this in depth in a long time).

So as to live poker, any raked poker game would only be legal under the new bill in one of the licensed casinos, but a creative poker room operator may be able to structure his room so that it is not covered and thus not illegal. Under current law it pretty much depends on the Skill v. Chance argument as to whether its legal or not.

On another point, dont feel bad Randy, over all I think you came across pretty good in the Globe article. That the article fails to correctly state the current law and does not distinguish poker from other forms of gambling is all too common. Does any journalist actually research what they write these days? Nah, its much easier to just google somone else's opinion and include it unchecked. I will write a letter to the Globe correcting their mistakes after the weekend (its my birthday and I deserve a little fun time), for whatever good that will do...

Anyway, overall, the mere fact that the state's major news publication has brought the issue forward and presented even a small picture of our position, is good for us. Keep fighting folks!

Skallagrim

[Uglyowl]

Nice job Randy, parts of the story is starting to circulate via the AP (I hope all the local newspapers pick it up):

http://www.wpri.com/Global/story.asp...6&nav=F2DO

[oldbookguy]

I like the cliff note AP story, right to the heart of the matter.

obg

[Uglyowl]

Please help by commenting and supporting "myissue" on Deval's website:

Stop the criminization of online poker

http://devalpatrick.com/issue.php?issue_id=7668737

Thanks!

[oldbookguy]

Done.

[NewGuy]

Randy,
Nice work on the Globe article.

[ QUOTE ]
Stop the criminization of online poker
http://devalpatrick.com/issue.php?issue_id=7668737


[/ QUOTE ]
good idea, done

Looks like the boston.com News discussion thread Owl started has run its course. Is there a way to start a new thread that can be seen or linked to right from this article?