Proposed internet poker ban in MA

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
But we do not have an incremental approach. Once we get poker on solid ground I won't be doing much to fight for sports betting (since that would save me from donking off money on the games). And I assume you and the majority of PPA members feel the same way. And it's possible the opposition and laws to sports betting could be even more entrenched as a result of some compromise that we support. Our success in practical terms does not help the sports bettors' cause, and it may even hurt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I don't imagine the people who have been working hard for poker will be working as hard for other online gaming, but I do think we'll lay the groundwork for them. I really do think it's incremental in that once we get some progress (like gun banners getting a waiting period), they'll have the opportunity to carry their own water for the next step. I'm being careful to "do no harm" with my actions. I really do hope to not throw anyone under the bus, and I really do hope our efforts help them to get what they want. I do wish they'd organize themselves if they really want this.

Nothing in the three bills out there now makes things worse for them, at least. To be honest, their problems are the Wire Act and the sports leagues, especially the NFL. Will we make it worse for them? I can honestly say I hope not.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The fact that something is a game of skill is irrelevant. If there is wagering involved, it is still gambling.

The 'game of skill" argument is only relevant when the laws criminalize "games of chance."

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait, I thought you earlier said World Winner games needed no regs since they are 'skill'. Why would a new MA Gaming Control Authority statute make them unlawful? Why would the change make lawful fantasy sports unlawful for that matter. Are these activities gaming and not skill ?

[/ QUOTE ]

The bill proposed by Gov. Patrick doesn't make a distinction between games of skill and games of chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

No distinction needed since the pertinent part of the proposed new statute only gives penalties for internet gaming and wagering, not OBG's 'skill' games unless he's now saying they are banking or percentage or otherwise gaming. See proposed definition of gaming below:

"SECTION 3. Section 7 of chapter 4 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by deleting lines 63 through 65 and inserting in place thereof the following paragraphs:-
Tenth, “Gaming,” any banking or percentage game played with cards, dice, tiles, dominoes, or any electronic, electrical, or mechanical device or machine for money, property, checks, credit or any representative of value, but excluding:
(a) the game of bingo conducted pursuant to chapter 271;
(b) any charitable gaming, so called, conducted pursuant to chapter 271;
(c) pari-mutuel wagering on horse and dog races, whether live or simulcast, authorized under chapter 128A and chapter 128C; and
(d) any lottery game conducted by the state lottery commission, in accordance with section 24 of chapter 10.
“Illegal gaming” or “unlawful gaming” shall include every act punishable under any law relative to lotteries and the buying and selling of pools or registering of bets, except those acts permitted under section 24 of chapter 10, chapter 12B, chapter 128A, chapter 128C, and chapter 271."

[/ QUOTE ]


You asked "Are these activities gaming and not skill?", which I answered.
I’m guessing you think OBG's legal 'skill' games are included as penalized internet gaming. The bill's definition of gaming indicates they are not affected unless OBG’s games are banking/percentage and subject to chance through cards, dice etc. If they match that definition of gaming, are they legal now?



I still wonder why you post here. I asked you once and you refused to answer. I’m waiting for your poll to see my choices.


All you do is try to get us to give up. I did a quick search of your 2+2 posts since April. ALL of these posts (200 of them) are generally devoted to either telling us to not fight at the federal level or to explaining how dumb you think we are. Sounds like I failed to write well or you were in a hurry.


There are no poker hand posts or poker playing posts, either. Do you even play? Yes, thanks for asking! You wanna hear a few bad beat stories? Or is this where I challenge you to HU poker?



I found not a single positive post from you. Nor did I find a post where you have a positive plan to help the state of Internet poker. You define positive post your way, I'll define it my way. I read a lot of posts that don’t toe your company line; are they all not positive? Or is my feeling of being singled out incorrect?


When you recommended that we focus on the state level, I asked you what you would do. You were silent, as usual. Hardly; but you can’t suggest I post less, then say post more, in the same epistle and expect me to learn something.



Are you here from FoF or something? Interesting analyses in these paragraphs, but your paranoia about people with alternate views is showing.

I don't think any of us get your purpose here. Do you even want poker explicitly legalized? That's a serious question. Once again yes; and again, I know where sites will get legality, if they do. We agree the MA bill would give new state penalties for poker sites and players; stopping that AND rolling back current MA state statutes is necessary to make a POSITIVE difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"SECTION 3. Section 7 of chapter 4 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by deleting lines 63 through 65 and inserting in place thereof the following paragraphs:-
Tenth, “Gaming,” any banking or percentage game played with cards, dice, tiles, dominoes, or any electronic, electrical, or mechanical device or machine for money, property, checks, credit or any representative of value, but excluding:

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, Perma, READ what you posted and then try and actually think, 'skill' gaming = gaming and this includes ALL internet gaming, period, skill or not.

The proposal does NOT distinguish between or specify chance as most state statutes do, it is inclusive of ALL gaming.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying your 'skill' sites are running banking/percentage games for money and subject to chance through cards, etc.? So are they currently legal or not? And how about poker sites banking/percentage games subject to chance through cards, currently legal or not?

[Skallagrim]

Figured you would take TE's post hard perma, not sure you deserved ALL of what he said - perhaps if you just made your points directly rather than always asking nitpicking type questions as a way to get to your points, than people wouldnt get so frustrated responding to you.

As a real point, however, both of you missed the key part of the Bill - the part about banking and percentage games only applies to physical games in Mass - so non-raked poker would be legal in MA under the bill, raked poker could only occur at the casinos.

But the INTERNET PROVISION IS DIFFERENT:

"(i) Placing, sending, transmitting, relaying wagers to another person prohibited under certain circumstances; penalties.
Any person who knowingly transmits or receives a wager of any type by any telecommunication device, including telephone, cellular phone, Internet...."

"A wager of any type" definitely includes wagers on skill games.

Skallagrim

[oldbookguy]

NO, No, and again, NO!!!!

Read, please or go away!

The Ma. law does NOT SPECIFY chance, lumping ALL wagering games, SKILL and CHANCE together, unlawful.

Even skill games charge a percentage and yes, it is wagering, duh. In-fact, they charge an amazing 25% fee to play a cash game. The difference in the 39 states (See Doyles Room for a list, do some homework) is they ban ONLY games of CHANCE.

The MA. proposal bans ALL games.

Other states do this as well, see Doyles Room as referenced above or go to world winner.

WHY, oh WHY do you think some sites BAN 11 states from playing? Simple, they ban skill and chance games.

If this is TOO complex for you to read and understand, I can send you my old Dick & Jane reader to get you started.

obg

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"SECTION 3. Section 7 of chapter 4 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by deleting lines 63 through 65 and inserting in place thereof the following paragraphs:-
Tenth, “Gaming,” any banking or percentage game played with cards, dice, tiles, dominoes, or any electronic, electrical, or mechanical device or machine for money, property, checks, credit or any representative of value, but excluding:

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, Perma, READ what you posted and then try and actually think, 'skill' gaming = gaming and this includes ALL internet gaming, period, skill or not.

The proposal does NOT distinguish between or specify chance as most state statutes do, it is inclusive of ALL gaming.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying your 'skill' sites are running banking/percentage games for money and subject to chance through cards, etc.? So are they currently legal or not? And how about poker sites banking/percentage games subject to chance through cards, currently legal or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

[icfishies2]

Randy,

I never got a response from you after quoting your executive director in that USA Today article...where he specifically differentiated between poker (game of skill) and sports betting (game of chance)...so I'll continue here:

Since the PPA's stance is to save "games of skill" (yet one of your main lobbying points is often that sports betting is NOT), it puzzles me that you don't understand my point. Other than that, your work has been fantastic. But the PPA needs to learn to stop including sports betting, horse racing, and any other possible advantage gambling as something "purely luck/gambling based" that should be banned as easily as online slots or roulette.

As yet another example, look what one of your strongest lobbyists on here said a week ago:

Skallagrim: "A bill than bans online slots and sports betting while specifically allowing skill games, to include poker, is a state law that clearly puts MA online poker players OUTSIDE OF ANY UIGEA CONCERNS."

If that's not "throwing sports bettors under a bus" for your own good, then I don't know what is.

And Skallagrim, your other statement about sports bettors thinking "if I can't play, no one can" is just as ignorant as your knowledge about what should/should not be considered "chance." I'm a longtime high-limit online poker player myself, for god's sake. But even if I weren't, my statements have absolutely nothing to do with selfish concerns. On the contrary, then have everything to do with your lobbying possibly hurting the sports betting industry. Equating that to "not caring about poker players" is just bizarre (and quite hypocritical) logic: you are the one placing poker above everything else (not me doing the same with sports)

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
Randy,

I never got a response from you after quoting your executive director in that USA Today article...where he specifically differentiated between poker (game of skill) and sports betting (game of chance)...so I'll continue here:

Since the PPA's stance is to save "games of skill" (yet one of your main lobbying points is often that sports betting is NOT), it puzzles me that you don't understand my point. Other than that, your work has been fantastic. But the PPA needs to learn to stop including sports betting, horse racing, and any other possible advantage gambling as something "purely luck/gambling based" that should be banned as easily as online slots or roulette.

As yet another example, look what one of your strongest lobbyists on here said a week ago:

Skallagrim: "A bill than bans online slots and sports betting while specifically allowing skill games, to include poker, is a state law that clearly puts MA online poker players OUTSIDE OF ANY UIGEA CONCERNS."

If that's not "throwing sports bettors under a bus" for your own good, then I don't know what is.

And Skallagrim, your other statement about sports bettors thinking "if I can't play, no one can" is just as ignorant as your knowledge about what should/should not be considered "chance." I'm a longtime high-limit online poker player myself, for god's sake. But even if I weren't, my statements have absolutely nothing to do with selfish concerns. On the contrary, then have everything to do with your lobbying possibly hurting the sports betting industry. Equating that to "not caring about poker players" is just bizarre (and quite hypocritical) logic: you are the one placing poker above everything else (not me doing the same with sports)

[/ QUOTE ]

You come on here with one post and think you know everything about us? You are wrong. The PPA is the POKER players Alliance, not the skill games alliance. If you want a lobby, create the sports bettors alliance.

No one here is throwing you under the bus; YOU ARE ALREADY UNDER THE BUS AND HAVE BEEN FOR ALONG TIME (the Wire Act).

We recently got thrown under there with you and are trying to get out, and all you sports betting whiners say is, hey we wont help you get out unless you promise to take us too.

That is selfish.

I think sports betting should be legal, and I also think that, like poker, when its done right, winning is a matter of skill. I also think if you guys were as smart as you claim to be you would realize that getting poker out from under the bus can only help get you guys out too in the long run. Does not guarantee it, but it helps. Just like legalizing marijuana may help get the authorities to go a little easier on junkies by exposing the futility of treating any drug user as a criminal.

But its much more fun to have company under that bus I guess.

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Randy,

I never got a response from you after quoting your executive director in that USA Today article...where he specifically differentiated between poker (game of skill) and sports betting (game of chance)...so I'll continue here:

[/ QUOTE ]

In many states and in this country what is legal and what is not is often determined by where you butt is at the time, the element of skill is a major factor in determining the legality of poker in many state statutes.

[ QUOTE ]
Since the PPA's stance is to save "games of skill" (yet one of your main lobbying points is often that sports betting is NOT), it puzzles me that you don't understand my point. Other than that, your work has been fantastic. But the PPA needs to learn to stop including sports betting, horse racing, and any other possible advantage gambling as something "purely luck/gambling based" that should be banned as easily as online slots or roulette.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is simply a fact of law. The amount of skill involved where cash prizes determines the legality. The Wire Act has pretty much shut the lid on unrestricted on-line sports betting.

Hell the skills argument sucks. In some states fishing is considered more of a skill than playing poker, or at least strong enough to get their own exemption from gaming laws.

[ QUOTE ]
As yet another example, look what one of your strongest lobbyists on here said a week ago:

[/ QUOTE ]

Many lawyers are lobbyists.
Not all lobbyists are lawyers.
Skall is a lawyer.

[ QUOTE ]
Equating that to "not caring about poker players" is just bizarre (and quite hypocritical) logic: you are the one placing poker above everything else (not me doing the same with sports)

[/ QUOTE ]

It is quite clear that B&M's who run the biggest sports books on the planet, who after all lays off most of the action overall, have at best done nothing for on-line poker.

There is some logical thought that the AGA in fact gave it's approval to Frisk to let the UIGEA pass, as some in that industry felt that on-line was a threat to them. That until they have a bill they give their blessing to nothing will happen without considerable effort by the poker community.

In reality the stakes and competing interests in this battle are a hell of a lot bigger than most people imagine. Some of the tempoary alliances are almost obscene in their nature. But I've stirred the pot enough for one day. Perhaps a whole month or year.... [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
You come on here with one post and think you know everything about us? You are wrong. The PPA is the POKER players Alliance, not the skill games alliance. If you want a lobby, create the sports bettors alliance.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Like I mentioned in my earlier post, I couldn't get these guys to write ONE letter (except one guy who was quite proud of his letter asking a rep to withdraw his cosponsorship of Wexler's bill), much less do anything particularly substantive. This was despite the kindness of the owner of EOG (who is very forward thinking) to invite me over and introduce me on the forums.

[ QUOTE ]
No one here is throwing you under the bus; YOU ARE ALREADY UNDER THE BUS AND HAVE BEEN FOR ALONG TIME (the Wire Act).

We recently got thrown under there with you and are trying to get out, and all you sports betting whiners say is, hey we wont help you get out unless you promise to take us too.

That is selfish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, QFT. These guys somehow act like we're supposed to carry their water for them, making our fight at least 20 times tougher.

[ QUOTE ]
I think sports betting should be legal, and I also think that, like poker, when its done right, winning is a matter of skill. I also think if you guys were as smart as you claim to be you would realize that getting poker out from under the bus can only help get you guys out too in the long run. Does not guarantee it, but it helps. Just like legalizing marijuana may help get the authorities to go a little easier on junkies by exposing the futility of treating any drug user as a criminal.

But its much more fun to have company under that bus I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're afraid we won't fight their fight for them if we get poker explicitly legalized before they get what they want.

I support their desire for sports betting, but I don't like their attitude of holding us hostage to this. The sports betting leadership, like Jay Cohen and the EOG owner, are doing a lot for our overall cause. Note that they don't want to hold us hostage...they see the bigger picture. The rank-and-file guys seem to have a "screw you...I want to play" attitude.