Proposed internet poker ban in MA

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me how "the part about banking and percentage games only applies to physical games in Mass" if the pertinent internet section is in a "Section 15. Penalties for Licensing and Gaming Violations" statute which uses the new gaming definition?

And why does the phrase "a wager of any type" found in a gaming violations reference necessarily include skill games played for money? If the skill games are considered wagering currently, how are they legal?

And TIA for your reply!

[Skallagrim]

Not gonna change your style, I see ... oh well.

When interpreting statutes, the specific wording controls. What you have missed (this isnt your usual nitpicking self) is that all those MA law provisions repealed and replaced, refer to public and semi-public places (like taverns and Inns). Thats how MA wrote thieir law 90 years ago, to criminalize places of gambling rather than gambling itself. It left playing cards for money in your den still legal. And its defintion of gambling includes lotteries and a number of other similar "games of chance" - it is an open legal argument whether poker is even covered by these laws now; no question (if its raked) its covered under the new statute though.

The internet statute is stand alone, FOUND IN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SECTION, and explicit: "any wagers."

And the term wagering has NEVER been held to only apply to games of chance; one can "wager" on anything, including, for example, a game of bridge, or golf * and before you ask, MA law elsewhere exempts arguable wagers like futures options, insurance and such,

Skallagrim

[oldbookguy]

Skall, this may be a lost cause getting perma to understand this simple concept and the meaning of 'any'.

obg

[sobefuddled]

Here is an intereesting set of videos from Jim Braude's NCN Newsnight show. He is discussing the Casino Legislation and I for one am not happy with what I heard last night. Politics as usual in MA folks.
http://www.boston.com/news/necn/Shows/news_night/

[icfishies2]

Ok, let me try this again.

- I repeat: I AM A SERIOUS POKER PLAYER TOO. Why on earth do some of the responses continue to assume that I have a "screw you PPA/poker players cause I just want to bet sports" attitude? That is a ridiculous, completely inaccurate conclusion. The point is to not HURT the sports betting industry with the continued misrepresentation of the "game of skill or chance" element in your lobbying. Equating that to worrying ONLY about sports (or to not caring at all about the PPA's general cause to help the state of poker) makes absolutely no sense.

- When did I ever ask the PPA to do something about sports? We aren't asking you to do help the industry; just not to damage it. And yes, I wish their was a SBA (sports betting alliance) as well.

- Quit throwing the Wire Act around. We all know that most online gambling-related laws are still in a very grey area w/ how they are interpreted (and that sports betting law is mostly concerned with those TAKING the bets...not making them.) In many states, it's also "illegal" to play in a poker room that takes a cut....yet that is just as common as those who bet sports. Plus, it's exactly the same concept as a bookie taking his cut. So don't act like there's such a major difference between the legalities of sports betting and playing poker; by doing so, you only increase the gap between the industries (which is something the PPA claims to never want to do.)

- Skall: Look at your quote from above: you specifically mention (in a positive light) the theoretical possibility of a bill that would "ban online slots and sports betting" for the good of online poker. And you call 'me' selfish? Incredibly ironic.


Guys, as I specifically mentioned before, I am totally for any effort that is for the good of online gambling (especially poker, sports betting, fantasy sports, and anything else skill-based.) It simply comes down to this:

Why continue to have your higher-ups include sports betting in the list of mindless gambling pursuits that are ok to outlaw??

Since the PPA is obviously being heard sometimes by the legislators, any mention of sports (in the same breath as slots or roulette) will just negatively enhance the misunderstanding that lawmakers have about the industry. It may not cause any damage, but it certainly can't help.

I really recommend that you keep this in mind. We need to be fighting together here, but that won't be possible if pro-poker legislation includes anti-sports consequences

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, let me try this again.

- I repeat: I AM A SERIOUS POKER PLAYER TOO. Why on earth do some of the responses continue to assume that I have a "screw you PPA/poker players cause I just want to bet sports" attitude? That is a ridiculous, completely inaccurate conclusion. The point is to not HURT the sports betting industry with the continued misrepresentation of the "game of skill or chance" element in your lobbying. Equating that to worrying ONLY about sports (or to not caring at all about the PPA's general cause to help the state of poker) makes absolutely no sense.

- When did I ever ask the PPA to do something about sports? We aren't asking you to do help the industry; just not to damage it. And yes, I wish their was a SBA (sports betting alliance) as well.

- Quit throwing the Wire Act around. We all know that most online gambling-related laws are still in a very grey area w/ how they are interpreted (and that sports betting law is mostly concerned with those TAKING the bets...not making them.) In many states, it's also "illegal" to play in a poker room that takes a cut....yet that is just as common as those who bet sports. Plus, it's exactly the same concept as a bookie taking his cut. So don't act like there's such a major difference between the legalities of sports betting and playing poker; by doing so, you only increase the gap between the industries (which is something the PPA claims to never want to do.)

- Skall: Look at your quote from above: you specifically mention (in a positive light) the theoretical possibility of a bill that would "ban online slots and sports betting" for the good of online poker. And you call 'me' selfish? Incredibly ironic.


Guys, as I specifically mentioned before, I am totally for any effort that is for the good of online gambling (especially poker, sports betting, fantasy sports, and anything else skill-based.) It simply comes down to this:

Why continue to have your higher-ups include sports betting in the list of mindless gambling pursuits that are ok to outlaw??

Since the PPA is obviously being heard sometimes by the legislators, any mention of sports (in the same breath as slots or roulette) will just negatively enhance the misunderstanding that lawmakers have about the industry. It may not cause any damage, but it certainly can't help.

I really recommend that you keep this in mind. We need to be fighting together here, but that won't be possible if pro-poker legislation includes anti-sports consequences

[/ QUOTE ]

How much have you done? Before we go any further with you and your demands for clarification, please post the letters you've written to Congress against the Wire Act and UIGEA, plus everything else you've done to get Internet sports betting legalized in the U.S. If you've done nothing, like most sports bettors, but expect us to carry your water...well, don't expect too much from us.

[Skallagrim]

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

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
The internet statute is stand alone, FOUND IN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SECTION, and explicit: "any wagers."


[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be sure we aren’t having a failure to communicate, let me review my position and you folks please tell me specifically where you differ. The facts relevant to the internet penalty discussion are all in the new bill and the proposed internet statute is not standalone, it is a small part in a new gaming chapter; here’s how.

In the proposed bill “An Act Establishing and Regulating Resort Casinos in the Commonwealth”, you get a new agency--- “a rigorous gaming regulatory and enforcement scheme is needed to ensure fairness and integrity in the gaming industry...the resort casinos licensed in the commonwealth must therefore be controlled to protect the public health, safety…the Massachusetts gaming control authority is therefore created.”

Now, the promised new bureaucracy and penalty is placed by the bill into MA General Laws in “SECTION 6” page 3, which proposes a revised “CHAPTER 12B. THE MASSACHUSETTS GAMING CONTROL AUTHORITY”. This is where the regulations, licensing and internet penalties are found. In that proposed chapter 12B, there is a “Section 15. Penalties for Licensing and Gaming Violations” that starts on page 25. Then in subsection (i) on page 28 are internet gaming penalties for the chapter.

Right above “SECTION 6” is a very relevant “SECTION 3” that amends the general laws with a new definition for gaming. That new gaming definition would be used in the above new chapter on gaming control authority and gaming violation penalties, and is quoted earlier.

The internet wagers penalties, mentioned on page 28 in “Section 15(i)” of chapter 12 B, are simply ‘any’ wagers subject to the new gaming control authority, in other words only gaming wagers. The penalty can’t be removed from the gaming agency chapter and applied to non-gaming. If it could, the subsection would say something like "this subsection applies even to wagers that are not in the context of this gaming control chapter, even if they don’t meet the gaming definition given in the General Laws, i.e., gaming defined as banking/percentage games, with dice/cards, etc."

The new gaming definition/law does not include what I have been led to believe are skill games. Sorry to keep harping on this, but if the proposed bill doesn’t cover OBG’s allegedly legal skill games, we all look silly going around saying the sky is falling. Or we look silly saying skill games have banking/percentage, cards/dice elements that can be easily used to make them unlawful soon, if they are not now. If the chapter 12B gaming control penalty is somewhere promised to somehow apply to non-gaming skill wagers and who knows what else, only I take a hit.

And since one of our simplest goals is to maybe get poker accepted as a skill game, why argue that a ‘skill game’ = ‘gaming’ in MA, with all the attendant hassle? Since you would get regulation either way, it would be simpler to skip a step and say internet poker is gaming, please regulate us.

And off topic, yes, the bill would amend existing laws but the 90 year old parts will still be mostly there AFAIK. The 90 year old law mentions public or private place or room, occupant, person found or person present with a device for registering bets, 3 years prison, fine etc. Sounds a lot like internet poker if bets are being registered.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]


And since one of our simplest goals is to maybe get poker accepted as a skill game, why argue that a ‘skill game’ = ‘gaming’ in MA, with all the attendant hassle? Since you would get regulation either way, it would be simpler to skip a step and say internet poker is gaming, please regulate us.



[/ QUOTE ]

Simply because to do so might make things simpler in MA but much harder every where else.

The PPA and the larger poker community has been heard in MA and according to some sources is in place to address the crafting of this legislation as it moves from hearning to committee action and a possible vote.

There is no need for some sort of quick measure to try and save the fate of poker at the last minute in MA irregardless of the potential cost to poker else where in the country.

The skills game argument is sometimes a little hard to deal with and seems tourtured to some, but is very established in various State laws. The concept wasn't invented by poker players as a novel defense to save our own hides.

So there is absolutely no need to muddle our position with total gaming in this nor any other instance that I am aware of currently.


D$D

[permafrost]

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