What is the ultimate goal in the "Fight for Online Gaming"?

[Chino Brown]

By that, I mean what is the end result we are trying to accomplish with all our petitioning, lobbying, etc.? Is it to "legalize" online poker i.e. through regulation? I am not convinced that this would be the best option for us. If the government steps in to regulate, then most certainly there will be heavy taxation of online gaming which would ultimately hurt us in the form of much higher rakes, for example. Imagine no more sarcastic posts about "ZOMG, ONLY $.50 RAKE!!!!" I think if the UIGEA ever develops into what it was intended to be, by making it impossible for us to get money onto the sites, that would be about the worst situation for us. So that leads me to believe that our situation several months ago, before all the pullouts, was about as good as we could hope for. Internet poker still being 'underground' allows the sites to reap max profit, also allowing us the cheapest services possible, but also it was legal for US corporations to do business with these sites, allowing us easy and convienient methods of moving our money around. I guess what I am asking is what is our best option in the fight for online gaming? Should we really be pushing towards regulation or should we merely try to preserve the situation we had pre-UIGEA?

[ilikeaces86_]

Pre-UIGEA would be money but regulated could be good too if all the fish flood back onto sites they know are regulated and can be trusted.

[TheEngineer]

The reason UIGEA passed was that too many of us were happy with the status quo, so we didn't stand up for anything else. This made it seem like there was no political support for our right to play poker. If we do that now, we'll be sunk. We need to show political strength. Our goal is to fight hard for our rights to prevent a real prohibition.

My personal interpretation of our goals (in order of importance):
- keep things from getting worse (prohibition, laws against playing, etc)
- pass the Wexler bill, exempting skill games like poker from UIGEA
- legalize with regulation, working to keep taxes on poker low enough to keep the game the same for us

[Chino Brown]

Yes, I completely agree with you that if we do nothing right now, we are done for. Right now we need to flex our political muscle and convince politicians not to mess with us. But say that everything goes right for us and the UIGEA is repealed or declared unconstitutional or whatever, what next then? Should we push for government regulation? I foresee corrupt politicians overtaxing the industry, ultimately making the poker player pay. I'm sorry, but hoping for low taxes from our government is a very naive and innocent view point. Personally, I don't want the government involved in this industry as it will only spell more headaches for us in the future. So, what then should we try to establish, given a victory over the UIGEA? That is the point that I was trying to drive at most in my last post but wasn't very concise.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Should we push for government regulation?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, at least not IMO. We take regulation over a ban, though.

[ QUOTE ]
I foresee corrupt politicians overtaxing the industry, ultimately making the poker player pay.

[/ QUOTE ]


If Internet casino gaming is explicitly allowed along with poker, like IGREA, it's forseeable that the bulk of the taxes would come from that activity. What we don't want is only Internet poker to be explicitly legalized but heavily taxed. I don't forsee a situation now where we'd start pulling any punches relative to the legislation out there. We should fight 100% for IGREA and for the Wexler bill....that will help us get our goals, including the ones concerning fair taxation.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, but hoping for low taxes from our government is a very naive and innocent view point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. I'm not in the "hoping" game either. We have lobbyists and we have an organization rededicated (newly dedicated?) to fighting for our rights. We should fight for our rights and get the best deal we can, at least IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
So, what then should we try to establish, given a victory over the UIGEA?

[/ QUOTE ]

For that goal, you should support the Wexler bill (though I believe you should still write in support of IGREA to show support for the position that poker should be explicitly legal).

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not in the "hoping" game either. We have lobbyists and we have an organization rededicated (newly dedicated?) to fighting for our rights. We should fight for our rights and get the best deal we can, at least IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you going to get that deal through the Agencies, they can't do what you are asking them to do, they can not write law the Executive Branch only implements laws.



[ QUOTE ]
For that goal, you should support the Wexler bill (though I believe you should still write in support of IGREA to show support for the position that poker should be explicitly legal).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes these are good things, but an uncontested or misguided effort on the reg that ends up in effect being an uncontested one makes getting these bills passed as little harder.

If the reg goes through where is the money going to come from to fight for on-line poker? FT, PS and the rest of the current market would be pushed further underground and likely be considered illegal operators in any future IGREA world. The PPA's Angeles would disapear overnight as their US bank accounts would be frozen, closed, and possibly fined.

I will not be suggesting they can't operate in any new regulated market, I like FT it is my favorite site, but some politican with B&M backing will certainly try.


D$D

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Is it to "legalize" online poker i.e. through regulation? I am not convinced that this would be the best option for us.

It's not, but the best scenario - no govt involvement at all - isn't going to happen.

To quote Tony Soprano "You can't put sh*t back in a donkey."

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not in the "hoping" game either. We have lobbyists and we have an organization rededicated (newly dedicated?) to fighting for our rights. We should fight for our rights and get the best deal we can, at least IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you going to get that deal through the Agencies, they can't do what you are asking them to do, they can not write law the Executive Branch only implements laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

The taxes discussed in the OP would require new legislation (not an anency issue until then). PPA needs to be on the forefront of that legislative fight.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For that goal, you should support the Wexler bill (though I believe you should still write in support of IGREA to show support for the position that poker should be explicitly legal).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes these are good things, but an uncontested or misguided effort on the reg that ends up in effect being an uncontested one makes getting these bills passed as little harder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems we're working hard on the regs. The reg authors already admitted they cannot define UIG. We should make them spin their wheels trying, IMO. PPA wants a definition as well. I think we're heading in the right direction. If you don't, simply make comments on the regs expressing your viewpoint. I hope we'll fill the comment board with a lot of pro-poker commentary.

[ QUOTE ]
If the reg goes through where is the money going to come from to fight for on-line poker? FT, PS and the rest of the current market would be pushed further underground and likely be considered illegal operators in any future IGREA world. The PPA's Angeles would disapear overnight as their US bank accounts would be frozen, closed, and possibly fined.

I will not be suggesting they can't operate in any new regulated market, I like FT it is my favorite site, but some politican with B&M backing will certainly try.

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA will continue to grow its membership base, and will fight for all poker players. I've seen no evidence of bias regarding keeping FT and PS in the market. They're pushing hard for IGREA as well as the Wexler bill. Let the chips will fall where they may.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it to "legalize" online poker i.e. through regulation? I am not convinced that this would be the best option for us.

It's not, but the best scenario - no govt involvement at all - isn't going to happen.

To quote Tony Soprano "You can't put sh*t back in a donkey."

[/ QUOTE ]

The Wexler bill has governement involvement. I was differentiating between that and a bill with full regulation like IGREA.