Harrah's and AGA lobbyng efforts - Page 2

oldbookguy · #11 08-24-2007, 02:13 PM

I agree, this would clear up any confusion.

A question I have, how are the 'poker clubs' in the U S not being bothered, orther than you pay a fee and get points to play with and no RG's.

I.E. ClubUBT; ChipVault and the others?

Are they just being ignored?

obg

TheEngineer · #12 08-24-2007, 02:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I would conclude that the Wexler bill is the only one which offers poker players an unrestricted pass out of the UIGE Act/Wire Act quagmire. We should spare no effort to support THAT bill.

.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are poker players. My understanding of Wexler's bill is that it grants poker the same standing as any other contest of skill. meaning that anywhere you can play any skill game, you can play poker.

This is what we poker players should be striving to get into law.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

We are. All of us.

hollaballa · #13 08-24-2007, 03:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with hollaballa.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hollaballa's only point is that we should all focus primarily on advocating Berkley's study bill, as the other bills have no chance, per stuff he read on the Internet. Is that what you're agreeing with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Engineer, first, let me say that I certainly applaud the effort you are making on many of the forums (2+2, eog, etc). You work very hard at this and I certainly respect you for that.

But, I'm just trying to add some reality into the situation.

This isn't stuff I just "read on the internet".

I'm actually in this business. I speak to some people pretty well in the know on a regular basis. I'm not just making stuff up.

It's just my opinion, and I know it's the opinion of a lot of people high up in the gaming business, that there's slim to no chance of just reversing the internet ban.

I know it's a violation of our civil rights...it was unfairly attached to the port security bill, etc.....

None of that really matters at this point. that's just reality.

TheEngineer · #14 08-24-2007, 03:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with hollaballa.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hollaballa's only point is that we should all focus primarily on advocating Berkley's study bill, as the other bills have no chance, per stuff he read on the Internet. Is that what you're agreeing with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Engineer, first, let me say that I certainly applaud the effort you are making on many of the forums (2+2, eog, etc). You work very hard at this and I certainly respect you for that.

But, I'm just trying to through some reality into the situation.

This isn't stuff I just "read on the internet".

I'm actually in this business. I speak to some people pretty well in the know on a regular basis. I'm not just making stuff up.

It's just my opinion, and I know it's the opinion of a lot of people high up in the gaming business, that there's slim to no chance of just reversing the internet ban.

I know it's a violation of our civil rights...it was unfairly attached to the port security bill, etc.....

None of that really matters at this point. that's just reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, there is no Internet ban on poker. Our efforts keeping that true.

Please don't take my comments personally. They're not directed at your personally. However, I do have a right to address your comments concerning what we should do, and I fundamentially disagree with your ideas of us focusing only on the study bill. We should advocate it, and we are, but I think compromising at this point is a loser. We have every right to demand our rights, and we have a right to more than a study.

You've not proven what you think is "reality". Nor have you proven that the people who know what's "really going on" really know what's going on. Just because they run stuff in Vegas doesn't mean they know diddly about Washington.

We're not fighting for a quick fix. You act like it's this year or nothing. That's a mistake. We can lay the groundwork this year, keep the status quo, and bang away next year and the year after. None of this hurts the chances of the study bill passing.

You've not addressed my point that advocating IGREA and/or SGPA does more to advocate the study bill than anything else we could do.

Skallagrim · #15 08-24-2007, 03:39 PM

While every informed opinion deserves some respect, it is silly to simply accept opinions of "those in the know" as fact. This same group of folks you speak of hollabolla predicted the UIGEA was dead in the water last year.

There are 3 key factors at work here:

1) Bush's presidency - since it is indeed highly unlikely to have a veto proof number of congresspersons on our side, I agree that a change in legislation is not going to occur until 2009. This, I believe, is one reason it has stalled: why work to pass a bill that will surely be vetoed? (that last statement reflects legislators thinking - for us any movement forward, even a vetoed bill is a good thing).

2) The WTO, Banks, and the national debt - Bush is slowly bankrupting this country (whether you support or oppose the Iraq war, paying for it by borrowing money from the Chinese is a BAD thing), and so Congress is going to have to seek revenue from somewhere, and Banks dont like paying for the UIGEA, and companies wont like the trade sanctions that will come (in one form or another) from the WTO, This is a group of allies who can easily be persuaded to side with us, because the Number of FOF "gamblng is evil" types out there is small - gambling is one of the fastest growing industries across the US right now, it clearly would not be so if the majority of americans really believed it was "evil." This economic pressure is what will insure that something will have to happen.

3) Individual rights do matter to a lot of Americans, and a lot of Americans play poker. Should the PPA ever figure out how to work even half as effectively as the NRA, we would be home free.

Put the 3 factors above together, allow for some of the machinations of big money US gaming interests to play out, and you (we) have every reason to hope that new legislation will give us back our lost rights in 2009. But to be prepared for success in 2009, we have to continue the fight through 2007 and 2008.

Skallagrim

Legislurker · #16 08-24-2007, 03:52 PM

And to boot Skall, I think the number of the people "in the know" about what will happen are few, roundabout 0. WTO-wise we will know by September I hope. Right now, I don't think a decision has been made in our favour, and I don't think they have a failproof "out" to shut us out. A lot depends on how that arbitration panel rules. A lot on how hard the EU, india, Japan, etc push in negotiations. We ARE spectators, but the fix just isn't in. Maybe the CEO of Harrah's or MGM would know a few days ahead of time if a deal was reached, but theres no way it would be secret for long. Any number of things could drastically change the landscape, and almost all are in our favor.

oldbookguy · #17 08-24-2007, 03:55 PM

I think we are all missing the really big picture called Cover your A**.

The trade negotiations provide that IF we can get companies to simply push back saying ban all you want except I am NOT paying for it, go to someone else.

IF enough do this, even the Kylies can say, hey, we want to but......

OK, so, what is REALLY best is regulating with strict guidelines. No, I do not want them strict but they would be.

All in all, they can tell FoF, we did our best,sorry, no, I am NOT going to give away potential jobs AND MORE seats in congress from peeved off voters who may lose jobs.

obg

hollaballa · #18 08-24-2007, 04:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And to boot Skall, I think the number of the people "in the know" about what will happen are few, roundabout 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

right, that's why I called them "opinions". No one knows what will happen.....

I just happen to side with CEO's of $10bil companies and people like the president of the AGA.

They obviously have a vested interest, but they have a realistic view (in my opinion) of how things will unfold.

Believe it or not, internet poker becoming legal would mean $1mil or more to me. Trust me I want this to happen as much as anyone else.

I'm hoping for (hoping because I think it's the best case in my opinion) a 3 year time line.

The study bill gets passed in 2008. Study happens during 2009. 2009-2010 regulations are developed. 2011 the US goes live with online poker.

I think that's a best case scenario.

Legislurker · #19 08-24-2007, 04:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think we are all missing the really big picture called Cover your A**.

The trade negotiations provide that IF we can get companies to simply push back saying ban all you want except I am NOT paying for it, go to someone else.

IF enough do this, even the Kylies can say, hey, we want to but......

OK, so, what is REALLY best is regulating with strict guidelines. No, I do not want them strict but they would be.

All in all, they can tell FoF, we did our best,sorry, no, I am NOT going to give away potential jobs AND MORE seats in congress from peeved off voters who may lose jobs.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but GATS has provisions about "regulating" out foreign competition, and thats the beauty of the WTO for us. They US has to be adjudged in compliance before Antiqua would have to cease and desist the sanctions. Besides, I don't think the appetite is there for a vast regulatory body. Its either ban and prosecute, or back away. Bush is going to fight what he can fight, and if he can't destroy remote gaming, he will just focus elsewhere. No one thinks there will be legit, forthright, best for the consumer negotiations. Its a [censored] pissing match. Someone is going to decide too much splashed their face and back down.
Compromise for [censored] gaming were a past possibility. Either ANtigua wins, or Bush wins. If Antigua wins, we have good gaming, if Bush, well we will be beating each other up and calling each other donks all day at the .05/.10 tables are stars in a few months. The outcome won't be a middle ground of BS regs.

JPFisher55 · #20 08-24-2007, 05:58 PM

I think that we need to distinguish between foreign online gambling and US based online gambling. The former could become legal with one judge interpreting the Wire Act more narrowly than the court in the Jay Cohen case. The latter will require legislation which I agree is not likely until after the Bush Administration.
But WTO pressure on key industries and companies could influence a judicial decision, lead to DOJ relaxing war on online gambling or even some other alternative, such as Rep. Wexler's bill, that provides us free, unregulated online poker in the near future.