my thoughts on the PPA and the third draft of the Reid bill...

posted in legislation forum on 2p2 in response to someone who is frustrated with people like m criticizing the PPA:

Originally Posted by mpethybridge
To those of you busting on the PPA, I will say two things:

1. I rarely see any of you posting in this forum.

2. Harrah's, MGM, et al, have money to burn, are well-entrenched interests and have a tame senator who happens to be the senate majority leader; if we have lost, they lost, too.

Please explain how the PPA was supposed to win a fight that major corporate interests who own one of the most powerful people in America couldn't win.

I really want to hear it; it should be good.

response:
1. what does posting on this forum usually have to do with whether or not our criticisms are valid now? (answer nothing)

2. I've never held it against the PPA that they didn't win the fight. my only complaints are about how they fought and whether or not they are who they have claimed to be while asking for my support and money (which I have contributed).

finally what you have to understand is that most of the people that have a problem with the PPA don't have a problem with their rate of success, we have a problem with their intentions and whether or not they are who they've portrayed themselves as. To be fair they have claimed they are an organization for the game and the players. But frequently during this fight it has seemed that they have thrown their support behind corporations that care nothing for the game and players. And while I understand this may have been a genuine attempt to win a battle by trying to align interests, when things start to go totally awry (as they have with the third draft of the Reid bill as well as the fact that Reid and Harrah's basically cut out the PPA from having any influence on the writing and drafting of the legislation) then they need to step in and be honest with us. If the PPA made a statement that things have gone wrong, the bill is not in our best interest, and the deals that Reid is making to get it passed are no longer supported by the organization then I would commend them for their honesty.

Basically they've lost the fight regardless of whether or not this bill passes, and our support (letters calls etc) and money were not difference makers this time around (not surprising). But we haven't lost the war, and this organization can still stand hold on to its integrity by stepping up and repping what they claimed to be since their inception. If Harrahs and MGM are running the show to the detriment of our online poker future than the PPA should say so. If Reid has lost all interest in what the PPA and players have asked him to support and is now just trying to serve the people that paid for his campaign by cutting them an insider deal with this bill, then say so.

stand up for the people that you claim matter to your organization. tell us where things went wrong, even if we can't fix them now. Admit to how much money you guys have taken or given to the various parties that now seem to not give a **** about the players.

Also understand that our complaints about the situation are not attacks on the people themselves. I don't know the PPA board members and have no idea about them personally. I would guess based on most of their reps and posts around here that they are good guys that mean well. Maybe they just got played in the political game (standard) and if so I'll gladly sympathize with them.

But the fact is that this bill is a disaster now, and was borderline a disaster from the beginning. And I thought their adament support of it seemed contrary to their stated goals, and as the drafts have gotten worse and worse I've yet to hear them speak up and say "sorry guys but this isn't what we wanted and we understand why you guys are opposed to this garbage version of the bill".

end of rant although I'm sure I've left stuff out.

I won a tournament

only a $50 buy-in. I've been donking around in these things while playing cash games the last couple of weeks. made a couple of final tables but this is the first win in a long time. biggest tourney score as well fwiw (I know that is sad). The funny thing is a had a brutal awful day at the cash tables, but winning the tournament got me up $1k for the day. I'll take it.

If you have something bottled up in side of you go straight to the snake-shaker.

updated cliff notes on reid bill (I'm really against this version even more so than previously)

HERE IS A REVISED SET OF ANSWERS, BASED ON THE RELEASE OF A NEW DRAFT OF THE REID BILL YESTERDAY. REVISIONS ARE IN GREEN.

Note: These answers are based on the most recently publicly available draft of the Reid bill. The final bill may contain some differences.

When will this bill be voted on?

We don't know yet when, or even if, this bill will be up for a vote. Senator Reid has been expected to attach this bill to some other must-pass bill during the lame-duck session of Congress this month. It takes a lot of political maneuvering to accomplish this and it is unclear yet whether or not he will be able to do so. The three likely bills that might be used are the Bush tax-cut extensions, the omnibus spending and the defense budget bills. The attachment and vote is likely to take place in a very short period ot time, making it likely that we will have only hours warning, if any, to know the final wording of the bill before it is passed.

How will licensing work?

Many current state gaming regulatory bodies will be eligible to become a "Qualified Body" that is authorized to license and regulate US iPoker sites. Those that currently regulate 5% of the total US gaming revenue ($62B*5%=$3.1B) (NV & NJ) are automatically designated as a QB upon notice to the Secretary of Commerce of their intent to do so. Those that regulate at least 0.3% of total US gaming revenue ($62B*0.3%=$186M) (IN, IL, CT, MI, MO, MS, LA, CO, NY and IA, plus others) will be eligible to apply to become a QB once the federal regulations for iPoker are issued (6 months after enactment of the bill).

NV & NJ are the only QBs that will be authorized to license sites which offered iPoker in the US prior to enactment of this bill, or any site which buys such or uses such as a supplier of software, hardware or services.

Who is eligible to apply for and receive a license?

Initially, any US casino or racino that has at least 500 slot machines, any US horserace track that has handled at least $250M of wagering at live racing in 3 of the past 5 years, any cardroom that has 250 or more tables, and any slot machine manufacturer who supplied the qualified casinos or racinos are eligible to apply for an iPoker license. After two years, the Secretary of Commerce can open licensing to other appropriate companies, including foreign sites, subject to the normal regulation development process of public notice and comment.

When will the initial sites be issued a licensed?

The QBs are instructed to issue as many licenses as possible simultaneously 15 months after the bill is enacted. The intention is to make a simultaneous launch of licensed sites to create a multi-site competitive market to the benefit of consumers (the players). Sites can become operational for play-money games and advance promotions before the launch date. No licenses may be issued prior to the publication of final regulations by the Secretary of Commerce.

Who can provide the software, hardware and services for licensed sites?

Any provider, including current offshore sites and current play-money sites (like Zynga Poker), can apply for a Certificate of Suitability to become a vendor to licensed sites. Licensed sites are prohibited from purchasing any site that ever offered iPoker or iGambling in the US prior to enactment of this bill for 1 ½ years after the initial licensing of US sites. Licensed sites can obtain software, hardware and/or services from such sites, but cannot for the 1 ½ years use the trademarks, trade name or customer base of such sites.

What happens during the period prior to the launch?

Current sites must cease US operations within 30 days of enactment of the bill, or they will become ineligibile to ever receive a US iPoker license or Certificate of Suitability. The bill does not enact until 30 days after it is signed into law, so the sites effectively have 60 days total to cease their US operations. US player account balances will remain available for withdrawal for two years, after which the funds are placed into escrow in the US for safe-keeping and dispositon by the Secretary of Commerce.

Can US players play on offshore sites during this 14-month blackout period?

It will not be illegal for US players to play on such sites. It will be illegal under US law for such sites to offer play to US players. Since such sites will be ineligible to ever receive a US license, many of the current offshore sites will become unavailable to US players. Those that remain will have difficulties providing deposit and withdrawal methods to US players, probably more so than currently. But, some play will no doubt be available as long as there is a market for it.

Who will be able to play on US licensed sites?

Initially, anyone physically located anywhere in the US, except in an opt-out state (see below), will be able play on any US licensed site. After 3 years, the Secretary of Commerce may determine to open the iPoker market to additional foreign jurisdictions, including combined player pools at the sites, with the approval of Congress by a joint resolution proposed within 30 days of such determination. There will no doubt be much lobbying pressure from the sites and players to do so. The Secretary needs to ensure that such additions of foreign players takes place only in locations where it is legal for the foreign players and only if doing so does not endanger the consumer protections of the US iPoker regulations. Therefore, it is likely to include only jurisdictions where there is existing government licensing and regulation, under mutual agreement between the US and such governments (imo).

What states will opt out?

Initially, these states will automatically be opted in: California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. All other states will initially be opted out.

Until December 31st, 2011, any state may change their option status immediately by notice to the Secretary of Commerce. Such changes must be in accordance with state law, and cannot be determined by any state law that is already in existence prior to enactment of this bill. In most, if not all, states this means that a new law or public referendum must be passed to change the state's option status. After December 31st, 2011, changes to state option status work the same way except the change doesn't take effect until 60 days after notice to the Secretary or the date the new state law enacts, whichever is later.

There is much debate on which states will, in the end, be opt in states. Hopefully the easy revenue stream from licensed iPoker will encourage many states to be opt in, especially in these times of budget crises.

A state may adopt intrastate iPoker or iGambling and remain opted out of the federal iPoker program.

Can residents of opt-out states or foreign countries play in the US while traveling?

Yes. Play is only restricted by location of the player at the time of play, not by residence. In fact, there are no restrictions in the bill against opening accounts or making deposits or withdrawals based on either residence or location. US licensed sites can open accounts for, take deposits and send withdrawals to anyone anywhere in the world, including opt out states. The only thing these sites have to restrict is play based on location of the player at the time of play, which must be within the US and excluding opt-out states.

What is the government taxation under this bill?

Sites will be taxed at a rate of 16% of their gross gaming revenues (total rakes and fees). Current offshore sites consider this completely acceptable, and less costly than their current situation of high payment processing fees and funds seizures. With many licensed sites going live at the same time, open market competition is likely to keep rake low and player incentives high.

Of the 16%, 2% will go to the federal government, 9.8% will be distributed to the states according to the location of the players and the remaining 4.2% will go to the state where the site is licensed.

This tax is on the sites, not the players. States will not be allowed to levy any additional taxation on the licensed sites.

Will players have to pay income taxes?

Yes, players will be liable to pay income taxes on their winnings just as they are now. There is no additional income tax added by this bill, but sites will be reporting player gambling wins (and losses) at the end of the year. The sites do not have to do any tax withholding for US players as long as you provide them with a standard IRS W-9 Form, providing your Taxpayer ID Number and statement that you are not subject to tax backup withholding. Foreign players will be subject to 30% income tax withholding on winnings, unless exempted by tax treaty (and the player provides the site with the proper tax form).

Some states currently have income tax rules that don't allow players to deduct losses against their wins. Any such state that is an opt in will no doubt act to change this rule as they will want players to participate from their state. It will be self-defeating to state revenues from iPoker to be an opt-in state and keep such a tax rule.

What player aids, such as HUDs, will be allowed at licensed sites?

Any such software that is allowed according to the Terms of Service of the licensed site is fine. If it is prohibited by the TOS of the site, it will be against the law and anyone convicted of such cheating will be subject to fines and imprisonment, as well as permanently banned from iPoker at all licensed sites. Similarly, any cheating behaviour such as collusion which is against the TOS of the site will be a criminal offense under federal law. Bots will be against the law.

What is the age limit?

Players at licensed sites must be at least 21 years of age.

Are there any buy-in, stake or wagering limits?

No. The only such limits are those available for self-exclusion under protections for problem gaming. Any player can choose to impose such limits on their play, and to remove such self-imposed limits at any time.

What games are allowed to be offered by the licensed sites?

Any game of poker that is not house-banked is allowed. As long as the game is considered a poker game, and involves some application of skill, it is legal.

good cliff notes on the reid bill

since I've thrown out a lot of my own opinions I thought it would be helpful if I put a the latest FAQ concerning the Reid bill that were posted on 2p2. The following was posted by PokerXanadu in this thread (link):

Note: These answers are based on the most recently publicly available draft of the Reid bill. The final bill may contain some differences.

When will this bill be voted on?

We don't know yet when, or even if, this bill will be up for a vote. Senator Reid has been expected to attach this bill to some other must-pass bill during the lame-duck session of Congress this month. It takes a lot of political maneuvering to accomplish this and it is unclear yet whether or not he will be able to do so. The three likely bills that might be used are the Bush tax-cut extensions, the omnibus spending and the defense budget bills. The attachment and vote is likely to take place in a very short period ot time, making it likely that we will have only hours warning, if any, to know the final wording of the bill before it is passed.

How will licensing work?

Many current state gaming regulatory bodies will be eligible to become a "Qualified Body" that is authorized to license and regulate US iPoker sites. Those that currently regulate 5% of the total US gaming revenue (NV & NJ) are automatically designated as a QB upon notice to the Secretary of Commerce of their intent to do so. Those that regulate at least 0.5% of total US gaming revenue (IN, IL, CT, MI, MO, MS, LA, CO, NY and IA, plus maybe some others I haven't noted) will be eligible to apply to become a QB once the federal regulations for iPoker are issued (6 months after enactment of the bill).

NV & NJ will be able to license and regulate iPoker sites whether or not the federal government issues iPoker regulations in a timely manner. They are also the only QBs that will be authorized to license sites which offered iPoker in the US prior to enactment of this bill, or any site which buys such or uses such as a supplier of software, hardware or services.

Who is eligible to apply for and receive a license?

Initially, any US casino or racino that has at least 500 slot machines, any US race track that has run at least 250 days of live racing over the past 5 years, and any slot machine manufacturer who supplied the qualified casinos or racinos are eligible to apply for an iPoker license. After two years, the Secretary of Commerce can open licensing to other appropriate companies, including foreign sites, subject to the normal regulation development process of public notice and comment.

When will the initial sites be issued a licensed?

The QBs are instructed to issue as many licenses as possible simultaneously 15 months after the bill is enacted. The intention is to make a simultaneous launch of licensed sites to create a multi-site competitive market to the benefit of consumers (the players). Sites can become operational for play-money games and advance promotions before the launch date.

Who can provide the software, hardware and services for licensed sites?

Any provider, including current offshore sites and current play-money sites (like Zynga Poker), can apply for a Certificate of Suitability to become a vendor to licensed sites. Licensed sites can also purchase such companies, or some of their assets, and remain licensed.

What happens during the period prior to the launch?

Current sites must cease US operations within 30 days of enactment of the bill, or they will become ineligibile to ever receive a US iPoker license or Certificate of Suitability. The bill does not enact until 30 days after it is signed into law, so the sites effectively have 60 days total to cease their US operations. US player account balances will remain available for withdrawal for two years, after which the funds are placed into escrow in the US for safe-keeping and dispositon by the Secretary of Commerce.

Can US players play on offshore sites during this 14-month blackout period?

It will not be illegal for US players to play on such sites. It will be illegal under US law for such sites to offer play to US players. Since such sites will be ineligible to ever receive a US license, many of the current offshore sites will become unavailable to US players. Those that remain will have difficulties providing deposit and withdrawal methods to US players, probably more so than currently. But, some play will no doubt be available as long as there is a market for it.

Who will be able to play on US licensed sites?

Initially, anyone physically located anywhere in the US, except in an opt-out state (see below), will be able play on any US licensed site. After 3 years, the Secretary of Commerce can open the market to additional foreign jurisdictions, including combined player pools at the sites. There will no doubt be much lobbying pressure from the sites and players to do so. The Secretary needs to ensure that such additions of foreign players takes place only in locations where it is legal for the foreign players and only if doing so does not endanger the consumer protections of the US iPoker regulations. Therefore, it is likely to include only jurisdictions where there is existing government licensing and regulation, under mutual agreement between the US and such governments (imo).

What states will opt out?

Initially, these states will automatically be opted in: California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. All other states will initially be opted out.

Until December 31st, 2011, any state may change their option status immediately by notice to the Secretary of Commerce. Such changes must be in accordance with state law, and cannot be determined by any state law that is already in existence prior to enactment of this bill. In most, if not all, states this means that a new law or public referendum must be passed to change the state's option status. After December 31st, 2011, changes to state option status work the same way except the change doesn't take effect until 60 days after notice to the Secretary or the date the new state law enacts, whichever is later.

Also, any state that enacts its own intrastate iPoker or iGambling legislation is automatically and immediately an opt-in state, with no further option to opt out.

There is much debate on which states will, in the end, be opt in states. Hopefully the easy revenue stream from licensed iPoker will encourage many states to be opt in, especially in these times of budget crises. Note that the only two choices any state will have is either to be opted in or to have a complete ban on all iGambling including intrastate (excepting interstate Horseracing wagering under the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978).

It is significant that any state that wants to offer any form of intrastate casino iGambling (like NJ is in the process of passing) must be an opt in to the federal iPoker system under the Reid bill. Any state with casinos are likely to receive pressure from these enterprises who do not want to miss this golden egg. Similarly, many state lotteries are looking to expand to iPoker and/or iGambling.

Can residents of opt-out states or foreign countries play in the US while traveling?

Yes. Play is only restricted by location of the player at the time of play, not by residence. In fact, there are no restrictions in the bill against opening accounts or making deposits or withdrawals based on either residence or location. US licensed sites can open accounts for, take deposits and send withdrawals to anyone anywhere in the world, including opt out states. The only thing these sites have to restrict is play based on location of the player at the time of play, which must be within the US and excluding opt-out states.

What is the government taxation under this bill?

Sites will be taxed at a rate of 20% of their gross gaming revenues (total rakes and fees). Current offshore sites consider this completely acceptable, and less costly than their current situation of high payment processing fees and funds seizures. With many licensed sites going live at the same time, open market competition is likely to keep rake low and player incentives high.

Of the 20%, 6% will go to the federal government, 9.8% will be distributed to the states according to the location of the players and the remaining 4.2% will go to the state where the site is licensed.

This tax is on the sites, not the players. States will not be allowed to levy any additional taxation on the licensed sites.

Will players have to pay income taxes?

Yes, players will be liable to pay income taxes on their winnings just as they are now. There is no additional income tax added by this bill, but sites will be reporting player gambling wins (and losses) at the end of the year. The sites do not have to do any tax withholding for US players as long as you provide them with a standard IRS W-9 Form, providing your Taxpayer ID Number and statement that you are not subject to tax backup withholding. Foreign players will be subject to 30% income tax withholding on winnings, unless exempted by tax treaty (and the player provides the site with the proper tax form).

Some states currently have income tax rules that don't allow players to deduct losses against their wins. Any such state that is an opt in will no doubt act to change this rule as they will want players to participate from their state. It will be self-defeating to state revenues from iPoker to be an opt-in state and keep such a tax rule.

What player aids, such as HUDs, will be allowed at licensed sites?

Any such software that is allowed according to the Terms of Service of the licensed site is fine. If it is prohibited by the TOS of the site, it will be against the law and anyone convicted of such cheating will be subject to fines and imprisonment, as well as permanently banned from iPoker at all licensed sites. Similarly, any cheating behaviour such as collusion which is against the TOS of the site will be a criminal offense under federal law. Bots will be against the law.

What is the age limit?

Players at licensed sites must be at least 21 years of age.

Are there any buy-in, stake or wagering limits?

No. The only such limits are those available for self-exclusion under protections for problem gaming. Any player can choose to impose such limits on their play, and to remove such self-imposed limits at any time.

What games are allowed to be offered by the licensed sites?

Any game of poker that is not house-banked is allowed. As long as the game is considered a poker game, and involves some application of skill, it is legal.

a comment I posted on doubleflys blog

doublefly's blog is one of the best so if you don't read it you should (see link on the left). he recently posted that some people he knew were considering playing poker professionally because they were anticipating losing their jobs. He made some very well thought out and valuable comments relating to going pro that I agree with and hope these folks will read and consider. I decided to type a comment because I both agree with fly and think that his general optimistic disposition and writing style might be painting the stresses of playing professionally a little lighter than he intended (or I believe them to be). FWIW I think I'm extremely lucky and have a great job and lifestyle. I wouldn't trade it for just about anything. At the same time I do believe that I work hard, and I've earned my success. And I think that I was lucky to be born with the type of personality and disposition that has greatly aided in my success in the game. I'm not by any means trying to induce sympathy for pro poker players or make it seem like we have it tough. I am however trying to illuminate the realities of why more people don't play for a living, and why I would in general not recommend people give it a go.

here is my comment relating to his blog post:

if you're looking to play poker for a living because you are about to be laid off chances are you have zero chance of successfully pulling it off. the only reason you should be looking to play for a living is because you've been playing so much and for so long that you already could be playing for a living and are just considering a life style change. this isn't something you can just start, or even start taking seriously.

I played poker seriously (playing/studying/reading etc) for hours nearly every day for probably two years before I considered playing professionally. during that time I was finishing grad school and working as an engineer. It wasn't until I had already made enough playing poker to have a working bankroll, 3-4 months of expenses, and nearly half a million hands of experience under my belt that I considered playing professionally. And at that point I knew my risk of ruin was very very small and I pretty much understood what my hourly would likely be for the near future.

If you aren't in a similar situation you are courting personal disaster (especially if you have dependents) if you try to pursue playing professionally. Don't confuse the phrase "playing professionally" or the fact that it is a game with the idea that pros are merely playing. It is work. And very emotionally and mentally taxing work.

I find poker during work hours to be considerably more stressful than the half dozen jobs I had before I went pro. And you will also likely find your sleep schedule as well as your social life will face some adjustments. I have no complaints as it has all worked well for me, but certain people and personality types simply couldn't handle it. For example my wife is the most intelligent person I know (about to graduate from Harvard Med school fwiw), and has the right type of intelligence for poker (brilliant math mind and majored in psych in undergrad). BUT she would never make it as a poker pro. The monetary stress, the weird hours, the potential social barriers would all be too much for her. For me they are no big deal, but by the same token I could never have made it into (let alone through) med school. To each their own.

cliff notes: you probably don't have what it takes to be a poker pro. If you do you probably already know that you do, and it's just a question if you want to.

more on Reid bill

Post on 2p2 from PPA board member Skalligrim:

There is not a single post of mine that I think can reasonably be called "cheerleading" this bill. I hate this F-ing bill.

But sometimes it is necessary to take something you hate in order to get something you really want.

And I have also always said that this bill is so fraught with pain that it is a close call. But overall I support it.

But I will also say this. This has been lots of talk of more horsetrading going on in DC that we are not privy too. If only one additional poison pill is added to this bill, I may change my close call.

My best analogy is this: suppose you go into an antique shop and see a very valuable item that you have always wanted. At first it seems fair priced and you try to negotiate buying it. But the owner of the store is a real jerk and once he sees how much you want it he raises the price, and then he raises the price again. At some point the price is higher than the pleasure I will get from owning the piece. The bill as last reported on Monday was pretty close to having too high a price, but, IMHO, not there yet.

IOW, it wouldn't take much change for the worse for me to join in opposing the bill.

Skallagrim

my thoughts on it:

post by skallagrim a PPA board member in a thread saying that the bill is not going on the tax cut bill. they still think they have a chance to get it on some other piece of legislation, but that it is somewhat unlikely because Sen Kyl (tard from AZ) is doing everything possible to block it and Reid and company aren't going to make this an important enough issue to run them over on it.

the reason I post though is that skall is a PPA board member and a seemingly smart guy but not a pro (as far as I know). and if he can barely stomach this bill, the bill that his organization has fought for and backed and thrown all of their support behind, then I don't see why I should support it. Basically he's saying it's crap, we're getting screwed, but maybe down the line things might work out. and since it's my job to try and get things to work out I'm going to roll the dice and get shat on. Well since my job is to try and make money playing poker I'm probably going to say no to getting shat on. So I'll continue to not support this bill.

maybe things will change in the future and we'll have a shot to get a reasonable piece of legislation through (PPA guys are claiming that the kind of legislation I'd like to see would be supported by gaming and Reid just not Kyl and the religious right repubs) but this just isn't it. I'm more afraid that this will result in a death sentence for online poker in the US than if we just leave it alone and hope that it remains a relatively unimportant issue for the DOJ. and hopefully down the line we can get some kind of positive legislation through.

just my 2 cents, and if I'm wrong wouldn't be the first or last time.

blog of my posts on 2p2 regarding Reid bill dealing with online poker

I've been discussing and debating the Harry Reid bill relating to online poker in the FTP regs thread for the last day or so. Below are my thoughts on the subject including posts from other players that prompted my response. If you don't know about the bill check on the cliffs in the original post of this thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57/poker-legislation/reid-pushing-plan-legalize-u-s-online-gambling-summary-op-read-if-you-have-questions-930754/

harrahs wants anything that opens a market for them and shuts out as much competition as possible. a blackout, followed by state by state ratification gives them the best chance to become THE (maybe the only) player in the US online poker market. they already have the lobbying force putting money in every congressman's pockets. the blackout is fine by them, and they don't really care about the length of time since as of now they have no market share. they just want to make sure that when it is over everyone else is scrambling, the system is a mess, and their current power in the market and lobbying will set them up.

the more I read about this bill the more I am against it. frankly I don't understand how anyone that isn't a clueless casual player (or someone that derives their income from live games) would support this bill. the down sides of 15 months during which online poker could nearly disappear from the consciousness of the casual US player seems like way to great of a risk in order to get harrah's controlled online sites that only allow US players and may exclude a ton of states (if they choose not to opt in).

I'm really close to calling my senator and telling him I'm against this, but I think he's already against online poker because he's a religious right idiot.

Originally Posted by cheet
a PPA guy said harrahs and other b&m gaming interests will actively pursue a full internet poker ban if this doesn't pass, so they market is cleared for them when they can get a bill through so I'm supposed to take the poison because if a don't they are going to shoot me in the head? whatever I'll take my chances by not getting in bed with these slime.

frankly seems like a good time to start talking about boycotting the WSOP. Harrah's can go **** a duck as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PenelopeCruz
Why do you place so much importance on a one year period when the end result is the long term sustainability of your profession? As it stands right now there is nothing but uncertainty, maybe the current system is sustainable but all logical reasoning suggests otherwise...

because the more I read about this bill the less confident I feel that anything resembling the status quo will return after this period. Plus I think that's enough time for the game to be forgotten or lose the luster that it has gained in the last decade. People didn't really talk about poker 15 years ago. Kill the biggest reminder of it in the consciousness for 15 months and who is to say it will come back with the same gusto?

plus why should I believe that the government getting more involved is in anyway I good thing for an industry like poker? they are going to view this industry the same way they view alcohol and tabacco. and unnecessary vice that they can tax or regulate as they please.

plus how many red states do you think are going to opt in when it returns? how long do think it is going to take before the government decides to let international players play? plus how do we know rake doesn't become as ****** as it is in live casinos?

tbh just too much potential negatives with this version of the bill. I'm not saying I don't support full legalization of fund transfers as well as potential regulation of the industry. but the reid bill is not written in the best interests of online players. it is written in the best interests of live casino interests and congressmen who want to get more cash (both in campaign contributions and tax dollars to allocate). I'm willing to hold out hope for something better instead of getting effed in the A now hoping that everything works out in two years.

oh and I don't know if you guys realize it, but they are planning on starting to take taxing poker seriously for recreational players as well. which is a big deal since they can't deduct losses like we do and will end up paying taxes on winnings and then deducting losses from the entire income. maybe the IRS and pokerrooms just ignore this and it doesn't change anything in live games, but they can easily keep track of it online since every online casino will have to be licensed and the IRS and DOJ can easily get all of their records.

how would you like it if every casual player suddenly had several thousand less dollars to play with every year because the government taxed them on their breakeven or losing play?

I'm just basing that on what I read in the leg forum thread, so I could be wrong. but as far as I know the bill changes nothing about how the IRS or states tax gambling wins and losses. which fwiw in most states is terrible for casual players. IE you can't deduct all losses, must pay on all wins, and if wins bump you into a higher tax bracket so be it. I mean most tax laws on gambling are really really bad for casual players. the reason that nobody addresses it is because casual players never pay taxes since they either lose and nobody pays attention, or they are dealing in cash at live casinos. If you put it online in a regulated online industry you can bet the government is going to get their chunk. how many casual players are going to keep playing when their losses are tallied up for them by the site (so they see in writing how bad they suck) at the end of the year and then shipped to them so that they can figure out how much tax they may have to pay on losing money online? my guess is this is more likely to push people away then encourage them to play.

Originally Posted by Reefypoopoo
your points about poker losing it's appeal after the period and opt out states are valid.

However, there is no way recreational players are going to F themselves in the A in regards to the IRS under the retarded system. People just don't do that. Consider the average Joe who makes $50K yr, gambles regularly for $50K wins and $45K losses yearly totals. You think they're gonna pay additional taxes on that 50K? I don't.

if they don't they are subject to audit and fines because they would be committing tax fraud assuming they don't file as a professional gambler. the irs or doj would have the power to request the records of any site and it might actually be written into the bill that these sites are going to be providing 1099 to customers basically prepping the information for the government.

maybe a vast majority of casual players refuse to pay and it goes to courts where the consider changing the absurd laws on gambling taxes in the US, OR maybe people just get scared and quit playing. I don't know. but either way it can't be a positive relating to taxes for casual gamblers in the US that the government is going to have access and information regarding their wins and losses under our current tax code.

Originally Posted by Ditch Digger
Just because 1 or 2 idiots are babbling about this in the legislation forum doesn't mean it's true. 90% of the people in that forum have no clue of how anything is going down so stop taking what they are saying as fact.

If you find a post from a reputable poster that has connections in Washington I'll gladly eat my words in the above paragraph.

I dont really know what youre talking about. all i did was make some logical inferences based on the knowledge of the reid bill that is being presented in the major cliffs in the leg forum. you really think if the IRS has information on every online poker players income and losses that they would move to get some of that money? and how long until the states have access to this information so that they can pursue their own taxing of it? my guess is not long once they realize the potential windfall.

you guys can be all optimistic, and I hope youre right. but understand that the bill that you guys are rooting for was not written by people who give a flying crap about professional poker players or their abillity to make money. it was written by people who want to get their hands on as much poker rake as possible. united states owned and operated casinos that can pay taxes and campaign contributions. aren't you at all concerned about this future licensing process? do you really think that harrahs and MGM are going to sit on the sideline and let FTP and Pstars get licenses when the people with the power have been recieving campain contributions from Harrahs and MGM for years?

I think I have good reason to be pessimistic. I'm just hoping that this bill fails and the next attempt by the PPA or whomever gives some credence to an open and fair market place for all players. basically I want a bill that is written as if it is trying to tax an already functioning industry, and regulate the payment processors that will step up to work with these sites. I'm not interested in a bill that acts as though this industry has never existed and it's passing creates the entire environment for which all future sites should function.

Originally Posted by Nick Rivers
The IRS is going to insist that people pay their fair share of taxes. Some of us already (begrudgingly) do that. Perhaps you are ideologically opposed to paying taxes, but that's neither here nor there with regards to this bill. The government is not overstepping its bounds when it insists on getting access to income records for its citizens so that they can be taxed appropriately. This goes for state revenue agencies as well.


It's a question of which you think is the lesser of two evils. On the one hand, you have the PPA, Caesars, and the MGM coming together to make a ****** bill that hands online poker over to a bunch of scumbags. On the other hand, you have the status quo. Or do you? IMO if you think the status quo is really the alternative to this bill, then I think you're the one guilty of being overly optimistic. And that's saying something, because the status quo isn't exactly all that great. The GOP is coming back into power. These are the clowns who brought you the UIGEA to begin with. Do you think they're just going to sit around and let the status quo continue, or do you think they're going to start in with even more meddling and nonsense? I'm guessing the latter. If this bill does not go through, then online poker is once again exposed to potential GOP corruption and idiocy in the future. CEC can, of course, bribe them as well, but any bill that comes from them would probably end up being even worse.

I don't really like either outcome. Both are fraught with pitfalls, and it's definitely the case that nobody is looking out for the players in any event (and you're out of your mind if you think the PPA will at any point in the future). It's possible this was inevitable and that we live under a pretty awful political regime, or maybe it's possible that we've just been complacent and haven't made any real moves to protect our niche industry. Whatever the case, I'm not an optimist about online poker no matter what happens with this bill. Either way, it looks like things are not going to be as good for us as they have been. If I had to make a gun to the head decision, i guess I would want the bill to pass; I'd rather take my chances with CEP and MGM and pray for a miracle than wait and see what the GOP does next to ruin an already dwindling online poker landscape.

the second part is just agree to disagree, but as to the bolded I am not here to argue whether the government is morally or ethically correct in taking all possible steps to obtain tax dollars and I understand that they have a legal claim to lots of money in the gambling world that they never see. I pay all of my taxes and I always have, but if losing casual poker players aren't paying taxes on their play because they deal in cash and/or don't make enough that the govt notices than I don't really give a crap as it is in my best interest. is that selfish? hell yeah, but I don't give a crap. there are lots of things that people can do everyday that illegal or not supported by our government, but people get away with it. does the US government have a right to prosecute people? sure, but I don't care.

whether or not the government has a legal right to something doesn't mean that I have agree with it on a selfish, moral, ethical, or whatever basis. If the government currently can't get their hands on tax dollars of most casual gamblers I don't give a ****.

cliff notes: I'm against it.