Update: Today's Hearing on Online Gaming.

I'm sure you guys remembered about the hearing today. I didn't see any post on the Update of how the hearing went. So here is a link below that discuss some of what was said at the meeting.
http://www.pocketfives.com/articles/...gaming-586885/

GO and listen to the whole 2 hr + meeting, It was very interesting, as their are ideas out there but personally, I feel too many different agendas for different people to get money are being put out there.

Addicition groups want money set aside for that
Tribal nations want first shot at USA online poker
Kentucky is too worried that it will effect the horseracing business
TOo much attention to underage people playing and how to stop it
BOTS AND HUDS and how sharks follow weakers players from table to table
Money for research on how more african americans play (????)
Advertising on sites to about gambling problems addict as opposed to ad to promote the sites
Intra state gambling in CA is trying to passed without laws and they said that will probably get shut down
If passed States can opt out so if youre state opts out your OPTED OUT
Consumer protection has to be first and for most. but on and on about underaged people playing and lots of concern about unsuspecting players coming across people using Bots and Huds (which I think they thought were the same things) and ripping off unsuspecting players

We got a story of the guy who lost his life saving, then his house, credit cards maxed and then his wife, and sat in the grocery store parking lot thinking of suicide but decided GETTING HELP was better (so money for that group)

The kept throwing aroung OFFSHORE, UNREGULATED, UNTAXED throughout this thing

The opening statements where the hold em refrences that sounded dumb and she goes through a whole texas hold em hand,

It seems like a long thing to listen to but it goes by fast as most is interesting but just too many agenda. When barton asked the guy representing tribal nations why they should get first shot is priceless seeing the tribal guys face and looking lost for answers

GO LISTEN TO IT

ALso the main thing you get out of it is, YOU can deposit on BODOG as they said they used a govt card and signed up and was up and playing in minutes and that millions of americans are still doing this everyday, so they do realize this is a lot of revenue they can make, but they really threw a light on BODOG

everyone wants a piece of the pie. the hearing was overall good for regulaion

The hearing was good for the governement but not for the players, what I couldn't get was, what does the African Americans have to do with this, are they scared we won't pay our taxes, never work again, play to much, win to much, what, I hate when they single out a particular culture. POKER HAS NO COLOR.

Interest groups gonna interest group IMO.

As for the anti-gambling lose-the-house brigade, I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so...

My answers above.

Well, I did it. I sat thru the whole 'hearing'.

Interesting at least. The whole thing was about the Bill in question. Most of the Congressional members came with a positive agenda (IMHO) suggesting they were trying to get this bill passed. A few showed a negative agenda, suggesting they are looking for reason to nix the whole thing. But even they looked like they can be swayed. That swaying will obviously happen out of the public eye.

The 'Witnesses' mostly presented themselves well. The Native American was the least persuasive. The bot guy was speaking for Consumer Protections. It is a concern we all have, just he got more air time than that part of the big picture probably deserves. The problem gambler guy spoke using statistics, and did not make them clear. He spoke well, but right after he said problem gambler constitute maye .5-1% of all gamblers, he said that 60% of problem gamblers commit some sort of white collar crime to finance their gambling addictions. 60% of 1% was not mentioned. I hope the Subcommitee people realize that, they have to have some brain right?

The Fair Play gal was probably the best advocate. Her stance is verification of adults is the key. Since it is nearly impossible to verify that a kid is a kid, then we must be ready and able to verify an adult is an adult.

There was a question near the end about offshore sites being welcomed in under any new legislation. Put in a way that got all the witnesses to say that they should not. Implication is for sure bye bye PokerStars. Al Demato, the PPA guy, tried to clarify things after that question, but ??????????

Long, but if we are truly interested, then viewing the whole hearing is recommended..

It resists a true Cliff Notes quicky.

You aint gotta sell me on the fact that they need to get this thing moving,
IM just relaying some of the things said.

What Im curious about, If a state has a ton of cardrooms (florida) are they less likely to want online poker or is it a non factor.

Sure they are less likely to want it, unless they get a significant part of the action. Just as with any industry, you want the least amount of competition as possible, because less competition means more customers for you.

I think that Casinos will see it as a plus. I proposed in another thread that the only way to deposit online might be at B&M gambling houses. Solves many problems about age verification. Casinos would/should jump at that. You go to the casino to deposit and incidentally drop $5 in the slots, or better, you go to the casino to collect some large online prize then find youself in a casino with a pocket full of cash. Either way, the B&M house has you right where they want you.

Not true about competition....think Vegas. If Vegas was a 1 Casino town do you think anyone would seek that hot hell hole out ??????

Without going out too far on a limb here, unless it's a jurisdiction with a particular moral objection to gambling (which Florida obviously isn't, given its existing card rooms) and barring any stupid exclusivity agreements, I'm going to guess they'll go for whichever option is best for their bottom line - which is probably a mix of the two.

Then this is just as bad, look how many states have many casino card rooms dog tracks so what are we going to have 32 states opt in and the others opt out.

I wasn't saying that it was a good thing for this cause.

Kind of like how big tobacco is one of the biggest advocates against the legalization of marijuana. The more people smoking weed, probably the less likely they will smoke as many cigarettes. The two things are related, but they are conflicting businesses.