Proposals for Online Poker Regulations.

[pifan]

Another benifit to this type of bankroll management; is that the sites will have to compete for our dollars to be used at there sites (kinda like the brick and mortar casinos have too) by better software, bonuses, or gifts

It will be much easier for players to go from poker site to poker site with their bankroll. It would also be much safer to try out a new site with minimal risk of our dollars.

 

[Gunner57]

Why do we need to deposit on each site? Why cant there be a central funding center where we have accounts that we can deposit and withdraw directly from, ship funds to the room we are going to play on at that moment, and ship it back to our account when we finish with that particular session. This would leave none of our bankroll on any site. We could take as much or as little as we needed to play a session at whatever site we wished to play at that moment. Just leaving it in a central fund center. whether it is a bank of our choosing or some site that is governed to do just this task.

This would allow 2 things security for us as players, and a way to keep better track of wins and losses for tax purpoces.

Online poker sites made Millions not off of only the poker that was played but by being able to hang on to your cash. They collect interest and dont need to borrow cash for their own business needs.

Without the prospect of holding onto players $ in between sessions Poker sites would need to raise their rake.

None the less a great idea... Just dont think any site would go for it as it is a huge loss of easy access cash.

 

[pifan]

I didn't figure the sites would want to do it, I am looking out for the players interest and safety not the poker rooms

 

[pokerchris]

-Sites should provide tracker style stats on each player, viewable be any player for eah of the players at the table. Doesn't have to be a HUD, but I deserve to know how my villain plays whenever possible.

Any site which provides tracker style stats on each player, viewable be any player for each of the players at the table SHOULD HAVE ITS LISENCE REVOKED IMMEDIATELY. Because it gives players who has better tracking software huge unfair advantage.

 

[CheckraiseLife]

that sort of thing already goes on mind poker table ratings buy hand historys and poker edge for example I do wonder what online poker will be like in 3+ years from now.

I think the poker sites might just cut out the middle man and start supplying there own hud stats maybe in making the game more 'fair'.

 

[pokerchris]

that sort of thing already goes on mind poker table ratings buy hand historys and poker edge for example I do wonder what online poker will be like in 3+ years from now.

I think the poker sites might just cut out the middle man and start supplying there own hud stats maybe in making the game more 'fair'.

Selling hand history by poker sites should be made illegal. That's what regulation is about.

 

[dj11]

Start your own thread.

My idea here is to help figure out what might be the most appropriate structure of a bill that would pass Congress. Existing online sites will have little if anything to do with influencing the legislators, but we, the players can have significant input.

WE have to help or WE are screwed!

So while I agree that the single registrar/money system would be nice, it isn't going to, and at first we probably don't want it to, be included in a bill that will confuse most people. Capitalism will fill the gap and some business concern will figure it out, possibly Pay Pal, or Netteller who already know how to do it will step up.

Things we know will come up are ways to prevent underage players, addicted players, and those concerned with the fairness of the online experience. Amongst others. We will want a fair enough licensing practice that the whole thing is not dead on arrival. We will need ideas about how we can pacify the moralists who will likely be coming out of the walls.

While we may want to mold a perfect pokersite, we are not going to get that done via legislation. The market place will decide that. Just like it molded Stars in the last 7 or 8 years. The Stars example is good for how any site can do it, but we don't want to legislate the Stars model on everyone. Some of the more generic aspects of the Stars Model (like segregation of funds, and responsive support) should be included, while other aspects need other considerations.

For instance, one of the considerations legislators should look at is player accountability, and Site accountability to each player. So if a player is banned, or his account seized, that players should have a valid, understandable reason for that action, and some method of recourse.

Another possible idea is the term of a license. 1 year to start. As a site shows it can do things acceptably, the term increases, and fees associated with monitoring (policing) the operation, can decrease some. As it works out, the players will want protection from the sites abuse and the sites will want protection from government abuse.

If we, who understand the situation more than non players, don't serve up the good ideas the legislation (if any) will proceed designed by people who really, really do not have a clue, or by vested interests already entrenched in B&M casinos.

 

[pokerchris]

Make your thread private and invite only people who agree with you to join.
That will make the discussion meaningless.

 

[dj11]

Make your thread private and invite only people who agree with you to join.
That will make the discussion meaningless.

Sorry. Meant that there are things that surly should be legislated, and things which clearly will not be legislated.

But it seems the first thing we want is to get the door reopened. After we have our foot in the door, we can work on refinements, but the more we jam into an initial proposal, the longer it will take to get anywhere, so my comments are meant to suggest that we go for the obvious concerns that not only we, the players, will want dealt with, but also what the non playing opponents might be concerned about.

Stuff like the integrity of the game, and underage playing, ID concerns, money laundering concerns. 3 of those things could be dealt with via some registration agency or business. Does that not scream Democrat vs Republican squabbling? Somehow we want to find ideas which deter that squabbling, which in turn deters rapid passages as things get sent back to committees, over and over for months if not years.

I opened it up with the 4 color deck idea, and deserve what I get for that. It should not be something that ever sees legislation, as it is a customer comfort item.

Make no mistake, I would ideally favor returning things to how they would have been if the UIGEA had never happened, and each site built their own trust mechanisms. But I am pragmatic enough to know it ain't gonna happen that way, and am seeking ideas, which I will try to help organize into something publicly presentable.

 

[dj11]

http://www.fairplayusa.com/

Good start here, I think. These folks seem to get it. 'It' being that we will play online, and want a reasonably set of guidelines to govern the action on both sides of the firewall.

They (FairplayUSA) want us to sign their petition. I will as soon as I think they are covering the important issues. The problem is, IMHO, that we are not all in agreement yet as to what those important issues are. There are a few big Casino's who are backing the original organization of FairplayUSA. They state so clearly on that webpage. This should concern us a little, and we want to make sure they do not control the whole process.

If we, the collective online community, do not voice our concerns, someone else will do it for us.

 

[nevadanick]

call me a commy but the simplest and safest solution would be a gov't run site

I really hope you mean something other than a U.S. Gov't operation ...

Our current government, at any level, could manage to declare that TPTK beats a RF and could easily turn poker revenues into a new source of income to use in creating new National deficits.

Congressional 'fact finding' trips to gambling sites around the country would be high on all their agendas. The number of committees they would create would be mind-bogling ... not to mention the fact that every state would likely demand that they be in on the action ... and pay-offs, creating new gaming committees, boards and regulators in all 50 states.

The Indian casinos are already entrenched trying to squash online US sites claiming it would seriously harm their operations on the Indian Reservations.

*********************************

 

[dj11]

We really do not want a Government run structure. Capitalism will rule the day.

What we do want, and need, is a governed structure. Insuring proper access (no underage players), mechanisms for relief of grievances, and penalties for abuse, amongst other issues.

B&M casinos, in partnership with existing online sites (they have the best software) seems a decent start at things. But much of what is not said is important. So transparency of who owns what site, and who the responsible people (by name, not by title) are should probably be codified.

An important item I have not seen anywhere is either the repeal of the online gambling restrictions (banking part) of the UIGEA, or a specific law allowing online poker exclusions from the UIGEA. This would allow the return of Netteller, possibly paypal, or the use of credit cards and debit cards specifically. It would provide ample competition for the financial side of the game. It would also provide responsibility to keep laundering under wraps.

Another thing I would want to see in a final bill would be a cap on what the government can expect to see money wise. Nightmare is the government matches the rake/fees. More reasonable is probably 5% of the rake/fees. That still provides the states/feds with more than enough (guessing here) to oversee operations and provide structure.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

I really hope you mean something other than a U.S. Gov't operation ...

We really do not want a Government run structure. Capitalism will rule the day.

Meh. There are domains where governments are typically much more efficient than private companies (health insurance) and there are domains where it's the opposite.

Assuming either is obviously better for something is both ideological and stupid. It could really be either way.

I would guess that poker rooms are probably better run by private companies, but that's not even obvious. After all, Swedish government run Svenska Spel has 2.5% rake ( http://svenskaspel.se/?pageid=/poker/spelinformation/rake ) which is way better than any private company ever offered.

 

[ziggymom]

Other than legalizing my right to fund my online poker accounts with real money, and my money being protected the way it is with most 'legitimate' banking transactions (i.e. having recourse if a site fails to pay me within a reasonable amount of time, etc.), I don't want the government to dictate anything about the game. I want to have the choices I had before Black Friday, but with ease of deposit (oh Neteller, how I miss thee).

I don't want it dictated what kind of software sites have to use, whether or not I have to use a four color deck (which I hate, btw); stats kept on players, etc. Give the government an inch and they'll take 5,000 miles, putting so many restrictions and "protections" in place that the game will be unrecognizable for US customers.

Very true and very will said ...as I have my real money sitting in the same spot and I can't get it either .
The government is taking over all of are time to enjoy on line poker anymore .

 

[MidyMat]

Screw Online....Let's just legalize live poker for every state....You could have card-rooms in every town, which would provide taxes for the Local Municipality....I love the ease and convenience of online poker, but I think it is time to go back to live. I just don't see a way you could federally regulate online play where everyone is happy.......Just my opinion.....

 

[MidyMat]

If the FEDs had it their way this is what my 7card-stud home game would look like.......

 

[dj11]

I think one of the things that will have to be addressed is player accountability. Politicos of any bent will probably never go for player anonymity in any way shape or form. They will go for keeping your online names, but those names will have to be associated with real names, that all US Players have access to.

While the knee-jerk reaction to this is outrage, it won't be all that bad, as it will go far to prevent multi account shenanigans. It will however provide more taxpayer accountability than any of us will like.

So we, as players, need to work up good arguments, for or against, the things that we expect will, by necessity, be included in the development of the bill which will set us free.

 

[Tammy]

It's simple really. Just follow these steps:


-Sites that wish to operate in the US will need to apply for a license and be subject to a review board.

-Use the regulations that the Isle of Man has in place (i.e. player funds must be segregated into an account separate from site operations).

-Player identification verification should take place BEFORE any real money has changed hands.

-When player withdraws over a certain amount (as determined by the IRS ( ), poker site must automatically send in a 1099 form to the Feds for the player to claim on their income tax (much like is required of casinos here already).

 

[dj11]

It's simple really. Just follow these steps:


-Sites that wish to operate in the US will need to apply for a license and be subject to a review board.

-Use the regulations that the Isle of Man has in place (i.e. player funds must be segregated into an account separate from site operations).

-Player identification verification should take place BEFORE any real money has changed hands.

-When player withdraws over a certain amount (as determined by the IRS ( ), poker site must automatically send in a 1099 form to the Feds for the player to claim on their income tax (much like is required of casinos here already).

I love the simplicity, and you almost have everything covered. I only say almost because we got those silly tea party idiots running the show.

 

[dj11]

Seems with recent news, we will probably never see poker online poker as we loved it after whatever new regulations occur. The sites that we are using these days will probably be forced to change. The changes will likely mean that we will not be able to play against our member players in other states or countries. Most of the proposed regulations suggest it will be a State by State thing, and likely will be confined within each state.

But it is all still in flux, with a big thing happening in Washington on Oct 25.

So maybe what we need to work for are how we can compromise with these little state vs big state vs international play regulations.

I am envisioning something like this;
. 5% cap on fees for play (Rake/Tourney fees).
... 1% goes to the State
... 1% goes to the Fed
... 3% goes to the game provider (poker site).

{I expect those numbers would be in flux, but I want to aim at low numbers knowing they will be negotiated upwards.}

Quarterly provisions for interstate play, with yearly provisions for international play.

Not what we were accustomed to, for sure, but we have to compromise for the bigger picture of online gaming.

As for B&M vs online gaming. I think they will mesh nicely with the B&M houses being the only place capable on depositing/withdrawing money onto the pokersites. Get rid of Credit Cards altogether unless used in person at the B&M houses. This solves the underage issues. B&M houses would have lines waiting to deposit or withdraw and in both case those lines would wind around all those lovely slot machines, so you know they would love that.

 

[dj11]

Tuesday OCT 25, Congressional Hearing on poker and the PPA email I received;

Dear Dennis,


As you know, the House Subcommittee for Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade held a hearing today examining the potential regulation of Internet gambling. The hearing entitled, "Internet Gambling: Is There a Safe Bet?" called upon a variety of witnesses to discuss how best Internet gambling can be regulated in the U.S. Among the witnesses was Poker Player Alliance Chairman and former Senator, Alfonse D’Amato. A complete list of witnesses and their full testimonies is available here. You can also watch the full 2 ½ hour Committee hearing on CSPAN.com here.

Senator D’Amato did an exceptional job and delivered impassioned remarks defending your right to play. He urged Congress to adopt rules and regulations to ensure American consumers have a safe marketplace in which to play poker on the Internet. In fact, when it came to consumer protections the conclusion of every witness before the Committee was that regulation was far better than the status quo. And, more importantly, that sentiment was also expressed almost unanimously by the lawmakers who attended the hearing. The question on the lawmakers' minds was not "if" internet poker should be regulated, but rather "how" should regulation look.

We have come a long, long way from just a few short years ago when Congress could only talk about how best to prohibit Internet gambling and poker. This shift in attitude has much to do with the advocacy efforts of your PPA and the poker community in general who have done so much to educate lawmakers on this issue. We have turned opponents into champions for our cause and completely changed the debate in Washington D.C.

As I stood with Senator D’Amato today meeting with members of the Committee -- before and after the hearing -- I was immensely proud to hear every lawmaker tell us that they are being contacted by poker players in their districts. While politicians often give us reason to be cynical about government, one thing is clear, they appreciate hearing from the voters on issues that matter most. Please keep up the pressure and please continue to make your voice heard. It is truly paying off!

We all have much to be proud of, but there is still much more to do. I hope you will consider the next step in supporting the PPA by becoming a 2012 member today. We are offering a special $15.00 deal (normally $20.00) that gives you a PPA membership for the remainder of 2011 and all of 2012! This should be a "snap call" for any poker player who wants to continue the fight for our poker rights.

Other Highlights

• The PPA would like to thank Congressman Joe Barton for his continued leadership on this issue. He was excellent at today’s hearing and he is working to educate every member of Congress about the benefits of regulated Internet poker. Check out his opening statement from today’s hearing.
• This week the National District Attorney’s Association, the oldest and largest professional organization representing criminal prosecutors in the world, issued a statement in support of regulated Internet poker.
• Check out a good opinion piece by former FBI Director Louis Freeh and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge highlighting the need for Internet poker regulation.
• The Hill, one of the leading publications for Congress, has a good recap of today’s hearing.

Again, I hope you will please stand with the PPA and share in our continued success by becoming a 2012 PPA member today for just 15.00!


Thank you.

Proud to Play,


John A. Pappas
Executive Director

​

The Poker Players Alliance

Dedicated to Protecting America's Favorite Card Game

The Poker Players Alliance is a nonprofit membership organization comprised of poker players and enthusiasts from around the United States who have joined together to speak with one voice to promote the game and to protect poker players' rights. Visit us at theppa.org​

 

[Charade You Are]

As for B&M vs online gaming. I think they will mesh nicely with the B&M houses being the only place capable on depositing/withdrawing money onto the pokersites. Get rid of Credit Cards altogether unless used in person at the B&M houses. This solves the underage issues. B&M houses would have lines waiting to deposit or withdraw and in both case those lines would wind around all those lovely slot machines, so you know they would love that.

That's fine if you live in a state with a casino. Get rid of credit cards-fine, but allow bank transfers. I'm not driving 3 hours to dep/wd.

The tax situation is troubling. Currently it's winnings that are taxed, not wd's. The tax code was written to cover B&M winnings where you are playing one table and can easily track your sessions. I would prefer a tax on wd's and maybe even transfers (to appease the IRS who would be afraid transfers were a tax avoidance scheme).

Since you aren't suppose to be taxed on money until it's constructively received, an argument could be made that the money on sites hasn't been received. Wonder how the tax situation of players who paid big taxes on big winnings at AP and FTP will get resolved. Not even sure they can amend tax returns since they did win the $, just couldn't wd it.

 

[Charade You Are]

Tuesday OCT 25, Congressional Hearing on poker and the PPA email I received...

We are offering a special $15.00 deal (normally $20.00) that gives you a PPA membership for the remainder of 2011 and all of 2012!

Very encouraging, thanks for posting that.

$15 is a good deal. Time to get another PPA sticker and card protector

From the Hill article:

National Council on Problem Gambling executive director Keith Whyte said at least $50 million should be set aside to deal with gambling addiction. He noted that minorities, young men and veterans are particularly prone to addiction, which can lead to bankruptcy and criminal acts.

LOL - so I guess they could let white female non-vets and old white non-vet men play!!!!!!!!!

 

[naruto_miu]

Just a question I'm curious about, what will happen to pokerstars and the U.S? I mean If the U.S government allows online poker again what about the sites like Pokerstars and it's U.S client base what exactly is happening on that end...

 

[JusSumguy]

-4 color deck should be standard.

Blech

I don`t like four-colour decks. I still play live sometimes and need to be able to retain my ability to read the cards without artificial aids.

Yep... Ugly they be.

Make your thread private and invite only people who agree with you to join.
That will make the discussion meaningless.

LOL


-