New Federal Online Poker Bill From Barton

B

banshee1975

Rock Star
this is why crap never gets passed and if it does it takes forever, they actually had to define the word "internet" among thousands of others. that being said it looks like a very barebones starting attempt to legalize online poker. tough read
 
Reptar7

Reptar7

Visionary
I got an email from the PPA today saying there is going to be another hearing on that last poker bill.
 
Aleksei

Aleksei

Legend
No pro-poker (or pro-gambling) bill is going to pass until Republicans control both houses by a significant margin; for no other reason than that all gambling bills have Adelson money behind them. Sheldon Adelson is the third-biggest GOP financial backer, and every proposal that has Adelson money behind it will thus be met with unified resistance from the other side of the aisle, which along with some GOP support from the Religious Right is more than enough that all of these and any other bills on the same vein in the near future will be defeated in the House easily. The only silver lining is that Harry Reid is (in theory -- he's a very ineffectual leader) the Senate majority leader, and being a Nevada senator he has to play ball with Adelson.

So, the best we can all hope for is the GOP controlling both Houses plus a Paul or Christie presidency in 2016. :D
 
Last edited:
S

sryImPro

Legend
"Poker is an all-American game".....couldn't agree more with his statement. Since enormous unjustice was done to US players i think it's REALLY the time to get things right for you guys. Fingers crossed! :)
 
curtinsea

curtinsea

Rock Star
No pro-poker (or pro-gambling) bill is going to pass until Republicans control both houses by a significant margin; for no other reason than that all gambling bills have Adelson money behind them. Sheldon Adelson is the third-biggest GOP financial backer, and every proposal that has Adelson money behind it will thus be met with unified resistance from the other side of the aisle, which along with some GOP support from the Religious Right is more than enough that all of these and any other bills on the same vein in the near future will be defeated in the House easily. The only silver lining is that Harry Reid is (in theory -- he's a very ineffectual leader) the Senate majority leader, and being a Nevada senator he has to play ball with Adelson.

So, the best we can all hope for is the GOP controlling both Houses plus a Paul or Christie presidency in 2016. :D

I'm quite certain that Adelson's money is not behind either of the two house bills on internet poker introduced this session. Adelson has made it very clear he is anti-internet gaming, so I find your logic quite puzzling.

And why try to make it a partisan, wedge issue? This is the fundamental problem with political discourse in this country today. People are too focused on party position to take a clear look at the issue itself. Don't make this mistake on an issue so important,

There is no need to raise partisanship, as we need support from both sides of the aisle, and quite frankly, this is not an issue that is clearly partisan. There are friends and foes of internet poker on both sides of the aisle. Trying to say one party or the other is key to success.
 
curtinsea

curtinsea

Rock Star
I find Barton's bill to be a better approach to returning to the people the right to play the game. POKER IS DIFFERENT is an important part of the argument, and it will face less opposition than will King's bill.
 
W

westcoast415

Enthusiast
HOPE

Hope is what matters to me.. This is exciting news coming from rep barton, i just hope it can speed up the process,cause i need online money i dont trust alot of others site.. FTP and pokerstars are gonna make a big comeback!!!
 
Aleksei

Aleksei

Legend
I'm quite certain that Adelson's money is not behind either of the two house bills on internet poker introduced this session. Adelson has made it very clear he is anti-internet gaming, so I find your logic quite puzzling.
Adelson's a big name in the gambling industry and he is in fact the #3 backer for the GOP, behind the Koch brothers and whoever the **** is funding Karl Rove's superPAC aside from the Bushes. I put two and two together.

I guess I'll have to dig further into the issue.

And why try to make it a partisan, wedge issue? This is the fundamental problem with political discourse in this country today. People are too focused on party position to take a clear look at the issue itself. Don't make this mistake on an issue so important,

There is no need to raise partisanship, as we need support from both sides of the aisle, and quite frankly, this is not an issue that is clearly partisan. There are friends and foes of internet poker on both sides of the aisle. Trying to say one party or the other is key to success.
This isn't about me making it a partisan wedge issue, this is about whether it is or it isn't. I have no control over that and I'm nonpartisan (though I admit that I tend to like GOP policy platforms very slightly better than Democrat ones -- Democratic political action, at least at the federal level, tends to be very consistently, disturbingly, authoritarian; recent 10th-amendment-friendly decisions notwithstanding).
 
A

atownshend

Enthusiast
Why can't the USA get its s**t together. It's hard graft to make money in this post apocalyptic wasteland that is internet poker without the USA.
 
Michael Paler

Michael Paler

Legend
Why can't the USA get its s**t together. It's hard graft to make money in this post apocalyptic wasteland that is internet poker without the USA.

Much of the "poker is a game of skill" decisions, by various state agencies and Governments, came after black friday. Now that it is becoming prevalent, this is to be expected. Let us just hope it goes. That will open it up even in states that do not allow online gambling!
 
curtinsea

curtinsea

Rock Star
Much of the "poker is a game of skill" decisions, by various state agencies and Governments, came after black friday. Now that it is becoming prevalent, this is to be expected. Let us just hope it goes. That will open it up even in states that do not allow online gambling!

The 'game of skill' argument is never going to win in the end, because the luck factor in poker, especially in NLHE, simply cannot be denied. Further, States that want to include poker as being gambling can specify it legislatively. So regardless of what a court would rule, they could simply rewrite the statute and make it moot.
 
curtinsea

curtinsea

Rock Star
This isn't about me making it a partisan wedge issue, this is about whether it is or it isn't.

But it clearly is not a partisan wedge issue. There are both foes and allies on both sides of the aisle. Some GOP are against it because of a moral position, while others support it as legitimate commerce. Some Democrats are against it because of their nanny-state belief that people can't control themselves so government should control them, while others support it as an individual liberty issue.

And so IMO, we should never even let party labels, and certainly not hostility towards one or another party, enter in to our discussions, in our efforts to restore the game. It's counter productive, given that currently there is some support on both sides. We need to gain more friends.
 
SyKoChiller

SyKoChiller

Rock Star
Thanks for the info, Cant wait to read a little of the proposal. Hopefully it will make all sites U.S Legal and centralize and speed up payouts.
There are some great sites which DO NOT face U.S. & I would love to play on them instead of sifting through the scraps over here.
 
curtinsea

curtinsea

Rock Star
Thanks for the info, Cant wait to read a little of the proposal. Hopefully it will make all sites U.S Legal and centralize and speed up payouts.
There are some great sites which DO NOT face U.S. & I would love to play on them instead of sifting through the scraps over here.

You can read the bill, see where it is in the legislative process, and keep track of it's progress from this page - - -

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2666
 
Aleksei

Aleksei

Legend
But it clearly is not a partisan wedge issue. There are both foes and allies on both sides of the aisle. Some GOP are against it because of a moral position, while others support it as legitimate commerce. Some Democrats are against it because of their nanny-state belief that people can't control themselves so government should control them, while others support it as an individual liberty issue.
Actual political maneuvering is important to keep in mind, which is why I mentioned Adelson money (though if Adelson has no hand in OLP then I guess that's irrelevant :D). What politicians actually do is guided by their financial/political interests far moreso than their actual principles. So, when planning political strategy it's important to know whose money is where, which politicians support what, and basically just what the political wedges in place are.
 
Michael Paler

Michael Paler

Legend
The 'game of skill' argument is never going to win in the end, because the luck factor in poker, especially in NLHE, simply cannot be denied. Further, States that want to include poker as being gambling can specify it legislatively. So regardless of what a court would rule, they could simply rewrite the statute and make it moot.

Want to bet? I can easily deny it. I hate to disagree, but you are totally wrong. The "luck" factor is no more or less what it is in chess or anything else. It is not luck if you use the odds of probability, knowledge of the game and the player, even online. Poker is not a game of luck nor is it gambling. And once the feds make it so (supreme court ruled it is not a game of "luck", that skill is a predominant factor) states would be hard pressed to stop it. How could they legislate that a resident could not go online and do whatever they want? If they do, state lottery's will be brought into the conversation and that will be that.

I am stunned that a poker player would say this. You should know better.
 
Aleksei

Aleksei

Legend
Want to bet? I can easily deny it. I hate to disagree, but you are totally wrong. The "luck" factor is no more or less what it is in chess or anything else. It is not luck if you use the odds of probability, knowledge of the game and the player, even online.
Any outcome outside of any cognizant control is chance-based. Ergo, poker, which is based on drawing random cards with some expected probability (determined by card removal), has a chance aspect to it -- far moreso than chess (which has none), but about identical to that of any other card game, casino-based or otherwise.

Poker is, therefore, a game of random chance which allows you to use skill to manipulate the odds in your favor -- exactly like blackjack, and for that matter exactly like gin rummy, bridge, and effing solitaire. To say there's NO luck aspect in poker any more than there is in chess is stupid, however. Donks cannot win chess matches against grandmasters; yet they're expected to win poker hands against regs at least 30% of the time and possibly as much as 45%, depending on format and dynamics.

Is poker a game of skill? Hell yes. Is it chess? Hell no; get that idea out of your head before you start crying because you got sucked out on over and over and over. I'm serious.
 
GOIVIT

GOIVIT

Rock Star
With the current "do nothing Congress" this bill has as much chance of passing as a snow ball in hell.:mad:
 
curtinsea

curtinsea

Rock Star
Want to bet? I can easily deny it. I hate to disagree, but you are totally wrong. The "luck" factor is no more or less what it is in chess or anything else. It is not luck if you use the odds of probability, knowledge of the game and the player, even online. Poker is not a game of luck nor is it gambling. And once the feds make it so (supreme court ruled it is not a game of "luck", that skill is a predominant factor) states would be hard pressed to stop it. How could they legislate that a resident could not go online and do whatever they want? If they do, state lottery's will be brought into the conversation and that will be that.

I am stunned that a poker player would say this. You should know better.

If you are AIPF with AK and your opponent has AQ and there is a Q in the window . . . . what do you call that ? Your skill was there, his skill was there, LUCK made the difference.

The element of luck cannot be denied. Actually it can be denied, but you will look like a blooming idiot if you are the one denying it.
 
XXPXXP

XXPXXP

Legend
Awards
2
so the point is ....which politician has a hidden edge behind it...under table?

that is not the game of luck or gamble, if so why there is live poker?

that is all the issue of how to charge tax, from online casino.
but if player's game and money are protected, at least the bill is going to be an initial step to bring online games back...
 
Michael Paler

Michael Paler

Legend
If you are AIPF with AK and your opponent has AQ and there is a Q in the window . . . . what do you call that ? Your skill was there, his skill was there, LUCK made the difference.

The element of luck cannot be denied. Actually it can be denied, but you will look like a blooming idiot if you are the one denying it.

You might want to figure out what blooming idiot is then. In the example that you give, both opponents took a chance; One with AK one w AQ. Odds of probability states;
There are precisely equal chances of "luck" that either the King or the Q will flop or neither or even both.
K flops - 25% chance
Q flops - 25% chance
Neither flops - 25% chance
Both flop - 25% chance
So yes, you can say it was "lucky" that the Q fell. However, it is not over yet. Now probability states that;
Q holds throughout for win - 33% chance
Q is high carded by K for loss - 33% chance
Runner runner (depending on rest of the flops composition) - 33% chance

So while you are at (50-50 if no other card that could help the king after runner runner is on the flop) 33%, the guy with the King is more likely to win because he has 66% odds of probability of winning, the Q only has 33% odds of probability of holding. There are additional odds for the Q hitting trips, etc. but I hope you get my point. One random aspect of luck occurring - flopping that Q, does not mean if the guy with the king goes to the river and wins that it is just luck. He is far more likely to win with the odds of probability in his favor. That is not random luck.



Any outcome outside of any cognizant control is chance-based. Ergo, poker, which is based on drawing random cards with some expected probability (determined by card removal), has a chance aspect to it -- far moreso than chess (which has none), but about identical to that of any other card game, casino-based or otherwise.

Poker is, therefore, a game of random chance which allows you to use skill to manipulate the odds in your favor -- exactly like Blackjack, and for that matter exactly like gin rummy, bridge, and effing solitaire. To say there's NO luck aspect in poker any more than there is in chess is stupid, however. Donks cannot win chess matches against grandmasters; yet they're expected to win poker hands against regs at least 30% of the time and possibly as much as 45%, depending on format and dynamics.

Is poker a game of skill? Hell yes. Is it chess? Hell no; get that idea out of your head before you start crying because you got sucked out on over and over and over. I'm serious.

I just beg to differ. https://www.cardschat.com/forum/general-poker-13/when-they-tell-you-its-gambling-226879/ Are you lucky every day that you do not get hit by a bus? I guess you can say that you are.

If I chase a st8, after failing to make it the last 4 times and I make it that time...I do not consider it pure luck so much as proper use of the odds of probability, hands odds and pot odds, along with my knowledge of the game and my opponent. Sucess by taking a calculated chance is not the same thing as luck. Knowing your odds greatly reduces the element of random luck. And luck is about as random as you can get. Luck is an exact 50/50 proposition - you get either get "lucky" or you do not get "lucky". There is nothing in between.

If it is not then explain how pros can make millions off of online poker in cash games. If it were only luck, then we would all be as rich or as not rich.

Chess and poker are very similar. This is not a stupid comparison by me as you say it is. They both use the exact same odds of probability. Cunning. Deception. Knowledge of both the game and the opponent. So i'm not stupid for thinking that they both have the same level of luck. It was these fundamental similarities that made the supreme court come to the conclusion that poker is not gambling but a game of skill. So if it is skill, it IS like chess. OR do you think the supreme court was stupid for agreeing that exact same thing as well?

People often think a player is "sucking out" over and over when they are not. They are using all those odds and knowledge. "Stupid" would be thinking they are merely getting "lucky" all the time.
 
Aleksei

Aleksei

Legend
People often think a player is "sucking out" over and over when they are not. They are using all those odds and knowledge. "Stupid" would be thinking they are merely getting "lucky" all the time.
I shove QQ, idiot calls 95o. Board comes down 876xx.

10 hands later, I shove AKs, idiot calls A2o. The 2 comes out in the window, no Ace or flush comes to my rescue. I'm out of the tournament. That's ****ing sucking out. It's by far LESS likely to happen than for your hand to hold up and you to profit, but it happens, and in raw numerical terms it actually happens very frequently (about 1 out of 3-4 times or thereabouts assuming you're always ahead or dominating in those spots). The cardinal sin of most poker players is that they just can't come to terms with the fact a good hand does not entitle them to win (it isn'thuman nature to think in those terms after all), so they get tilted and think they're doing something wrong, or the game is unbeatable, or even (surprisingly common) that it's rigged.

Ergo, you cannot assume the game is like chess because chess has no random variables that can turn against you. If you lost it's because your villain outplayed you, pure and simple. Once again, THIS DOES NOT MEAN I THINK POKER IS A ****ING CRAPSHOOT!

Got it?
 
Top