H
hecorredor
Rising Star
Bronze Level
dj11
Legend
Silver Level
It is an election year, so expect NOTHING new anywhere in the US. No one will say whether they are for or against any online issue that will be associated in anyway with gambling.
Those in power will only deal with the issues if they are not on the ballot. The problem there is that many of the folks that will be involved are on the ballot, and again, they won't deal with the issues.
There is a slim possibility NY, PA, and CA might move things along, each state having almost got there, but by the end of the process period (the election cycle), the results will be in that in the States that have opted in, the frosting has fallen off the cake.
OLP is not the golden goose anyone had hoped for.
Those in power will only deal with the issues if they are not on the ballot. The problem there is that many of the folks that will be involved are on the ballot, and again, they won't deal with the issues.
There is a slim possibility NY, PA, and CA might move things along, each state having almost got there, but by the end of the process period (the election cycle), the results will be in that in the States that have opted in, the frosting has fallen off the cake.
OLP is not the golden goose anyone had hoped for.
vkillid
Rock Star
Silver Level
Gues, on the one hand it is good that prohibit playing online poker they will be save your money)))
CAMurray
CardsChat Elite
Silver Level
This article was from November but I think the Position of Trump, at least has not changed. If any other candidate Rep or Dem gets elected, it will be a cold day in hell b4 OLG is allowed to renter the States with any veracity.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2015/11/20/where-do-republican-presidential-candidates-stand-on-online-gambling/#621ca2b04f67
http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2015/11/20/where-do-republican-presidential-candidates-stand-on-online-gambling/#621ca2b04f67
Attachments
curtinsea
Rock Star
Silver Level
Its very unlikely the personal view of the President will have any bearing at all on online poker.
Online gaming is a struggle within the GOP . . . . the Dems don't even talk about it, they are not on our side. There is not enough support within the GOP for an all out ban that would infringe on states' rights, and it is and always will be a states' rights issue. Therefore, I don't see a federal regulatory bill covering online gaming coming forward either.
I'll let you in on a little secret . . . . it really doesn't much matter what the players want. The value from the players, the way they can make a difference, is by making noise so that their legislators know it is an issue that matters enough to address.
But when it comes right down to it, it is a negotiation between pokerstars, local gaming interests (including Tribes), and legislators. If Pokerstars can't get a deal they like, there will not be a deal. And the deal they will like is not very appealing to tribal gaming interests, which is why you see and have seen action only in states where there is commercial gaming and no tribal gaming, and why you see nothing moving in California.
Pokerstars is only focused on a few markets, where they hope to turn a buck. In most of your states, forget about it. It isn't worth their effort.
Harsh reality of life I'm afraid
Online gaming is a struggle within the GOP . . . . the Dems don't even talk about it, they are not on our side. There is not enough support within the GOP for an all out ban that would infringe on states' rights, and it is and always will be a states' rights issue. Therefore, I don't see a federal regulatory bill covering online gaming coming forward either.
I'll let you in on a little secret . . . . it really doesn't much matter what the players want. The value from the players, the way they can make a difference, is by making noise so that their legislators know it is an issue that matters enough to address.
But when it comes right down to it, it is a negotiation between pokerstars, local gaming interests (including Tribes), and legislators. If Pokerstars can't get a deal they like, there will not be a deal. And the deal they will like is not very appealing to tribal gaming interests, which is why you see and have seen action only in states where there is commercial gaming and no tribal gaming, and why you see nothing moving in California.
Pokerstars is only focused on a few markets, where they hope to turn a buck. In most of your states, forget about it. It isn't worth their effort.
Harsh reality of life I'm afraid
CAMurray
CardsChat Elite
Silver Level
I agree with regards to the individual states but I was thinking/talking only with regards to Federal legalization with the exclusion of those states who "opt out".
The only way this is to happen would be through the election of a President who owes Nothing to the special interest gaming industries who is an ex casino owner who is on record saying with regards to online gaming, "“it has to happen because many other countries are doing it and like usual the U.S. is just missing out.”
Not beyond the realm of probabilities.
"I Have A Dream".....
dj11
Legend
Silver Level
I think, and have always thought, that we, as a group, would have done better had we worked toward (focused more on) excluding gaming from the UEGIA.
With a situation arising in Colorado, and probably AK,WA, OR, with implications for CA and other states soon to follow, maybe revamping the banking rules that would allow merchants in those states to bank more properly with their proceeds from marijuana sales, and adding in the 'carve out' from UEGIA, would stand a decent chance at removing that impediment.
Remember that the UEGIA was unheard of and then it was law! Stuck onto a Port Security Bill that the country needed.
Neither party is either our friend or our enemy when it comes to OLP. It involves personal rights, and one might think the gun backing republicans would favor more personal freedom, but then women play poker and we know how they feel about women succeeding at anything. Democrats tend to want more folks under a protective umbrella, and too often let moralists sway the decision makers as to just who gets under that umbrella.
I am not impressed with anything the PPA has done other than provide a very flimsy scaffold to hang some ideas on and get them seen. Rather I am disappointed that they have not authored any bills and then tried peddling those bills to elected officials to submit into the process. We know the Republicans do have the capacity for private concerns to write the bills that get submitted for consideration. I suspect the Dems do to, but as yet have not seen any evidence that suggest they do.
For instance, you don't really believe any government rep authored anything to do with the Keystone Pipeline do you? No it was authored on behalf of some private concerns to accomplish what a few individuals wanted.
We need a way to present bills for consideration. We need something better than the PPA controlling that process.
With a situation arising in Colorado, and probably AK,WA, OR, with implications for CA and other states soon to follow, maybe revamping the banking rules that would allow merchants in those states to bank more properly with their proceeds from marijuana sales, and adding in the 'carve out' from UEGIA, would stand a decent chance at removing that impediment.
Remember that the UEGIA was unheard of and then it was law! Stuck onto a Port Security Bill that the country needed.
Neither party is either our friend or our enemy when it comes to OLP. It involves personal rights, and one might think the gun backing republicans would favor more personal freedom, but then women play poker and we know how they feel about women succeeding at anything. Democrats tend to want more folks under a protective umbrella, and too often let moralists sway the decision makers as to just who gets under that umbrella.
I am not impressed with anything the PPA has done other than provide a very flimsy scaffold to hang some ideas on and get them seen. Rather I am disappointed that they have not authored any bills and then tried peddling those bills to elected officials to submit into the process. We know the Republicans do have the capacity for private concerns to write the bills that get submitted for consideration. I suspect the Dems do to, but as yet have not seen any evidence that suggest they do.
For instance, you don't really believe any government rep authored anything to do with the Keystone Pipeline do you? No it was authored on behalf of some private concerns to accomplish what a few individuals wanted.
We need a way to present bills for consideration. We need something better than the PPA controlling that process.
CAMurray
CardsChat Elite
Silver Level
I disagree tend to thought with your, on this, we United States in the really like would to online poker return.
:creep:
N
NLvillain
Enthusiast
Silver Level
Here in North America, the definition of a Democrat is a socialist. Democracy North American style is Neo-Communism.
curtinsea
Rock Star
Silver Level
I agree with regards to the individual states but I was thinking/talking only with regards to Federal legalization with the exclusion of those states who "opt out".
The only way this is to happen would be through the election of a President who owes Nothing to the special interest gaming industries who is an ex casino owner who is on record saying with regards to online gaming, "“it has to happen because many other countries are doing it and like usual the U.S. is just missing out.”
Not beyond the realm of probabilities.
"I Have A Dream".....
Two problems . . .
The first is that you can't regulate online poker at the federal level, even with 'opt in' and/or 'opt out' clauses, because the states hold the right to regulate gaming within their borders. Beyond that lies the Tribal gaming rights already afforded under the IGRA, which makes it all that much more complicated. There simply is no path that gets us to federal regulation, of course imho.
The second is that the President can't make it happen, it has to come from the states, through their congressional representatives, and they clearly cannot come to any agreement on even which way to go with online anything.
curtinsea
Rock Star
Silver Level
The PPA has limited funds, a very very very small percentage of which comes from players who expect them to have the cure. It's not that simple, and it's not that cheap.
It's not about our 'right' to play, because unless there is an operator providing the service, there is no place to play. So the real issue is whether or not we allow operators to offer their service. That is where the problem lies with online poker, because these offshore operators came in and thumbed their noses at US law, some still are in fact. This makes the whole of online poker fall into a shady reputation that gets little interest from anyone outside of the small percentage of people who love the game, most of which won't even take the time to complain about it to the right people.
dj11
Legend
Silver Level
iugiug
Enthusiast
Silver Level
It is a nightmare handing over a check to a teller from a poker site. I know this from Absolute Poker days. They would ask "where is this from" and after studying the check and giving it to their manager to examine they would finally accept it only after putting on hold for 3 business days. Later on I found a way to have them wire withdraws directly in my checking account, that was done in as little as two days. I'm trying to figure out how to include bitowls' quote in my post?
suit2please
Visionary
Silver Level
Haven't been on here is a while, so let me know if im wrong...
But the biggest problem is the majority of the population falsely believes that online poker is illegal. There are a handful of states where it is illegal, but there is no federal law making online poker illegal. The UIGEA made it illegal for banks and credit card companies to send money to online gaming companies and that is it.
These false assumptions make the problem bigger as those recreational players who would play and might care that they can't, don't care because they are told it is illegal.
I for one never had a problem cashing a poker check, and the banks really have no right to deny it. The questions come up because the checks were from foreign banks, and that is why they are put on hold along with normal holds for large checks, etc.
I might be way off as I got bored playing on the little sites we continue to have access to, and haven't paid attention to the current status. But Im rather sure after a couple years off, nothings changed, and theres no real movement anywhere in sight.
But the biggest problem is the majority of the population falsely believes that online poker is illegal. There are a handful of states where it is illegal, but there is no federal law making online poker illegal. The UIGEA made it illegal for banks and credit card companies to send money to online gaming companies and that is it.
These false assumptions make the problem bigger as those recreational players who would play and might care that they can't, don't care because they are told it is illegal.
I for one never had a problem cashing a poker check, and the banks really have no right to deny it. The questions come up because the checks were from foreign banks, and that is why they are put on hold along with normal holds for large checks, etc.
I might be way off as I got bored playing on the little sites we continue to have access to, and haven't paid attention to the current status. But Im rather sure after a couple years off, nothings changed, and theres no real movement anywhere in sight.
curtinsea
Rock Star
Silver Level
This is a false assumption. Just because there is no law specifically outlawing playing online poker, that doesn't mean it is legal. In many states, gambling is prohibited in the state constitution unless specifically authorized. But, even in a state where it is a felony to play online poker, I've not heard of anyone anywhere ever being arrested for playing the game
Many recreational players quit because the game was never important to them in the first place, and with all the hassle now, it isn't even worth the time. That is my view point as a recreational player who doesn't think it is worth the hassle.
You may have never had a problem cashing a poker check, but I can assure you many others have to jump through a lot of hoops to get paid.
And here is the bottom line . . . even if playing online poker isn't illegal where you are, you need a site to play on if you are to play, and those sites are generally breaking state and federal laws by taking your action. The next administration may take a harsher look at those sites still serving US players
J
jsh169
Visionary
Silver Level
Unless it is a continental U.S. legalization one state at a time is only going to kill the game faster, hell regulation and ring fencing has already done that. Traffic since black friday has dropped over 40%, other countries are making it so they can only play in house.
Poker's liquidity is dropping every year and this is mainly due to the above, this is not the solution here either. People will be begging for Bovada and WPN when 10-15 states get legalized, although it will likely ten or so years from now at it's current rate. We also know its not impossible and likely some states like California will want all the revenue for it's self further killing poker liquidity.
Poker's liquidity is dropping every year and this is mainly due to the above, this is not the solution here either. People will be begging for Bovada and WPN when 10-15 states get legalized, although it will likely ten or so years from now at it's current rate. We also know its not impossible and likely some states like California will want all the revenue for it's self further killing poker liquidity.
