Poker Blog & Poker Forum

Now that the euphoria of the passage of HR 2267 in the House Committee has died down, experts are examining the fine print and opining what this means for the online poker industry. Joe Brennan Junior of iMEGA pointed out one of the most significant amendments. He said, “No one who took a bet or wager on or after the enactment of the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act in 2006, processed payments, or received ‘assistance’ can be licensed.” This puts two of the largest online poker rooms, Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars, in a tight spot. As of now, online poker in the United Stated without Poker Stars and Full Tilt Poker is inconceivable. Most of the leading poker professionals are brand ambassadors to one or the other. Therefore the industry experts have come up with various suggestions as to how things can work out. The most common expert opinion is that PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker will be bought over by a big US company. Harrah’s, MGM and Facebook are some of the names that have been thrown about. However, one expert pointed out that this would be too big a risk for the buyer, because Mr. Bachus has plugged this loophole in his amendment. Entities that purchase tainted entities, purchase customer lists of tainted entities and purchase operations of tainted entities also cannot be given licenses. Another suggestion has been that PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker can purchase a European company that is eligible for a license and ask its players to join up there. In all this one cannot forget that HR 2267 would never have passed but for the untiring efforts of the Poker Players Alliance. And it is well known that PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker are the biggest supporters of the Poker Players Alliance. HR 2267 has yet a long way to go before it is made law and some way out is sure to be found. Meanwhile PokerStars is putting up a brave front. First of all PokerStars has said that it completely supports HR 2267 and will do whatever it can to try and get the bill through the House and the Senate in this Congressional term itself. Then a statement from PokerStars said, “As reflected in legal opinions provided to PokerStars, its activities in the US are and at all times have been lawful. Therefore the amendment will not adversely affect the availability of a license for a respected operator such as PokerStars.”

Now that the euphoria of the passage of HR 2267 in the House Committee has died down, experts are examining the fine print and opining what this means for the online poker industry. Joe Brennan Junior of iMEGA pointed out one of the most significant amendments. He said, “No one who took a bet or wager on or after the enactment of the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act in 2006, processed payments, or received ‘assistance’ can be licensed.” This puts two of the largest online poker rooms, Full Tilt Poker and PokerStars, in a tight spot. As of now, online poker in the United Stated without Poker Stars and Full Tilt Poker is inconceivable. Most of the leading poker professionals are brand ambassadors to one or the other. Therefore the industry experts have come up with various suggestions as to how things can work out.

The most common expert opinion is that PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker will be bought over by a big US company. Harrah’s, MGM and Facebook are some of the names that have been thrown about. However, one expert pointed out that this would be too big a risk for the buyer, because Mr. Bachus has plugged this loophole in his amendment. Entities that purchase tainted entities, purchase customer lists of tainted entities and purchase operations of tainted entities also cannot be given licenses. Another suggestion has been that PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker can purchase a European company that is eligible for a license and ask its players to join up there.

In all this one cannot forget that HR 2267 would never have passed but for the untiring efforts of the Poker Players Alliance. And it is well known that PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker are the biggest supporters of the Poker Players Alliance. HR 2267 has yet a long way to go before it is made law and some way out is sure to be found.

Meanwhile PokerStars is putting up a brave front. First of all PokerStars has said that it completely supports HR 2267 and will do whatever it can to try and get the bill through the House and the Senate in this Congressional term itself. Then a statement from PokerStars said, “As reflected in legal opinions provided to PokerStars, its activities in the US are and at all times have been lawful. Therefore the amendment will not adversely affect the availability of a license for a respected operator such as PokerStars.”

The House Financial Services Committee on July 28, 2010, passed the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act by a vote of 41 in favor and only 22 against. This bill number HR 2267, is also known as the anti-UIGEA bill because it seeks to overturn the provisions of the UIGEA and set up a licensing and regulatory regime for online gambling in the United States.

Though this is only a small step in the journey of the bill, this is the first tangible good news that online poker players have received after the UIGEA was imposed in November 2006. The Poker Players Alliance (PPA) has contributed immensely in gathering support for this bill and its members are naturally overjoyed. The PPA immediately released a public statement. Former Senator Alfonse D’Amato, chairman of the PPA said, “I’m glad the Financial Services Committee today overwhelmingly chose to act and protect Americans as well as preserve the fundamental freedoms of adults and the Internet.” D’Amato also thanked Barney Frank for his leadership of the bill and promised all support in the future. John Pappas, executive director of the PPA, thanked the legislators who contributed to the bill by moving suitable amendments.

Earlier there was a minor hiccup when the bill was not taken up for discussion on Tuesday July 27 as originally scheduled. This week saw an unrestrained support for online gambling and online poker from many different quarters. Major newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post carried lead articles. Online poker forums and news sites exhorted poker players to contact their legislators by phone or e-mail asking them to gather support for the bill in the House Committee. Annie Duke, who had testified in the hearing on the bill last week, re-tweeted the message from PPA to all her followers. The message said, “Thank you poker players! The thousands of letters, calls and tweets really made a difference.”

The path of the bill becoming law is a long one. The House Financial Services Committee has to report the passage of the bill to the House of Representatives. The bill will have to be discussed and voted in the House of Representatives. If passed there, it would have to be discussed and voted in the Senate. If the Senate also passed the bill it would go to the President for his signature.

The hearing for bill HR 2267 was held before the House Committee on Financial Services on July 21. HR 2267 seeks to legalize online poker and online casino gambling in the United States and put in place a regulatory mechanism for the same. Poker Players Alliance (PPA) has for long been in the forefront as a nodal agency fighting for the legalization of online poker. It chose Annie Duke (also of Celebrity Apprentice fame) as its representative to speak in support of the bill.

The complete testimony of Annie Duke is available at the PPA web site. The salient points she made were as under. Annie said that she had just returned from the WSOP. She pointed out that the WSOP is the third most watched sporting event in the world and that this growth has been fuelled by Internet poker. However the issue at stake is greater. HR 2267 gives back to individual Americans the right “to do what they want in the privacy of their homes without the intrusion of the government”; a personal freedom that was taken away by the UIGEA. She accepted that those who opposed online poker had the laudable motives of protection of minors and those afflicted with pathological gambling at heart. However she pointed out that “public policy need not decide between respecting individual freedoms and protecting vulnerable populations in the context of Internet Poker.” HR 2267 addresses both issues satisfactorily. Annie stressed that American poker players want to play on sites licensed in the United States so that they are under the protection of their own government and can use their own laws to redress any grievances should they arise. She also said that American poker players and poker sites licensed in the United States would be more than willing to pay taxes in America.

Annie was bold enough to refer to the Ultimate Bet super user scandal. She said that she continued to endorse the site after she was sure that the new management had made amends and had voluntarily refunded the cheated players. She made the point that under regulation it could be ensured that online operators have adequate security measures in place, are independently tested and operate under American law.

Despite this powerful testimony the general opinion is that nothing will come out of the hearing. The matter will not be put to vote before the mid term elections and if the Republicans take over the House in November then time would count in years and not months.

Doyle Brunson’s blogs make interesting reading because they cover more than poker and when they do cover poker they touch upon the larger picture.

The Mike Huckabee TV show with Las Vegas mayor Oscar Goodman as the guest opened some old wounds for Doyle Brunson. President Obama had created a major backlash with his anti Vegas comments a few months back. The President had said that rolling the dice on the Vegas Strip was not the wisest move to make when needing to save for college and had referred to gambling at Vegas casinos as blowing a bunch of cash. In the Huckabee show Goodman said that statistics revealed a gigantic dip in canceled conventions after the President’s first comment and a sharp decline in tourist traffic after his second comment. Therefore Goodman squarely blamed the President for Vegas being the hardest hit city from the recession. Doyle concluded, “I don’t see how any resident in Nevada could ever vote for Obama after this.”

Doyle goes back to the presidential election when he voted for McCain. Doyle conceded that Obama was then projected as being good for poker and was sure to win. He had voted for McCain out of Republican loyalty. In his blog Doyle writes, “If I thought my vote would have mattered, I probably would have voted for Obama.” Today poker players have every reason to be let down. Less than two years down the line prosecutions of online poker payment processors are up and the UIGEA rules have been implemented. Instead of offering even lip support to online poker the President has condemned gambling at large.

The second interesting issue in Doyle’s blog is his fitness. Doyle went for complete physical and after a graphic no holds barred description of the tests conducted by the doctor Doyle gave his readers the doctor’s verdict. He said, “… the heart doctor said, barring some unforeseen complication or disease, I should live into my 90’s.” Given the fact that Doyle is not yet 77, he has a long way to go. This reminds me of some buffoon who had created a list of 100 celebrities who were most likely to die in 2009. Doyle Brunson was No. 16 on that list. That guy will not dare to include Brunson again.