-
-
Finally! Now i can play on Pokerstars again.
Comment -
What does this mean.Comment -
Actually looks like Pokerstars still might not be available because of the processing method but im not sure if PS accepts Bitcoin as a deposit method.Comment -
Not fair
Comment -
helps but they need all 50 states pooled togetherComment -
PokerStars may be blocked due to the bill’s bad actor clause. The bad actor clause is the result of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). Passed in 2006, it prohibited banks from processing transactions from illegal gambling businesses. PokerStars was one of a handful of online poker sites still operating after UIGEA’s passage, and eventually indicted by the Department of Justice on April 15, 2011; known to the poker world as Black Friday.
As well, under this clause, a company purchasing assets following the passage of the UIGEA would not be allowed to offer online poker. While PokerStars is now owned by Amaya, Inc, PokerStars is considered a tainted asset and may be banned.
However, in the latest bill, HB 649, there is no mention of the bad actor clause, providing PokerStars the opportunity to to be granted a license when online poker becomes regulated in the state.Comment -
Three categories of online gaming licenses
H 271 breaks online gaming into three categories, each requiring a separate license:
- Online slot machines
- Online house-banked table games
- Online poker, peer-to-peer games
Pennsylvania casinos will have first crack at licenses.
Within the first 90 days they can apply for all three licenses at a cost of $10 million. After 90 days the cost is $4 million per license.
After 120 days “qualified entities” from outside of Pennsylvania can apply for and receive an interactive license at a cost of $4 million per license.
Here’s the portion of the bill dealing with online gambling.
Qualified entities is code for bad actor. These states are setting up monopolies to extract extra tax revenue, they are in no way looking for a competitive environment. This is bad news for poker players yet many are celebrating because they don’t understand they’re getting screwed. The rake they’ll be dragging to cover the 14% tax rate will make the games basically unbeatable.Comment -
Sharpy I beg to differ.Comment -
Either way it's still a good sign if your from PennsylvaniaComment -
philly I wouldn't mind sharing a prostitute with you if you are not wanting to spend full retail
I will go first though and spend 25%Comment -
Poker so 2008Comment -
14% rake? Garbage!
Unless I'm playing Omaha Hi/Lo against the bums from SBR then I won't make a dime!Comment -
now all those guys registering cars to mobile homes to save a few extra bucks on auto insurance will blow all the money they saved.... system wins againComment -
USA took how many years to start passing this..classicComment -
The numbers I’m “throwing out” are directly from the link in your OP.
Also saw this from OPR so wouldnt get too excited. Much like the situation in California the Pennsylvania B&M casinos are not happy about this development and will more than likely be suing to block this legislation.
Penn National not happy
Penn National, which operates Hollywood Casino, apparently is not very pleased with the bill.
The Reading Eagle reported that the company would consider suing to stop the bill:D. Eric Schippers, vice president of public affairs, called the 470-page gambling bill that was part of a package to fund the budget an “ill-conceived plan that has been rushed through” and would particularly harm the company’s Hollywood Casino in Dauphin County near Harrisburg.Mostly, PN appears to take issue with the satellite casinos that it says would impact it more than other casinos around the state. It would be a willing participant in online gambling.
“We’re considering our legal options because this would have a uniquely punitive effect on our casino, more so than any other casino in the state,” Schippers said.
In its earnings call on Thursday morning, Penn National and Schippers were a little less bombastic about the bill. The call was literally going on as the bill was being debated on the House floor.
Schippers said the bill has some “significant flaws,” including the 54 percent tax rate for slots, in the call. PN did not indicate it would definitely take the legal action suggested above.
“We’re going to have to weigh all our options, and we’re going to have to dissect the 970 pages and go from there,” Schippers said.Comment -
Sharpy I'm talking about the rake....The numbers I’m “throwing out” are directly from the link in your OP.
Also saw this from OPR so wouldnt get too excited. Much like the situation in California the Pennsylvania B&M casinos are not happy about this development and will more than likely be suing to block this legislation.
Penn National not happy
Penn National, which operates Hollywood Casino, apparently is not very pleased with the bill.
The Reading Eagle reported that the company would consider suing to stop the bill:D. Eric Schippers, vice president of public affairs, called the 470-page gambling bill that was part of a package to fund the budget an “ill-conceived plan that has been rushed through” and would particularly harm the company’s Hollywood Casino in Dauphin County near Harrisburg.Mostly, PN appears to take issue with the satellite casinos that it says would impact it more than other casinos around the state. It would be a willing participant in online gambling.
“We’re considering our legal options because this would have a uniquely punitive effect on our casino, more so than any other casino in the state,” Schippers said.
In its earnings call on Thursday morning, Penn National and Schippers were a little less bombastic about the bill. The call was literally going on as the bill was being debated on the House floor.
Schippers said the bill has some “significant flaws,” including the 54 percent tax rate for slots, in the call. PN did not indicate it would definitely take the legal action suggested above.
“We’re going to have to weigh all our options, and we’re going to have to dissect the 970 pages and go from there,” Schippers said.Comment -
Philly it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that any site paying $4 million in licensing plus 14% of revenues in taxes is going to pass that cost to the players. If you don’t mind that great good for you, I’m just putting it out there that these state schemes are not good for online poker. We need national regulation that includes all states to make the juice worth the squeeze.Comment
...... Basically the main reason is it opens it up to all the biggest named sites for online poker like Pokerstars, 888, Party Poker, etc more $$$ out there more bang for your buck.
Replying to JJ, you know the drill.