Final nail in online poker's coffin?

**Auto Donk** · 11-16-16, 02:58 PM

as I often say while playing live.... "Ship it!"

Waves' poker career is effectively over..... any guy stuck at .05/.10 nlhe online will never venture out for a 2/5 or even a 1/3 game live.....

**Ballerholic** · 11-16-16, 03:34 PM

Lol bye bye waves. But wouldn't online poker increase casino poker profits by growing the community? I'd love to see casino live poker statistics when online was legal back in the day vs now.

**Ballerholic** · 11-16-16, 03:35 PM

Also doesn't waves tell his friends he plays 5/10 online poker? Or does he just forget to mention it's on SBR.

**bobbywaves** · 11-16-16, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Auto Donk

Waves' poker career is effectively over.

OP & yourself are ignorant to think this will effect my online poker, or anyone else who lives in this gr8 state of Jersey.

**bobbywaves** · 11-16-16, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Ballerholic

Also doesn't waves tell his friends he plays 5/10 online poker?

No need to tell them...My friends are sitting at my table, colluding together.

I only told my friends that I banged your girl.

**SharpAngles** · 11-16-16, 06:09 PM

Typical "me first" welfare logic from small b.

Thread is addressing regulation of online poker at the federal level, i.e. player pool made up of all 50 states, you fukin simpleton. Adelson is the largest single opponent of ipoker regulation so this is obviously bad news.

P.s. You bragging about colluding, whether true or not, shows who's ignorant dipshit

**bobbywaves** · 11-16-16, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by SharpAngles

Thread is addressing regulation of online poker at the federal level, i.e. player pool made up of all 50 states, you fukin simpleton. Adelson is the largest single opponent of ipoker regulation so this is obviously bad news.

Your ignorant thread is pure speculation on your part, how you think it will effect regulated poker. I'm willing to wager NJ doesn't lose their regulated online poker in 2017, so you shouldn't have a problem putting your measly 1600 pts where your mouth is.

We can post up with a mutually agreed upon 3rd party.

**SharpAngles** · 11-16-16, 06:45 PM

Add reading comprehension to the list of small b's deficiencies

**bobbywaves** · 11-16-16, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by SharpAngles

Add reading comprehension to the list of small b's deficiencies

I'll take your response as a "No, I don't want to bet you Waves."

**SharpAngles** · 11-18-16, 01:07 PM

The major players in the Donald Trump administration are starting to come into focus. The president-elect has begun filling key positions, and on Friday the Trump transition team announced Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions will be Trump’s nominee for the Attorney General position.Sessions certainly has the CV for the post:

1975-1981: Assistant United States attorney in the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama
1981-1993: U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Alabama
1995-1997: Attorney general of Alabama
1997-present: United States senator from Alabama

But he is not without baggage, which makes Senate confirmation far from a slam dunk.
Why the AG matters for online gambling

As I explained in this column, the attorney general could revisit the 2011 Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel opinion that cleared the way for states to legalize online gambling within their borders.
If the incoming attorney general decides to roll back the DOJ’s current online gambling position, the progress made since the OLC opinion was issued in 2011 would be threatened.
It’s a bit more complicated than that

A DOJ rollback would open a whole new can of worms, as Nevada, Delaware, and New Jerseyhave already legalized online gaming, and Michigan, Illinois, Georgia, and Kentucky have legalized online lottery sales.
Lawsuits would almost certainly be filed by these states, and they’d likely be joined by other states currently exploring online expansion.
Where Sessions stands on gambling

With the exception of his first two years as a United States senator, by and large, Sessions hasavoided gambling issues during his time in elected office.
As a strict social conservative, Sessions is undoubtedly against the expansion of gambling. But he’s also arguably a supporter of states’ rights, and might oppose a federal prohibition of online gambling on those grounds.
Sessions backed early online gambling prohibition efforts

Long before the Restoration of America’s Wire Act, and long before UIGEA, there was the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997. The bill would make it illegal to place wagers over the internet.
In September 1997, newly-elected Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions announced he would co-sponsor the bill.
“I am troubled by how easy it is for children to pick-up their parents’ ************ and gamble on the Internet,” Sessions said in a statement at the time. “This legislation is an attempt to keep-up with the rapid changes taking place in cyberspace.”
The bill was amended shortly thereafter, in October of 1997, and Sessions was never officially added as a co-sponsor of the legislation.
In 1998 Sessions voted “yea” on Senate amendment 3266 to an appropriations bill. The amendmentwould have banned online gambling in the United States.
More recently, Sessions has been silent on the topic

But since then, Sessions has largely sidestepped online gambling.

Sessions was quiet as a church mouse during a 1999 hearing on internet gambling.
More recently, in response to an online poker player in 2011, Sessions stated, “While the people of Alabama have generally been opposed to gambling, I understand the points you raise in your correspondence in support of legalizing Internet gambling.”
Sessions hasn’t co-sponsored any of the versions of RAWA that have appeared in the Senate over the past three years.

Bottom line

If he’s confirmed, Jeff Sessions wouldn’t be the worst attorney general in terms of online gambling, but his stance on the issue could go either way. Given the opportunity to support recent high-profile efforts to ban regulated online gambling at the federal level, Sessions has declined – a clear positive for supporters of regulation.
Even with outside pressure, AG Sessions might (rightly) conclude the 2011 OLC opinion that limits the Wire Act’s scope to sports betting is correct, especially considering it would lead to a legal fight that the prohibitionists are likely to lose.
Courts have sided with the current OLC interpretation of the Wire Act, even when the DOJ opinion prohibited online gambling.