House Committee - Financial Services hearing - Internet Gambling Regulation

[DukeJohn]

If you missed the Hearing on July 21, 2010, here the link to watch it:

http://financialservices.house.gov/Hearings/hearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=1330

Then click on the View Archived Webcast link.

Mr. Bachus compares us to Heroin addicts, crazy stuff... and these are our leaders, unbelievable.

Enjoy,

[WileOut]

This passed committee. In my opinion it will be bad news for online gamblers if it passes into law. Especially online sports.

[Kaabee]

should be good for online poker though

[JoeVig]

Should be good for online books who have a poker room

[Fishhead]

Not even worth speaking about.......

[BigD]

I think this will help a lot, it won't make sports betting legal but it will open up processing transaction and make it easier to deposit and withdraw.

[bigugly]

Not even worth speaking about.......

Explain please.

[michael777]

Not even worth speaking about.......

yes fish,what do you mean? thanks

[midnight777]

i feel so many ways around this stupid bill!!!

[Waz]

I might be one of the few people that thinks full legalization of online gambling, if we ever get there, might not be the best thing for everyone. Sure it will appease the masses who are just looking to get their fill of action, but I'm not sure it will be good for players who rely on gambling for income (whether full-time or supplemental). The market is very inefficient now, and that is a huge plus for the players. It won't take long after legalization before the marketplace becomes VERY efficient (for example, the stock market).

[csm506]

Agreed let's all just move on as this is moving real fast.

[rumple]

Its only out out of comittee, lomg way to go.

[John Dough]

I might be one of the few people that thinks full legalization of online gambling, if we ever get there, might not be the best thing for everyone. Sure it will appease the masses who are just looking to get their fill of action, but I'm not sure it will be good for players who rely on gambling for income (whether full-time or supplemental). The market is very inefficient now, and that is a huge plus for the players. It won't take long after legalization before the marketplace becomes VERY efficient (for example, the stock market).

What market is that exactly? Certainly not the major sports markets once lines have firmed up. If you're talking about smaller markets, that's another story.

[DukeJohn]

I actually wrote an email to the California congressman that wants to add putting a stop loss to the bill. I let him know I was a professional sports bettor and that many of us have accounts in different locations. Well, here is part of the email.

"If you tried to say it would be a percentage of your balance or something along those lines, keep in mind, Americans have accounts at several online locations in order to get the best line possible. Like shopping for the lowest place to buy gas; having accounts at different companies allows that. I might add that because there is no consumer protection for Americans, even the "licensed" places from certain countries doesn't offer much protection for Americans and because of this I do not keep all my available funds for Sports Betting in those accounts; most is kept in the USA. So, any implementation of a certain loss on balance would not be the answer, per se."

Of course I am not in the district of the congressman, not even the same state, and thus I will not get a response.

[DukeJohn]

I actually wrote an email to the California congressman that wants to add putting a stop loss to the bill. I let him know I was a professional sports bettor and that many of us have accounts in different locations. Well, here is part of the email.

"If you tried to say it would be a percentage of your balance or something along those lines, keep in mind, Americans have accounts at several online locations in order to get the best line possible. Like shopping for the lowest place to buy gas; having accounts at different companies allows that. I might add that because there is no consumer protection for Americans, even the "licensed" places from certain countries doesn't offer much protection for Americans and because of this I do not keep all my available funds for Sports Betting in those accounts; most is kept in the USA. So, any implementation of a certain loss on balance would not be the answer, per se."

Of course I am not in the district of the congressman, not even the same state, and thus I will not get a response.

As quoted from the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative:

"During today’s mark-up there were several amendments introduced from both sides of the aisle. Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) offered, and the Committee approved, an amendment that would further strengthen the legislation’s already strict consumer protections, including a requirement for licensed operators to have each customer choose his or her loss limits before being able to play on-line. Rep. Campbell’s amendment also requires licensees to protect customers by ensuring the customer privacy and security and protecting against fraud and money laundering. "

At least that kind of loss limit might work

[WileOut]

People this bill is only for poker. It attempts to make it harder to play at online sportsbooks, and attempts to make it harder to run an online sportsbook. The bill is pro poker, anti-sports gambling. Please read the bill or the cliff notes made by gambling lawyers and gambling accountants.

DukeJohn, the bill legalizes poker in states that opt in (if you are in a state that opts out, you lose access to online poker), but the bill puts a 50% tax on all deposits to unlicensed operators (which are all online sports books whether they have a poker room or not). No online sportsbooks will get licensed. They will be even further stigmatized under this law.

If you are somebody who doesn't worry about paying taxes or you don't deposit much, then it won't hurt you unless you get audited and haven't paid the 50% tax on your deposits.

But if you are a pro, or you like to keep a lot of books funded, and you pay taxes, this bill is really bad for you.

That is my take on it.

[sharpcat]

Agreed this bill is not meant to benefit the people it is strictly about dollars my understanding is that it is a proposed 6% tax on deposits and if you are a professional player you will still have to pay taxes on your earnings. The bill does not include sports gambling and has stated that companies who have operated online gaming in violation of US law will not be eligible for a license which will push every online sportsbook out of the US possibly by blocking access to those sites. US based companies will come in and take over the poker market but because of the "Wire Act" online sports gambling will not be an option.

Professional poker players are the only ones who should be supporting this bill, if you are a sports bettor you will be getting shafted if this bill passes. This type of bill can not pass until laws involving sports wagering are reversed.

[midnight777]

so we are back to square one

[peeiempee]

They will never legalize sports betting. As everyone will think NBA, NCAA, NFL, NHL and MLB is rigged. Lots of money and bad PR for the sports organizations

[peeiempee]

Lots of money lost through bad PR

[idontlikerocks]

duke john--- i think you will get some kind of response to yer e-mail. congresssmen have their clerks answer most of these.

WileOut--- is the tax on deposits going to be charged to the player or the company? who will be responsible for it?

[Hareeba!]

duke john--- i think you will get some kind of response to yer e-mail. congresssmen have their clerks answer most of these.

WileOut--- is the tax on deposits going to be charged to the player or the company? who will be responsible for it?

LOL ... could you imagine the player having to be responsible for remitting it?

[Ian]

The bill is great for gamblers. It's best for poker because legal and regulated poker will likely lead to a massive influx of fish. Sports betting has other issues because of the wire act, but the more gambling laws are liberalized, the more likely it will be that other gambling prohibitions will be torn down.

[kkkkk]

If you missed the Hearing on July 21, 2010, here the link to watch it:

http://financialservices.house.gov/Hearings/hearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=1330

Then click on the View Archived Webcast link.

Mr. Bachus compares us to Heroin addicts, crazy stuff... and these are our leaders, unbelievable.

Enjoy,

There are much more people addicted to pizzas, internet or movie(not to speak about McDonald, Coca Cola or whatever) but nobody cares about that. Why they care about internet gambling ?

[DukeJohn]

People this bill is only for poker. It attempts to make it harder to play at online sportsbooks, and attempts to make it harder to run an online sportsbook. The bill is pro poker, anti-sports gambling. Please read the bill or the cliff notes made by gambling lawyers and gambling accountants.

DukeJohn, the bill legalizes poker in states that opt in (if you are in a state that opts out, you lose access to online poker), but the bill puts a 50% tax on all deposits to unlicensed operators (which are all online sports books whether they have a poker room or not). No online sportsbooks will get licensed. They will be even further stigmatized under this law.

If you are somebody who doesn't worry about paying taxes or you don't deposit much, then it won't hurt you unless you get audited and haven't paid the 50% tax on your deposits.

But if you are a pro, or you like to keep a lot of books funded, and you pay taxes, this bill is really bad for you.

That is my take on it.

That is really sad. To confirm some of what you said, below were some of the changes to the bill.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2267
OFFERED BY MR. KING OF NEW YORK

Page 44, strike line 1 and all that follows through
line 9, and insert the following new section:

1 ‘‘SEC. 5387. SPORTS BETTING PROHIBITED ON INTERNET.
2 ‘‘No licensee under this sub-chapter shall accept Internet bets or wagers on sporting events, with the exception of pari-mutuel racing as permitted by law.’’.

I might add that after reading through the mark-ups found about half-way down here:

http://financialservices.house.gov/Hearings/hearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=1340

It seems this bill will violate Free trade regulations with the World Trade Organization, not that it really matters to the US.

[bubba]

could this bill have any effect on anything in 2010?

[wildemu]

This bill better not pass or I'm done with this piece of shit country.

If bookmaker, greek/bet jamaica, 5dimes are done with the U.S after this is passed, then I am done with it as well.

[John Dough]

could this bill have any effect on anything in 2010?

Not likely. These things take a very long time to pass all the required hurdles and then finally become implemented.

[alling]

That is really sad. To confirm some of what you said, below were some of the changes to the bill.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2267
OFFERED BY MR. KING OF NEW YORK

Page 44, strike line 1 and all that follows through
line 9, and insert the following new section:

1 ‘‘SEC. 5387. SPORTS BETTING PROHIBITED ON INTERNET.
2 ‘‘No licensee under this sub-chapter shall accept Internet bets or wagers on sporting events, with the exception of pari-mutuel racing as permitted by law.’’.

I might add that after reading through the mark-ups found about half-way down here:

http://financialservices.house.gov/Hearings/hearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=1340

It seems this bill will violate Free trade regulations with the World Trade Organization, not that it really matters to the US.

2 ‘‘No licensee under this sub-chapter shall accept Internet bets or wagers on sporting events, with the exception of pari-mutuel racing as permitted by law.’’.

Does this mean betting on ponies is a game of skill? BULLSHIT

[Mr. Jones]

This bill better not pass or I'm done with this piece of shit country.

If bookmaker, greek/bet jamaica, 5dimes are done with the U.S after this is passed, then I am done with it as well.

I sure don't really know the detailed ins and outs of all this stuff, but here's one thing I'm willing to wager on. Too many sports bettors in the USA; too much money to be made [a frigging gold mine as you all know]; too difficult to control the internet; too many folks can smell, see, and fell the $$$. Don't worry you'll be able to get down your $100 at 1PM on fall Sunday afternoons. But to make a living at it if the hoops you need to jump through shrink even more...well that is a different animal. Entrepreneurs willing to take a risk to make a fortune will always exist to take your money. That's just human nature.

Having said that, if I was younger I really would get the f_ck out of this country or at least finally move to Vegas. And if what I said above, by some crazy chance, is wrong....I will go to the desert. Hell at today's prices I can buy a very comfortable retirement home.

[Waz]

Anyone know the timing for the vote on this bill? Is this a 2010 or 2011 event?

[Fishhead]

That is really sad. To confirm some of what you said, below were some of the changes to the bill.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2267
OFFERED BY MR. KING OF NEW YORK

Page 44, strike line 1 and all that follows through
line 9, and insert the following new section:

1 ‘‘SEC. 5387. SPORTS BETTING PROHIBITED ON INTERNET.
2 ‘‘No licensee under this sub-chapter shall accept Internet bets or wagers on sporting events, with the exception of pari-mutuel racing as permitted by law.’’.

I might add that after reading through the mark-ups found about half-way down here:

http://financialservices.house.gov/Hearings/hearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=1340

It seems this bill will violate Free trade regulations with the World Trade Organization, not that it really matters to the US.

................

[Waz]

Fish-

On a scale of 1-10, how worried are you about the possible new legislation and how it might affect sports betting on the internet?

[Fishhead]

fish-

on a scale of 1-10, how worried are you about the possible new legislation and how it might affect sports betting on the internet?

3


...........

[Fishhead]

Fish-

On a scale of 1-10, how worried are you about the possible new legislation and how it might affect sports betting on the internet?

MANY pokerrooms have sportsbooks..........and viceversa.