Use your social profile to sign in faster.
Or use your username or password below:
Bad username or password
Forgot your password?
PPA VP of Player Relations & Board Member
Thanks for sharing this important info with the community. To clarify, I didn't say former non-Team Full Tilt red pros were good to go. Rather, I said DoJ said they'd reconsider the matter.
PokerFuse updated their article on the Texas Poker Gaming Act: "Correction: The article as originally published stated that online poker would be banned under the proposed legislation; however, the bill would not affect the current status of online poker in Texas."
The Texas bill excludes online poker from the provisions of the bill. It doesn't ban it or otherwise change the status of online poker in Texas in any way.
"Nobody wants state by state regulation. Smaller player pools, multiple licensing jurisdictions, fewer games offered, etc. I know the PPA is trying to be pragmatic, but they need to listen to the players on this point."
PPA is pushing for federal legislation.
therealslomo: HR 2366, Rep. Barton's bill, is about what you describe. PPA didn't write it, but it's a great bill for us. I wish the Senate was taking up that bill, but Reid/Kyl are starting with their own bill, which is their prerogative.
I don't know why you think this fight should be easy. The House voted to ban online poker in 2006 by 317-93 (that bill, the freestanding HR 4411, was watered down in the Senate backrooms and emerged attached to the SAFE Ports Act as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act), To me, that indicates that we're in a very tough fight.
I wish we could simply write bills and get them passed. Too bad it's not that easy.
Percival: How could doing nothing possibly help anyone? You really think the DoJ will hunt you down to reimburse you if no one complains or asks them for it? Sorry, but it's absolutely imperative that we stand up for our rights here.
Great article Matt! I hope everyone will take a few moments to do this. It takes less than 60 seconds!
Very intersting article! I'm happy to have participated.
Mike9004: I think (or at least hope) that Matthew was referring not to one's personal beliefs, but to FoF's desire to codify the values he listed into law. I am a limited government conservative. In fact, I write a column at BigGovernment.com that you may find of interest: http://biggovernment.com/rmuny