Open Letter To The Commerce Casino

[FCP Bob 1,312]

This site was set up by The PPA to show The Commerce Casino that poker players aren't happy with their opposition to Federal Online Poker Regulation in the US.You can sign on to an open letter to them that a lot of the most well known poker players have already signed.http://www.playersbeforeprofits.com/Open Letter To Commerce CasinoAs dedicated poker players, both online and live, both professional and amateur, we are extremely disappointed in the position Commerce Casino has taken in opposition to federal legislation to license and regulate online poker. Your opposition puts your narrow corporate interests ahead of the interests of America’s poker players. By testifying before Congress in opposition to HR 2267 -- where Commerce Casino allied itself with those seeking to ban online poker across the nation -- your organization demonstrated complete disregard for every poker player who has ever patronized your establishment. HR 2267 will create a U.S. regulated online poker framework in this country, requiring all online poker sites to measure up to strict safety and consumer protection standards – requirements that do not exist today. More importantly, this bill will create an open and competitive market, giving players a choice of many sites on which to play against others from across the country and the world. This bill also includes language allowing states to opt out of this legislation while providing appropriate safeguards to ensure Indian tribes retain their current rights regarding gaming. It is important to note that with the rise of online poker, many individuals hone their skills online before they enter establishments such as the Commerce Casino – increasing traffic to poker rooms nationwide. Poker players hate hypocrisy. So, we are particularly dismayed that while your testimony before the House Financial Services Committee criticized federal legislation and regulation of online poker, Commerce Casino is actively promoting legislation to create a segregated, California-only online poker network. That proposal would create a monopoly that would harm California’s poker players by severely limiting the pool of players against whom they could play as well as the options for sites on which they could play. It could also set the stage for other states to follow suit, possibly resulting in a balkanized online poker world, where players across the nation would be limited in their choices of where and against whom they could play. It is disheartening that one of our own in the poker community is opposing good public policy that will keep players safe and preserve our rights to play poker online. We strongly urge Commerce Casino to support America’s poker players. Please change your position on HR 2267.

[UncleHoot 0]

Honestly, I do have a huge fear that the government will completely screw up whatever poker legislation they may pass in the future. I can see certain ridiculous amendments appearing such as:"Well, we should limit tournament buy-in's to $50 and under, because someone could lose their life-savings in a matter of minutes.""We need to protect the existing rights of the tribal casinos, so those players that live within X miles of a tribal casino should be blocked from playing online while a poker event is scheduled at a local casino." (Like is the case with professional sports broadcasts)Then, of course, is the whole taxation issue. I don't have any idea how that will work, but it will almost certainly be awful, especially if it's handled the same way that Vegas casino's currently do it. (I think any win over $1500 has taxes taken off the top, which is ridiculous for, say, a $1500 buy-in event.)Finally, gambling laws are not determined at the Federal Level (according to The Constitution), so any federal legislation starts trampling on the rights of the individual states, and some of them will probably get upset, so there will be some goofiness as they try to appease the difficult-to-get-along-with states.If legislation passes, I expect it to be so convoluted that most of us in the US will long for the days when it was still "illegal". Congressmen will be doing everything that they can to appease the current casinos, as well as what ever other constituencies they may have. Everything seemed to be working well for us poker players, right up until the UIGEA. Thank Congress for that.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I've often said that the best thing that could happen to On-Line gaming in the US would be for the Industry to open itself up for regulation. Won't really go into my rationale at this point.However, for the PPA or anyone else to criticize Commerce for opposing the On-Line Gaming is pretty silly. They aren't being hypocritical nor disloyal to their patrons. To cast them as some sort of villains is completely self-serving in its own accord and not terribly accurate. They're pursuing their one "narrow corporate interests"? No. Really? They should be more focused on supporting a communal win? WHat country is this? On-Line gaming is a threat to B&M Casinos and in many scenarios jeopardizes the infrastructure investment and tax revenues of State and Local Governments as well as the B&M operations themselves. It is nothing short of ridiculous to suggest that Commerce or any other Casino owes it to their customer base to support the wider interests of On-Line Gaming. Now I certainly don't understand the "California-only online poker network" accusation and could perhaps understand the PPA position better if I knew more about this aspect.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Now I certainly don't understand the "California-only online poker network" accusation and could perhaps understand the PPA position better if I knew more about this aspect.

The legislation that was proposed at the State level in California that The Commerce and some of the Native Casinos in California support would be horrible for the players.This is all off the top of my head but you can research it if you really want it to be accurate.1. Would only license 3 operators and they would have to already have a presence in California before the legislation meaning that there will be little competition and the only people allowed to compete for a license would be the existing land based casinos.2. Would criminalize any player who plays online at an unlicensed site. This would be the case even for the period of probably a year or more that it would take from legislation passing to the online casinos being up and running.I don't recall the exact tax situation but you know a lot of money will be going from the players to the State when you think of the what California's fiscal situation is.

[tbrick412 0]

Honestly, I do have a huge fear that the government will completely screw up whatever poker legislation they may pass in the future. I can see certain ridiculous amendments appearing such as:"Well, we should limit tournament buy-in's to $50 and under, because someone could lose their life-savings in a matter of minutes.""We need to protect the existing rights of the tribal casinos, so those players that live within X miles of a tribal casino should be blocked from playing online while a poker event is scheduled at a local casino." (Like is the case with professional sports broadcasts)Then, of course, is the whole taxation issue. I don't have any idea how that will work, but it will almost certainly be awful, especially if it's handled the same way that Vegas casino's currently do it. (I think any win over $1500 has taxes taken off the top, which is ridiculous for, say, a $1500 buy-in event.)Finally, gambling laws are not determined at the Federal Level (according to The Constitution), so any federal legislation starts trampling on the rights of the individual states, and some of them will probably get upset, so there will be some goofiness as they try to appease the difficult-to-get-along-with states.If legislation passes, I expect it to be so convoluted that most of us in the US will long for the days when it was still "illegal". Congressmen will be doing everything that they can to appease the current casinos, as well as what ever other constituencies they may have. Everything seemed to be working well for us poker players, right up until the UIGEA. Thank Congress for that.

there will likely only be 2 forms of tax. a tax on your deposit(which nearly everyone is agreeing the sites will eat), and a tax on your winnings, which you should already be paying anyway.also disagree with your point on people longing for the days of when it was "illegal". the status quo we have now can only hold for so long, and sites can only pay back customers out of there own pockets when processors are shutdown for so long, before it becomes unprofitable to serve the us market. ideally we would just have a free market with 0 regulation, but its just not possible obviously.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

there will likely only be 2 forms of tax. a tax on your deposit(which nearly everyone is agreeing the sites will eat), and a tax on your winnings, which you should already be paying anyway.

The most likely tax is a deposit tax but that isn't guaranteed. In France they're taking extra rake as a tax. A deposit tax that's less than 10% or so is something that sites won't have a problem paying. The current cost for most deposit methods for the sites is very high and in a regulated environment that cost for sites is going to go way down.The US also has higher corporate taxes than most countries and especially countries where sites are currently operating so the costs to operate a site will also be higher for the sites. That being said they will be happy to pay those extra costs but it might tighten up some of the player rewards that are available.

[tbrick412 0]

The most likely tax is a deposit tax but that isn't guaranteed. In France they're taking extra rake as a tax. A deposit tax that's less than 10% or so is something that sites won't have a problem paying. The current cost for most deposit methods for the sites is very high and in a regulated environment that cost for sites is going to go way down.The US also has higher corporate taxes than most countries and especially countries where sites are currently operating so the costs to operate a site will also be higher for the sites. That being said they will be happy to pay those extra costs but it might tighten up some of the player rewards that are available.

agree, doubt there will be any rakeback, everything will probably be like stars FPP store now, except not quite as good

[Lrgetrout 1]

agree, doubt there will be any rakeback, everything will probably be like stars FPP store now, except not quite as good

But will they have cookie baskets?

[UncleHoot 0]

there will likely only be 2 forms of tax. a tax on your deposit(which nearly everyone is agreeing the sites will eat), and a tax on your winnings, which you should already be paying anyway.also disagree with your point on people longing for the days of when it was "illegal". the status quo we have now can only hold for so long, and sites can only pay back customers out of there own pockets when processors are shutdown for so long, before it becomes unprofitable to serve the us market. ideally we would just have a free market with 0 regulation, but its just not possible obviously.

Where did you get this information on taxes? And see my post from last week regarding taxing winnings. That should scare the crap out of any poker player. PLEASE DO NOT TAX WINNINGS!!! Tax my net profit only, if you must tax me at all. That's probably what you meant, but it's a HUGE distinction.I already long for the days before the UIGEA. I used to play at Party and it was a blast. The industry was doing great and law enforcement was turning a blind eye to something that may or may not have been illegal, but certainly wasn't really hurting anyone. At that time, all it would have taken was for the justice department to officially state that the wire act did not apply to online poker, and we would not be in this mess. Harrah's could have opened an online poker site and they could be raking in millions. Then Congress could have set some rules regarding age verification, and whatever other regulation that they wanted to add after the fact. Instead, they took an approach that was analogous to saying, 'Shopping on the Internet is bad and fraught with danger, therefore we're going to make sure that we protect consumers by not allowing them to use their credit cards to shop online.' Now that Congress has removed the free market aspect of this, whatever regulation they put into place will most likely further destroy what we already have. Stars and Full Tilt may not be allowed licensing. It will be a huge money-grab and everyone will want a piece of it. If it was already quasi-legal, Congress would have to squeeze their way into it, not be the gatekeepers (bouncers?) that determine who gets in and who does not. In a free market, the players could go to the site that works best for them. Eventually, the best would rise to the top. That's exactly what was happening in 2006, right up until the UIGEA forced Party and others out of the US market.Using my analogy above, wouldn't it be great if you were required to have a government license before you could sell on eBay? And everything you sold would have to be taxed. Oh, and a certain percentage of each transaction had to go to the local homeless shelter, and you were required to provide proof that you were indeed donating to that local shelter. And to get that license, you had to make sure that you were operating in an OSHA approved location, with the right number of bathrooms, emergency exits, fire extinguishers, etc... eBay has thrived because there is NO government involvement. I'm not saying that eBay wouldn't exist, but it sure would not exist as it does today. It would simply be a new retail space for large retailers.If online poker does become "legal" in the US, I hope to God that it has as little regulation as possible.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

...see my post from last week regarding taxing winnings. That should scare the crap out of any poker player...

Wait.Didn't you pretty much agree in that thread that you didn't understand the basics of taxes?Generally speaking I don't trust the Government to make things better, but On-Line gaming has shown an inability to self regulate.

[tbrick412 0]

Where did you get this information on taxes? And see my post from last week regarding taxing winnings. That should scare the crap out of any poker player. PLEASE DO NOT TAX WINNINGS!!! Tax my net profit only, if you must tax me at all. That's probably what you meant, but it's a HUGE distinction.

well ya, i meant net profit. but some states laws are actually silly enough as to say you would have to be taxed on net cashes, so theoretically you could be taxed as a losing player. from what i've read, the ppa seems to think that will be fairly easy to fix. i'm all for regulation. the influx of new players and the games loosening up will be great for everyone in my opinion.

[TwstdWrstr 10]

well ya, i meant net profit. but some states laws are actually silly enough as to say you would have to be taxed on net cashes, so theoretically you could be taxed as a losing player. from what i've read, the ppa seems to think that will be fairly easy to fix. i'm all for regulation. the influx of new players and the games loosening up will be great for everyone in my opinion.

I agree, an influx is sorely needed. Just think of all the people that play on zynga poker ALL the time that might plunk some real cash onto a regulated site. Probably in the hundreds of thousands if not more.

[UncleHoot 0]

Wait.Didn't you pretty much agree in that thread that you didn't understand the basics of taxes?Generally speaking I don't trust the Government to make things better, but On-Line gaming has shown an inability to self regulate.

No, I don't know a lot about taxes (I'm not a tax professional), but I'm 41 years old, and I've been filing my own taxes for many years. I was wrong about the AMT being the culprit that caused a person to lose more in taxes than they actually profited. I don't know exactly what causes it, but that doesn't mean that something isn't causing it.One situation I used, where I made a $2,000 profit with a 2% ROI meant that I lost my entire $2,000 to the federal government and ended up owing my state a few thousand more (around $5K, iirc). My tax adjusted "net profit" became about negative $5,000.Please feel free to read the information posted by Russel Fox regarding gambling and taxes. You'll see what a ridiculous system we have in the US. Thank God PS and FT don't report tax information.http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-No...ambling-tax.htmhttp://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-No...d-questions.htm

[UncleHoot 0]

well ya, i meant net profit. but some states laws are actually silly enough as to say you would have to be taxed on net cashes, so theoretically you could be taxed as a losing player. from what i've read, the ppa seems to think that will be fairly easy to fix. i'm all for regulation. the influx of new players and the games loosening up will be great for everyone in my opinion.

Just for the record, my examples weren't entirely serious.Yes, losing players that win any money at any time would be taxed by their state (depending on the state), so if you lost $10,000 and won $5,000, you'd be taxed on that $5,000. Yes, that's an easy fix, perhaps, but it's something that probably needs to be fixed in 30-some states (just a guess). Additionally, on your federal taxes, you could still end up paying more taxes, even as a losing player, depending on how much money you gambled, and whether or not you itemize or take the standard deduction.I hope the US does this right, but from past experience, I know that when Congress tries to legislate something "from the ground up", it tends to fail miserably, and that's essentially what they're doing in this case, rather than passing legislation "after the fact".

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Additionally, on your federal taxes, you could still end up paying more taxes, even as a losing player, depending on how much money you gambled, and whether or not you itemize or take the standard deduction.

You don't make a lot of sense to me.

[GWCGWC 83]

The Commerce should take a neutral stance on pro regulation/legalization stance. It seems very shortsighted to be against this bill. Their poker room wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is if people didn't play online.

[UncleHoot 0]

You don't make a lot of sense to me.

Itemizing versus taking the standard deduction? EDIT:Ok, I'll try to explain further...If you normally take the "standard deduction", because you do not have enough itemized deductions to overcome the threshold, and then you "win" $5,000 while also "losing" $10,000, you can claim that $5,000 under your itemized deductions.So... Let's say you were $800 short of meeting the threshold, so you normally take the standard deduction. But this year, you "won" $5,000 playing poker online. Ok, so you want to offset your "winnings" by deducting your losses (up to $5,000). Now you're way up above the standard deduction threshold, so you would be taxed on the $800 that you "won", and you would owe about $200 to the federal government, if you were me.Make sense yet?

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Itemizing versus taking the standard deduction? You don't make a lot of sense to me.

If you have gambling losses in excess of the standard deduction, then you would itemize. If you don't then you take the standard deduction. But then taking the standard deduction would save you more taxes.

[UncleHoot 0]

If you have gambling losses in excess of the standard deduction, then you would itemize. If you don't then you take the standard deduction. But then taking the standard deduction would save you more taxes.

see above (I didn't edit quickly enough)

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

Joey, everyone knows you dont know shit about finances.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

EDIT:Ok, I'll try to explain further...If you normally take the "standard deduction", because you do not have enough itemized deductions to overcome the threshold, and then you "win" $5,000 while also "losing" $10,000, you can claim that $5,000 under your itemized deductions.So... Let's say you were $800 short of meeting the threshold, so you normally take the standard deduction. But this year, you "won" $5,000 playing poker online. Ok, so you want to offset your "winnings" by deducting your losses (up to $5,000). Now you're way up above the standard deduction threshold, so you would be taxed on the $800 that you "won", and you would owe about $200 to the federal government, if you were me.Make sense yet?

No, I don't understand. Especially that last paragraph; way up above the standard deduction threshold?Let me first make sure I have the facts right.Total winnings: $5,000Total losses: $10,000Is that right? If yes, then:Adjusted gross income: $5,000Standard deduction: <$5,700>Personal exemption: does it really matter now?Taxable income: or should I say taxable loss?Where did you get the $800 taxable income from?

[El Guapo 8]

Also, if you are a poker player by profession it's a business loss, which is not part of an itemized deduction giving you the ability to take a business loss and still take the standard deduction.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Commerce has responded in a Press Release below as well as in interviews.With further reading I learned that The Commerce also opposed the California only legislation at the State level since it would have allowed 3 online cardrooms to get a license since they only want their own consortium to get one and to be a monopoly.Commerce Press Releasehttp://www.pokernewsdaily.com/commerce-cas...position-15033/

[BaseJester 1]

Where did you get the $800 taxable income from?

From his regular job. More of his income (the part that was previously covered under the standard deduction) from his regular job is taxed because he has gambling income and losses. I'm in exactly the same situation. (Figures made up.)Without poker:Regular Income: $50KStandard deduction: $11,400Taxed income: $38,600With poker:Regular Income: $50kPoker Winnings: $100kPoker Losses: $100kItemized Deductions: $100kTaxed income $50kIf you're already itemizing, you obviously don't have this problem. If you're close to having enough itemized deductions to match the standard deduction, then the effect is mitigated.

[UncleHoot 0]

http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/commerce-cas...position-15033/

Greenstein brings up an interesting point. How many of us would be playing live events AT ALL, if not for online poker? How many players would be in the WSOP ME if online poker never existed? Probably a few hundred. The same is likely true of all poker events.Wouldn't it be neat if Poker Stars (or some other company in the future) started having tons and tons of online qualifiers for local casino poker events? Those casinos would simply register their tournaments and when you logged into PS, you could enter satellites to win tickets to the local (registered) tourney of your choice. In other words, you could have a $10 satellite tourney with 100 players, but each could put the T$ toward whatever local $100 (live) tournament they wanted. The more I think about that idea, the more it seems like a win-win for everyone.