If wanting to make sure that NJ poker players get the best possible deal is the equivalent of "sitting on the sidelines" so be it. I doubt Mr. Brennan, with whom the PPA works closely and cooperatively, would use that term though.
The PPA's concern with the NJ bill is simple: we are concerned that that the provisions of the bill which require the NJ casinos to restrict play to only NJ residents will restrict, rather than improve, the online poker experience of NJ residents. PPA's Executive Director stated as much in this thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...r-bill-700243/
These concerns are hardly insurmountable, and the PPA is working with iMega and the NJ legislature to see them addressed. The simplest fix would be for the legislation to simply drop its "NJ residents only" limitation in one way or another, at least with respect to poker games. Given Federal legal concerns, it is unlikely to see a bill that allows the NJ casinos to accept other US players without regard for their own state laws. There are not, however, similar federal legal concerns with the NJ casinos partnering with non-US sites and allowing that non-US player pool to be fully accessible to the NJ players.
This is an issue for poker players only. This is a great bill as written for NJ casino games players (and possibly - again the Feds intervene - sports bettors). But I do not think I need to waste space reminding 2+2ers of the value of a large pool of players when playing online poker.
The concept that the bill as currently written will NOT affect NJ players ability to play on the existing off-shore sites is not nearly as simple as implied above. iMega is commended for resisting any efforts to include penalties for players at these sites. That alone makes this bill far superior to the ones proposed in CA and FL. So does the inclusion of competition rather than creation of a single monopoly site.
But if passed as currently written, the ability of NJ players to play on offshore sites may be curtailed in any number of ways: the idea that FTP and PS are outside of the "jurisdiction" of NJ only presents an enforcement problem, not a legal loophole. If the law is passed as written and held constitutional under the commerce clause, then FTP and PS will be clearly be in violation of NJ and US law if they continue to offer games to NJ residents. That means federal seizures of the money when it can be found, UIGEA being fully and clearly applicable to NJ residents attempts to move money to these sites, and, to a lesser extent, Federal attempts to otherwise block PS and FTP activities. In that context, at some point PS and FTP may not think continuing to offer games in NJ is worth it. Thus it is not clear that by merely not making a criminal penalty for
playing at the current sites, play at the current sites will definitely continue.
And if PS and FTP were to cut a "B2B" deal with the NJ casinos, this current law would still prohibit any such skin from allowing NJers to play anybody other than other NJers. And one cant really imagine FTP or PS making such a deal without a provision that it will not accept NJ players at its main site once the skin is running. This is essentially what happened in Italy, and few Italian players are happy about it.
It is a false dichotomy to suggest that efforts at the federal level to get openly legal online poker are incompatible with efforts at the state level. The PPA has been involved in EVERY state effort regarding poker over the past 2 years. It will stay involved with this one. But unless the issue of the "NJ only player pool" is resolved, it would be wrong for the PPA to fully endorse this NJ legislation.
Which is not to say the PPA will never endorse this NJ legislation, even if it can't be fixed. PPA leadership is fully aware and fully involved in ALL efforts to improve our online player's situation. If other efforts fail and this is all we can get at this point in time, then it may well be that this is what we have to take until we can get something better.
Of course a small step is better than no step. But also consider this: NH created the first modern state lottery in 1964. It wasn't until over 20 years later that the first multi-state lottery was developed. Are you willing to wait 20 years with "instate only poker" to get back to being able to play in the same worldwide games you are playing now? Obviously not if you don't have to.
Skallagrim
PS: two minor factual corrections:
1) iMega does not represent FTP and PS in Kentucky. To the extent they are represented at all, it is by the IGC (the Interactive Gaming Council). The IGC is a Canadian trade organization with FTP and PS as its largest members. The IGC works closely with and donates to the PPA. All three parties have lawyers working the Kentucky litigation and we all work together to the extent we have common interests (and so far there have only been common interests).
2) iMega and Mr. Brennan are commended for putting the best spin possible on the 3rd Circuit case, but to call it anything other than a loss would be wrong. It did not openly rule that the Wire Act does not apply to online gaming other than sports betting; and that it agreed that otherwise the legality of online gaming is subject to interpretations of state law was really never much in dispute. And of course it upheld the constitutionality of the UIGEA.
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
