Pennsylvania Senator Will Introduce Online Poker Bill “In The Next Few Weeks”

Some key points of the bill:

• tax set at 14% of GGR, a little less than NJ
• bad actor clause
• poker-only

The Senate has a gambling-related hearing on June 3rd at which reps for four of the state's largest casinos will testify.

========================

6/28/2016 Update:

Great news! The full House approved the gaming bill, which includes online poker, other online gaming, and DFS, 114-85! The bill now goes to the PA Senate.

Rich M.

I'm not sure who the PA PPA rep is but if you PM a vote for this bill packet I'll print it out and I'll stop over my State Representives office. It's 3 blocks from my house. Senators office is like 15 blocks, I'll bike there.

Subscribing.

I hope everyone has paid attention to the daily action plan this weekend: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=12193

Let your house members hear you. Very small amount of effort required.

Except for the bad actor clause this sounds great.

@PPA I live in PA if there is anything i can do please let me know

It would be great if we could remove the bad actor clause.

It would also be paramount that we can combine player pools with NV, DE and NJ.

I'm assuming it would be PA-only to start but does this bill allow for player pooling as well?

The draft bill is out: http://t.co/CE2bZG5vm0 , and has my thumbs up. Cliffs:

Poker only. (Any poker game as approved by board.)
Age: 21+
Player location: in PA, or in a state with which PA makes an agreement for interactive gaming. (No foreign.)
Bad Actors: Sites, databases, software, personnel, etc. that took wagers from the US after Dec 31, 2006, unless under a US federal or state authorized license.
Existing casinos are automatically eligible for a license.
Anyone else can apply for a license.
Service providers have to be licensed as a significant vendor.
Player funds have to be segregated and protected.
No bots.
Protections for safe & fair games required (collusion, cheating, fraud, software testing, etc.).
Safeguards required for underage participation, player location and compulsive gambling.
Site taxes: 14% of gross gaming revenues less promotional funds (bonuses, prizes, etc.).
Felony with financial penalties to offer unlicensed play (but not for players).
Players who play from unauthorized location forfeit their winnings (money goes to compulsive gambling programs).
Sites pay $5M for a license.
Site brand names have to be owned by the licensee.
No Internet gambling cafes allowed.

Any idea how likely this bill is to make it out of the House? There is a committee meeting tomorrow at 9:30. Is there any way to view a stream of this?

No idea.

Live stream: http://pcntv.com/watch-now/

Rundown of the PA casinos and their potential participation:
http://paonlinegambling.net/penn-cas...g-bill-passes/

Pennsylvania is a huge state to grab in the big picture. They passed up NJ and are second behind Nevada in gaming revenue. The thing is the vast majority of PA gaming revenue comes from inside PA, which would really help for poker. NJ, I would guess, derives their revenue from New York and a bunch of other states in addition to their own revenue. Plus you add PA, you likely pull in Ohio and WV not long after. You start pooling NJ,NV, PA, Del, Ohio and WV, you have the beginnings of something. I've always viewed PA as a lynchpin state that could get things rolling. Populous gambling state.

Companion Online Poker Bill to Be Introduced in Pennsylvania House

Anybody have a stream of the hearing?

http://pcntv.com/watch-now/ doesn't seem to work

Try this

https://pcntv.com/2014/06/03/63565/

Thanks!

Igaming agenda starting now.

Yup. Making some popcorn to be ready for when Andrew Abboud says "online gaming takes gaming too far" and then whips out his cell phone to make a point.

Michael Cohen is quite impressive imo.

Yeah he was very good. This Parx guy is very difficult to listen to.

Ready for the Andy Abboud drinking game?

Drink when:

1. He waves his smart phone in the air to make a point.

2. He says online gaming "takes gaming too far."

3. He says LVS has no financial stake in this, "no dog in this fight," or otherwise indicates LVS' motives are solely focused on helping the children.

And finally...

4. Two drinks every time Andy contradicts himself. For an example, if he were to say something like "at LVS, we have no financial motives behind our views" and then later say something like "it's very possible that online gaming could seriously cannibalize brick and mortar - we just don't know yet."

Just hit #3! One drink. A senator asked Abboud why LVS is the only company up there against online gaming.

Abboud is now talking about protecting the "youth" and calling this "our Joe Camel" moment.

Abboud did a better job than in his last couple outings IMO, but people still think he's FOS as evidenced by the last legislator's questioning of his motives.

Abboud was asked point blank if LVS is genuinely opposed to online gaming due to concerns about "youth" and not for financial reasons, and if he can explain the reason why he has such a different view than all the other gaming companies, who are for online gaming.

Abboud said it's because LVS has a different business model than the other companies.

He said LVS invests in a lot of non-gaming amenities.

At this point, he was cut off for timing reasons, so he did not elaborate much further.

But that is super interesting imo. I don't recall Abboud or LVS ever publicly voicing such a financial reason for their anti-online gaming campaign so explicitly. It sounded like Abboud was saying that because LVS' model is to invest especially heavily in special land-based amenities - more so than the competition and in such a way that very much differentiates the LVS business - that a push to online would undermine LVS' unique model. Of course, people gaming online don't care about land-based amenities.

Sure sounds like a financially-oriented and protectionist viewpoint to me.

Interesting. And here I thought all along he was doing it for the children.

I don't think Abboud can ever overcome the perception that he is FOS. Basically he is making somewhat effective anti-iGaming arguments, but they are arguments that a casino rep, one that has the potential to profit from iGaming, should never be making, unless he has some hidden financial motives.

i missed the broadcast. Is there a recorded version.

I think what he trying to say is that LVS business model isn't as tied up in gaming revenue as the others, so LVS isn't as desperate to sacrifice the well being of the nation's children in hopes of added revenue from online gaming.