I imagine the cost would go down some over volume quantity.
I imagine the #'s issued by Stars and Tilt likely justified use of FPGA's/CPLD's by developers... 96$ sounds about right there,
altho I think some1 was skimming huuuuuuge profit margins.
You go to volume, custom, ASIC's, etc., anything over 30$ is insane.

IIRC, these things had no solar cells[bright idea!], just batteries that would go pfft after 6 months. There's no reason these couldn't be cheaper than scientific calculators imho.

6.140(3) & 6.170(1): Is this long enough? Seems like info that needs to be stored for one year at least, if not far longer.

6.180(2)(a): Records should be retained for a set period of time beyond being "resolved or voided", in case of a dispute that arises.

6.180(4) & 6.180(5): Once again, 90 days is not long enough. Detection by players of problems can take longer. (See the history of 2+2 investigations into site scandals for time frames). These incident and transaction records should be retained for a minimum of one year.

6.190(2): The same notifications should apply whenever changes are implemented, not just when implemented during a player session.

6.190(4): Not sure what "informs or enables" means. Maybe should be "informs and enables".

6.190(5): Might be construed to mean that rules & fees across all jurisdictions must be the same. If site operates in multiple jurisdictions, as allowed by law, there might be a need for multiple sets of rules, fees, etc.

6.190(7): Change "i.e. Poker" to "e.g. Poker" as it's not the only game which is played player vs. player.

6.190(7)(a): Intent of second line is not clear. Maybe change "This includes the ability" to "This includes the prevention of the ability".

6.190(7): Need to add some regulations about returning funds to players who were cheated by collusion, bots, etc.

6.210(4)(c): Add reason for account closure and disposition of account balance.

6.210(4)(d): Add IP address of authorized player.

6.120(4)(e)(1): Seems like "Date of Activity" doesn't apply to this report. Maybe should be "Date of Report".

6.120(4)(f) & (g): Add IP address of authorized player at time of transaction.

6.120: There should also be reports required regarding total player account balances, e.g. a daily/monthly report of total player balances and any transactions to trust accounts to cover the full balances and/or current method of guaranteeing security of the full balances.

And add MAC addresses of NICs used for that account.

Heh. Many, perhaps most, people don't know the difference between "i.e" (id est, "that is") and "e.g." (exempli gratia, "for example"). Usage:

"It's full of sucrose, i.e. 'sugar'."

"We need leafy greens at the pot-luck, e.g. spinach."

I make it no worse than even money that the writer of the bill didn't know that he was saying specifically poker rather than poker as an example. The poster is correct, of course, it should be fixed to cover other games.

Regards, Lee

Booked. (Whoever wrote the bill writes legal language for a living. He knows the definitions of i.e. and e.g., though he might have spaced out when he was writing that specific text here.)

Out of curiosity, what other player-vs.-player games (besides poker) would/could likely get in on this legislation? I truly don't play anything except poker when I visit a casino so I don't know what other games those places have to offer. Everything else I can think of pits the player vs. the house.

Badugi, for one.

Backgammon for an obvious other

Hmm, I would have considered badugi (or any of its variants) to be a form of poker. Perhaps another reason why it's best to read "e.g. poker" rather than "i.e. poker" as stated above.

Good call on backgammon, though... I see several for-money online backgammon sites, now that you mention it. I never knew they existed, but then again, that's another game I don't play.

And I guess mahjongg could potentially take off to the point that enough U.S. citizens would want a for-money site. Gotta keep that door open as well.

Aren't there backgammon computers?

domino's is played for money all the time

A WAN-side connection doesn't have any ability to capture your MAC address under IPv4 and you can't force them to require IPv6 connections since it would create an unreasonable technical barrier for most prospective end users.

Edit: I suppose if registration and other account activity can only be initiated from an installed client, then the client can capture the MAC and send it to the appropriate server... The only problem I see with this method is that it pretty much prevents sites from offering solutions that are entirely Web-based.

Like that ^^

And there are also "unique" identifiers for CPUs and HDs. All are readable by the installed poker client.

These are the proverbial "trained professionals". Don't try this at home.

It's close, I guess. I don't really like it for baseline regulation if it has the potential to limit the technology. I tend to prefer user-installed software myself and so far the market seems to have gone that way, but I feel a little bit uncomfortable about legislation that forces a traditional client-server model.

I'm also not 100% sure it's necessary since law enforcement officials with the cooperation of the ISPs and any intermediary access points can narrow most connections down to a single computer anyway. The guy who is savvy enough to avoid such detection has a spoofed MAC regardless.

Yep.

If they are going to cheat, make them CHEAT. They leave more tracks that way.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...et-poker-sites

The APPLICATIONS FOR INDEPENDENT TESTING LABORATORIES contains neither the words poker nor internet, but apparently that is what it is for.

http://gaming.nv.gov/industry_ltrs/industry_ltr_356.pdf

AB 279 "Authorizes independent testing laboratories to inspect and certify gaming devices, equipment and systems"

it's not just about poker

I believe the devices they are talking about may be wide area progressive slot machines, which were previously restricted to closed loop systems, but with the wire act ruling can now be linked via the internet.

The positive thing here for us is that if States agree to allow pooling of their slots, they open the door for pooling of poker players.

http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2012/ja...-online-poker/

From the link poasted previously ...

Silver State officials announced Thursday in an industry notice that they will begin drafting regulations and accepting applications for private testing labs, which would inspect and help certify online poker sites, as well as other gaming devices in the casino industry.

precisely...they are simply outsourcing the testing

does anybody else think the bolded part above should be clarified?

I think there is definitely a case to be made for limiting tables. It keeps up the speed of play and reduces the viability of small time laundering.

I am happy with four tables, although I know some people can play 8 at reasonable speed. How about 10 max? That should satisfy 99% of players.

Yes, definitely.

Gentle Giant,

Why do you think that there is a relationship between the number of tables played and money laundering?