Rake grab? although im not sure what the utility function would be, just sayin'

https://twitter.com/#!/JamesBarnesEsq
James Barnes @JamesBarnesEsq


"Some interesting info from Mark Lipparelli at @GamblingComp seminar hosted by @CKrafcik this morning #Gaming #ICE2012 #Nevada

Nevada licenses applied for & investigations of applicants begun. Due diligence on existing Nevada businesses will be more straightforward.

First licences in Nevada will be granted late spring / early summer 2012. Though testing of "gaming equipment" will take several months.

First wager under #Nevada licence optimistically plausible within this calendar year. #gaming #ICE2012

#Nevada to publish technical standards in next 5 - 7 days. Servers will need to be located within Nevada. #Gaming #ICE2012

(1/3) Issue of "suitability" for #Nevada licence v interesting with bar set high - regulator with limited resources needs to trust licences.

(2/3) odd distinction being made between operators who took legal opinion & operated in "grey area" & those who simply turned blind eye!

(3/3) if you took advice & operated in US you're more likely to be suitable! No discussion of whether operating post UEIGA precludes licence"

It seems to me that one area completely missing from the NV regulations is the use of modern (computer) technology to detect problem gaming. The regulations currently only include traditional methods of detection and prevention (self-exclusion, personnel trained to detect problems, availability of information and referral to addiction hotline) plus information displayed for the player on their time and losses at the games.

The regulations should also include use of automated account monitoring to alert site personnel of possible problem gaming. Patterns of usage, losses, etc. can be automatically tracked, with some standards for triggers that send an alert to trained site personnel who then make personal contact with the player. I don't think anything as draconian as automatic exclusion or referral is required, but at least there should be a personal conversation with the player to bring up the opportunity of self-exclusion or referral.

(Similar post in the MT/HUD thread)

Just had a 1/2 hour discussion with my friend that works at Gaming Control.

They have been looking in on our discussions and bringing up some of our points in their internal discussions.

There are concerns about implementing the rule about a player only being able to take a single seat at a table. This rule is of course, in stone. Problems are, multiple competing casinos are going to be allowed to be skins of a master site/player pool. For example, I could have a Wynn account and an MGM account but both Casinos might use 888 or IGT to run their software. Common on networks like Merge. So I could be logged in on both.

It will be up to the network to prevent me from sitting with myself at the same table or tournament. There could be up to a 30 day window during verification before both accounts are linked and locked out from playing with each other. Obv IP checks, matching names, address, Social Security numbers, birth dates should lock out this occurrence but if a cheat wanted to use different ISPs and different addresses for his accounts, there might be a time where they could do it.

The saver here is that until verification is done, there cant be any withdraws. Hopefully if someone is caught during the verification process, their accounts would be forfeited.

^Updates on when the sites will be able to deal the first hand?

And what about 3rd party tracking sites?

At least one application has come in so the process has started.

you should not be able to open Skin A and then open Skin B on the same computer

obviously, people can get around this by playing on more than 1 computer or using a virtual machine (masking their IP obv)

My initial thought is you should never be able to deposit/play before being verified. This is one of the biggest complaints in the offshore poker sites. People will sign up, site will take the deposit, but then when they go to cashout they can't and/or they end up forfeiting the funds b/c they were associated with a blacklisted relative/roommate/etc.

What a mess

From what I understand "the industry" has muscled quite a bit of policy into the regs. One of the policies is that every skin has the right to go after the same customer and offer their own incentives/bonuses. If a customer wants to grind out bonuses on multiple skins on the same network during the same session, they will be allowed, as long as his accounts don't sit on the same table or in the same tournament. Bonus whoring has the potential to reach new levels.

I guess I can understand that. Each skin would have equal opportunity in this case.

I think the issue is that a lot of casual players won't want to jump through hoops just to get some money on the site. Maybe give them the option to verify their identity when they deposit with a warning that they have to be verified before they can withdraw?

This is how it is going to be done. The site will have up to 30 days to verify the account. No withdrawals till verified.

This may surprise some of you, but PokerTracker does not support or endorse datamining. We are not in the datamining business; we are only in the personal tracking business. If we were in the datamining business then we would not have the support of so many online poker rooms that help us integrate our software with their hand histories, our policy is to follow the terms of service of every poker room we support. What our software performs is no different from what is already allowed in a live poker room, you are allowed to take notes on any observations you may have in the game you are playing in. PokerTracker is just an automated note taking tool; the software performs observations for you, nothing more than that. If we could, we would stop the use of datamined hand histories in our software, but ultimately we have no control over this issue, it is a problem that the sites themselves should - and can stop. Many of the poker rooms that we support have asked us how they can thwart datamining, we can assure you it has been on the poker industry's mind in recent times - we expect some changes to occur that will begin to thwart datamining on some sites within the upcoming year. With that said, there actually are poker networks supported by PokerTracker which permit the import of observed hand histories – but not datamining. When this is permitted by the poker network then PokerTracker complies with the intentions of the network, but we do not know of any network which allows their hand histories to be resold – or scraped when the user is not an active player regardless of observed hand history policies.

Now that our corporate position on datamining has been established, lets discuss the topic addressed in the quote above. Our reading of Nevada State Gaming Regulations is that any company that sells third party databases must apply for a gaming license in the great State of Nevada. This means that the sale of third party datamined hand histories will be illegal in Nevada without a gaming license once online poker has launched. We suspect this will keep out the datamining industry in Nevada, unless the Gaming Control Board decides to issue a license to a company. We have spoken with many of the service providers who have applied for a license, to date none of them have expressed support for dataming, therefore we think it is unlikely that a license will be given to a third party datamining site. To our knowledge, there are no datamining companies that have applied for a gaming license to date; can you please elaborate on which datamining company has submitted an application ProfessionalPoker? The application process is public; therefore it is ok to share this information (unless we misunderstood the intention of your post of course).

PS: We do not wish to derail this thread, therefore if you have any questions about the use of HUDs in the State of Nevada we will be happy to answer questions here - http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/20...l#post31460214

@PokerTracker

You software should include everybody's HHs since the beginning of time then so every player gets an equal chance at the tables. Otherwise use of your software and other's like it is unfair. HUDs should be banned. Player names and notes should remain.

Licensing and regulating and taxing online poker in the US would be very profitable and help poker players here but the US govt will probably mess it up. Too may people want a piece of the pie.

Maybe I'm naive but it seems like most posters have their comments in reverse. Most people are thinking how to put the old Ipoker systems into a regulated environment when the regulators are really trying to put existing B&M poker (with all the rules intact) on the internet. Regulators will run before they walk - forget about multi-tabling, HUDs, rakeback, etc. Think instead of B&M table goes internet - one hand per player, no datamining and high rakes so states can take their fair share (think lottery rake).

What is even worse for Ipoker pros besides high rake is full tax disclosure. There is no way you even get on these sites without the equivalent of a casino players card plus valid security number. The tax rake alone (which doesn't happen in B&Ms) may be enough to dampen appeal of regulated Ipoker.

simply not true...NV regs already allow multi-tabling and I believe player compensation. Also, last I heard HUDs were still ok with the regulations (could change obv)

Here is a tidbit. When a players funds are forfeited due to a rules violation, whatever funds that were not distributed to the folks that were cheated, the site gets to keep. Personally I think the state should get it but the lobbying power of the casinos/game designers is strong.

Which state - Nevada or the players states?

Also, how does an Ipoker site police OPTAH?

So pretty much status quo like the foreign regulatory body jokes - LGA, Kahnawakee, Alderney, etc. Just like now with the offshore sites, NV-licensed sites will be able to close accounts for "rules violations" and keep the money. That's disturbingly disgusting.

This thread is about Nevada regulations.

This is something that has always been impossible to enforce in ipoker.

So if certain apects of poker that are enforced in B&Ms cant be enforced in Ipoker how are Gaming regulators going to resolve this? Will they make you sign a waiver absolving them of liability?

Online poker has its own regulations. It is NOT live B&M poker

How did that "regulation" work for FTP players? This is the U.S., no gambling occurs without state regulatory oversight. All gambling occurs on a level playing field with full disclosure and security to protect both casinos and patrons. To think that any regulatory agency will allow players to have an unfair advantage over another besides skill is just dreaming. You can't even count cards in Vegas, I just don't see regulated Ipoker being even close to what it once was.

The regulations are proposed...I suggest you read them. They make sure casinos have enough cash/reserves. They allow multiple tables and HUDs (choice is up to the site)

New article: http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...dustry-details

Minimum Internal Control Standards (NEW): http://gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/m...v6_12feb14.pdf

Technical Standards (I think these have been out for a while): http://gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/t..._6_12jan27.pdf

this is different than the status quo, you lose everything on offshore sites

no player-to-player transfers (I think we knew that)

A pretty nice freeroll.