Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > General Poker Discussion > Poker Headlines

Notices

Poker Headlines Serious discussion about news from the poker world.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-17-2012, 03:09 PM   #76
banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: searching for a nickel
Posts: 128
Re: Nevada Gaming Commission Proposed Regulations for Interactive Gaming

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josem View Post
Gentle Giant,

Why do you think that there is a relationship between the number of tables played and money laundering?
Rake grab? although im not sure what the utility function would be, just sayin'
LifeT1lt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 02:28 PM   #77
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,843
Re: Nevada Gaming Commission Proposed Regulations for Interactive Gaming

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"

Last edited by LT22; 01-24-2012 at 02:42 PM.
LT22 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2012, 06:50 AM   #78
White Knight of FL Poker
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bluffing the Space-Time Continuum
Posts: 9,022
Re: Nevada Gaming Commission Proposed Regulations for Interactive Gaming

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.

Last edited by PokerXanadu; 02-07-2012 at 07:11 AM.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2012, 08:38 PM   #79

 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Click avatar to order
Posts: 12,326
Re: Nevada Gaming Commission Proposed Regulations for Interactive Gaming

(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.
Professionalpoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2012, 08:58 PM   #80
old hand
 
:::grimReaper:::'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,518
Re: Nevada Gaming Commission Proposed Regulations for Interactive Gaming

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

And what about 3rd party tracking sites?
:::grimReaper::: is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2012, 11:04 PM   #81

 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Click avatar to order
Posts: 12,326
At least one application has come in so the process has started.
Professionalpoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2012, 11:41 PM   #82
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,843
Re: Nevada Gaming Commission Proposed Regulations for Interactive Gaming

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
LT22 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2012, 03:27 AM   #83

 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Click avatar to order
Posts: 12,326
Re: Nevada Gaming Commission Proposed Regulations for Interactive Gaming

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.
Professionalpoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2012, 08:13 AM   #84
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,843
Re: Nevada Gaming Commission Proposed Regulations for Interactive Gaming

I guess I can understand that. Each skin would have equal opportunity in this case.
LT22 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 12:00 PM   #85
adept
 
buzz12586's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,141
Re: Nevada Gaming Commission Proposed Regulations for Interactive Gaming

Quote:
Originally Posted by LT22 View Post
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
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?
buzz12586 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 12:46 PM   #86

 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Click avatar to order
Posts: 12,326
Re: Nevada Gaming Commission Proposed Regulations for Interactive Gaming

Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz12586 View Post
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.
Professionalpoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2012, 03:51 PM   #87
Commmercial Software Advertiser
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,809
Re: Nevada Gaming Commission Proposed Regulations for Interactive Gaming

Quote:
Originally Posted by :::grimReaper::: View Post
^Updates on when the sites will be able to deal the first hand?

And what about 3rd party tracking sites?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professionalpoker View Post
At least one application has come in so the process has started.
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2012, 05:48 PM   #88
stranger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 12
Re: Nevada Gaming Commission Proposed Regulations for Interactive Gaming

@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.
AAChipMagnet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2012, 07:30 PM   #89
veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 2,479
Re: Nevada Gaming Commission Proposed Regulations for Interactive Gaming

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.
midas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2012, 08:20 PM   #90
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 11,843
Re: Nevada Gaming Commission Proposed Regulations for Interactive Gaming

Quote:
Originally Posted by midas View Post
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)
LT22 is online now   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive