Does anybody have a clue on why Indian Reservations that have casinos don't have sports betting? I don't get this is all.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act establishes three classes of gaming. Sports betting clearly falls under Class III (basically games where the player is betting against the house as opposed to other players). By virtue of IGRA, Class III gaming is only permitted on federally recognized tribal gaming facilities if the game itself is legal (to some degree) in the state(s) containing the facility AND only if a compact (or legal equivalent) is established between the tribe and the state(s) where the state provides oversight and regulation of the activity (and hence, collects a % of the $$$). Sports betting is only permitted in four states. Only the tribes in those states would even have a shot of offering sports betting.

But so does just about every other game offered in casinos?

Did you read the rest of the post?

Pretty ****ing awesome imo. More states should be fighting back against the over reaching federal government. I hope Christie shows some support and NJ is successful.

For the series "not quiet on the Eastern front," I bring you another encouraging story re: gambling reform at the state level:

http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2011...hydrofracking/

New York state residents were polled by Quinnipiac University (based in Connecticut) on a variety of issues, including gambling. The poll found that 64% of New York state voters are in support of "Vegas-style casinos" or more specifically, the development of non-Indian casinos in the state. (The question was put forth as "Do you support or oppose the creation of non-indian casinos in New York State, similar to those in Atlantic City and Las Vegas?")

Worth noting, I believe - for the purpose of challenging typically held stereotypes - that according to the poll, more NY Republicans are in support of this reform than NY Democrats. (The poll's total results can be viewed in more detail here.)

(Also... Gender gaps were registered in both this poll and the nationwide one I posted about yesterday. The polls did differ not only in regional amplitude, but on subjects (the nationwide re: sportsbetting, this NY one re: casinos). Another difference is that the nationwide poll found the majority of women in opposition to sportsbetting (men in favor), while the NY one sees a supportive majority by both genders, yet a lesser one by women. This interests me: how do men and women view gambling issues differently, and why?)

There exists a (state) constitutional ban in New York on casino gambling, from which the tribes are exempt. But legislative reform may be introduced soon, and governor Andrew Cuomo may back it. However, it'll take time. Says Andrew Cuomo from this article: "You’re going to have two years. You could amend the constitution with language without getting into what regions and where. I could see a scenario where you just amend the constitution and we have two years to put a system together."

I find both today's poll and the one from yesterday to be encouraging signs for the advancement of liberalized gaming in a land founded upon ideals of personal liberty. Hooray for the neocolonial renaissance!

If you mean blackjack, roulette, craps, ..., you are correct. These are all Class III games according to IGRA. This is where things get tricky.

After getting Federal recognition, the Pequot tribe sought to form a compact for Class III gaming with the state of Connecticut for the Foxwoods Casino they wanted to build. Their rationale was that since CT permitted Class III games for "Las Vegas night" charity gaming (at that time), the state permitted Class III gaming under some circumstances, and thus, the tribe was eligible to seek a compact. CT disagreed, and some legal actions followed. IGRA gives tribes the right to sue the state if the state is unfair about forming compacts (this interpretation is being challenged nowadays). The Pequots won the lawsuit. When the smoke cleared, the Department of the Interior stepped in with a set of procedures that had the same legal effect as a compact.

The bottom line is that a tribal gaming facility can only offer Class III games that are permitted in some form by the state. And sports betting is not permitted at all in most states.

Of course, not all games offered by tribal casinos are Class III games. Poker is basically considered a Class II in those states where it is not expressly illegal and commonly played (most states). Bingo is another Class II game.

It's nice to see you posting Macro.

Just to clarify, poker and bingo, as Class II games, still have to first be legal in some form somewhere else in a state in order for an Indian tribe to offer it under IGRA. The difference is that the tribe does not need a compact with the state as well to offer to offer Class II games as is required for Class III games.

Also note that there is no requirement for a tribe to pay revenue to the state in exchange for the compact for Class III games, nor to allow state regulation of the gaming. The state revenue sharing and regulation are negotiated in the compacts in exchange for exclusivity in Class III gaming. (For example, the Florida Seminole tribes were given the exclusive right to offer table games in Florida - blackjack, roulette and craps - and limited exclusivity in slot machines in exchange for state revenue sharing and regulation on all their Class III gaming.)

On the first point, I wrote "Poker is basically considered a Class II in those states where it is not expressly illegal and commonly played (most states)." I think we are saying the same thing. To be more specific, in order to be a Class II game, either (1) the game must be expressly legal or (2) not expressively illegal AND commonly played. Tribes in many states (NY, AZ, ...) have all gotten legal opinions saying that poker can be treated as a Class II game, despite the lack of clear legality - of course, a legal opinion is a far cry from a court judgement.

On the second point, exclusivity is often part of the compact, but it does not have to be. For example, AZ can grant a new license to a non-tribal operator; but if they do, the state gets a smaller percentage of the revenues. (See section 3, part (h) of the compact.)

We are saying the same things.

Congress found that “sports gambling is a national problem. The harms it inflicts are felt beyond the borders of those states that sanction it."

LOL, .... and when is the SuperBowl coming next to N.J. ?

Seriously.

The States rights issue is a live one, fueld by State deficits and a need for revenue

HOWEVER, last time around, when NJ actually had passed an online gaming bill, Christie did a 180 and vetoed it.

There WAS litigation also, which was dismissed.

Google iMEGA for details.

Lol, think Judge Harold Lee (ret.) is in line to get an AZ license ?