And not only that, but do you (curt) really want online poker in the US run by solely self-regulated Indian tribes? Where are the player protections in that? No state regulatory authorities, no statutory protections, no court-system appeals process - just "sovereign nation immunity".

Red herring, Martin. Sovereign-nation immunity claims remain intact under the current CA bills. The only difference is the Pechanga coalition has the gall to call AB2291 and SB1366 "player protection" bills when there's nary a whiff of player protection anywhere inside. I'm not saying the Santa Ysabel approach is good, but it is technically one tick more honest in the telling.

That's the CA story. I'm looking at the broader, nationwide picture. Plus, even under a CA bill, terms of immunity can be later changed by state legislative action if necessary. Class II gaming under IGRA doesn't have that option unless the US Congress acts to amend IGRA itself, which is unlikely.

Also, under a CA bill the tribes do have to at least have a license issued by the state. That gives the state some leverage to keep them in line, despite sovereign immunity.

good point. there hasn't been enough discussion about swag/wearables in this thread.

AgentMarco,

You might recall that the same announcement, and a big launch party for real money online bingo was hosted, by Desert Rose, last fall at an igaming conference in Las Vegas.

Did not happen back then.

No one attributed altruistic motives to this effort, stop raising pretending just so you can get all hand-wringingly moralistic.

The objective is to make "a few bucks for the tribe" by launching and running an online poker business.

Do I think this poker site will succeed, less than 50% chance. Do I think it may break ground in California regulation, slightly better.

Do I think you have forgotten how, when and where online poker for US players started and then grew into a multi-million dollar worldwide service BEFORE handwringing and regulation/strangulation came on the scene around 2006, yes, you have forgotten.

My gut feeling is this is little more than a bluff to insure an online poker revenue sharing deal is included in any potential bill that may be introduced this year (by Aug 31) or next year.

I was told by Chairman Martin that in addition to bad actor/tainted assets being stripped out, the Morongos insist on revenue sharing being included in the bill.

This is speculation on my part, but perhaps there is some behind the scenes goading taking place with the Iipay?

If it is a bluff here is how I see it playing out:

Scenario 1: A new bill is introduced with revenue sharing before the Aug 31 deadline and Iipay decide not to launch citing new revenue sharing as the reason they have withdrawn.

Scenario #2: No bill is introduced this year and Iiipay are hit with some type of injunction or just continue to threaten to launch until a bill with rev sharing is introduced in 2015... at which point they then withdraw.

statements like this are glimmers of false hope

Those CA bills are dead as door nails

hope upon hope

Any state can come in and specifically ban internet gaming, and so internet poker, even as Class II, is specifically prohibited by law, and the Tribes in said state cannot offer it.

Just like it is here in Washington

Woah, never once said it was cut and dried. I have heard all the arguments for and against, and I have my own point of view. If it were up to me, I know how I would rule. But, as I have said repeatedly, the issue is not going to be resolved by a bunch of us debating the finer points on this or any other forum. This is not the venue in which it will be decided, nor are any of our opinions even going to be heard.

But the issue of Class II gaming is one that must be resolved, in my opinion, and I'm happy to see someone step up and take the challenge.

I don't have a problem with tribes self regulating, but I do want to see two things . . . a revenue share for the state, and a dispute resolution path to higher authority.

Again, the state can demand both from their tribes under the threat of prohibiting internet gambling specifically.

FYP above, based on your statement:
Yes, exactly. They aren't doing this to benefit others, afaict.

Oh, I remember that just fine. I also remember the many, many scandals, thefts, bankruptcies, embezzlements, etc. that came with unregulated sites (or regulation by corrupt agencies), and the many tens of millions (or hundreds of millions?) of dollars thereby stolen from players. Do you?

Not necessarily. If the "ipoker is the same Class II gaming as live poker" argument were to stand, then state legislation banning ipoker would not hold water against IGRA. Under the argument, poker is poker whether offered live or on the Internet. If a casino could legally deal a Texas Hold'em tournament in their b&m then a tribe could do so on the Internet under IGRA. So if this argument under IGRA were to stand, then I believe a challenge to the Internet gambling ban for ipoker by the tribes in WA would succeed.

You may be right. But note that the term "revenue sharing" usually refers to the monies paid by the tribes to the state under a gaming compact. I think what you mean is "profit sharing" amongst the tribes, from the wealthy tribes that can afford the state licensing fees to the smaller tribes that can't.

There may be challenges, but I don't agree they would necessarily succeed. Also, such a challenge likely would cause a rift between the tribes and the state. The state could do many things, from messing with their compacts to an all out ban on poker.

It's called the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund in Cali, which is why I refer to it as revenue sharing

They don't want profit sharing, they want an amendment or a new RSTF setup for iPoker

Ah, thanks. My bad.

Read what you just wrote and then think about what kind of Pandora's Box this Class II fight is.

you've gone from threats of a ban on iPoker to get rev sharing and some oversight to an all out ban on poker

I'm just responding to PX's extreme scenarios, it's not what I think will actually happen.

What I think will happen is Congress will step up to the plate and reopen IGRA to address internet gambling, giving us the best opportunity for a federal solution that we are going to get.

Our opinions differ, but the bottom line point remains: Pursuit of tribal ipoker as Class II gaming under IGRA muddies the waters leading to complicated court and legislative actions, rather than the current clearer path to ipoker under state legislative bills. I think the former will just drag out the issue (more than the latter).

Let me give some insight into the mind of a California gambler that some people from out of state, and especially from out of country might not understand.

1) A ton of people who play here play on Bovada already, which is already being run by the same commission.

2) The legal grey area isn't going to bother anyone, especially the mid and high stakes players because the best mid and high stakes games in California are already legal grey area games.

3) Buying in with bitcoin to a poker site that can face getting raided by the federal marshals at any point is just gambling while you're gambling while you're gambling, and that has a kind of weird appeal to gamblers anyways.

4) There is such a massive pool waiting for online poker in California, that if this site opens up and even if just for a couple months can get away with running a lot of tables, its going to be some of the most +EV poker opportunities for us on the west coast in a real long time.

^this

I don't disagree that this muddies the waters. But it was inevitable someone was going to try, and resolving it, one way or the other, is necessary.

I doubt this small tribe's attempt to make a quick buck before the big tribes get there will deter the online poker movement in California. Pokerstars trying to enter the California market was the downfall of any legislation passing anytime soon, not this.

You seem to have forgotten the constant government interference from 2003 - 2006, from the DOJ, that preceded the UIGEA and then, the 2006 UIGEA, which "regulated" player deposit methods by attacking your ability to fund your poker playing online.

Aside from Dutch Boyd, I am hard pressed to recall ANY significant US online poker operator bankruptcy or even operator embezzlement before 2006.

You intend to represent players', and are sincere in that .... but you have no clue when it comes to the real world. Sorry, but it is US "regulation" that forked manure down US poker players' wells. If you want to serve up regulatory koolaid, drink it on your own.

1. 47 States and millions of poker players have no "legalized" poker to replace the services offered in the grey markets. Thanks to "DOJ/regulators", millions of prospective US poker players have been denied access to a worldwide market for poker services, including PokerStars, among other providers

2. No regulator has ever dealt a hand of poker online.

3. Many of the SAME providers who served unregulated US and world markets before are now providing services within the two States that have allocated their markets among favored in-state B&M casinos. ( I just find it odd you sincerely believe in DOJ and other regulators selling of indulgences.)

That a tribe has sought to establish a right for itself, and others benefit, is subject to snide whining by you, because you do not understand that disruption of the political status quo and markets is messy. Sorry if that's upsetting to your desire for a nanny state over a free market. If poker operators in 2000 or so had checkedin with you for your approval, there would never yet have been a online poker for US players.