California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill - Page 2 - Poker Legislation

CA is big state with lots of gamblers, LV helps bring that out and lots of casinos. Any fear of lack of fish, is clearly not an issue, if merge as a fish left out on the tables this will be a feeding trough.

At least the sights will set the rake and if enough sites, it should be reasonable or rakeback can come in to help the rake. Still frightening but getting money off in a day, able to plan long term. Future of bigger pools .. all is good. Now how to all the interests at the table feel. We are spectators, but so far the show as started well. Thanks for the review it helps to sort out the good and the bad.

Quote

02-25-2012 , 06:51 PM

#27

Blizzuff

veteran

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,713

Looks pretty solid, thanks for the cliffs.

Quote

02-25-2012 , 06:56 PM

#28

TheDarkElf

veteran

Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 2,667

Quote:

Originally Posted by pianospike

Currently I play on a site where the cash games are raked at 5% up to a maximum of $3. That is generally the rake schedule for cash games, though the micros are raked a bit more at 6.67%. I'm not following how that very simple rake structure (to me, anyway) is more complex than a rake per hand structure, where you likely need a different per hand charge for every level or every two levels. $.02/$.05 would be raked at x per hand, $.05/$.10 would be raked as 2x per hand, and so on. I understand that you may not see a different per-hand charge at every level, but to be fair you should have that.

I also don't get how a fixed charge per hand is, by far, superior to percentages. Putting aside the fact that you would need to know the percentages charged versus the charges per hand to attempt to validate that statement, as a player, I don't think it is beneficial to have a $5 pot raked the same as a $60 pot. It's necessary live because percentages are hard to calculate on the fly.

Maybe this isn't a big deal. But every time I play live and I'm staring at a $10 or $15 pot on the flop and thinking about whether to cbet air, I think why bother when I'm only going to keep 1/3 to 1/2 of the pot and lose the rest to rake.

This is one of the advantages of taking the rake from the players' stacks as opposed to out of the pot. Now if you steal one of these orphan pots, you get to keep the whole pot. Promotes action.

It doesn't have to be every player either. It could just be a fixed fee paid by the button - this is fair since the button rotates.

Quote

02-25-2012 , 06:57 PM

#29

Micro McD

grinder

Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 468

Oops wrong numbers glad you fixed it early thanks.

Awesome, was expecting worse so im kind of pleased with this bill. I know it's all speculation but I would love to hear any informed opinions on how long this will take to pass. Or even just what's the earliest is could possibly pass if they wanted to rush it through. Thanks

Quote

02-25-2012 , 07:25 PM

#30

cheet

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,498

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ Fox

]6. No limit to the number of licensees, but they must be either an authorized cardroom in the state (i.e. Commerce, Bike, etc.), an Indian tribe operating a casino in CA, a horse-racing track in CA, or an online entity taking bets on horse racing in CA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

Until January 1, 2016 (or longer if extended by the legislature), a finding of suitability of a licensee or supplier by any US state gaming agency can be accepted provisionally by CA, and later issued a permanent okay. In other words, any company currently licensed or found suitable by any US state gaming agency can be provisionally allowed to operate in CA immediately. So, once regulations are in place, sites can go operational immediately instead of having to wait for the CA agency to complete processing of their applications.

How can both these things be true?

Quote

02-25-2012 , 07:42 PM

#31

ScreaminAsian

For President

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 33,333

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ Fox

The bill is now available. (Note that it is SB1463, not SB1436.) Here are the highlights:

...

15. 5% withholding to the FTB (California's tax agency) of net tournament winnings when they are at least 300 times the buy-in and more than $600. Withholding is on a tournament-by-tournament basis.

when it says 'and' does that mean there's a withholding if either condition (300x buyin, and net win of more than $600) is met? or that both those criteria need to be met in order for there to be a withholding?

Quote

02-25-2012 , 07:45 PM

#32

PokerXanadu

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 10,583

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheet

How can both these things be true?

The CA casinos, horsetracks, cardrooms, etc. will be the CA-licensed operators of the sites. The non-CA poker networks (PartyPoker, 888, IGT, USDG, ShuffleMaster, etc.) will be their approved suppliers.

Quote

02-25-2012 , 07:46 PM

#33

PokerXanadu

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 10,583

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian

Both.

Quote

02-25-2012 , 07:53 PM

#34

Didace

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 19,856

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian

Quote:

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

Both.

Isn't that pretty standard and not unique to this bill?

Quote

02-25-2012 , 07:53 PM

#35

cheet

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,498

ok sounds good, so can this just pass immediately plz?

Quote

02-25-2012 , 08:02 PM

#36

DeNutza

banned

Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 626

It looks very good as it allows every current CA gambling licensee (cardroom, Indian casino, racetrack and OTB) to get an online license. Of course, the $30M prepayment will be a barrier to some. But really, you don't need a whole lot of licensees - probably on the order of ten - to generate a highly competitive marketplace that will benefit the consumers.

Probably not more than 3-4 cardrooms could even afford $30 million in cash. Sites will have to team up with companies like Party Poker to help offset the costs...Id also expect Indian Casinos to team up with each other to help finance it...

I bet only a few even go for a $30 Million price tag, and the rest sit back and analyze the market for the first year or two...Can you imagine 10 web sites in Ca alone? Heck thats even too much $ for 10 world wide (10 big sites big enough to recover a $30 Mill fee)

And expect rake to be initially high just to cover the costs.

Quote

02-25-2012 , 08:05 PM

#37

PokerXanadu

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 10,583

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didace

Isn't that pretty standard and not unique to this bill?

No. This bill is talking about withholding for CA state taxes. The sites would no doubt also have to do standard backup withholding for federal taxes as well (i.e., 28% on net tournament winnings of $5,000 or more unless you provide them with a W-9).

Quote

02-25-2012 , 08:52 PM

#38

Jonaspublius

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,182

Anyone know how easy/difficult it would be for players to alter the regulation of ipoker via a ballot initiative AFTER it was passed? For instance, to lower rake, pool with other states, or lower barriers to entry?

Quote

02-25-2012 , 08:56 PM

#39

jweez

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,620

If they are targeting profits earned during the 2012-2013 fiscal year, which begins October 1, 2012, they must have intentions of really moving this quickly.

Quote

02-25-2012 , 10:16 PM

#40

dmyers1166

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,671

Quote:

Originally Posted by jweez

If they are targeting profits earned during the 2012-2013 fiscal year, which begins October 1, 2012, they must have intentions of really moving this quickly.

Plus, CA budget must be in I'm guessing 6/1 or so it is close to that. They fudge this a lot but no pay if late and it has to balance. I think they are hoping for min 7 licenses to help the budget might represent 10% of the deficit so it is a reasonable amount of money plus taxes jobs etc. Might get to 15% or so .. It's mostly a battle between tribes, other tribes and cardrooms. Nice to had the pony tracks to the mix.

Quote

02-26-2012 , 12:00 AM

#41

Russ Fox

tax practitioner

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 884

The CA budget deadline is rarely met though it no longer requires a 2/3 vote. However, the funding does require such a vote. This measure also requires a 2/3 vote, so it does require Republican support to pass.

I believe California is looking at between a $10 and $16 billion deficit for the next fiscal year so this measure really is just a drop in the bucket. The key measures (from a Democratic point of view) are the tax increases that will be on the November ballot.

-- Russ Fox

Quote

02-26-2012 , 01:10 AM

#42

dmyers1166

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,671

^^^ correct math issues tonight for me . I doubt tax increase will fly, I could be wrong but really doubt it .., if dems 100% doubtful but maybe the money will be enough from the interests, then like 2 or 3 rebs needed.

Based on the last few times if it gets to a vote it will pass. Getting to a vote seems to be the issue.

Quote

02-26-2012 , 01:52 AM

#43

LegalRobbery

grinder

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 598

Does anyone who is informed on the issue have a guess at how likely it is that this passes?

Quote

02-26-2012 , 02:15 AM

#44

Scott Tom

banned

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 290

Quote:

Originally Posted by pianospike

I'm concerned that this will require a rake sheet that is the size of a large novel, given the diversity of games and stakes that can be offered online. Plus, it will make California players incompatible with other states later on down the road. Laws can always be changed. It's in both the casino's and player's interests to see this one changed. We should try to push for this, imo.

Aside from that, thank you PX as always for your thoughts and comments.

Not really. There is an extremely obvious way around the confusion to tweak things gently without constantly having to revise the drop...VIP programs.

They can offer more or less rewards to keep everyone happy. I think these businesses are more intelligent than everyone thinks. You have to give action to get it.

So while $2 a hand drop for $1-2 might be penal, they could easily have a VIP program to in essence make it all a %. Free food in commerce top section etc...the rake is high but you can get some of it back.

Quote

02-26-2012 , 03:06 AM

#45

DeNutza

banned

Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 626

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Tom

they could easily have a VIP program to in essence make it all a %. Free food in commerce top section etc...the rake is high but you can get some of it back.

Lets hope not....Sounds like a copy of Stars business model. A site that gave more to the pros than the recreational players.

A site that has now admitted in 2012 that they are having a hard time getting new recreational players...And they dont understand why.

The sites never had a problem of attracting recrereational players..its keeping them thats the problem..

Im voting for all the casinos (NV and CA) that team up with Party Poker..The last site to do anything right.

Quote

02-26-2012 , 03:17 AM

#46

CallMeLucid

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,828

OMG EVERYONE USE THEIR ONE TIME ON THIS BILL!

Quote

02-26-2012 , 04:56 AM

#47

Golfing_Stud

4L Fantasy Football Champion '14

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 4,995

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ Fox

2. All Internet gambling that is not authorized by this law will be specifically illegal (a misdemeanor).

-- Russ Fox

Could be a stupid question but.......

I just want to be clear, if this passes it's a misdemeanor for a site like Merge to offer poker to Californian players correct ?

Not a misdemeanor for me to log into my account and register for a SNG the day after it passes if I'm unaware or aware for that matter about the bill ?

Thanks to anyone able to answer this.

Last edited by Golfing_Stud; 02-26-2012 at 05:11 AM. Reason: I see where PokerXanadu said it's a misdemeanor for players, ugh I hope there is some amount of time to cash out then.

Quote

02-26-2012 , 05:03 AM

#48

TheDarkElf

veteran

Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 2,667

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfing_Stud

NO.

This is a player penalty. In theory, you could be prosecuted for playing on an unlicensed site.

Quote

02-26-2012 , 05:12 AM

#49

Golfing_Stud

4L Fantasy Football Champion '14

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 4,995

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

NO.

This is a player penalty. In theory, you could be prosecuted for playing on an unlicensed site.

Thanks Dark I see where PX had addressed this and edited my post, do you think they'd allow us to get our money off the non-Californian site or have a some sort of grace period after it's enacted ?

Quote

02-26-2012 , 05:19 AM

#50

TheDarkElf

veteran

Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 2,667

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfing_Stud

Thanks Dark I see where PX had addressed this and edited my post, do you think they'd allow us to get our money off the non-Californian site or have a some sort of grace period after it's enacted ?

Can't say for sure, but it will be a couple of months before this one passes (if it does), so you have time.

Quote

Page 2 of 56

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 22 52

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 56

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 22 52

Last