Good article on effect:

http://www.uspoker.com/blog/wright-c...ne-poker/7345/

cliffs: not much plenty of players to carry the ball, just have to decide on the direction.

So basically we have no chance this year of getting anything passed?

yup. Nothing really exciting is getting passed this year. Cannabis was also pushed to 2016. Going to be a real ****ty year for California freedoms.

That makes me a saaaad panda

So these 2 don't have a chance? http://www.flushdraw.net/news/new-tr...ls-introduced/

so depressing

Quick cliffs of AB 2291, Gambling Control Act of 2014, introduced by California State Assembly Rep. Reggie Jones-Sawyer:

Licenses only intrastate online poker.
Makes all other forms of online gambling illegal in CA (misdemeanor for sites, subcontractors and players, subject to both criminal penalties and civil fines), except under tribal-state compacts, and except for intra-tribal operations.

All CA licensed cardrooms and tribes with licensed casinos, which have been in operation for at least five years, (or consortia of these) are eligible to be licensed for online poker. They can each only have an interest in one license.
Licenses last 10 years and are automatically renewed upon application for renewal.

Subcontractors (service providers) must obtain a certificate of suitability.

Applicants for a license pay an application fee to cover the costs of processing an application.
Sites pay an initial license fee of $5M, which is an advance payment against site revenue taxes.
Sites pay a 5% quarterly site revenue tax against gross gaming revenue.
Sites pay a yearly license fee to cover this costs of regulation, enforcement and gambling addiction programs.

Players must be at least 21 and located within CA at the time of play.

All servers, equipment, banking accounts and personnel of the sites must be located in CA, with some exceptions for software development, tech support, etc., as approved on an individual basis by the regulators.

Player funds must be held in a separate banking account in CA, and segregated from all site operational funds. But there are no requirements specified for protection of these monies (trust, insurance, etc.). (Could come later under regulations.)

Protections for compulsive gamblers required, including self-exclusion and self-limit options for deposits, losses and time.

Deposits by check, cash, electronic transfer. Deposits also by cash or money order, but only at a licensee's land-based location (cardroom/casino).
Withdrawals to a player's specified bank account.

All non house-banked poker games allowed, as approved by the regulators.

Sites can charge a per-hand fee for ring games.
Sites can charge a tournament fee for tournaments.

Bad actors: No entity or person can hold a licensee or be an employee of a licensee or subcontractor if they were involved in any operation taking wagers from anyone in CA for online wagering prior to (date not yet specified). Note that there is not time limit on this exclusion.
Sites are not allowed to use the trademarks, software, assets, etc. of any entity that was involved in any operation taking wagers from anyone in CA for online wagering prior to (date not yet specified).

Go-live date is Jan 1, 2015, but can be pushed back if necessary.

State of CA must opt out of, or not opt into, any federal law authorizing Internet gambling and any federal law authorizing interstate or international Internet gambling agreements.

Sites can have multiple skins and can pool players with other licensed sites in CA.

No accommodation for interstate/international player pooling.

No Internet gambling cafes allowed.

Sites must provide protections against cheating, fraud, collusion, bots, money laundering, problem gambling.

Sites do reporting, and possibly withholding, for state income taxes.

Not perfect--with the "exclude PokerStars" clause. What is the reasoning behind not pooling interstate or international? Our expectation would be that would change in the future?

Richard Shuetz has made it pretty clear that they (California) believe they don't need to compact with any other state or country. Ultimately it isn't up to him, but if California launches and is successful, I don't see it changing. The tribes don't want it.

Does Jan 1, 2015 seem like a legit date for at least one site up and running?

IF AB 2291 were to become law and everything went smoothly

'AB 2291 states that all licenses approved before the industry is live would be dated January 1, 2015. That is when all sites would go live. The date could be changed if there are delays. "

But, "AB 2291 is an urgency statute. This means it would require a two-thirds majority to pass. It would go into effect immediately if it were to pass both the California House and Senate. If passed into law, California regulators would have 270 days to adopt regulations"

http://www.californiaonlinepoker.com/ab2291/

None of the "potential players" in CA want anything to do with NV gaming commission, the NV casinos, or the two miserable NV senators the casinos have in their back pocket.

You have a better chance of being struck by lightning.

^^^ a bit too negative, its in the tribes hands. They have the pull to move a bill, if not opposition forms other than Adelson who I'm sure will be active in CA. There would be a shot. If there is a majority in the committee, then the bill can get to the floor. Tough part is tribal bill is a 67% passing bill. I think the Dems have close to that and maybe a few Repubs will vote for it. It is pretty black and white, if it has the votes it will be passed, if not 2015 will be the next shot. Maybe 20% seems close for the shot.

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/0...rnia-17577.htm

So when will those two bills be addressed?

I want to post this excerpt here from the new Jones-Sawyer, Pechanga-backed bill for Martin and Curt to examine carefully. The reason is that the more I re-read it, the more I'm convinced that this bill is a giant shuck, a virtual complete ban on online gambling in California disguised as an online-poker regulatory measure.

This comes from the longish second paragraph of the bill's overview:

The bill would prohibit the offer or play of any gambling game provided over the Internet that is not an authorized Internet poker game permitted by the state pursuant to this bill. The bill would prohibit, among others, a federally recognized California Indian tribe that operates a gaming facility that accepts bets from players within the state but who are not physically present on Indian lands when making bets from operating an Internet poker Web site.

The context is also somewhat important. I discovered that this bill took a lot of the text of the old Wright bill, changed "gambling" to "poker", and then added in lots of other stuff.

Later on in the same paragraph, the overview then says that violating the bill -- including playing on non-authorized sites -- is a misdemeanor. The bill also outright bans all other forms of internet gambling excepting poker.

Now look at that second sentence. "... that accepts bets from players within the state but who are not physically present on Indian lands when making bets [is illegal]..."

If you parse it carefully and boil it down, this states that even the sites authorized via this measure could only accept bets from players who are physically on tribal lands; players would have to travel to their nearest participating rez, laptop in hand, to play.

So even online poker would be illegal under this bill unless players were physically on a participating reservation. Sounds like a ban to me. Curt? Martin?

No, that's not what the bill says. I can see how you can get that from the summary statements, but those statements don't have the force of law.

The reason that wording is included in the summary statements is that the text of the bill addresses three things:

Intra-tribal online wagering.
Intra-state online poker.
Intra-state online gambling.

The first is exempted from being illegal. That is, online wagering (including poker and casino gambling) on tribal lands will continue to be legal as permitted under federal laws. That applies to just sites and players wholly on Indian lands.

The second is licensed and regulated under this bill. Non-licensed becomes expressly illegal as a misdemeanor, for both sites and players.

The third becomes expressly illegal as a misdemeanor, unless conducted by an Indian tribe under a tribal-state compact.

So that second sentence, "... that accepts bets from players within the state but who are not physically present on Indian lands when making bets [is illegal]...", is just addressing intra-tribal online wagering. You have to be on Indian lands when participating in any intra-tribal online wagering system (one which is authorized under federal law, but is not intra-state online poker licensed under this bill).

Do we know when these two bills are brought for vote?

^^^ cart before the horse, but there is some talk of a committee hearing in the next month or so, that is the first step. Then hope for a floor vote can begin.

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/0...oker-17631.htm

Sounds pretty positive imo.

Yea I liked it too. Even the guy who was opposed to online poker basically said "it's gonna happen sooner or later, so we might as well get in while we can control the language of it".

Having a business background, i find it unreal how slow and inefficient Californians ability to make changes to their state is. Esp for a state who needs to find new means of positive cash flow.

I'm very ignorant to politics, but this just seems beyond ridiculously to me.

problem is that you are not the only one who thinks their own point of view is the obviously correct point of view, and that all others are ridiculous. This leaves people at odds and with no solutions.

compromise doesn't mean 'just do it my way'

The problem isn't about opinions. The problem is about who's gonna get more of the profit. It's about greed not "the correct point of view".

99% of the politicians are corrupt and they couldn't care less about the citizens of California as long as they get theirs.

But the true problem that's been deterring online poker has been the Indian Casinos. Their views were similar to Sheldon Adelson where they fear online casinos and poker destroying their brick and mortar.

We'll see how this develops but don't get your hopes up. Same **** different year...

Not trying to derail this thread...but all I can type about is huds will be compatible with whatever kind of software they implement ��