Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Poker Legislation & PPA Discussion hosted by Rich Muny Discussions of various poker-related laws and steps players can take to push for better laws.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-27-2012, 01:35 AM   #76
kowboys4
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
kowboys4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,734
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

the first thing that pops out to me is the 30 million liscencing fee. That is a lot of money for a poker site in California. You better be damn sure your going to make 30 million if you are going to try and open one up.
kowboys4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 01:41 AM   #77
kowboys4
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
kowboys4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,734
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Also as far as the chances of this bill passing. I don't pretend to know but here are the factors that would be included in that.

The Senate majority leader is a Dem and they hold majorities in both houses and the governorship. These are not super majorities though so keep in mind that a few dems going the other way could make this a no. BUT even if that rare case were the actual case the reps got boned in redistricting and Dems will have super majorities in both the senate and house most likely next year.

Another bigger factor going for this is that California has had a huge budget shortfall for a while and they keep cutting education. Its widely accepted that voters have had enough of this and say more taxes rather then cutting education at this point. That kind of mindset will make this a very popular thing for legislators to get passed so that the budget shortfall will narrow without doing either of these things.
kowboys4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 02:09 AM   #78
:::grimReaper:::
veteran
 
:::grimReaper:::'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,055
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Questions (sorry if they're answered):

1) When will this be voted on and how long until it's officially passed?

2) IIRC provisional licenses will be given. How long would it take to draft a provisional license?

3) How long would it take to attain a provisional license after legislation is passed, and therefore deal the first hand?
:::grimReaper::: is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 02:46 AM   #79
tamiller866
Pooh-Bah
 
tamiller866's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,651
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by spacegod View Post
Yes, you're missing the point. The point is that I can make anything illegal to raise revenue or protect in-state industry and call it whatever I want, presumably under the guise to protect the children or w/e bull**** they want to dream up.

"Recent studies show MMORPGs are extremely addictive and an adverse health risk for children and teens. To protect California children from these games, you must acquire a license to provide online interactive gaming services to CA residents."



It seems really close to the out-of-state winery issue that went to the Supreme Court imo.
It's very close, and the winery case itself came down to a one vote ruling, but in that case the States didn't block all unlicensed wine distributors, they blocked all out of State businesses from shipping directly to customers with no burden on intrastate shipments.

Those laws were depending on the 21st Amendment giving states authority over alcohol imports, but the instate distributors were allowed to import wine and distribute directly to consumers, making the laws discriminatory rather than regulatory.

Those wine blocking laws would have been redundant had their been a federal law in place blocking unlicensed distributors from accepting direct payments, but since the UIGEA requires a State law violation as a trigger they made unlicensed offering/play a crime.

Since the law would apply equally to an unlicensed instate gambling cafe, an offshore poker site or an unlicensed CA tribal poker site, it should be ruled non-discriminatory.

I doubt they intend to enforce the law against players, but because laws which don't extend to play have been ruled inapplicable extra-territorially (in cases involving State v Tribe), making unlicensed play a crime was probably necessary.
tamiller866 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 03:11 AM   #80
Rich Muny
Poker Players Alliance VP
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ***Only a PPA post if so stated***
Posts: 26,012
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDarkElf View Post
^^^ Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?
No one.

Spoiler:
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 04:17 AM   #81
TheDarkElf
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,667
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
No one.

Spoiler:
Right. It's a trick question. But it seemed appropriate given all the trick questions in an earlier post.
TheDarkElf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 06:51 AM   #82
RU18LOL
fade city
 
RU18LOL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: usd n the streets, btc n the sheets
Posts: 4,503
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

when will we find out if its passed or not?
RU18LOL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 08:18 AM   #83
Do it Right
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,890
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by kowboys4 View Post
the first thing that pops out to me is the 30 million liscencing fee. That is a lot of money for a poker site in California. You better be damn sure your going to make 30 million if you are going to try and open one up.
You're overestimating how large the current unregulated sites, that have revenues in the billions, actually are. http://www.pokerscout.com/ lists the number of average ring game players online at Stars as 25,800. But a person 50 tabling counts as 50 players by their count. If the average player is playing 4 tables, which is probably on the low end given how many 10-24 tablers there are, that's an average of just 6,450 ring game players online.

Looking at a region restricted, pokerscout lists Svenska Spel as having an average of 940 players. That is likely fairly close to the actual amount of players given the lack of many multitablers on that site. California has more than 4x the population of Sweden, the country Svenska Spel is restricted to.

Even if there are numerous sites they will all be making well in excess of 30mm, especially during the initial 'boom' period.
Do it Right is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 08:18 AM   #84
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,305
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by :::grimReaper::: View Post
Questions (sorry if they're answered):

1) When will this be voted on and how long until it's officially passed?

2) IIRC provisional licenses will be given. How long would it take to draft a provisional license?

3) How long would it take to attain a provisional license after legislation is passed, and therefore deal the first hand?
1. The bill has to go through the normal legislative process of committee hearings and votes, floor votes and governor's signature. How quickly it proceeds will be at the discretion of the CA Congressional leaders. The new fiscal year for CA starts on July 1, so my guess is that the bill sponsors intend to get this bill through in the next 3 or 4 months.

2. Theoretically, immediately upon the bill becoming law. But they'll probably do some regulation and forms development first, plus the casinos/cardrooms/horsetracks/OTBs have to work out their alliances and deals with the site providers get their paperwork done to submit an application. I'd put this at late 4th quarter 2012 or 1st quarter 2013.

3. Obtaining a provisional license and dealing the first hand won't be simultaneous. Once the provisional license is granted (see #2), the site then has to build their system inside the state of CA, get it tested, inspected and approved by the state. This may take a few months more. First live hands dealt: late 2nd quarter 2013, imo (assuming passage of the bill this spring).

EDIT: Just noticed that I missed this provision in the bill:
Quote:
b) All initial licenses issued pursuant to this chapter shall take effect on the same date, as determined by the department, but not later than January 1, 2014.
So my guesstimate of first cards in the air late 2nd quarter 2013 is probably right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kowboys4
the first thing that pops out to me is the 30 million liscencing fee. That is a lot of money for a poker site in California. You better be damn sure your going to make 30 million if you are going to try and open one up.
The $30M is not a licensing fee. It is an advance payment against the first three years of the 10% site revenue taxes.

But yes, this is a hefty sum to invest in advance. On the other hand, if CA were an independent nation, it would be the eighth largest economy in the world. I think the poker sites/networks will be falling over themselves in their scramble to get a CA license (as suppliers to the CA casinos/cardrooms/horsetracks/OTBs), as it will be their best foothold into the new US regulated i-poker market.

Last edited by PokerXanadu; 02-27-2012 at 08:35 AM.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 08:19 AM   #85
Micro McD
grinder
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 468
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

"Should this bill not pass, it could be reintroduced as a standard bill but would not go into effect until January 1, 2013 should it pass." http://www.legalpokersites.com/blog/...ll-introduced/

We do have some outs to legislation passed in 2012 as a back up incase nonsense happens.
Micro McD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 08:41 AM   #86
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,305
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micro McD View Post
"Should this bill not pass, it could be reintroduced as a standard bill but would not go into effect until January 1, 2013 should it pass." http://www.legalpokersites.com/blog/...ll-introduced/

We do have some outs to legislation passed in 2012 as a back up incase nonsense happens.
This article is a very good synopsis of the bill provisions. Note though that it has one error: the $30M advance payment by sites is against the first three years of the 10% site revenue tax, not against the full ten years of the duration of the site license.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 02:18 PM   #87
dmyers1166
old hand
 
dmyers1166's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Our lab cali
Posts: 1,671
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Got to laugh at this ..

Quote:
Players would be able to set up deposit limits and loss limits. There is no specific set time for self imposed limits. Every six hours a player would be presented with a pop up screen that would tell the player how long that they have been playing and how much they have won or lost.
For those of us that block results, can we opt out at least for a monthly total. Can we adjust this for rakeback? .. Ok back to the important discussions, but results oriented thing in this Law.
dmyers1166 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 02:37 PM   #88
ScreaminAsian
For President
 
ScreaminAsian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: grabbing life by the pussy
Posts: 19,374
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

^^ plz someone lobby to include "rake paid" in that popup screen

you know, to protect consumers from being taken advantage of by greedy online poker rooms.

is that not a priority?
ScreaminAsian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 02:40 PM   #89
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,305
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmyers1166 View Post
Got to laugh at this ..
Quote:
Players would be able to set up deposit limits and loss limits. There is no specific set time for self imposed limits. Every six hours a player would be presented with a pop up screen that would tell the player how long that they have been playing and how much they have won or lost.
For those of us that block results, can we opt out at least for a monthly total. Can we adjust this for rakeback? .. Ok back to the important discussions, but results oriented thing in this Law.
Actually, that statement isn't totally accurate. Here is what the bill actually says:
Quote:
(b) During play, in order to assist a registered player to decide
whether to suspend play, the registered player’s screen shall do
all of the following:
(1) Indicate how long the player has been playing.
(2) Indicate the net change in value to a registered player’s
account since the time of last logging in.
(3) At least once every six hours require the registered player
to confirm that the player has read the message or give an option
to the player to end the session or return to the game.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 02:41 PM   #90
DeNutza
grinder
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 624
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

So if Ca. pools with other states, this could get very interesting.

Winner pays rake, so I guess if the winner takes down a pot in California, he would pay X rake...If the winner is in NV, he'd pay Y rake.

In split pot games this could really stand out...One could pay a $2 rake in one state, and just $1 in another.

This is gonna open a whole new can of worms.
DeNutza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 02:54 PM   #91
:::grimReaper:::
veteran
 
:::grimReaper:::'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,055
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Thanks for the info Skall!
:::grimReaper::: is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 02:54 PM   #92
Pokeraddict
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: @john_mehaffey
Posts: 9,733
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu View Post
This article is a very good synopsis of the bill provisions. Note though that it has one error: the $30M advance payment by sites is against the first three years of the 10% site revenue tax, not against the full ten years of the duration of the site license.
I wrote the article. Thank you for pointing this out. As you know from reading it, the same point is presented over and over. Although one section makes the three years clear, I mixed it up with another section earlier in the regs that was not as detailed. I have made the correction.

Thank you again,

John Mehaffey/Pokeraddict
Pokeraddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 03:02 PM   #93
Pokeraddict
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: @john_mehaffey
Posts: 9,733
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
(b) During play, in order to assist a registered player to decide
whether to suspend play, the registered player’s screen shall do
all of the following:
(1) Indicate how long the player has been playing.
(2) Indicate the net change in value to a registered player’s
account since the time of last logging in.
(3) At least once every six hours require the registered player
to confirm that the player has read the message or give an option
to the player to end the session or return to the game.
I read that to say that at some point a player would be forced to look at this info as I doubt it will be obvious to find otherwise. The section did not describe how this would be implemented. I used the term "pop up", but it could be done some other way. I picture something similar to the PokerStars bot screen that forces you to address the question and will not let you play until you do.
Pokeraddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 03:32 PM   #94
CheckRaise_
veteran
 
CheckRaise_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: too late axe in the car
Posts: 2,747
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

could stop bots too
CheckRaise_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 04:06 PM   #95
dmyers1166
old hand
 
dmyers1166's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Our lab cali
Posts: 1,671
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Tribal interests way in ..

http://www.caltba.org/news/statement...internet-poker

Quote:
“While we are eager to see the detailed language of SB 1463, early analysis of this legislation leads us to conclude that it violates many of the principles we believe are required for Internet Poker to be successful in California,” said Leslie Lohse, Chairwoman of the CTBA. “The provisions we have been made aware of potentially violate tribal gaming exclusivity which would have a profound impact on revenues generated to the State under current gaming compacts, as well as agreements with local communities, and should not be tossed away so lightly.”
Quote:
“Another major policy concern is that it precludes entities that are legally authorized to offer poker in the State of California at brick and mortar locations from offering poker on the Internet,” Lohse added. “At the same time, it allows other entities who are not legally authorized to offer poker, to offer it online. This is another broken promise and a harsh slap in the face to California Indian Tribes.”
Quote:
“This is another instance where lack of meaningful consultation with Tribes has led to an inferior legislative product,”
Definitely not a glowing endorsement, but unless the tribes get to run it all with no or minimal taxes to the state it really is not there cup of tea. Don't see them as interested in making changes to improve the bill.
dmyers1166 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 05:53 PM   #96
daveh07
Pooh-Bah
 
daveh07's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: broken monitor land
Posts: 3,916
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

So when officially do we get to let the past be the past and stop giving Indians exclusive privileges? 100 years down the road? 200? I say we do it now. They had their exclusivity and should have a huge market domination just because they have been in the market of gambling for so long.
daveh07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 06:12 PM   #97
Pokeraddict
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: @john_mehaffey
Posts: 9,733
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

When I saw the horse racing industry included in this I wondered how that would go over. The bill specifically mentions online horse betting sites as getting included.

Quote:
(4) An operator of an online advanced deposit wagering site
regulated by the California Horse Racing Board that has been subject
to oversight by, and in good standing with, the board for the three
years immediately preceding its application for licensure.
TVG is legal in California and Betfair owns them. This gives Betfair the ability to enter the market without having to find a B&M partner. How many other companies would fit the profile described? I also have to guess that Betfair lobbied for this hard as this wording cannot cover too many companies. I can see how others would think that was unfair since online OTBs do not have the ability to currently offer poker.

I wonder if all of Betfair's rogue behavior would come back to haunt them when trying to get this license if it goes through as currently worded.

I guess I could be reading that wrong and it could have an entirely different meaning. I am not too familiar with how the horse racing industry works. I assume it either means traditional OTBs, online OTBs, or both.

Last edited by Pokeraddict; 02-27-2012 at 06:19 PM.
Pokeraddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 06:46 PM   #98
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,305
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

I have long suspected that Winning Directions was hired by Betfair to run the astroturf organization Poker Voters of America and to push the i-poker bills the last few years in CA, IA and FL. PVoA did back the earlier bills introduced by Wright in CA, which were predecessors to this one. I think you are right that Betfair is one of the vested interests pushing this one.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 07:58 PM   #99
b finkelstein
banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 667
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by daveh07 View Post
So when officially do we get to let the past be the past and stop giving Indians exclusive privileges? 100 years down the road? 200? I say we do it now. They had their exclusivity and should have a huge market domination just because they have been in the market of gambling for so long.
+about 30000000trillion
b finkelstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 08:20 PM   #100
TheDarkElf
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,667
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeNutza View Post
So if Ca. pools with other states, this could get very interesting.

Winner pays rake, so I guess if the winner takes down a pot in California, he would pay X rake...If the winner is in NV, he'd pay Y rake.

In split pot games this could really stand out...One could pay a $2 rake in one state, and just $1 in another.

This is gonna open a whole new can of worms.
NO. What you described is not how it would work at all.

First, forget about CA pooling with NV.

Next, "pooling" means a site can have a license in more than one state, and hence, accept players from multiple states. The rake would be up to the site, and won't have anything to do with which state whoever is paying it is from.

Some issues such as gaming taxes the sites have to pay would get more complicated. But the site's servers will do whatever math is involved, and it really isn't a concern of the players.
TheDarkElf is offline   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


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.33 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online