I only skimmed the thread, is there language that specifically says sites must withhold winnings? If not, I assume they'll simply send you a tax form at the beginning of the following year and make it the players responsibility to file winnings.

The bill says:

It will be up to the regulators and the FTB to determine the rules for withholding. As the FTB enforces withholding from live tournaments in CA to some extent (non-CA residents at least), I think they may want to enforce withholding from online poker at least to some extent.

Based on other parts of California tax law, the FTB will likely exempt California residents from withholding; nonresidents will be subject to 7% withholding on any tournament cashes of $1,500 or more (net). That will be tournament-by-tournament.

-- Russ Fox

Lol after over 4 years, these greedy bastards lost their chances. They all wanted a piece of the pie but there are none left. No one talks about poker anymore. It's the thing of the passed.

So California's having another hearing about online poker this month. Did we know this? Isn't this good news? This is sad but if we can get ca linked up with nj and one other state by 2020, I'll be happy lol

what day?

It just says by the end of this month. It's on cardplayer.com

4/20 has been suggested

Actually they are now saying the 27th

Sent from my LGL33L using Tapatalk

According to Californiaonlinepoker.com's article from a few weeks back, it has to pass through GO by the 22nd, I think.

The latest is that there is an informational hearing in that committe on 4/27 where online poker may be brought up.

Its not a hearing specifically for Gray's bill nor is the bill on the agenda, so it seems like a lot of hope

FWIW I dont think CA can psss this bill with needed 2/3's as long as Pechanga remains opposed, and they arent budging.

CA legislative deadlines dont appear very firm

Sent from my LGL33L using Tapatalk

http://agov.assembly.ca.gov/hearings

Sent from my LGL33L using Tapatalk

so what will happen on the 27th? a vote?

For this bill, it is the first committee hearing. This is not the same bill that passed a committee vote last year, so it's basically square one. It's possible the committee could vote to pass it out of committee, but there hasn't been any indication that vote will happen. This hearing has been dubbed an 'informational hearing' in the poker media, which makes me think it won't be followed by a vote.

There is something in this bill for everyone to not like. Obviously Pechanga is going to oppose as it allows Pokerstars to enter (and likely dominate, making it tough for anyone else to make $$ from CA online poker, and why would you support creating a market that 1) cedes your exclusivity and 2) doesn't return a profit for same?)

Pokerstars objects to language that would forbid them from taking advantage of their huge database acquired while operating illegally for many years, although that objection is probably not a deal-breaker.

well, it passed 18-0

next step?

Just FYI, tribes have to either allow poker stars or not, there will be language like suitability and offering poker after 2006 etc. Bottom line is poker stars or no poker stars, maybe a compromise like no use of mailing lists (tainted assets), but my guess is either ban or allow. If tribes resolve this issue it passes and count down to 2018 starts to play in CA. Note CA will be closed market no intrastate to start.

I love stars and there software, played there for years and by far is best service, company and site. Would never look else where in CA just sign up and play their partners.

Personal opinion, let's just ban stars and let's move on. The insider trading has mucked it up again and even if no crime is found this issue will delay the process for years. I play bovada, whatever crappy software will come in can only be better than bovada. I'll pay my taxes enjoy the fish and let's get it done. If missed again new assembly + senate and the bill may not be this close again. I know there is felony for playing on "illegal" sites. But I want to play regulated poker. That's it.

This post sums it up pretty well, I couldn't agree more.

We all know Pokerstars will dominate the market and only they and their chosen partners will be able to turn a buck. This leaves zero reason for Pechanga and others to support online poker legislation. This goes for every other state with tribal gaming, it will be the same argument and stalemate.

California was closer to regulation just before Pokerstars announced their CA partnership, and torpedoed the bill under consideration, than they are now.

As long as Pokerstars wants to be their competition instead of their supplier, there is going to be severe tribal opposition to them everywhere.

Anti-poker Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has, unsurprisingly, asked California legislators to oppose that state's bid to move forward with licensing of online #poker: www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=files.serve&File_id=A08D5248-4754-4154-9D55-38DDCBD7CE54

**** Friday #Fight4Poker Extra ****

• The Sacramento Bee ran an op-ed in opposition to California's online poker licensing bill. Let's make & like some comments in response:
► www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article74541332.html

I hate Feinstein. She needs to hurry up and die.

But I'm actually cautiously optimistic on this overall. I've been following this for the last couple years and never seriously thought a bill would be passed, but the subsidy for horseracing was brilliant. The importance of unions in California politics cannot be overstated.

How powerful is the Pechanga coalition? Do they own any one person who is a critical cog in the process, or do they just generally have influence with a lot of people in politics? Because if it's the second, having the unions in the camp of online poker might trump Pechanga.

^^^ evil part of the process is how this bill must pass 2/3 of both branches .. That's a high bar to cross ...

Maybe a 3-5 year ban could be a line to try. .. then Pechanga as to commit obstruction or get in the game. Some small chance maybe but as above I'm for no stars and lets get on with it.

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/...ampaign=buffer

A rebuttal to the previous sacbee article.

Isai sold the business, THEREFORE it's now at high risk for money laundering, nonspecific criminal acts, and children.

QED bitches

I originally posted this in the Bovada thread as I was thinking about playing there. Situation is they I live in LA but driving to the casinos can be an hour + drive and playing 30 hands an hour can be a bit of a drag..

I have been doing some research regarding the "legality" of playing poker online in CA. I know that there is currently AB 2863 under consideration in CA but in doing research on whether there is any law prohibiting playing online, I came across this:

"330. Every person who deals, plays, or carries on, opens, or causes to be opened, or who conducts, either as owner or employee, whether for hire or not, any game of faro, monte, roulette, lansquenet, rouge et noire, rondo, tan, fan-tan, seven-and-a-half, twenty-one, hokey-pokey, or any banking or percentage game played with cards, dice, or any device, for money, checks, credit, or other representative of value, and every person who plays or bets at or against any of those prohibited games, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punishable by a fine not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment."

The one part that is concerning regards "every person who plays or bets at or against those prohibited games" My understanding is that poker would not fall under these categories but is this still a grey area?

Thank you

Check this out:
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Artic...s-gambling.htm

In California, poker is a percentage game if the house takes a percentage of the pot as rake. That's why the cardrooms there charge a fixed rate on each hand, not a percentage rake.