Anyone care to take a shot at anlyzing NY? With how cash starved the state is I would like to think they would opt-in, but I have no basis to claim they will.

I see South Carolina has been mentioned but I'll throw in my two cents.

Currently any game of chance, whether played with dice or cards, is outlawed in the state and believe, by the letter of the law, wagering isn't even a requirement for the game to considered a crime (except bingo ofcourse, because as everyone knows, Jesus loves bingo). There was also a big stink several years ago about video poker machines in truck stops and the supposed ill-affects they had on SC, so they were promptly outlawed. I didn't live here then, but if what I hear is correct, South Carolina was a raucous, drunken, orgy-fest much like the Island of Tortuga from Pirates of the Caribbean back when these machines were plaguing the State.

In light of the above, big surprise here, I have little doubt that South Carolina will opt out of the bill

There has, however, been a bit of momentum in the past few years to legalize home games where the house takes no cut. I have little hope that this momentum could possibly be leveraged to get enough support to convince the Governor (or Legislature) to not opt out of a federal bill, though.

J

Funny, how most people seem to think or fear that their state will opt out, but the PPA thinks that only 12 states will opt out. Doesn't this somewhat show that the state opt out clause needs to be onerous on the state to opt out and the tax revenue to the state needs to be substantive or this bill will make matters worse. Beware of giving the states power that they do not currently possess.

Go go PPA?

This is genius. Not only will it give us more accurate probabilities; it's also an opportunity to gamble!

They offer the standard video poker games, blackjack, roulette etc....pretty much the standard online casino, and no they haven't been shut down because there is no law in place that can be applied to them in our state, that is why my Friend was at the hearing at the House of Rep. because they are just now addressing them.

I'm gonna leave some states in their respective categories even though these are of course just rough predictions and there's a chance that things go the other way for each state. Hopefully this will give a rough picture of what's up. (If someone has clout with intrade we can get a much clearer picture.) I'm also consciously biasing the list towards more people in the good guys camp because I feel like a lot of people are biased towards pessimism in their states because of the general anti-government sentiment on the internet and also because I think people aren't fully considering the chance that this just flies under the radar in their state.

P.s. Please please please don't actually plan your life around this list. This stuff probably isn't happening for a while and we're just speculating anyway.

Current predictions:

Predicted Good Guys (9)

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Iowa
Montana
New Hampshire
Wyoming
Virginia

Predicted Bad Guys (7)

Alabama
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Texas (Would like to hear more on this one since Texas is a huge state with tons of online poker players living in it)
Utah
Vermont
Washington

Toss Up/Some Debate (7)

California
Idaho
Massachussets
Minnesota
Missouri
North Carolina
Wisconsin

Not Yet Discussed (27)

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Mississippi
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
West Virginia

General public opinion in Califorinia will not care whether or not we have online poker on a federal level or a state level or not at all. The general public here is much more passionate about weed than poker, unfortunately.

As it stands now, all tribes in California would be opposed. Certain tribes would be opposed because they feel that it violates the current tribal gaming compacts (under which they currently pay the state around $300 million per year) and other tribes would be opposed because they want to run a state-run site with a virtual monopoly. What you heard at the hearing was from a tribe in Connectictut. No California tribes would have been putting forth testimony along those lines.

The tribes here in California are the most powerful lobbying force behind the unions. They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying in the past decade and their power is on the rise. If they are aligned in opposition against us, you will not have a Democrat-controlled Legislature that will go against them for the sake of federally licensed online poker.

I am having difficulty envisioning a scenario in which we could soften this opposition. If, in theory, there was a way to get the tribes in Califorina on board with federal legislation, then California would have a very good chance of not opting out, imo.

LOL at how wrong you are.

I'll add two more states that I'm familiar with:

Nevada:This state won't turn down the revenue and the state already has flirted with online gambling. Nevada will opt-in.

Hawaii: There is no legal gambling in Hawaii. If either the legislature or the governor can opt-out, Hawaii will do so. If the current Governor, Linda Lingle (R) is the governor when federal legislation passes and only the governor can opt-out, then there's a chance that Hawaii will opt-in. Overall, the odds favor Hawaii opting out.

-- Russ Fox

I'd love for you to explain, so that I can sleep better at night.

I'm writing to the (gubernatorial? ) candidates in Oklahoma to inquire about their position regarding online poker and HR 2267. The front runners are Mary Fallin (R) and Drew Edmonson (D)


This is the letter



Dear ____


I am writing to inquire about your position regarding online poker. I am a professional poker player, and I rely on online poker, a peer to peer skill game, for income. The reason I am inquiring is concerning HR 2267 The internet gambling regulation, consumer protection, and enforcement act. If passed, the bill will include provisions for states to opt out of offering regulated and licensed online poker, and though the bill has yet to go for markup and the final details are not yet known, the method for opting out may be as simple as state governors writing a letter.

I, as a voter and as a poker player, support candidates who support me and my civil liberties to do as I wish with my money, and this includes playing online poker. I am not alone. There is a huge community of poker players who follow poker related legislation closely, and they stand and vote with me, and we all have the support of the poker players alliance. Please inform me of your position regarding online poker and my freedom to play. Thank you.




will post any replies I get imo.

My home state of Michigan is dying for revenue and already allows charity poker rooms and short-term licenses for charity-sponsored gambling events, of which there are many constantly running.

Prediction: Michigan opts in.

ALL EXCELLENT POSTS! THANKS!

2 points I want to make:

1) I have to disagree with LetsGambol over Massachusetts. I see MA as very likely to opt in. They are a state desperate for revenue. There are virtually no religious right types. There are plenty of left-ish nanny-staters of course, but they seem to have welcomed the idea of raising revenue through "appropriately regulated" gaming. They have Keno in bars throughout MA, for example. And the instate gaming interests backed down pretty quickly in the battle to remove an anti-online gaming provision from the current casino bills. I don't think they really see it as an issue. And unlike some of the smaller tribal gaming interests, I think they realize that licensed online gaming is not a threat to their operations. I predict Massachusetts opts in.

Which leads to my second point. I wonder about the perceived strength of these tribal interests. If they are as powerful as many of you seem to think, why haven't they gotten better deals for themselves over the past few years? I agree that these are forces to be reckoned with, but I wonder if they are really that powerful.

However, in some states it is clear that they are at least nearly that powerful. California and Florida come to mind. In those states the tribes are paying dearly to the state for the luxury of a state monopoly. And given their smallish nature and the general lack of player-friendly rules in those casinos, their monopoly is very important to them.

But we can also see how some of the bigger, more successful tribal monopolies view the situation differently. The Connecticut Mohegans favor being able to compete in an online market. They realize that being in the online game will actually increase business, not decrease it (much as the AGA has come to that view - at least with respect to poker). Perhaps a little more publicity about the ability of these tribal casinos to tap in to online gaming, at least in terms of advertising their product, may change their attitude.

Skallagrim

One last point. The PPA has never suggested that the opt out number of states would be 12. I, me personally, revealed that I had seen some private studies which gave that number as a "best guess." Because that number is clearly a guess, and because that guess is based on probably less information than we can generate in this forum, I started this thread.

I wrote then congresswoman Fallin a while back with a similar letter over her stance on online poker and received the standard "gambling destroys families, blah blah blah, thank you for your letter" reply.
All that being said, Oklahoma never met a tax revenue that they didn't like so I don't think it's entirely a lot cause here.

GUYS, we're all talking about states optin in and out the bill hasn't even been voted on yet.I don't want to be "Debbie Downer" but there's still a BIG chance that it won't pass.

Coolest and most practical thread in a while. Thanks.

Props also to Noah for doing the grunt work (but you moved VA to the Opt in category rather than opt out. oopsie--unless you know something I don't).

emailed all 6 candidates

Mary Fallin (R)
Drew Edmonson (D)
Randy Brogdon (R)
Jari Askins (D)
Robert Hubbard (R)
Roger L. Jackson (R)

Not surprising. I think she has an anti gambling voting record, believe she has an unfavorable ranking on the PPA site. imo, it's always good to let these people know we are here and we follow poker related issues and vote accordingly.


I'm pretty interested in Randy Brogdon's response. I was watching OETA (Oklahoma PBS station) and they were showing clips from the gubernatorial debate or whatever, and Brogdon was talking about personal liberties and all that, and I'm interested if he has a different stance regarding online poker.

maybe this governor race will finally give me the motivation to start up a political website like I've been thinking about doing imo.

I agree that we need to not get ahead of ourselves, the bill hasn't even gone to mark up yet. And if it does not get a favorable mark up, I will oppose it imo.

That said, there's no harm in speculating on what states may opt out if it passes. There's been some good informed discussion going on and I'm trying to get candidate's position so even if it's all for nil and the bill doesn't pass, at least the PPA can update their rankings for those people.

Nope, no harm in talking about it but I found myself thinking about moving to a state if mine opted out when I had to check myself.It will really suck if this doesn't pass though!!!

I have to think that it's more beneficial in many state's cases to have this more under the political radar. I suspect a lot of states would like to quietly not opt-out and accept the revenue but at the same time not make a big political spectacle out of it.

one thing that will be interesting is this loss limit deal.A 5k loss is a lot for me but it ain't shyte for a couple of my friends.Wonder how they would figure the # out?

First reply (very very quick) is from Roger L. Jackson. Favorable response.





Another interesting note: Roger L. Jackson supports medical marijuana.

from his campaign website


He seems very libertarian and I'm likin it.