We're going to have to wait until we find out what the opt-out procedure is tomorrow before we can say anything close to definitive about any of these states. But to me, it seems like people in general are being overly pessimistic about their states.

I hope that opt-out states will see the positive revenue sources that the opt-in states have available to them and switch, that is one thing I am ok about with the opt-out/in situation is it seems that if Regulated Online Poker works then it will work in a big way and be hard to resist in terms of state revenue. NC is no doubt a toss up, especially based on our recent voting record, but one thing that isn't a toss up is our State Budget, its is obliterated like in many states...I just don't see how even if they opt-out originally how they would stay out and pass up that revenue for long.

Does anyone have a list of the online Horseracing opt-in and opt-out states.

Even with the present language, it is not clear what is the legal opt out procedure. In most states, I doubt that the governor has the power to force his state to opt out. IMO, most state laws or constitutions do require an act of the legislature or maybe public referendum.

Thus, IMO the language needs amendment to clarify the process; hopefully requiring an act of the legislature or public referendum.

Without some serious poison pills or money the PPA does not have, I doubt 5 states opt in. People with casino, racing and lottery interests are so much more connected than poker. Sit here and speculate about budget needs all you want, and how sensible it would be for state X to opt in. Good sense and doing the right thing pale in comparison to potential losses for things they already have their fingers in. Clearly, this will be a federally administered program, and state legislators and regulators can't command nearly the influence they do in legalized gambling today. Its not about "states rights" unless you count the right to be paid off as a legislator part of the 10th amendment. Its clear the Feds can enact regulation on this anytime they so please, and any Federal judge would back them up long before SCOTUS. And yet, here we sit, praying to capricious gods to somehow wave a magic wand and ask 50 separate state governments to make a decision(to them) clearly not in their best interests? Forget NY, California, Florida, Texas, and Illinois. Forget every state with non-indian casinos and most of them that do. You will be lucky to get 4 purple states with just a lottery and a budget crisis plus Nevada. Are we that ashamed to say that poker should be a right that we are going to get on both knees in front of a glory hole and back legislation that might destroy what poker market we have left? Wait until a budget is actually written with money for internet gambling suppression. That will for sure accompany any regulation bill.

If we can't get more than 5 states to opt in, than what makes you think we even remotely have the ability to get the Federal government to impose online poker on all 50 states?

This does not compute.

If jonas is right, we might as well give up and just play until they come up with a truly effective way to stop us (which they eventually will).

Skallagrim

PS, Jonaspublius - you might want to check out which corporations are actually running most of the instate gambling interests. Other than the small tribal casinos, these corporations mostly WANT internet gaming. They will not use their influence to force their states to opt out IMHO because they are getting the message that internet gaming is their next source of new players and new revenue.

Whether or not states will see it the same way is another story but I don't think B&M cardrooms and casinos serve the same customer and won't be in direct competition as much as people think. People tend to visit B&M cardrooms and casinos for the social experience rather than the games themselves.
I live in Oklahoma which is full of B&M poker and casinos and I've visited them maybe twice in the past year while at the same time logging hundreds of hours in online poker. States should view the online market as a separate and untapped source of gaming revenue.

Skall Do this big instate gaming interest support legislation like the Frank bill? While many may support some kind of online gaming regulation, I don't know if they support a intrastate or a national model for online gaming.

If they do support legislation like the Frank bill, how come most haven't come out in favor of Franks bill. Maybe they want to wait to see if it looks like the Fed's are going to move legislation forward before publicly stating their view IDK. I don't know for sure but I can certainly see the possibility that instate gaming interest in states like NV,CA,PA and others coming out against this bill and pushing for their state to opt-out. Plus many casino workers and their unions may not support this legislation fearing it will cost them jobs.

OK, lets look at the corporations and interests involved.

Show me where Powerball or Moneyball wants to allow internet poker? Show me where lottery vendors want this competition? A lot of those stores thrive on low margin lotto sales and you threaten that volume, you think they will lay down? Maybe if you offer them a near total monopoly, and who wants that?

Show me a horse agriculture lobby or trade group that thinks racing wants a new competitor? Unless you can find even more revenue to add to their purses from out of poker rake on top of the taxes? Whats in it for them besides less gambling dollars and less people attending races or OTB parlours?
Maybe, maybe we've passed the days where the OTB operators aren't trying to shut us down, but it hasn't passed down the line to the ranchers, the jockeys, breeders, trainers, and the rest of the chain that allowing internet poker is anything but a net loss to them.

What indian casino wants their state to participate in a poker playing pool they cant monopolize? Its a lot more Morongo than Kanahawke. What small casino with a local license wants to compete with online casinos? Other than Harrah's and MGM, how much of the industry is behind an expansion into a market with mature, capitalized competitors? Has the AGA changed from neutral while I slept?

Hell, we havent even gotten to the backwoods, hick FOF legislators who would vote no regardless.

How many state legislative leaders or governors have even hinted they would like to allow internet poker?

If you allow the states the discretion to easily opt-out, they will. Hell, we do NOT even have a champion in Congress to pass a bill, and you want the bill to be a gutless hamstringing of poker. Do you not get the concept of a poison-pill opt out? As it stands, internet poker is clearly a Federal area of law enforcement IF the Feds deem it to be. Just lay out conditions that would make it very hard for a state to opt out. You're a lawyer, and the PPA has lawyers, there are ways to attach requirements to banning residents from playing that would cost a state other gambling revenue. Simply require a state that wants to ban its residents from playing poker to also exclude players from horsebetting or lottery pools that cross state lines as well. A simple vote or governor's decision will lose and lose and lose.

Lets get this straight, you think 1 small pool of states with legal poker won't shut us down FASTER than the current unregulated market? Theres no way a legal site can take illegal players in that scenario, and no way they won't raise hell for more enforcement. You are willing to trade what we have now for a legal market in five states that assrapes everyone in the other 45, and provides money and backing for real enforcement? They day that network goes live, the USDA in each of those states will have money and clamor to bring us down.

If the Feds don't "impose" poker on the states who will? As it stands now, the states can't do much at all, so why give them that power? WHY? Is it really imposing poker to just say poker is in no way a federal crime, and regulating poker on the internet is a federal responsibility? Especially, if you offer places like Utah where any gambling is illegal a way to stay out, but tell states that profit from interstate gambling they can't have a blanket monopoly, and here, have some of the money, but don't try to **** with it.

It's fun not trusting the government, and I'm not against that. But the PPA is a group that's fighting for our interests, and if you think for a minute that a bill that would likely have more than 20 states opt out will be passed, you're paranoid. The PPA wouldn't support it, and it wouldn't go through.

Fellow Maine-ah here for 26 years.

Maine is tricky. We certainly need the revenue. Our budget has been cut to shreds, funding for schools has been reduced, etc etc. It's ugly. On the other hand, this is an election year AND we're voting on an Oxford County casino again (the 2008 proposition was stupidly aggressive; seeking to lower age restrictions, 10 years of being the only gaming facility in the state... so not a good test for how the people will vote in 2010 imo).

IF the casino passes this fall, I think an opt out could be used to "protect" the 1000 new jobs and future growth of a new gambling business.

The current gambling establishments and the benefactors of the current subsidies are very much against any gambling expansion. Harness racing and slot parlors are the rule here.

Here's what the gubernatorial candidates have to say:

Mitchell (D) says,

LePage (R) says,

Question for clarification for a government noob: does the current bill allow the Governor to decide in a manner that he sees fit (example: people's referendum vote). I think that it's clear that at the very least, no new gambling will come to Maine w/o citizen's approval.

My prediction: Maine = toss up

jrbick,
I think you accidentally posted the same response twice.

My thoughts and concerns exactly. I truly hope that if legislation is passed that it is quite onerous for states to opt-out.

The American Gaming Association (AGA) is the trade group for all the major US casino intersts (Harrahs, MGM, Wynn, LVS, and many others). Recently (apparently news to you Jonaspublius) the AGA changed its stance regarding internet POKER (only poker) from neutral to positive. They are still neutral towards online casino games.

This reflects an industry recognition that online poker HELPS increase traffic at B&M poker rooms.

The industry is still divided as to whether the same is true for casino games like roulette.

Most of the casinos being built in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere are being constructed by, or in connection with, the casino corporations of the AGA. That's why I do not see these interests rising up against poker. And when they finally figure out a way to make money in the online casino busuness, their stance on that will change too.

All businesses recognize the importance of the internet to their future, the gaming business included.

The only local interests that worry me are the "monopoly" compacts some states seem inclined to make with their in-state gaming interests. Businesses love monopolies for all the reasons consumers hate them. Monopoly interests, I concede, will not give up without a fight. Instead many will demand a monopoly on internet gaming too. But with respect to poker, this will only be economically viable in the largest states. IMHO, this concern is really therefore limited to Florida and California.

The rest of the industry would rather participate in a national (even international) online poker market as that is where they expect to see a big return (both in online revenue and in getting new customers to their casinos).

Hey, I could be wrong, but that is the way I see it.

Skallagrim

Hey, Skall, isn't this a big reason why we online poker players would be much better off with a law like S1597 that does not include licensing of casino games? How many states would opt out of a law that only licensed poker and other skill games? I bet few would do so, especially if it required a new state law.

Of course I agree. But the best way at present to get to a S1597 is to support HR 2267.

Skallagrim

skall, (unless the AGA has changed it's position again and I'm not aware of it) If the AGA supports online poker at the federal level then why haven't they come out in support of S1597? they remain neural on HR 2267.

In this article http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...ng-association

The CEO of the AG says "We’re at this point in time open to the question of whether it’s a federal or state regulatory regime, although I must tell you I think a majority of the board would favor the states".

The AGA has changed their position on online gaming and online poker but has yet to support any of the Bills currently in Congress. Unless they're saying something different behind closed doors then we don't know if they will support HR 2267 or S1597 if/once they're passe or if they would push states to opt-out of these bills.


Skall I agee it makes sense for the AGA and other instate gaming interest to support these bills, I'm just not sure they see it that way, if they did they would endorse such legislation.

Was about to make my $130 donation to this great cause when I realized I yanked all the money I had on there off after amer idol

I hope I'm wrong about this but I've always thought that a state that already gets a lot of revenue from gambling will opt out. Michigan has several casinos and countless charity rooms. I've always gathered Michigan is likely an opt out.

Has Skall or TE ever ever given an opinion of every state?

I hope that poker players and the PPA are ready for the possibility of having to fight effectively in quite a few states simultaneously. Because if this passes anytime soon that is what we all need to be prepared to do.

Loosing CA, IMO would be as bad as loosing 10 other states............

I fear the same thing but I have no real evidence to suggest we will go either way.

Nebraska will opt OUT

Anti-gambling laws that are actively enforced and only allow for State sanctioned -EV games like lotto, keno and scratch cards.

Grassroots lack of will to allow organized gambling or Casinos within it's borders. Voted down an organized gambling amendment a few years back with the full knowledge that the state was losing $300M/yrs to Casinos in Neighboring states.

Active Unicameral legislature with nothing better to do than create the sort of draconian laws that the people of this state seem to desire.

Arg, time to cross the river!

Not to mention the home of Tom Osborne who was one of the UIGEA's biggest advocates.

Does anyone think that NJ will opt-out because of Atlantic City casinos trying to look for revenue specifically for their own? It's just a long shot guess IMHO but with what AC is now, Christie wants direct oversight of the entire city to "clean up" the town. In turn, Christie may want intrastate gaming as another way for the BM to collect revenue but only from NJ gamblers.

Well, Harrah's owns like 1/3 of the casinos in AC and they're pro this bill. I *think* MGM is also pro the bill because I think they're in the same casino lobbying group that recently changed its stance. So I think the AC casinos are either split down the middle or on our side.