Far from perfect, and I have concerns that as horse racing continues to die more money will be sucked out of poker, but looks like its worth supporting. Hope the PPA gets behind this as its the most likely chance to get regulated poker in the US in 2012.

Its not the preferred Federal bill, but it is a positive for poker player. No need to stay wedded to the Fairplay/Ceasar's agenda when it doesn't match up with the interests of players.

I agree that the PPA and players should support this bill. At the very least, the PPA should put out a press release indicating their support.

Supporting the NJ bill will help our federal effort by putting pressure on Congress. It supports our goal of at least (some) poker players being able to play in the near future. The bill appears to be well written and isn't too bad for the player. Much better bill for the players than other state bills (IE California.)


I'd like to see regulated online poker somewhere besides D.C. in the near future.

Agreed, I could be missing something but I dont see how this precludes a Federal effort So, if players in NJ support this, I think we should be getting behind it. I can see why Ceasar's wouldnt necessarily like it and why Fairplay wouldnt support it, but the PPA can definitely get behind it, at least with a press release and call to action for players to call legislators and support passage. "We prefer a Federal solution, but poker is not a crime -and we support constructive legislation that improves access to regulated i-poker for US citizens. Players will benefit from the expertise of the NJ gaming commission while creating jobs in NJ, blah, blah, blah".

Plus we can see what works and what doesnt to give us a better idea of what we need to push for in Federal Legislation to create a player friendly market.

TANGENT: an ironic intersection between this fact an the skill argument is that poker can be turned into house banked blackjack (more or less) if you rake it hard enough -- even the most skilled players can not beat the game. Of course, if the game is raked too lightly, the government (and/or the casino) is failing to maximize revenue. I.e. every dollar that goes into a winning player's pocket is a dollar the casino/govt has left on the table.

One assumption of the argument above is that the demand for iPoker is relatively inelastic.

Single state poker rooms are almost guaranteed to fail. The player pools are too small and if players can't make a living a from the site, then you will have a handful of people playing 1 table for recreation. Most of poker sites revenue is from Multitabling regs/ professionals, but as always the people in charge can't figure that out and push for protetctionism thinking that a state only poker room will generate more tax dollars.

Do politicians even do research before they try to pass a law?

I guess 95% of B&M poker rooms should just shut down. Having 20 tables or less, mostly spreading 1-2NL with rake not conducive for pros, they must be losing their shirts.

Of course, the bill that is the subject of this thread permits all the casino games. It is for iGambling, not exclusively iPoker. A site doesn't need a gigantic player pool to make money from roulette, craps, or blackjack.

Support of the NJ bill by the PPA is definitely in order. But I doubt it will make a whit of difference. Last time this bill easily passed the legislature. The problem lies with getting it signed into law by the NJ governor, who vetoed it last time and has given no indication that he would sign it this time. That's where efforts should be concentrated. If the bill stalls in the legislature it will be due to the governor's stance. I recommend NJ players start putting pressure on the governor (calls, emails, facebook, etc.) to support the bill.

and it will put more pressure on reid and kyl to implement their federal system before more states make their own laws igaming-- kyl would be pissed if a state in his fine union allowed sites to spread legal roulette and blackjack online! poker's bad enough!

AND they can opt-in to a federal system later on, which is the only thing that effects me, a player out of state. id love for the ppa to get behind this; and i'd help canvass online.

I guess the one counterargument to supporting this passage is if any state passing a bill will kill any chance of Kyl supporting a Federal compromise, but trusting Jon Kyl to stick to his word seems dicey. Plus that seems like its a fight for other interests, not for us as players.

PX, I agree, and Im not sure we'll influence Christie too much but that's the place to start. Seems like we should take our shot and seems like we should support access to regulated i-poker based on our core principles and mission.

I would also contact the legislators because, if this does fail, it doesnt hurt to start making our voices heard for if/when NJ has to decide whether to opt-in to a Federal system.

Not to mention that all we really got from Kyl is one little blurb on his blog. People aren't even sure whether it appeared this year or last.

We have the Reid/Kyl letter to the DOJ too, but point taken.

Agreed, Christie has to be satisfied. But he is gonna have to come up with a good reason to veto, especially if federal legislation is still in limbo. NJ casinos are getting wiped out by competition from two sides (PA and DE). And the state could certainly use the revenue.

And even if he uses his veto power, I think the votes are there to overturn the veto.

Reality check time ... It is clear that the NJ bill should be supported, in the gneral interest of poker players andvthe specific interest of NJ poker players.

However, the PPA will not issue a press release to support it or make any other overt statement of support.

(Caesars pulled out all stops to get a veto of the earlier bill, while the PPA did nothing. Do not expect anything different from the PPA this time around.)

The outcome may change htis time. With NJ under water, literally and figuratively, an online gaming revenue stream might look too appealing to pass up this time around.

Are Christie's fellow republican legislators willing to override Christie's veto if he should veto this bill?

Don't know. Does Christie really have that much support in the Legislature? He is a bit of a maverick with plans for Washington, DC. I would be careful of carrying him if I were a member of the Legislature.

Here is a good test case:

http://www.theridgewoodblog.net/2011...-override.html

The veto over-ride votes may have been there the last go-around, but Sen. Lesniak did not pursue that course, as it seemed better to just try and meet Christie's stated rationales for veto and re-introduce a new measure.

Although the votes may be there this time as well, you cannot take the CO2 emissions veto as an accurate test case. The issues and interests do not match up in any projected vote count.

I think that the NJ effort and the nature of any opposition may provide a canary in the coal mine indicator for Caesars' perceptions of federal viability in 2011. Jan Jones has said that if the federal effort fails this time around, then the battle may proceed to a State by State effort. While failure or success of federal bills may not be conclusive until late November, there may be some political bet hedging going on before then.

In NJ, Caesars already has a huge market presence, as it does in Nevada ..... If there is no real prospect of federal passage, it seemes likely thta there would be little opposition to Sates proceeding forward, in Nevada and NJ, as both give a bit leg up to existing gaming licensees.

Winning the battle for the "cause" of legalized online poker may take a State by State campaign, in the short term, out of poltical necessity, not some "hidden agenda" or nefarious plot to undermine the PPA.

Not may, will. Federal legislation by itself doesnt give anyone access to (well, DC players I guess) to regulated online poker as every single state has to choose whether to opt-in or opt-out.

How difficult each battle will be may change based on the final structure of Federal legislation (auto opt-ins, time period to opt-out, whether a state can opt-out after opting in, etc), but poker players are going to have to win battles in each individual state.

There is no doubt that any federal legislation will include state options, and states will be able to change their option year-by-year. So, yes there will be state battles to be fought even with a federal bill. But if you want inter-state player pools, it's far better to start with a federal bill than a smattering of intrastate bills. The latter can eventually lead to the same, but it's a longer path. Of course, absent passage of a federal bill, starting at the state level is a 'better-than-nothing' option.

1. Powerball got there pretty quickly and States moved way up the learning curve as a result.

2. The political landscape, including the traditional State level regulation of gaming and capture of revenues, has not changed over time.

3. The "all or nothing" Federal-only approach taken by Caesars and its minions caused a veto in NJ last time around, but even it has morphed into a State-level enabling legislation piece.

1. As we have discussed many times, the legal issues for inter-state i-poker are much different than for powerball. We aren't even sure that intra-state i-poker won't be squashed by the DOJ.

2. The political landscape for passage of a federal i-poker bill has changed tremendously. In 2006, most of Congress was for a ban on all internet gambling (including i-poker). Today, even our staunch Congressional opponents are willing to talk compromise.

3. Yes, Ceasars opposed the NJ bill, but I'm not so sure they alone caused the veto. I think it had more to do with Christie's presidential aspirations. The legislation this time around isn't "morphed" - it's virtually the same as last time, except for the addition of an express ban on internet cafes. Neither Ceasars nor Christie has expressed any change in tune about the NJ bill. As I understand it, Lesniak decided to re-introduce the bill despite no statement of support by Christie. And Ceasars strategy remains federal-only-legislation, for the moment at least.

^^^ @PX: I think you meant to say 3. "Yes, Ceasars opposed the NJ bill" above.

On a more serious note:

• Do you really think UIGEA would have passed in the Senate on a stand alone vote in 2006?
• If there really is a different landscape in our current Congress, why must every poker bill be attached to something else? Not strong enough to stand on its own?
• There is but one year left for our current Congress (and it's a presidential election year). The next Congress may be radically different. Isn't time running out for this one?

Oh yeah, of course, just pointing out that the real fight for us eventually has to be at the state level.

Quite right. Thanks!

• Yes, given enough time to make it through the legislative process.
• Although the landscape has changed, it doesn't mean that we've won. Getting anything through Congress is a tedious process. Attaching a bill is just an expedient to getting a popular bill through the beaurocracy (just like what happened with the UIGEA in the first place).
• Maybe. Which is why attachment is our best hope right now.

FYP re the legislative history of the 2006 Safe Ports Act.

As for the other points, I agree that Caesars is pushing for a federal bill today, August 30th and doing a really good job at it. However, pushing a bill up Capitol Hill this fall may once again prove Sissyphian. If you do not think they would hedge their bet come November, if it looks like a federal effort will once again fall short, then we have to disagree about how strategic/smart/adaptable/pragmatic they are.

I don't know who "we" means, but I am pretty f**king certain that DOJ would not prosecute Nevada on the basis of the arguments presented in the Reid/Kyl letter. Nevada currently licenses an intrastate sports betting system, based online. The UIGEA expressly exempts coverage of data packs crossing State lines incidental to licensed intrastate online gambling.

You misunderstand my post about evolution on the Hill; what has morphed is the Hill proposals, not the NJ bill. The push on the Hill has evolved from something other than a Uber Federal Poker Authority legislative effort. What is seen as more realistic is a federal bill which allows States to license/regulate/gain revenue from online poker .... if they so choose.

Also, the competitive landscape has not been static. Consider that Caesars biggest feared competitors, FTP and PStars now are out of even the intrastate online landscape. Their other fears of mutliple State licensing aside, Caesars has had to have re-evaluated the potential upside of going the State by State route, if it fails on the Hill this year