Who cares? Lotteries are not stakeholders. Lotteries are government programs. Asking about what lotteries would get is like asking what Medicare or Social Security would get.

Besides, lotteries tend to operate on an all-or-nothing mindset. If they wanted an opportunity to compete in the marketplace, they'd be in the bill already. Needless to say, such a request has not been forthcoming. I know no lottery officials have reached out to me.

PPA, meet the bed you've made. Congrats.

That's why Reid/kyl is going have such a hard time trying to attach their bill. It's not so much the vehicle but the votes that are difficult to find.

We know why Reid wants a bill and why Kyl might support it but many other congresscritters will want more then a bill that benefits NV and their casinos or carves out poker while banning other games and the possibility for their state to collect those revenues. It's not like like attaching a bridge project in NV while allowing other congresspeople to allowing their pet projects to be attached for their home state or districts an online gaming bill effects those in every state and their gaming industry.

How is Reid going to attach a bill that largely benefits NV? You think other senators are just going to let that happen without first thinking how that will effect their state? CA,NJ,DE,etc likely have different goals when it comes to online gaming and their reps in DC aren't going to just hand over the whole online gaming industry to Reid and NV without consulting their own state, industry back home and having serious debate on the issue.

The PPA has done a good job getting people to contact their lawmakers. Lawmakers are aware of the issue but they haven't quite figured out what to do about it yet. Do they let the state figure it out or do they try and come up with some sort of federal legislation compromise that many of the states,casinos, lotteries, horse racing,tech companies,etc can agree on. No one is going to simply let Reid attach a bill to benefit NV without fully debating the matter.

What has changed over the last three months or so to weaken lottery interests so much that they can't stand in the way of a Federal poker bill that ignores their interests?

Even if they are irrelevant in terms of passing a Federal bill (which, again, seems like a change from a few months ago)....arent those lottery officials going to have an extraordinary amount of leverage in deciding whether states are going to opt-in or opt-out?

I dont see how we can just bulldoze a solution through that many or most state lotteries dislike. We wont just get a few Senators and Reps opposing poker for moral reasons, we'll get a material number of Senators and Reps opposing us because they're getting an earful from local reps about the Feds threatening precious lottery local aid. If a bill passes, states where lotteries are stronger than the Ceasars of the world are opting out.

I dont see a successful solution on the Federal level without lottery buy in. Thats one of the main reasons Im bearish on passing a bill this year. I dont think they're onboard yet, and doubt they will be until they get preferential treatment in offering service and money promised directly to local aid/guaranteed revenue takes. Thats what casinos had to do in MA to get a bill passed and still there's talk about what else needs to be done to "protect lottery revenues" in light of casinos coming in.

Thats for a casino project is going to generate more money for the state as a whole and generate a number of union jobs in a moribund construction industry in a heavy pro-union state. Remove the job creation carrot to a powerful special interest, start taking gambling dollars out for the Feds...even if we defy the odds and pass a bill, lotteries are going to drive states to opt out en masse if a Federal bill doesnt address their interests. As frustrating as they are to the process, ignoring their interests are suicidal.

TE, someone posted that all the potential opposition special interests had been "accomodated" in a "great compromise bill". When asked for details or a link to this "great compromise" bill, he went into his usual hissy-fit,

However, it is foolish politically to think that interests such as Social Security or Medicare or the DOJ or the Pentagon, while government programs or agencies do not have supporters or influence on the Hill, whether or not you like it.

Similarly, State Lotteries certainly have the ear of their respective State governments, and the elected officials who make up those entities or are their allies on the Hill. I expect you understand that State and local governments regularly lobby the Hill in their own interests. Hell, even the States Attorneys General were trotted out to promote a ban on online gaming by your opponents.

I take it from your answer, that despite what the Great and Powerful SkOz has proclaimed, the draft legislation he likely has not even seen, does NOT "accomodate" or otherwise co-opt Lottery-driven potential opposition.

Tribal interests also may need better accomodation of their less-than-uniform interests with a "National" solution. Last I heard, the California Poker consortium of tribes and cardrooms was looking at building a big wall around that very large market, for themselves.

FWIW, thw Town Hall discussion and information shared by John Pappas was pretty conservative on the prospects for passage. I sort of recall that he attended a lottery conference on online gaming, so there may have been some outreach in that regard.

Nevertheless, it doesn't matter who reached out or did not reach out, if there is no "accomodation", then there remains potential opposition from Lottery friends and beneficiaries, as well as other potential interested parties. (I am not saying it is sufficient to block passage, just that it should be something of which you are cognizant.)

This really made me laugh. I sure hope legislation fails so you can win your bet.

I dont. It's cheap price discovery with the proceeds going to help players. I'm marginally more optimistic than two days ago because someone hit the bid.

Great point, and tribal controlled states like Wisconsin can probably be added to the opt out list as well.

The problem is that our benefactor, Sen. Harry Reid (NV), doesn't care how many States opt out because his bill mandates that the states which currently license commercial poker, including the big prize California, are legislatively opted in.

Not sure if srs but if so i'm dead serious when I say GTFO, change your location, and go be a wannabe somewhere else.

Have you read his new bill? Where can it be seen?

If you mean the draft bill from 2010, it had three different versions and only one of them mandated such opt ins, iirc. Besides, just because it was in a 2010 draft bill doesn't mean it will be in his new bill, obv.

No I haven't, but since the guaranteed player pool was the juice of the bill for players, as well as being the meat of the bill for NV, we should hope it's still in there, and it's seems only logical to expect that it would be.

While the mandate on commercial poker States makes it less likely that Reid would make the kind of concessions that States he doesn't need might require to opt in initially, taking it out would likely be even worse since the revenue numbers would suffer.

My hope would be that he keeps the mandate in there, but concedes that those States which currently license B&M poker are just as qualified as NV/NJ to immediately begin licensing commercial online poker, and the NIGC which licenses more poker than any State will be able to begin licensing online poker immediately regardless of whether the State the tribal land happens to be located opts in, but I have no faith in Reid's willingness to compromise.

Even if Reid was inclined to be pragmatic, I don't know what he could offer to the lottery and horseracing 'stakeholders', perhaps just the option to lobby their State to opt out and a promise not to shut down the online horserace betting and lottery ticket sales already taking place - an implied threat that would have more teeth if Romney won the election.

At the town hall meeting Pappas referred to the California situation as a 'mess', but the federal situation is the same mess on a larger scale.

All we need to see in a federal bill is the provision that prevents states from being able to be opted out from the federal licensing regime while offering their own state-authorized i-poker (casino, tribal, lottery or whatever). The rest of the opt-in/opt-out issue ultimately doesn't matter.

I couldn't disagree more, if we end up with Reid's bill (NV & NJ allowed to begin licensing) and scratch out the mandate on commercial poker States, we'll have 48 states waiting to see how much revenue is available, with in-state stakeholders lobbying against opting in.

I said "ultimately". Obv, forcing states to opt in if they offer any commercial poker is a lot better, as is making the bill opt out instead of opt in. But I expect the federal regime to succeed even without those as long as states have to opt in if they want to participate in i-poker in any form. Keep in mind that the service providers who are vying now for position in the market through partnerships with the stakeholders will always take competition under federal licensing over no licensing.

The service providers may be willing to compete- though I see chilligaming saying today that they are pulling out of France because of the high taxes and competition - but the stakeholders are doing everything they can to block competition (adding language to block UIGEA providers, e.g.).

Do you believe that NV would prefer open competition and reciprocal licensing over the status quo? I don't, I view them like spoiled children who would prefer that the online gaming market is destroyed than to have to share it. Why am I wrong?

That is where I see those other interests squashing a bill. Can we pass something with no votes from the California delegation?

Because you almost always are?

Apparently, someone feigning familiarity with his 'new" bill has described it as the "Great Compromise". When asked for a link or specific provisions, he had a typical hissy-fit and folded. no details or specfics or links were provided. Maybe the 'Great Compromise" came to that PPA poster on two Golden Plates ?

Maybe someone else from the PPA can address your request for the specifics ? If you are going to the 2+2 Party this evening, maybe ask someone from the PPA who is there ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I think you fail to understand how Nevada and its gaming industry entities perceive their own interests.

Nevada gaming companies, which have been hamstrung for years by the Federal government's anti-online gaming campaign, tried to enter the market in around 2000 - 2003. (This includes the Venetian, btw.) Take a close look when Nevada first passed online gaming legislation.

I heard Caesars VP Jan Jones explain a couple of years ago that breaking into the online gaming space was a survival issue for B&M gaming businesses and the Nevada-based brands in particular.

Do US companies want to "share" the US online gaming market, hell no.

Do US companies think they can access to an increasing general, overallonline marketplace without online gaming, hell no. The entertainment marketplace in clearly moved online, unless "US gambling" moves there as well, US companies will lose entertainment business to other online forms more readily available to consumers.

Folks with $$billions invested in B&M businesses stand to see B&M gaming die off, unless they develop an online marketing presence. (Of Nevada entities, perhaps only IGT is the most nimble in making the leap online, leveraging B&M customer contacts into expansion into a role as a major online supplier.)

Poker is a vehicle ONLY because it is politically feasible and possesses some social gaming traits perceived as the building block of branding in the online market and staying competitive against other forms of online entertainment.

A small glimmer of hope? (As far as being able to attach an apparently unrelated amendment to a major bill).

Roll-your-own cigarette operations to be snuffed out [lvrj.com]

A tiny amendment buried in the federal transportation bill to be signed today by President Barack Obama will put operators of roll-your-own cigarette operations in Las Vegas and nationwide out of business at midnight.

...

...The man who pushed for this bill is Sen. (Max) Baucus from Montana...

You are right. You are so right that even the lobbyists and congressional staffers also realize you are right. No bill that only benefits Nevada is going to get passed.

A bill may get passed that benefits the Nevada interests if it also has something for other interests. That something may be access to certain new areas denied before, that something may be denial of access for everyone to certain new areas that would otherwise compete with existing interests.

Its a tough deal to create. It was too tough to get done in the short time frame between the 2010 election and the 2011 new Congress. But Reid and Kyl and their staff and the lobbyists for the various interests have been working hard at the deal since that time.

Pappas said he thinks the deal is basically done and I do not know anyone with better "inside the beltway" information on this issue than John Pappas.

The terms of the deal will become public when Reid and Kyl want them to become public, and so far few of the details have been leaked. But the grand scheme is public knowledge: Interstate poker gets allowed (subject to individual state approval) with NV interests having a bit of a head start but other states able to get on board; other casino games are prohibited interstate; tribes get to participate in poker and preserve their exclusivity regarding other casino games without new state deals; states get to control most of what goes on intrastate with certain limitations but those limitations will still allow state lotteries some expanded access and some protection from out of state competition; small casinos and tribes are protected from new online competition in the area that matters most, access to online slots, and are given other ways to have a presence online.

And ... oh wait, if I want to add more I will have betray confidences. I should do that right, and perhaps jeopardize the whole deal because then maybe DQ will stop calling me names ... LOL, even if that mattered to me for a fraction of a second we all know DQ is incapable of curing his skallagrim fixation. DQ's fixation is so great he apparently hasn't realized that I never respond to him directly. Or perhaps he knows he can ask questions that I will not respond to so that then he can complain that I did not respond. He enjoys that sort of thing it appears.

Also, I do not know that many confidences or details. The big players are keeping this close to the vest for a reason. And the probable reason is, as is the case with most legislation these days, they want to present it as "done deal" so as to precisely avoid further picking at the deal by outsiders like those who, for example, hope to gain financial advantage from selling online casino marketing software and strategy to state lottery commissions.

Skallagrim

LetsGambool, state lotteries only have the power that they do because of current federal legislation - specifically the law that prevents lotteries in one state from selling tickets in another state.

But that law only applies to traditional lotteries and their tickets. It is not designed to also apply to the new world of online scratch tickets indistinguishable from online slots.

Right now, thanks to the DOJ, states have the ability to allow their monopoly lotteries and/or instate casino interests to start online slots and similar games. Delaware has done it and New Jersey and Illinois are considering it.

But what stops Delaware from offering its games in New Jersey or Illinois once those states also allow online casino games? Only state law ... state law subject to Dormant Commerce Clause analysis.

Without federal legal protection, state lotteries that start online games could very easily be forced to also surrender their monopolies on those games. Thus allowing an opportunistic state like maybe Nevada to authorize private business to offer national lotteries in which 40-50-60% does not have to go "to the children."

Ask your friendly neighborhood lottery director which is more important: preventing out-of-state operators from running games in his/her state or getting his/her lottery in on online slots?

So for state lotteries the point is to be careful of what you wish for ....

And so their are ways for even state lotteries to also get behind this federal legislation; even if (and for the benefit of a certain troll I emphasize IF) it doesn't give them unfettered rights to have an in-state monopoly on online slots.

Skallagrim

Thanks! It sure beats the prohibition we were looking at six years ago.

+1

Nothing. They are still there and they are still strong. I was simply responding to DQ's post, which was just short of implying that lotteries are deserving of a piece of this and that PPA should be pushing for their inclusion as a matter of fairness.