Im not entirely certain its greater than zero, Heller/Dems is obviously negatively correlated, Obama/Dems is obviously positively correlated. My only point was you cant just multiply correlated variables to find implied probability.

Politico reporting that the licensing criteria in Reid's bill would (currently) allow only NV to regulate. Seems to be potentially based off of more information than we currently have, maybe a draft bill is out? http://www.politico.com/morningtech/....html?hp=l6_b5

Anyone have Politico Pro to read more?

God, I hope that's incomplete and there is a mechanism somewhere else in that bill to kick that 16% back to the states where the players are playing from. Either that or I hope its wrong. I dont think state's are really lining up to kick a bunch of money from their citizens to Nevada, and if that 16% is going to Nevada there has to be another piece going to the states which is going to do bad things to the rake. Unless Reid is going to try and come with abill with no payments towards states that opt-in, which would be unfathomably stupid for obvious reasons.

So I think that article must be missing something. Either that or its bad news.

EDIT: Yeah, OK, I reread it and it sounds like only a cut of that poker activity fee to Nevada. That makes a ton more sense, thought I was losing my mind. Hope we werent counting on votes from the New Jersey contingent though.

I have a copy. I received it in confidence and cannot post it yet, but can confirm that it matches the summary.

I think NJ, or any jurisdiction with live casino or poker regulation, or with interconnected jackpots or server-based gaming, arguably has relevant experience.

Does the PPA consider this summary or lnagauge it has from the actual proposal to accurately describe a "Nevada-only" bill ?

? he does care what states are doing. He wants to stop the healthcare bill for example. Poker is a Vice, and republicans don't like those.

I've seen studies that have shown that there is no correlation between presidential voting and senate/house voting, so I don't think Obama/Dems are correlated, and if so, it is a very small correlation. Obviously the big problem with hitting the trifecta is Heller/Reid, although the Dems might have enough of a lead to take it even with Heller, especially if Carmona can upset Flake in AZ. Another question is, what happens if we hit the superfecta and dems get the house too?

+1. We've got two hopes here. One is that the summary is wrong. Two is that this is just digging in for the start of negotiations. I think I could live with Nevada being the sole state regulator...so long as they don't get any of the tax money (only the licensing fees).

Do you have a copy of the bill or the article?

^ I read TEs post as meaning that he received a copy of the bill in confidence, and that it matches the article summary.

I started a thread: Draft of Reid/Kyl Online Poker Bill Obtained by PPA

I have a copy of the bill too, and since its appearance on Politico Pro I suspect many others do too. But Politico Pro is subscription site and I here their subscription fee is pretty high. At some point someone who has not been given the bill in confidence and would not be violating Politico Pro's policies with respect to copyright, etc. will release a full copy.

I think what TE meant is that the bill is not that different from the summary released and discussed earlier in this thread. And it confirms the understandings of the summary we have previously posted: no player criminal penalties; the tax is on the rake. not deposits.

On whether the bill matches the summary in the Politico Pro article, I am not at all certain it does, but I have not read the full article.

To be concise, it is clear that Nevada is the only state AT THE MOMENT that has all the qualifications to be an initial issuer of licenses, but it is far from clear that Nevada will remain the only state. The bill itself calls for there to be THREE (at least) initial issuers of licenses.

That said, lets move further discussion to the new thread.

Skallagrim