LOL. Yeah, maybe it is just a coincidence.

This guy could take lessons from Harry in that regard:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending...171219933.html

There seems a high likelihood that "the other country" might require a license as well for operators to accept their residents as players.

Somewhat ironically, the operator who currently is expressly licensed in the largest number of other countries is PokerStars.

So, if PStars is going to be federally barred from participating in the US market(s) as an operator or international pool, then that is a factor against passing a federal bill.

OTOH, if there will NOT be any express federal bar for PStars participationg in a venture with US licensed operators, subject to settlement of the BF charges (which I do expect) and approval by some "authorized" State licensing authority. (which is NOT beyond the realm of possibility), then that is a plus factor for players to passing that federal bill.

I think any federal bill which comes up likely will kick the PStars can down the road, for later suitability finding by an "authorized" State regulator.

(If you think it is an accident that the "authorized" State regulators are limited, you are missing a strong power play by current B&M operators, against the likely deferral to State-licensing. Keep in mind that pre-BF Wynn and Pstars had hooked up, as had Stations and FTP, there is a large "Not-Caesars" group of B&M operators who themselves are license-worthy, who have some interests in keeping a "PStars-pooling option" open.)

They have always had that ability, look up Whiskey Rebellion, a "tax" on an industry passed in the 1790's.

Also, beer, cigaretttes......drugs.......

obg

Good example for the current licensing arguments.

The Whiskey Rebellion was over a tax on distillers, not individuals, if I recall correctly and wikipedia is to be believed

The main block historically against federal prohibition of internet gaming included other internet based entities, fearful of a "tax" on their ecommerce businesses.

Most distillers in 1790 were individual frontier farmers who distilled their corn crop into whiskey for ease of transport into the eastern urban centers.

This is why there was a whiskey rebellion (i.e.; a popular uprising)--because distillation of whiskey was widespread on the frontier.

Moreover, even if the Whiskey Rebellion comparison to Obamacare is not apt, there are plenty of other individual tax incentives that are. The reason Obama used "individual mandate" and not "tax incentive" is purely political, even though the latter would have made the "Constitutionality", a piece of cake.

this.

The time MAY be right ... a poker-only, State enabling Federal bill may be passed, after all.

In the last day or so, I have seen three different Republicans talking about the scourge of online full-blown casino gambling moves by Delaware and New Jersey. That State-level passage of bills may be as powerful a motivator for BOTH Anti-gambling folks to compromise AND tribes to protect their geopgraphic casino markets, as John described at the Town Hall.

(Interestingly, no one seems to mention that Nevada already has intrastate online sports betting up and running.)


My VERY real concern is that the federal bill would allow "ONLY intrastate" poker pools and forbid multi-state compacts. John has told me no, as has TE, but the truth is that such a bill compromise might emerge along a number of scenarios ..... and the PPA could not derail it, despite its position against it:

Concern 1: Suppose "California" tribes/cardrooms support "Only intrastate", since that would capture THAT market for its in-state interests. Anti-gambling opponents accept it because it severely limits the scourge of gambling in their home states.

Faced with "only instate", and being in more States than anyone else, what would Caesars do, in its own self-interest ?

Concern 2 ; Lotteries may have a real role to play in shaping legislation to push for a role. Remember, even Texas has a State lottery. (I don't think it is "unfair" or "fair" to consider lotteries' likely actions, only that State deficits/lotteries are an 800 lb gorilla in the gaming industry. Look at the ruckus caused by the Delaware Lottery. Other States, like Kansas also blend B&M/casino gaming with their Lottery authority. )

Concern 3: How could the PPA effectively oppose something like "instate only/no multistate" legislation ? Arguing that "poker" is a skill game only goes so far, setting a table for others to dine upon to the detriment of players perhaps.

Concern 4: Not that long ago, Las Vegas casinos crapped all over poker, because it returned less per square foot of floor space than slots. So long as "poker" gets casinos a foothold online, they may decide the quality of their "exclusive" poker games is LESS important than driving traffic to more profitable gaming activities. Poker is a means to an end for casinos, NOT an end in itself.

Someone playing in a crappy instate online poker game in Ohio is still available to market for the B&M experience in Ohio.

I actually dont think Caesars supports that bill. I think they want at least a path to pooling.

Considering this would be a Reid/Kyl compromise, I have to agree. The whole point of a federal poker bill is for pooled players and a single regulator. I doubt casinos would support no pooling or multiple state licensing, while at the same time banning the most profitable games. They would most likely rather go the state route if that is the only federal option.

An "Only instate", "only poker" bill is clearly not the B&M industry or Caesars' first choice. I am suggesting that faced with that compromise, in return for passing a federal bill this year, they would need to consider it.

Consider this, according to an article in the current UNLV Gaming Law Journal, Caesars' Total Rewards database has 40 million people signed up, with more than 10 million active users. It recognizes the value of that data in promoting local B&M markets, such as the recent Cleveland B&M expansion. (As an aside, that database may be the single most valuable asset Caesars has in the US market(s), aside perhaps from the brands themselves.)

Jan Jones, from Caesars, has regularly explained that an online presence is a necessity for Caesars, and the rest of the B&M gaming industry, to maintain a demand for gaming as entertainment and support their current investments in B&M businesses. This underscores a vital essential "marketing/survival" appeal of online gaming to the current US industry. If consumers will be getting entertainment choices online, then gaming needs to be there .... to sell itself as entertainment.

Sure, Caesars WANTS a national market, but it may accept a series of State markets, while retaining its crushing marketing advantages of Total Rewards and leveraging that advantage with what online poker presence it can create for each of its State licensed markets.

This legislative fight is really over securing and online marketing presence, NOT poker as a game. Poker serves an online marketing means to an end. It still would have marketing value, even if 2+2 grinders considered the games crappy or pools too small for their tastes. (Sure a national or international pool is preferred by everyone, but not everyone would passup a valuable marketing tools because it is not a national tool*)

* A licensed instate online poker presence may actually suffice as a de facto national marketing tool. Consider also that State A, a non-gaming state, cannot bar advertising from a licensed casino in State B. If Caesars, licensed in State B for real money poker, ALSO markets its B&M licensed State B casino and restaurants/entertainment experience online through strictly "play for free poker" channels for State A residents, there is likely little State A can do to stop it. Expect some interesting litigation on from "where" internet such marketing originates. See, Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass'n v. United States, (US Supreme Court decision 1999).

Caesars does not "lose" under a State-level industry model, it just doesn't win in one fell swoop. In fact, by going State-by-State, Caesars likely fends off competitors like Google/Facebook/Zynga et al, because a State gaming license may be required for instate online gaming ....

I understand those arguments. From my knowledge of that company and business at the present time my opinion is that they wouldnt accept this compromise in 2012. Giving up too much to get too little.

Not that you need this now, but I can also confirm that the Reid/Kyl proposal exists. And lobbying is starting to ramp up on it.

Information from a reliable source is always welcome.

Your insights on developments/prospects were highly valued in the UIGEA process.

It will be interesting to follow twists, turns and revisions as the 2012 legislative process advances.

Thanks.

(Any proposal copies floating around ?)

(Any likely vehicles ?)

Someone is going to ask it so it may as well be me. What is your gut on the % likelihood that the deal gets done this yr?

Cool! Through the FTP fiasco and poker legislation, I have learned not to get excited about anything until it happens.

I needed that. Thanks

Sir, I don't know who you are talking to here, but I (personally) DO "need this", any time (as a matter of fact)...

*do I sound desperate?

Thanks for posting that Berge!

When could we expect to see details of the Reid/Kyle proposal? Will we have to wait until it goes to committee/gets attached to something, or could it reasonably leak earlier than that?

I can't see anything leaking until after the elections as this issue could bring bad attention to both parties.

Thanks for the scoop Berge!

Is there a chance of it emerging somehow before the elections?

I don't think an actual copy is available, so they are keeping that very close. Not even sure how many stakeholders have legislative text (my guess is very, very, very few). And I wouldn't expect that to change in the near term.

Next opportunity is post election/lame duck unless something radically changes.

As to what the vehicle is, it is way to early to speculate as Skaff said earlier. There are so many variables as to what actually gets addressed (spending, taxes, debt ceiling, etc) and what gets kicked down the road. Obviously not an unlimited universe of scenarios, but don't really think it is worth gaming that out at this point.

I don't really want to get into predictions. Always very difficult to pass laws though.

Want to evaluate some things for a bit longer, but there are still definitely some hurdles about how to succeed with the many members and staff who do not pay any (or very little) attention to this niche subject.

I expect to see Loveman tooting his horn in the coming months. We will also hear where Steve Wynn and Sheldon Adelson fall before the election. It's going to be interesting.

nice