California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

[:::grimReaper:::]

Thanks for the info Skall!

[Pokeraddict]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

This article is a very good synopsis of the bill provisions. Note though that it has one error: the $30M advance payment by sites is against the first three years of the 10% site revenue tax, not against the full ten years of the duration of the site license.

I wrote the article. Thank you for pointing this out. As you know from reading it, the same point is presented over and over. Although one section makes the three years clear, I mixed it up with another section earlier in the regs that was not as detailed. I have made the correction.

Thank you again,

John Mehaffey/Pokeraddict

[Pokeraddict]

(b) During play, in order to assist a registered player to decide
whether to suspend play, the registered player’s screen shall do
all of the following:
(1) Indicate how long the player has been playing.
(2) Indicate the net change in value to a registered player’s
account since the time of last logging in.
(3) At least once every six hours require the registered player
to confirm that the player has read the message or give an option
to the player to end the session or return to the game.

I read that to say that at some point a player would be forced to look at this info as I doubt it will be obvious to find otherwise. The section did not describe how this would be implemented. I used the term "pop up", but it could be done some other way. I picture something similar to the PokerStars bot screen that forces you to address the question and will not let you play until you do.

[CheckRaise_]

could stop bots too

[dmyers1166]

Tribal interests way in ..

http://www.caltba.org/news/statement...internet-poker

“While we are eager to see the detailed language of SB 1463, early analysis of this legislation leads us to conclude that it violates many of the principles we believe are required for Internet Poker to be successful in California,” said Leslie Lohse, Chairwoman of the CTBA. “The provisions we have been made aware of potentially violate tribal gaming exclusivity which would have a profound impact on revenues generated to the State under current gaming compacts, as well as agreements with local communities, and should not be tossed away so lightly.”

“Another major policy concern is that it precludes entities that are legally authorized to offer poker in the State of California at brick and mortar locations from offering poker on the Internet,” Lohse added. “At the same time, it allows other entities who are not legally authorized to offer poker, to offer it online. This is another broken promise and a harsh slap in the face to California Indian Tribes.”

“This is another instance where lack of meaningful consultation with Tribes has led to an inferior legislative product,”

Definitely not a glowing endorsement, but unless the tribes get to run it all with no or minimal taxes to the state it really is not there cup of tea. Don't see them as interested in making changes to improve the bill.

[daveh07]

So when officially do we get to let the past be the past and stop giving Indians exclusive privileges? 100 years down the road? 200? I say we do it now. They had their exclusivity and should have a huge market domination just because they have been in the market of gambling for so long.

[Pokeraddict]

When I saw the horse racing industry included in this I wondered how that would go over. The bill specifically mentions online horse betting sites as getting included.

(4) An operator of an online advanced deposit wagering site
regulated by the California Horse Racing Board that has been subject
to oversight by, and in good standing with, the board for the three
years immediately preceding its application for licensure.

TVG is legal in California and Betfair owns them. This gives Betfair the ability to enter the market without having to find a B&M partner. How many other companies would fit the profile described? I also have to guess that Betfair lobbied for this hard as this wording cannot cover too many companies. I can see how others would think that was unfair since online OTBs do not have the ability to currently offer poker.

I wonder if all of Betfair's rogue behavior would come back to haunt them when trying to get this license if it goes through as currently worded.

I guess I could be reading that wrong and it could have an entirely different meaning. I am not too familiar with how the horse racing industry works. I assume it either means traditional OTBs, online OTBs, or both.

[PokerXanadu]

I have long suspected that Winning Directions was hired by Betfair to run the astroturf organization Poker Voters of America and to push the i-poker bills the last few years in CA, IA and FL. PVoA did back the earlier bills introduced by Wright in CA, which were predecessors to this one. I think you are right that Betfair is one of the vested interests pushing this one.

[b finkelstein]

Originally Posted by daveh07

So when officially do we get to let the past be the past and stop giving Indians exclusive privileges? 100 years down the road? 200? I say we do it now. They had their exclusivity and should have a huge market domination just because they have been in the market of gambling for so long.

+about 30000000trillion

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by DeNutza

So if Ca. pools with other states, this could get very interesting.

Winner pays rake, so I guess if the winner takes down a pot in California, he would pay X rake...If the winner is in NV, he'd pay Y rake.

In split pot games this could really stand out...One could pay a $2 rake in one state, and just $1 in another.

This is gonna open a whole new can of worms.

NO. What you described is not how it would work at all.

First, forget about CA pooling with NV.

Next, "pooling" means a site can have a license in more than one state, and hence, accept players from multiple states. The rake would be up to the site, and won't have anything to do with which state whoever is paying it is from.

Some issues such as gaming taxes the sites have to pay would get more complicated. But the site's servers will do whatever math is involved, and it really isn't a concern of the players.

[bobodaclown]

Originally Posted by b finkelstein

+about 30000000trillion

Sure - once you get past the whole we stole their country thing I don't really see the point in giving them anything at all.

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by daveh07

So when officially do we get to let the past be the past and stop giving Indians exclusive privileges? 100 years down the road? 200? I say we do it now. They had their exclusivity and should have a huge market domination just because they have been in the market of gambling for so long.

There is a federal law that is relevant here. And here is the funny thing about laws. They don't just expire after a couple of years. They remain intact until they are superseded by some other law. Assuming this ever happens. The past may be the past, but the law is still the law.

I realize you personally might not like this. Run for office - if you get elected, then you might be able to get the laws changed. Or start your own lobbying group. Or leave the country.

[Pokeraddict]

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

There is a federal law that is relevant here. And here is the funny thing about laws. They don't just expire after a couple of years. They remain intact until they are superseded by some other law. Assuming this ever happens. The past may be the past, but the law is still the law.

I realize you personally might not like this. Run for office - if you get elected, then you might be able to get the laws changed. Or start your own lobbying group. Or leave the country.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act only gives tribes the same gambling rights that exist outside of tribal soil. States can, and have given tribes more, but they are under no obligation. Tribes cannot just open sports book if no sports betting exists in the state without state authorization. The same rule applies here. This is why there are no tribal casinos in Utah, there is no other gambling.

The tribes in California have no right to claim exclusive online poker rights unless their gaming pact with California specifically addresses online gambling in this way which I seriously doubt. Since card clubs are legal outside of reservations, I cannot see how they can claim exclusive rights.

They may have a case with horse tracks, but I doubt that either. As long as state land does not get gambling advantages over tribal land, no federal law has been broken. Maybe the gaming pact says something different, if so, I would love to see what silliness California agreed years ago as it pertains to online gambling they probably never thought would be legal anyway. I doubt there was ever any such agreement.

I did an extensive research project on this not too long ago. As far as I know, no state has given tribes the rights to do any type of internet gambling beyond horse racing.

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by Pokeraddict

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act only gives tribes the same gambling rights that exist outside of tribal soil. States can, and have given tribes more, but they are under no obligation. Tribes cannot just open sports book if no sports betting exists in the state without state authorization. The same rule applies here.

The tribes in California have no right to claim exclusive online poker rights unless their gaming pact with California specifically addresses online gambling in this way which I seriously doubt. Since card clubs are legal outside of reservations, I cannot see how they can claim exclusive rights.

They may have a case with horse tracks, but I doubt that either. As long as state land does not get gambling advantages over tribal land, no federal law has been broken. Maybe the gaming pact says something different, if so, I would love to see what silliness California agreed years ago as it pertains to online gambling they probably never thought would be legal anyway. I doubt there was ever any such agreement.

I did an extensive research project on this not too long ago. As far as I know, no state has given tribes the rights to do any type of internet gambling beyond horse racing.

One of the concerns is the inclusion of horse racing tracks and OTB's, not the inclusion of the card clubs already dealing poker. (Don't forget, HR wasn't in last year's bill - this year's bill solves one problem, but introduces another).

There is of course the issue of the gaming tax as well (probably far more important than the inclusion of HR).

Neither of these are necessarily deal stoppers. We already knew some tribes were against last year's bill as well, whereas many were for it. I think CTBA represents the tribes that were basically against. We might be getting a very different view from some other tribal lobbying group soon.

[tbremer]

I read the whole thread and didn't find my answer yet (or I might have just missed it).

When is this supposed to be voted on and, if passed, when would we likely see the first CA online poker room?

I got an email from PPA saying January 2014 - hopefully that is not accurate and it would be sooner.