Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > General Poker Discussion > The Poker Legislation Forum, Brought to You by the PPA

Notices

The Poker Legislation Forum, Brought to You by the PPA Discussions of various poker-related laws and steps players can take to push for better laws.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-23-2010, 01:59 PM   #76
Pooh-Bah
 
antneye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Fighting for my right to play poker
Posts: 5,634
Re: Individual State opt-out prediction thread

Anyone care to take a shot at anlyzing NY? With how cash starved the state is I would like to think they would opt-in, but I have no basis to claim they will.
antneye is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 02:22 PM   #77
newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16
Re: Individual State opt-out prediction thread

I see South Carolina has been mentioned but I'll throw in my two cents.

Currently any game of chance, whether played with dice or cards, is outlawed in the state and believe, by the letter of the law, wagering isn't even a requirement for the game to considered a crime (except bingo ofcourse, because as everyone knows, Jesus loves bingo). There was also a big stink several years ago about video poker machines in truck stops and the supposed ill-affects they had on SC, so they were promptly outlawed. I didn't live here then, but if what I hear is correct, South Carolina was a raucous, drunken, orgy-fest much like the Island of Tortuga from Pirates of the Caribbean back when these machines were plaguing the State.

In light of the above, big surprise here, I have little doubt that South Carolina will opt out of the bill

There has, however, been a bit of momentum in the past few years to legalize home games where the house takes no cut. I have little hope that this momentum could possibly be leveraged to get enough support to convince the Governor (or Legislature) to not opt out of a federal bill, though.

J
Jlivefat32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 02:22 PM   #78
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 3,416
Re: Individual State opt-out prediction thread

Funny, how most people seem to think or fear that their state will opt out, but the PPA thinks that only 12 states will opt out. Doesn't this somewhat show that the state opt out clause needs to be onerous on the state to opt out and the tax revenue to the state needs to be substantive or this bill will make matters worse. Beware of giving the states power that they do not currently possess.
JPFisher55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 02:24 PM   #79
Is Right
 
NoahSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,849
Re: Individual State opt-out prediction thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu View Post
I sure hope someone introduces an amendment during markup to clarify these points so that:

1. It takes an act of a state legislature to opt out.

2. The "limitation" language is removed, leaving only one choice for a state - opt out completely or remain opted in.
Go go PPA?
NoahSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 02:26 PM   #80
Is Right
 
NoahSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,849
Re: Individual State opt-out prediction thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Jones View Post
It's all well and good to post theories and random suggestions about which states that will opt in/out. But we're supposed to be +EV gamblers who go to great lengths to understand the probability landscape before us and then make appropriate bets, si?

Surely some of our senior mods could get in touch with the Intrade people. Get them to set up a market for us. C'mon boys and girls, let's put our money where our theories are.

This would also allow those who are considering actually moving pursuant to the opt-in choices to make better decisions.

Regards, Lee
This is genius. Not only will it give us more accurate probabilities; it's also an opportunity to gamble!
NoahSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 02:37 PM   #81
grinder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 625
Re: Individual State opt-out prediction thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by sba9630 View Post
Mordan;

What games do these rooms offer? (And, they haven't been shut down?!?!?!???)
They offer the standard video poker games, blackjack, roulette etc....pretty much the standard online casino, and no they haven't been shut down because there is no law in place that can be applied to them in our state, that is why my Friend was at the hearing at the House of Rep. because they are just now addressing them.
Mordan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 02:45 PM   #82
Is Right
 
NoahSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,849
Re: Individual State opt-out prediction thread

I'm gonna leave some states in their respective categories even though these are of course just rough predictions and there's a chance that things go the other way for each state. Hopefully this will give a rough picture of what's up. (If someone has clout with intrade we can get a much clearer picture.) I'm also consciously biasing the list towards more people in the good guys camp because I feel like a lot of people are biased towards pessimism in their states because of the general anti-government sentiment on the internet and also because I think people aren't fully considering the chance that this just flies under the radar in their state.

P.s. Please please please don't actually plan your life around this list. This stuff probably isn't happening for a while and we're just speculating anyway.

Current predictions:

Predicted Good Guys (9)

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Iowa
Montana
New Hampshire
Wyoming
Virginia

Predicted Bad Guys (7)

Alabama
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Texas (Would like to hear more on this one since Texas is a huge state with tons of online poker players living in it)
Utah
Vermont
Washington

Toss Up/Some Debate (7)

California
Idaho
Massachussets
Minnesota
Missouri
North Carolina
Wisconsin

Not Yet Discussed (27)

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Mississippi
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
West Virginia
NoahSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 02:48 PM   #83
adept
 
pianospike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 1,081
Re: Individual State opt-out prediction thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawdude View Post
1. I suspect that the same political forces that made Indian gaming immensely popular (to the point where the voters overrode legislative decisions to curtail it) will make Internet gaming immensely popular as well. There's no reason to think that the Democrats are going to override public opinion.

Indeed, we have a cycle in this state whereby politicians do things, they get chastened by the voters, and then they fall in line. This happened with property taxes, the Lottery, three strikes, Indian gaming, and medical marijuana. At this point, I suspect there are very few people in the legislature, and no major party gubernatorial candidates, who are going to want to take a political bullet for Indian tribes.

2. I am not, actually, sure that Indian tribes will be opposed. I saw the hearing yesterday and it sure didn't sound like it-- rather, it sounded like they wanted a piece of the action and are willing to negotiate, which suggests that they can be bought off.
General public opinion in Califorinia will not care whether or not we have online poker on a federal level or a state level or not at all. The general public here is much more passionate about weed than poker, unfortunately.

As it stands now, all tribes in California would be opposed. Certain tribes would be opposed because they feel that it violates the current tribal gaming compacts (under which they currently pay the state around $300 million per year) and other tribes would be opposed because they want to run a state-run site with a virtual monopoly. What you heard at the hearing was from a tribe in Connectictut. No California tribes would have been putting forth testimony along those lines.

The tribes here in California are the most powerful lobbying force behind the unions. They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying in the past decade and their power is on the rise. If they are aligned in opposition against us, you will not have a Democrat-controlled Legislature that will go against them for the sake of federally licensed online poker.

I am having difficulty envisioning a scenario in which we could soften this opposition. If, in theory, there was a way to get the tribes in Califorina on board with federal legislation, then California would have a very good chance of not opting out, imo.
pianospike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 02:53 PM   #84
centurion
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 190
Re: Individual State opt-out prediction thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Busted_Flat View Post
Minnesota Opts Out

Unfortunately politics and lobbyist money will determine this outcome instead of good sense and freedom.

There are two scenarios, both bad.

Scenario One - It is up to the governor.

Tim Pawlenty is almost certain to run for the GOP nomination in 2012 and if he has the chance to decide the fate of on-line gambling before he leaves office early next year he will choose to opt out. He will likely be running against social conservatives Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, so he will need to prove to the religious right that he is one of them. At the very least he will need to opt-out so that he does not damage his standing with them.

If it is up to the next governor:

The GOP candidate is hard-line conservative Tom Emmers. He seems to be in line with the Michelle Bachmann's of the world and would almost certainly opt out.

The Democratic nominee has not been decided yet, but they would almost certainly opt out for the reasons I will state below concerning the state Legislature.

Scenario Two - The State Legislature decides.

The Democrats control both the House and Senate in Minnesota. For years Canterbury Race Track and Casino and more recently Running Aces have been pushing hard to get slot machines into their facilities, but they have been staunchly opposed by the Democrats because of the well-funded Indian Casino lobby in the state which donates large sums of money to the Democratic Party. There is no way the casinos don't put up a big fight against on-line gambling.

I also believe that Canterbury and Running Aces will strongly oppose on-line poker in the state and both sides of the Racino lobby will come down hard against on-line gambling.

If the GOP were to somehow take control of the Legislature this fall they would be less likely to opt-out, but may elect to do so if there is a GOP governor urging them too or if the card clubs urged them to.

The chances of Minnesota not opting out are slim and none. The opposition is too well-funded and entrenched here to not get an opt-out passed.

The only hope would be if the Indepence Party were to win the governor's office. The only way they do that is if Jesse Ventura comes back and runs for. When Jesse was governor I thought we was a lunatic. Now I would probably vote for him.
LOL at how wrong you are.
rainedon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 02:55 PM   #85
tax practitioner
 
Russ Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 813
Re: Individual State opt-out prediction thread

I'll add two more states that I'm familiar with:

Nevada:This state won't turn down the revenue and the state already has flirted with online gambling. Nevada will opt-in.

Hawaii: There is no legal gambling in Hawaii. If either the legislature or the governor can opt-out, Hawaii will do so. If the current Governor, Linda Lingle (R) is the governor when federal legislation passes and only the governor can opt-out, then there's a chance that Hawaii will opt-in. Overall, the odds favor Hawaii opting out.

-- Russ Fox
Russ Fox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 03:03 PM   #86
centurion
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 128
Re: Individual State opt-out prediction thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by rainedon View Post
LOL at how wrong you are.
I'd love for you to explain, so that I can sleep better at night.
Busted_Flat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 03:08 PM   #87
self-banned
 
LirvA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Free Manning, Hammond, and Brown.
Posts: 42,865
Re: Individual State opt-out prediction thread

I'm writing to the (gubernatorial? ) candidates in Oklahoma to inquire about their position regarding online poker and HR 2267. The front runners are Mary Fallin (R) and Drew Edmonson (D)


This is the letter



Dear ____


I am writing to inquire about your position regarding online poker. I am a professional poker player, and I rely on online poker, a peer to peer skill game, for income. The reason I am inquiring is concerning HR 2267 The internet gambling regulation, consumer protection, and enforcement act. If passed, the bill will include provisions for states to opt out of offering regulated and licensed online poker, and though the bill has yet to go for markup and the final details are not yet known, the method for opting out may be as simple as state governors writing a letter.

I, as a voter and as a poker player, support candidates who support me and my civil liberties to do as I wish with my money, and this includes playing online poker. I am not alone. There is a huge community of poker players who follow poker related legislation closely, and they stand and vote with me, and we all have the support of the poker players alliance. Please inform me of your position regarding online poker and my freedom to play. Thank you.




will post any replies I get imo.
LirvA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 03:09 PM   #88
grinder
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 512
Re: Individual State opt-out prediction thread

My home state of Michigan is dying for revenue and already allows charity poker rooms and short-term licenses for charity-sponsored gambling events, of which there are many constantly running.

Prediction: Michigan opts in.
msufan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 03:35 PM   #89
PPA Board Member/LSN Dir
 
Skallagrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: It's a PPA post only if so stated
Posts: 6,677
Re: Individual State opt-out prediction thread

ALL EXCELLENT POSTS! THANKS!

2 points I want to make:

1) I have to disagree with LetsGambol over Massachusetts. I see MA as very likely to opt in. They are a state desperate for revenue. There are virtually no religious right types. There are plenty of left-ish nanny-staters of course, but they seem to have welcomed the idea of raising revenue through "appropriately regulated" gaming. They have Keno in bars throughout MA, for example. And the instate gaming interests backed down pretty quickly in the battle to remove an anti-online gaming provision from the current casino bills. I don't think they really see it as an issue. And unlike some of the smaller tribal gaming interests, I think they realize that licensed online gaming is not a threat to their operations. I predict Massachusetts opts in.

Which leads to my second point. I wonder about the perceived strength of these tribal interests. If they are as powerful as many of you seem to think, why haven't they gotten better deals for themselves over the past few years? I agree that these are forces to be reckoned with, but I wonder if they are really that powerful.

However, in some states it is clear that they are at least nearly that powerful. California and Florida come to mind. In those states the tribes are paying dearly to the state for the luxury of a state monopoly. And given their smallish nature and the general lack of player-friendly rules in those casinos, their monopoly is very important to them.

But we can also see how some of the bigger, more successful tribal monopolies view the situation differently. The Connecticut Mohegans favor being able to compete in an online market. They realize that being in the online game will actually increase business, not decrease it (much as the AGA has come to that view - at least with respect to poker). Perhaps a little more publicity about the ability of these tribal casinos to tap in to online gaming, at least in terms of advertising their product, may change their attitude.

Skallagrim

One last point. The PPA has never suggested that the opt out number of states would be 12. I, me personally, revealed that I had seen some private studies which gave that number as a "best guess." Because that number is clearly a guess, and because that guess is based on probably less information than we can generate in this forum, I started this thread.
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 03:40 PM   #90
journeyman
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 293
Re: Individual State opt-out prediction thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA View Post
I'm writing to the (gubernatorial? ) candidates in Oklahoma to inquire about their position regarding online poker and HR 2267. The front runners are Mary Fallin (R) and Drew Edmonson (D)


This is the letter



Dear ____


I am writing to inquire about your position regarding online poker. I am a professional poker player, and I rely on online poker, a peer to peer skill game, for income. The reason I am inquiring is concerning HR 2267 The internet gambling regulation, consumer protection, and enforcement act. If passed, the bill will include provisions for states to opt out of offering regulated and licensed online poker, and though the bill has yet to go for markup and the final details are not yet known, the method for opting out may be as simple as state governors writing a letter.

I, as a voter and as a poker player, support candidates who support me and my civil liberties to do as I wish with my money, and this includes playing online poker. I am not alone. There is a huge community of poker players who follow poker related legislation closely, and they stand and vote with me, and we all have the support of the poker players alliance. Please inform me of your position regarding online poker and my freedom to play. Thank you.




will post any replies I get imo.

I wrote then congresswoman Fallin a while back with a similar letter over her stance on online poker and received the standard "gambling destroys families, blah blah blah, thank you for your letter" reply.
All that being said, Oklahoma never met a tax revenue that they didn't like so I don't think it's entirely a lot cause here.
luxv is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive