MA Online Gaming Being Considered

[CashRules36]

See this interview with Steve Grossman, the treasurer of Massachusetts, about the potential for online gaming in MA.

http://www.boston.com/business/techn...?p1=News_links

From the article:
The task force will also consider the impact of online gambling on Massachusetts’ nascent casino industry. “What happens if there is unfettered online poker and online roulette in Massachusetts?’’ Grossman asked. “Will that cause casino companies to bid less aggressively for licenses?’’

What can we do to help the Grossman be convinced online poker will be a good thing for the state? I know just last week there was a PPA action to send a letter to state lawmakers encouraging them to support online poker in response the Wire Act ruling. That letter went to Gov. Patrick, Att. General Coalkly and my two state reps. However, Grossman was not on that distribution list and seems to be a key player.

[LastLife]

Ask the Treasury
Steve Grossman Twitter
Treasury Twitter
Facebook

[CashRules36]

Originally Posted by LastLife

Ask the Treasury
Steve Grossman Twitter
Treasury Twitter
Facebook

Message sent via ask the treasury.

[Its Sick]

Originally Posted by LastLife

Ask the Treasury
Steve Grossman Twitter
Treasury Twitter
Facebook

I haven't been able to keep up with recent events on here recently so could anyone provide a template or example of what exactly we should be sending to him aside from "online poker is good".

[TBadr]

Originally Posted by CashRules36

Message sent via ask the treasury.

same here.

[CheckRaise_]

Originally Posted by LastLife

Ask the Treasury
Steve Grossman Twitter
Treasury Twitter
Facebook

I wrote:

Spoiler:

Please support online poker, many elements of poker require skill and knowledge unlike gambling. Online poker is a great thing that many poker players are currently denied access to in this country, we want to be able to what we love doing once again so, please consider online poker indifferent of actual internet casino gambling.

-Thank you for reading

btw don't copy what I wrote, at least change it ^ a bit so it doesn't seem like they're being spammed!

[LetsGambool]

Grossman will be very happy with online poker offered by the MA lottery and very unhappy with any other online poker offered.

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Grossman will be very happy with online poker offered by the MA lottery and very unhappy with any other online poker offered.

Probably true.

But does he have more clout than the soon-to-be MA casino gaming interests?

Skallagrim

[LetsGambool]

Not sure, but he's positioned himself very smartly through the MA casino bill to have a prominent seat at the table. I think we have very, very little chance of opting into a Federal bill if he's the Treasurer, at least initially.

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Not sure, but he's positioned himself very smartly through the MA casino bill to have a prominent seat at the table. I think we have very, very little chance of opting into a Federal bill if he's the Treasurer, at least initially.

I disagree IF there is Federal poker-only bill. IF that happens the casinos will push the lottery aside (which won't really care that much about poker-only) and MA will opt-in.

If there is no Federal bill than it is a wide open guess. This lottery commissioner sure sounds like he wants online sales and probably online lottery games. What is the difference between an online slot and an online instant scratch off ticket? Virtually none to the player.

But the casinos will still want in on that action. And after ponying up hundreds of millions directly to the state and investing hundreds of millions more in construction, they just might get it.

Skallagrim

[LetsGambool]

MA aside, I think the idea that lotteries wont care about poker-only is horribly, horribly wrong. I hope that's not the PPA's viewpoint, its a really, really bad assumption.

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

MA aside, I think the idea that lotteries wont care about poker-only is horribly, horribly wrong. I hope that's not the PPA's viewpoint, its a really, really bad assumption.

Is there a reason to twist my words? Did I say "state lotteries do not care about online poker"?

What I said and stand by is that state lotteries will not be enthusiastic about going into online gaming if the ONLY game they get to offer is participation in interstate online poker. It is not enough money by itself and they have no B&M facilities to promote. Where a state has competing instate casino interests, those interests will get the ability to participate in online poker without too much objection from lottery officials.

Start talking about having or not having online gaming, start talking about online gaming other than poker, then the result is quite different.

Skallagrim

[LetsGambool]

You said lotteries won't care that much about poker-only. I said I thought the idea that lotteries wont care about poker-only was horribly wrong. Where is the word twisting?

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

You said lotteries won't care that much about poker-only. I said I thought the idea that lotteries wont care about poker-only was horribly wrong. Where is the word twisting?

No reason to debate semantics. I think it is obvious that my statement indicates caring about participating in a Federally regulated interstate market limited to peer to peer poker.

Do you really think the MA state lottery, or any state lottery for that matter, is going to be leaping at the chance to create an online poker-only site to compete with WSOP.com, MGM.com, and others IF a Federal bill passes?

Skallagrim

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

I disagree IF there is Federal poker-only bill. IF that happens the casinos will push the lottery aside (which won't really care that much about poker-only) and MA will opt-in

...

Skallagrim

Which part of which bill (Barton or Reid or w/e) stops states from expanding their lottery operations online?