NJ online poker legislation (passed) - Poker Legislation

raradevils · 07-26-2011, 08:38 AM

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...s_have_th.html

LetsGambool · 07-26-2011, 09:37 AM

If this looks like the bill that almost passed earlier this year, I really hope we all get behind it and support it.

raradevils · 07-26-2011, 09:42 AM

So do I. This could force a faster time table at the federal level if a state were to pass a viable piece of legislation!!

TheDarkElf · 07-26-2011, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

If this looks like the bill that almost passed earlier this year, I really hope we all get behind it and support it.

Actually the NJ iGambling bill did pass, but was vetoed by Christie, supposedly because he was concerned about its legality, but more likely because of "outside influences", plus he wants to be president someday, so he has to "think federal".

Reedy174 · 07-26-2011, 10:30 AM

The wait is on til November! I have a good feeling about this after I read that a lot of other states are getting ready to introduce their own intrastate gambling laws. I'm hoping that if states pass their own gambling laws, Congress will open their eyes, and get a federal bill going that would legalize online poker nationwide.
hope hope hope

raradevils · 07-26-2011, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reedy174

The wait is on til November! I have a good feeling about this after I read that a lot of other states are getting ready to introduce their own intrastate gambling laws. I'm hoping that if states pass their own gambling laws, Congress will open their eyes, and get a federal bill going that would legalize online poker nationwide.
hope hope hope

+1

ScreaminAsian · 07-26-2011, 01:35 PM

I'm glad Harry Reid and Caesars are aware of the prime importance of massive playerpools to make poker sites successful. and that they'll block this and all other intrastate leg and jam a federal system onto all these turkeys.

gnvsnk · 07-26-2011, 03:51 PM

Just like with the CA bill, I'm surprised (to say the least) this gets any support here... What am I missing?

TheDarkElf · 07-26-2011, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnvsnnkv

Just like with the CA bill, I'm surprised (to say the least) this gets any support here... What am I missing?

(1) Threat of state legislation may spur on federal legislation.

(2) Federal legislation may NEVER happen in our lifetimes.

LetsGambool · 07-26-2011, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

Actually the NJ iGambling bill did pass, but was vetoed by Christie, supposedly because he was concerned about its legality, but more likely because of "outside influences", plus he wants to be president someday, so he has to "think federal".

I meant passed as signed into law, I know the background.

I know the PPA was neutral on this bill earlier in the year, and it was understandable. Post Black Friday I would hope the PPA supports the bill and works towards its passage. Its the best state bill we've seen that has a chance of passing.

LetsGambool · 07-26-2011, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnvsnnkv

Just like with the CA bill, I'm surprised (to say the least) this gets any support here... What am I missing?

This bill was much better for players than the CA bill. Some one else can better fill in the details, but didnt require opting out from a Federal bill and didnt have criminal penalties against players as a starter. Also, IIRC, was a more open market than the CA bill.

LetsGambool · 07-26-2011, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian

I'm glad Harry Reid and Caesars are aware of the prime importance of massive playerpools to make poker sites successful. and that they'll block this and all other intrastate leg and jam a federal system onto all these turkeys.

I dont remember the NJ bill having an automatic Federal opt-out, so the two arent exclusive.

NJ has nearly as many people as Sweden, which IIRC has viable i-poker. If NJ can have viable i-poker, should they automatically wait for a Federal bill that may never come? Especially if they could opt-in to that if intrastate doesnt work for them?

TheDarkElf · 07-26-2011, 05:10 PM

The NJ bill was for all of iGaming - specifically, everything AC has (craps, roulette, BJ, ...). The same people behind it are also trying to get sports betting, despite the Federal ban on legalization of sports betting.

As far as the poker goes, there would only be one network - different sites could compete only with promotions.

LetsGambool · 07-26-2011, 05:22 PM

That's the Swedish model, isnt it?

Hey if NJ players are against this, that's cool. I thought most NJ players on here wanted it to pass, but I could be wrong.

gnvsnk · 07-26-2011, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

(1) Threat of state legislation may spur on federal legislation.

(2) Federal legislation may NEVER happen in our lifetimes.

I guess what I meant to say is that both (1) and (2) are very unlikely to happen. But if there is no "OPT OUT" option I guess there's no downside, unless if the whole thing's successful, and it becomes HUGELY profitable to the NJ as a state as opposed to on the Fed level.