NJ online poker legislation (passed) - Page 6 - Poker Legislation

LetsGambool · 08-29-2011, 09:52 AM

Far from perfect, and I have concerns that as horse racing continues to die more money will be sucked out of poker, but looks like its worth supporting. Hope the PPA gets behind this as its the most likely chance to get regulated poker in the US in 2012.

Its not the preferred Federal bill, but it is a positive for poker player. No need to stay wedded to the Fairplay/Ceasar's agenda when it doesn't match up with the interests of players.

thewhackness · 08-29-2011, 12:23 PM

I agree that the PPA and players should support this bill. At the very least, the PPA should put out a press release indicating their support.

Supporting the NJ bill will help our federal effort by putting pressure on Congress. It supports our goal of at least (some) poker players being able to play in the near future. The bill appears to be well written and isn't too bad for the player. Much better bill for the players than other state bills (IE California.)

I'd like to see regulated online poker somewhere besides D.C. in the near future.

LetsGambool · 08-29-2011, 02:46 PM

Agreed, I could be missing something but I dont see how this precludes a Federal effort So, if players in NJ support this, I think we should be getting behind it. I can see why Ceasar's wouldnt necessarily like it and why Fairplay wouldnt support it, but the PPA can definitely get behind it, at least with a press release and call to action for players to call legislators and support passage. "We prefer a Federal solution, but poker is not a crime -and we support constructive legislation that improves access to regulated i-poker for US citizens. Players will benefit from the expertise of the NJ gaming commission while creating jobs in NJ, blah, blah, blah".

Plus we can see what works and what doesnt to give us a better idea of what we need to push for in Federal Legislation to create a player friendly market.

funkyj · 08-29-2011, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

PPA does not oppose the NJ bill, of course. PPA may very well endorse it once we complete reviewing the new filing, but your posts seem to be limited to "the federal government is evil...keep them out at all costs," when the reality of our situation is that it's the states (aside from NV) that treat gaming as something to be permitted solely for revenue -- and the maximum revenue at that.

TANGENT: an ironic intersection between this fact an the skill argument is that poker can be turned into house banked blackjack (more or less) if you rake it hard enough -- even the most skilled players can not beat the game. Of course, if the game is raked too lightly, the government (and/or the casino) is failing to maximize revenue. I.e. every dollar that goes into a winning player's pocket is a dollar the casino/govt has left on the table.

One assumption of the argument above is that the demand for iPoker is relatively inelastic.

Stackedu · 08-29-2011, 04:49 PM

Single state poker rooms are almost guaranteed to fail. The player pools are too small and if players can't make a living a from the site, then you will have a handful of people playing 1 table for recreation. Most of poker sites revenue is from Multitabling regs/ professionals, but as always the people in charge can't figure that out and push for protetctionism thinking that a state only poker room will generate more tax dollars.

Do politicians even do research before they try to pass a law?

TheDarkElf · 08-29-2011, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stackedu

Single state poker rooms are almost guaranteed to fail. The player pools are too small and if players can't make a living a from the site, then you will have a handful of people playing 1 table for recreation. Most of poker sites revenue is from Multitabling regs/ professionals, but as always the people in charge can't figure that out and push for protetctionism thinking that a state only poker room will generate more tax dollars.

Do politicians even do research before they try to pass a law?

I guess 95% of B&M poker rooms should just shut down. Having 20 tables or less, mostly spreading 1-2NL with rake not conducive for pros, they must be losing their shirts.

Of course, the bill that is the subject of this thread permits all the casino games. It is for iGambling, not exclusively iPoker. A site doesn't need a gigantic player pool to make money from roulette, craps, or blackjack.

**PokerXanadu** · 08-29-2011, 05:41 PM

Support of the NJ bill by the PPA is definitely in order. But I doubt it will make a whit of difference. Last time this bill easily passed the legislature. The problem lies with getting it signed into law by the NJ governor, who vetoed it last time and has given no indication that he would sign it this time. That's where efforts should be concentrated. If the bill stalls in the legislature it will be due to the governor's stance. I recommend NJ players start putting pressure on the governor (calls, emails, facebook, etc.) to support the bill.

ScreaminAsian · 08-29-2011, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Agreed, I could be missing something but I dont see how this precludes a Federal effort So, if players in NJ support this, I think we should be getting behind it. I can see why Ceasar's wouldnt necessarily like it and why Fairplay wouldnt support it, but the PPA can definitely get behind it, at least with a press release and call to action for players to call legislators and support passage. "We prefer a Federal solution, but poker is not a crime -and we support constructive legislation that improves access to regulated i-poker for US citizens. Players will benefit from the expertise of the NJ gaming commission while creating jobs in NJ, blah, blah, blah".

Plus we can see what works and what doesnt to give us a better idea of what we need to push for in Federal Legislation to create a player friendly market.

and it will put more pressure on reid and kyl to implement their federal system before more states make their own laws igaming-- kyl would be pissed if a state in his fine union allowed sites to spread legal roulette and blackjack online! poker's bad enough!

AND they can opt-in to a federal system later on, which is the only thing that effects me, a player out of state. id love for the ppa to get behind this; and i'd help canvass online.

LetsGambool · 08-29-2011, 07:17 PM

I guess the one counterargument to supporting this passage is if any state passing a bill will kill any chance of Kyl supporting a Federal compromise, but trusting Jon Kyl to stick to his word seems dicey. Plus that seems like its a fight for other interests, not for us as players.

PX, I agree, and Im not sure we'll influence Christie too much but that's the place to start. Seems like we should take our shot and seems like we should support access to regulated i-poker based on our core principles and mission.

I would also contact the legislators because, if this does fail, it doesnt hurt to start making our voices heard for if/when NJ has to decide whether to opt-in to a Federal system.

TheDarkElf · 08-29-2011, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

I guess the one counterargument to supporting this passage is if any state passing a bill will kill any chance of Kyl supporting a Federal compromise, but trusting Jon Kyl to stick to his word seems dicey. Plus that seems like its a fight for other interests, not for us as players.

Not to mention that all we really got from Kyl is one little blurb on his blog. People aren't even sure whether it appeared this year or last.

LetsGambool · 08-29-2011, 08:29 PM

We have the Reid/Kyl letter to the DOJ too, but point taken.

TheDarkElf · 08-30-2011, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

Support of the NJ bill by the PPA is definitely in order. But I doubt it will make a whit of difference. Last time this bill easily passed the legislature. The problem lies with getting it signed into law by the NJ governor, who vetoed it last time and has given no indication that he would sign it this time. That's where efforts should be concentrated. If the bill stalls in the legislature it will be due to the governor's stance. I recommend NJ players start putting pressure on the governor (calls, emails, facebook, etc.) to support the bill.

Agreed, Christie has to be satisfied. But he is gonna have to come up with a good reason to veto, especially if federal legislation is still in limbo. NJ casinos are getting wiped out by competition from two sides (PA and DE). And the state could certainly use the revenue.

And even if he uses his veto power, I think the votes are there to overturn the veto.

DonkeyQuixote · 08-30-2011, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

Support of the NJ bill by the PPA is definitely in order. But I doubt it will make a whit of difference. Last time this bill easily passed the legislature. The problem lies with getting it signed into law by the NJ governor, who vetoed it last time and has given no indication that he would sign it this time. That's where efforts should be concentrated. If the bill stalls in the legislature it will be due to the governor's stance. I recommend NJ players start putting pressure on the governor (calls, emails, facebook, etc.) to support the bill.

Reality check time ... It is clear that the NJ bill should be supported, in the gneral interest of poker players andvthe specific interest of NJ poker players.

However, the PPA will not issue a press release to support it or make any other overt statement of support.

(Caesars pulled out all stops to get a veto of the earlier bill, while the PPA did nothing. Do not expect anything different from the PPA this time around.)

The outcome may change htis time. With NJ under water, literally and figuratively, an online gaming revenue stream might look too appealing to pass up this time around.

MrAce777 · 08-30-2011, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

Agreed, Christie has to be satisfied. But he is gonna have to come up with a good reason to veto, especially if federal legislation is still in limbo. NJ casinos are getting wiped out by competition from two sides (PA and DE). And the state could certainly use the revenue.

And even if he uses his veto power, I think the votes are there to overturn the veto.

Are Christie's fellow republican legislators willing to override Christie's veto if he should veto this bill?

TheDarkElf · 08-30-2011, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrAce777

Are Christie's fellow republican legislators willing to override Christie's veto if he should veto this bill?

Don't know. Does Christie really have that much support in the Legislature? He is a bit of a maverick with plans for Washington, DC. I would be careful of carrying him if I were a member of the Legislature.

Here is a good test case:

http://www.theridgewoodblog.net/2011...-override.html