Pappas believes Reid/Kyl bill is written, waiting for the right time/vehicle

[mapleleaf]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

My sources tell me that there still isnt a final deal FWIW, but 3rd hand obviously

This really made me laugh. I sure hope legislation fails so you can win your bet.

[LetsGambool]

I dont. It's cheap price discovery with the proceeds going to help players. I'm marginally more optimistic than two days ago because someone hit the bid.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool
...even if we defy the odds and pass a bill, lotteries are going to drive states to opt out en masse if a Federal bill doesnt address their interests. As frustrating as they are to the process, ignoring their interests are suicidal.

Great point, and tribal controlled states like Wisconsin can probably be added to the opt out list as well.

The problem is that our benefactor, Sen. Harry Reid (NV), doesn't care how many States opt out because his bill mandates that the states which currently license commercial poker, including the big prize California, are legislatively opted in.

[Micro McD]

Originally Posted by mapleleaf

This really made me laugh. I sure hope legislation fails so you can win your bet.

Not sure if srs but if so i'm dead serious when I say GTFO, change your location, and go be a wannabe somewhere else.

[PokerXanadu]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

Great point, and tribal controlled states like Wisconsin can probably be added to the opt out list as well.

The problem is that our benefactor, Sen. Harry Reid (NV), doesn't care how many States opt out because his bill mandates that the states which currently license commercial poker, including the big prize California, are legislatively opted in.

Have you read his new bill? Where can it be seen?

If you mean the draft bill from 2010, it had three different versions and only one of them mandated such opt ins, iirc. Besides, just because it was in a 2010 draft bill doesn't mean it will be in his new bill, obv.

[tamiller866]

No I haven't, but since the guaranteed player pool was the juice of the bill for players, as well as being the meat of the bill for NV, we should hope it's still in there, and it's seems only logical to expect that it would be.

While the mandate on commercial poker States makes it less likely that Reid would make the kind of concessions that States he doesn't need might require to opt in initially, taking it out would likely be even worse since the revenue numbers would suffer.

My hope would be that he keeps the mandate in there, but concedes that those States which currently license B&M poker are just as qualified as NV/NJ to immediately begin licensing commercial online poker, and the NIGC which licenses more poker than any State will be able to begin licensing online poker immediately regardless of whether the State the tribal land happens to be located opts in, but I have no faith in Reid's willingness to compromise.

Even if Reid was inclined to be pragmatic, I don't know what he could offer to the lottery and horseracing 'stakeholders', perhaps just the option to lobby their State to opt out and a promise not to shut down the online horserace betting and lottery ticket sales already taking place - an implied threat that would have more teeth if Romney won the election.

At the town hall meeting Pappas referred to the California situation as a 'mess', but the federal situation is the same mess on a larger scale.

[PokerXanadu]

All we need to see in a federal bill is the provision that prevents states from being able to be opted out from the federal licensing regime while offering their own state-authorized i-poker (casino, tribal, lottery or whatever). The rest of the opt-in/opt-out issue ultimately doesn't matter.

[tamiller866]

I couldn't disagree more, if we end up with Reid's bill (NV & NJ allowed to begin licensing) and scratch out the mandate on commercial poker States, we'll have 48 states waiting to see how much revenue is available, with in-state stakeholders lobbying against opting in.

[PokerXanadu]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

I couldn't disagree more, if we end up with Reid's bill (NV & NJ allowed to begin licensing) and scratch out the mandate on commercial poker States, we'll have 48 states waiting to see how much revenue is available, with in-state stakeholders lobbying against opting in.

I said "ultimately". Obv, forcing states to opt in if they offer any commercial poker is a lot better, as is making the bill opt out instead of opt in. But I expect the federal regime to succeed even without those as long as states have to opt in if they want to participate in i-poker in any form. Keep in mind that the service providers who are vying now for position in the market through partnerships with the stakeholders will always take competition under federal licensing over no licensing.

[tamiller866]

The service providers may be willing to compete- though I see chilligaming saying today that they are pulling out of France because of the high taxes and competition - but the stakeholders are doing everything they can to block competition (adding language to block UIGEA providers, e.g.).

Do you believe that NV would prefer open competition and reciprocal licensing over the status quo? I don't, I view them like spoiled children who would prefer that the online gaming market is destroyed than to have to share it. Why am I wrong?

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

All we need to see in a federal bill is the provision that prevents states from being able to be opted out from the federal licensing regime while offering their own state-authorized i-poker (casino, tribal, lottery or whatever). The rest of the opt-in/opt-out issue ultimately doesn't matter.

That is where I see those other interests squashing a bill. Can we pass something with no votes from the California delegation?

[totaltool]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

The service providers may be willing to compete- though I see chilligaming saying today that they are pulling out of France because of the high taxes and competition - but the stakeholders are doing everything they can to block competition (adding language to block UIGEA providers, e.g.).

Do you believe that NV would prefer open competition and reciprocal licensing over the status quo? I don't, I view them like spoiled children who would prefer that the online gaming market is destroyed than to have to share it. Why am I wrong?

Because you almost always are?

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

Have you read his new bill? Where can it be seen?

If you mean the draft bill from 2010, it had three different versions and only one of them mandated such opt ins, iirc. Besides, just because it was in a 2010 draft bill doesn't mean it will be in his new bill, obv.

Apparently, someone feigning familiarity with his 'new" bill has described it as the "Great Compromise". When asked for a link or specific provisions, he had a typical hissy-fit and folded. no details or specfics or links were provided. Maybe the 'Great Compromise" came to that PPA poster on two Golden Plates ?

Maybe someone else from the PPA can address your request for the specifics ? If you are going to the 2+2 Party this evening, maybe ask someone from the PPA who is there ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by tamiller866

The service providers may be willing to compete- though I see chilligaming saying today that they are pulling out of France because of the high taxes and competition - but the stakeholders are doing everything they can to block competition (adding language to block UIGEA providers, e.g.).

Do you believe that NV would prefer open competition and reciprocal licensing over the status quo? I don't, I view them like spoiled children who would prefer that the online gaming market is destroyed than to have to share it. Why am I wrong?

I think you fail to understand how Nevada and its gaming industry entities perceive their own interests.

Nevada gaming companies, which have been hamstrung for years by the Federal government's anti-online gaming campaign, tried to enter the market in around 2000 - 2003. (This includes the Venetian, btw.) Take a close look when Nevada first passed online gaming legislation.

I heard Caesars VP Jan Jones explain a couple of years ago that breaking into the online gaming space was a survival issue for B&M gaming businesses and the Nevada-based brands in particular.

Do US companies want to "share" the US online gaming market, hell no.

Do US companies think they can access to an increasing general, overallonline marketplace without online gaming, hell no. The entertainment marketplace in clearly moved online, unless "US gambling" moves there as well, US companies will lose entertainment business to other online forms more readily available to consumers.

Folks with $$billions invested in B&M businesses stand to see B&M gaming die off, unless they develop an online marketing presence. (Of Nevada entities, perhaps only IGT is the most nimble in making the leap online, leveraging B&M customer contacts into expansion into a role as a major online supplier.)

Poker is a vehicle ONLY because it is politically feasible and possesses some social gaming traits perceived as the building block of branding in the online market and staying competitive against other forms of online entertainment.

[sba9630]

A small glimmer of hope? (As far as being able to attach an apparently unrelated amendment to a major bill).

Roll-your-own cigarette operations to be snuffed out [lvrj.com]

A tiny amendment buried in the federal transportation bill to be signed today by President Barack Obama will put operators of roll-your-own cigarette operations in Las Vegas and nationwide out of business at midnight.

...

...The man who pushed for this bill is Sen. (Max) Baucus from Montana...