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

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by novahunterpa

That's why Reid/kyl is going have such a hard time trying to attach their bill. It's not so much the vehicle but the votes that are difficult to find.

We know why Reid wants a bill and why Kyl might support it but many other congresscritters will want more then a bill that benefits NV and their casinos or carves out poker while banning other games and the possibility for their state to collect those revenues. ....

How is Reid going to attach a bill that largely benefits NV? .... No one is going to simply let Reid attach a bill to benefit NV without fully debating the matter.

You are right. You are so right that even the lobbyists and congressional staffers also realize you are right. No bill that only benefits Nevada is going to get passed.

A bill may get passed that benefits the Nevada interests if it also has something for other interests. That something may be access to certain new areas denied before, that something may be denial of access for everyone to certain new areas that would otherwise compete with existing interests.

Its a tough deal to create. It was too tough to get done in the short time frame between the 2010 election and the 2011 new Congress. But Reid and Kyl and their staff and the lobbyists for the various interests have been working hard at the deal since that time.

Pappas said he thinks the deal is basically done and I do not know anyone with better "inside the beltway" information on this issue than John Pappas.

The terms of the deal will become public when Reid and Kyl want them to become public, and so far few of the details have been leaked. But the grand scheme is public knowledge: Interstate poker gets allowed (subject to individual state approval) with NV interests having a bit of a head start but other states able to get on board; other casino games are prohibited interstate; tribes get to participate in poker and preserve their exclusivity regarding other casino games without new state deals; states get to control most of what goes on intrastate with certain limitations but those limitations will still allow state lotteries some expanded access and some protection from out of state competition; small casinos and tribes are protected from new online competition in the area that matters most, access to online slots, and are given other ways to have a presence online.

And ... oh wait, if I want to add more I will have betray confidences. I should do that right, and perhaps jeopardize the whole deal because then maybe DQ will stop calling me names ... LOL, even if that mattered to me for a fraction of a second we all know DQ is incapable of curing his skallagrim fixation. DQ's fixation is so great he apparently hasn't realized that I never respond to him directly. Or perhaps he knows he can ask questions that I will not respond to so that then he can complain that I did not respond. He enjoys that sort of thing it appears.

Also, I do not know that many confidences or details. The big players are keeping this close to the vest for a reason. And the probable reason is, as is the case with most legislation these days, they want to present it as "done deal" so as to precisely avoid further picking at the deal by outsiders like those who, for example, hope to gain financial advantage from selling online casino marketing software and strategy to state lottery commissions.

Skallagrim

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

What has changed over the last three months or so to weaken lottery interests so much that they can't stand in the way of a Federal poker bill that ignores their interests?

....

I dont see how we can just bulldoze a solution through that many or most state lotteries dislike. ....

LetsGambool, state lotteries only have the power that they do because of current federal legislation - specifically the law that prevents lotteries in one state from selling tickets in another state.

But that law only applies to traditional lotteries and their tickets. It is not designed to also apply to the new world of online scratch tickets indistinguishable from online slots.

Right now, thanks to the DOJ, states have the ability to allow their monopoly lotteries and/or instate casino interests to start online slots and similar games. Delaware has done it and New Jersey and Illinois are considering it.

But what stops Delaware from offering its games in New Jersey or Illinois once those states also allow online casino games? Only state law ... state law subject to Dormant Commerce Clause analysis.

Without federal legal protection, state lotteries that start online games could very easily be forced to also surrender their monopolies on those games. Thus allowing an opportunistic state like maybe Nevada to authorize private business to offer national lotteries in which 40-50-60% does not have to go "to the children."

Ask your friendly neighborhood lottery director which is more important: preventing out-of-state operators from running games in his/her state or getting his/her lottery in on online slots?

So for state lotteries the point is to be careful of what you wish for ....

And so their are ways for even state lotteries to also get behind this federal legislation; even if (and for the benefit of a certain troll I emphasize IF) it doesn't give them unfettered rights to have an in-state monopoly on online slots.

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by LirvA

PPA, meet the bed you've made. Congrats.

Thanks! It sure beats the prohibition we were looking at six years ago.

[big gilute]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

Thanks! It sure beats the prohibition we were looking at six years ago.

+1

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

What has changed over the last three months or so to weaken lottery interests so much that they can't stand in the way of a Federal poker bill that ignores their interests?

Nothing. They are still there and they are still strong. I was simply responding to DQ's post, which was just short of implying that lotteries are deserving of a piece of this and that PPA should be pushing for their inclusion as a matter of fairness.

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

LetsGambool, state lotteries only have the power that they do because of current federal legislation - specifically the law that prevents lotteries in one state from selling tickets in another state.

But that law only applies to traditional lotteries and their tickets. It is not designed to also apply to the new world of online scratch tickets indistinguishable from online slots.

Right now, thanks to the DOJ, states have the ability to allow their monopoly lotteries and/or instate casino interests to start online slots and similar games. Delaware has done it and New Jersey and Illinois are considering it.

But what stops Delaware from offering its games in New Jersey or Illinois once those states also allow online casino games? Only state law ... state law subject to Dormant Commerce Clause analysis.

Without federal legal protection, state lotteries that start online games could very easily be forced to also surrender their monopolies on those games. Thus allowing an opportunistic state like maybe Nevada to authorize private business to offer national lotteries in which 40-50-60% does not have to go "to the children."

Ask your friendly neighborhood lottery director which is more important: preventing out-of-state operators from running games in his/her state or getting his/her lottery in on online slots?

So for state lotteries the point is to be careful of what you wish for ....

And so their are ways for even state lotteries to also get behind this federal legislation; even if (and for the benefit of a certain troll I emphasize IF) it doesn't give them unfettered rights to have an in-state monopoly on online slots.

Skallagrim

Skall, that's interesting analysis, but it it doesn't really address either of my two points.

It certainly seemed like, from comments made on here this Spring, the lotteries were a major factor in gumming up a potential attachment. So is there something in that analysis that wasn't there a few months ago? What has changed the mind of state lotteries?

My second point was about lotteries pressuring states to opt out to protect their stranglehold on state gaming revenue. Wouldnt your post indicate they are likely to do just that?

Third, if its so easy for lotteries to provide games across state lines without legislation, why wouldnt that apply to poker as well? I thought the DOJ authorized intrastate gaming at this point? Furthermore, why would states choose to invade each others territory rather than forming partnerships as they have with MegaMillions and Powerball type games?

If I was a lottery provider and had political clout, those incentives wouldnt be enough for me. I'd want a cut of the money generated, preferential market access, or guarantees on my take of state gambling revenue. Otherwise Id take my chances with the intrastate route, where I would definitely get a perferred competitive position in any legislation, and figure out how to most profitably expand from there.

Obviously a less winning-player friendly route, but why would I give a damn about that?

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

Skall, that's interesting analysis, but it it doesn't really address either of my two points.

It certainly seemed like, from comments made on here this Spring, the lotteries were a major factor in gumming up a potential attachment. So is there something in that analysis that wasn't there a few months ago? What has changed the mind of state lotteries?

The realization that if they want to get into online gaming other than their traditional role (selling tickets for the daily/weekly drawings) they are not going to have a monopoly on those games too unless the Feds give it to them. And the Feds are not inclined to give it to them (Kyl very much so).

My second point was about lotteries pressuring states to opt out to protect their stranglehold on state gaming revenue. Wouldnt your post indicate they are likely to do just that?

Yes, if they see it costing them significant revenue. But online poker ALONE does not cost them revenue; online poker alone is not really even competition. And any small amount of lottery revenue lost will flow back to the state through other mechanisms.

Other online gambling is competition and is likely to cause a reduction in lottery revenue. So they can choose to compete in that market (ha-ha) or they can ask to have that market made illegal under most circumstances, or they can demand that their states get a portion of the revenue commensurate with what the lottery looses. But the one thing they wont get is a monopoly over the internet.

Third, if its so easy for lotteries to provide games across state lines without legislation, why wouldnt that apply to poker as well? I thought the DOJ authorized intrastate gaming at this point? Furthermore, why would states choose to invade each others territory rather than forming partnerships as they have with MegaMillions and Powerball type games?

It is not easy, it requires BOTH states to have laws that allow the games. If Delaware wants to offer its games in Utah where there is zero legal gambling, too bad - doing so would be illegal.

But if Illinois has legal online slots then Delaware is not providing an illegal game, merely violating a protectionist law. States do not have the power to let one entity run a game (itself) and prohibit another entity from offering the same game simply because it is an out-of-state entity, that is the Dormant Commerce Clause in action.

If I was a lottery provider and had political clout, those incentives wouldnt be enough for me. I'd want a cut of the money generated, preferential market access, or guarantees on my take of state gambling revenue. Otherwise Id take my chances with the intrastate route, where I would definitely get a perferred competitive position in any legislation, and figure out how to most profitably expand from there.

Obviously a less winning-player friendly route, but why would I give a damn about that?

Greedy people are greedy; they want it all. When the realize they can't have it all they look for what they can get or at least something that protects what they already have. State lottery monopolies are no different.

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

^^^

+1

It would be like hens lobbying for the fox to be the hen house guard.

[LetsGambool]

So have lotteries actually changed their viewpoint or is this a theory as to why lotteries might support a bill? I thought TE said no but Skall said yes? I don't find this a compelling case for lotteries to support a bill, nor do I think they are going to view poker as "different" when pushing for opt outs, so curious if this is just a new pitch or if lotteries are on board.

Edit: I'm really skeptical of dcc arguments on this as well given our smack down in the Washington courts, and I don't see why lotteries would compete with each other rather than collude as monopolies for online lottery-type games.

[Karak]

Originally Posted by LirvA

PPA, meet the bed you've made. Congrats.

I can't imagine what sort of logic is behind this post. Come on, Lirva. You know better than this.

[Karak]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

You are right. You are so right that even the lobbyists and congressional staffers also realize you are right. No bill that only benefits Nevada is going to get passed.

A bill may get passed that benefits the Nevada interests if it also has something for other interests. That something may be access to certain new areas denied before, that something may be denial of access for everyone to certain new areas that would otherwise compete with existing interests.

Its a tough deal to create. It was too tough to get done in the short time frame between the 2010 election and the 2011 new Congress. But Reid and Kyl and their staff and the lobbyists for the various interests have been working hard at the deal since that time.

Pappas said he thinks the deal is basically done and I do not know anyone with better "inside the beltway" information on this issue than John Pappas.

The terms of the deal will become public when Reid and Kyl want them to become public, and so far few of the details have been leaked. But the grand scheme is public knowledge: Interstate poker gets allowed (subject to individual state approval) with NV interests having a bit of a head start but other states able to get on board; other casino games are prohibited interstate; tribes get to participate in poker and preserve their exclusivity regarding other casino games without new state deals; states get to control most of what goes on intrastate with certain limitations but those limitations will still allow state lotteries some expanded access and some protection from out of state competition; small casinos and tribes are protected from new online competition in the area that matters most, access to online slots, and are given other ways to have a presence online.

And ... oh wait, if I want to add more I will have betray confidences. I should do that right, and perhaps jeopardize the whole deal because then maybe DQ will stop calling me names ... LOL, even if that mattered to me for a fraction of a second we all know DQ is incapable of curing his skallagrim fixation. DQ's fixation is so great he apparently hasn't realized that I never respond to him directly. Or perhaps he knows he can ask questions that I will not respond to so that then he can complain that I did not respond. He enjoys that sort of thing it appears.

Also, I do not know that many confidences or details. The big players are keeping this close to the vest for a reason. And the probable reason is, as is the case with most legislation these days, they want to present it as "done deal" so as to precisely avoid further picking at the deal by outsiders like those who, for example, hope to gain financial advantage from selling online casino marketing software and strategy to state lottery commissions.

Skallagrim

[novahunterpa]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

You are right. You are so right that even the lobbyists and congressional staffers also realize you are right. No bill that only benefits Nevada is going to get passed.

A bill may get passed that benefits the Nevada interests if it also has something for other interests. That something may be access to certain new areas denied before, that something may be denial of access for everyone to certain new areas that would otherwise compete with existing interests.

Its a tough deal to create. It was too tough to get done in the short time frame between the 2010 election and the 2011 new Congress. But Reid and Kyl and their staff and the lobbyists for the various interests have been working hard at the deal since that time.

Pappas said he thinks the deal is basically done and I do not know anyone with better "inside the beltway" information on this issue than John Pappas.

The terms of the deal will become public when Reid and Kyl want them to become public, and so far few of the details have been leaked. But the grand scheme is public knowledge: Interstate poker gets allowed (subject to individual state approval) with NV interests having a bit of a head start but other states able to get on board; other casino games are prohibited interstate; tribes get to participate in poker and preserve their exclusivity regarding other casino games without new state deals; states get to control most of what goes on intrastate with certain limitations but those limitations will still allow state lotteries some expanded access and some protection from out of state competition; small casinos and tribes are protected from new online competition in the area that matters most, access to online slots, and are given other ways to have a presence online.

And ... oh wait, if I want to add more I will have betray confidences. I should do that right, and perhaps jeopardize the whole deal because then maybe DQ will stop calling me names ... LOL, even if that mattered to me for a fraction of a second we all know DQ is incapable of curing his skallagrim fixation. DQ's fixation is so great he apparently hasn't realized that I never respond to him directly. Or perhaps he knows he can ask questions that I will not respond to so that then he can complain that I did not respond. He enjoys that sort of thing it appears.

Also, I do not know that many confidences or details. The big players are keeping this close to the vest for a reason. And the probable reason is, as is the case with most legislation these days, they want to present it as "done deal" so as to precisely avoid further picking at the deal by outsiders like those who, for example, hope to gain financial advantage from selling online casino marketing software and strategy to state lottery commissions.

Skallagrim

So basically no one knows if there's a deal,what's in the deal if there is one or how they plan on attaching it. So once again we're supposed to get our hopes up on a something that isn't very likely to happen.

[Karak]

Pappas & Skall know their stuff

[totaltool]

Originally Posted by novahunterpa

So basically no one knows if there's a deal,what's in the deal if there is one or how they plan on attaching it. So once again we're supposed to get our hopes up on a something that isn't very likely to happen.

You're discounting the prospects of legislation passing because reid/kyl have not made a public announcement (which would obviously be counterproductive to its chances of passage)? Don't get your hopes up- nobody cares if you do.

The likelihood of a bill passing is impossible to quantify obviously, but the absence of a public announcement that a deal has been reached does not necessarily make it unlikely.

[TheDarkElf]

Originally Posted by totaltool

You're discounting the prospects of legislation passing because reid/kyl have not made a public announcement (which would obviously be counterproductive to its chances of passage)? Don't get your hopes up- nobody cares if you do.

The likelihood of a bill passing is impossible to quantify obviously, but the absence of a public announcement that a deal has been reached does not necessarily make it unlikely.

IMO, it most certainly does. This Congress can't seem to agree on anything. And after the election they are just gonna push a bill through that hasn't been vetted? I don't think so.