Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoNeedmonyNEway??
Why would the gaming commission not instantly approve all jurisdictions, wouldnt that make them more money? It seems that any opposition to players playing outside of NV would have to come from other states (like Washington), so all "poker neutral" states should be allowed to play on sites regulated by the NV gaming commission.
I'm a legislation/law fish so don't freak out if that made no sense.
|
Fair enough question, actually.
Nevada derives its authority to regulate gambling from its status as a State. While it would defend the right of State X resident to travel to Nevada and gamble, it does not want to go pissing off other States, as to their ability to regulate gaming by their residents while at home, wherever State X may be.
The balance is likely a bit different when it comes to offshore, international players. The Commission may be more inclined to sign off on that sort of pooling, ESPECIALLY where an affiliate of the Nevada licensee has an offshore, intenrational license in effect from say Alderney. The Commission members have expressed interest in the Danish model of reciprocal pooling of players among international jurisdictions.
Now, the Commission likes to have an approval right as to what its licensees do internationally, such as partnering with 888 for international operations. So, the Commission will require any expansion into uncharted waters to be reviewed and approved for Nevada licensees' participation, whether internationally or multi-state.
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
