Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > General Poker Discussion > Poker Legislation & PPA Discussion hosted by Rich Muny

Notices

Poker Legislation & PPA Discussion hosted by Rich Muny Discussions of various poker-related laws and steps players can take to push for better laws.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-25-2012, 06:03 PM   #26
old hand
 
dmyers1166's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Our lab cali
Posts: 1,652
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

CA is big state with lots of gamblers, LV helps bring that out and lots of casinos. Any fear of lack of fish, is clearly not an issue, if merge as a fish left out on the tables this will be a feeding trough.

At least the sights will set the rake and if enough sites, it should be reasonable or rakeback can come in to help the rake. Still frightening but getting money off in a day, able to plan long term. Future of bigger pools .. all is good. Now how to all the interests at the table feel. We are spectators, but so far the show as started well. Thanks for the review it helps to sort out the good and the bad.
dmyers1166 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 06:51 PM   #27
veteran
 
Blizzuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,701
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Looks pretty solid, thanks for the cliffs.
Blizzuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 06:56 PM   #28
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,667
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianospike View Post
Currently I play on a site where the cash games are raked at 5% up to a maximum of $3. That is generally the rake schedule for cash games, though the micros are raked a bit more at 6.67%. I'm not following how that very simple rake structure (to me, anyway) is more complex than a rake per hand structure, where you likely need a different per hand charge for every level or every two levels. $.02/$.05 would be raked at x per hand, $.05/$.10 would be raked as 2x per hand, and so on. I understand that you may not see a different per-hand charge at every level, but to be fair you should have that.

I also don't get how a fixed charge per hand is, by far, superior to percentages. Putting aside the fact that you would need to know the percentages charged versus the charges per hand to attempt to validate that statement, as a player, I don't think it is beneficial to have a $5 pot raked the same as a $60 pot. It's necessary live because percentages are hard to calculate on the fly.

Maybe this isn't a big deal. But every time I play live and I'm staring at a $10 or $15 pot on the flop and thinking about whether to cbet air, I think why bother when I'm only going to keep 1/3 to 1/2 of the pot and lose the rest to rake.
This is one of the advantages of taking the rake from the players' stacks as opposed to out of the pot. Now if you steal one of these orphan pots, you get to keep the whole pot. Promotes action.

It doesn't have to be every player either. It could just be a fixed fee paid by the button - this is fair since the button rotates.
TheDarkElf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 06:57 PM   #29
grinder
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 468
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Oops wrong numbers glad you fixed it early thanks.

Awesome, was expecting worse so im kind of pleased with this bill. I know it's all speculation but I would love to hear any informed opinions on how long this will take to pass. Or even just what's the earliest is could possibly pass if they wanted to rush it through. Thanks
Micro McD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 07:25 PM   #30
veteran
 
cheet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,477
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ Fox
]6. No limit to the number of licensees, but they must be either an authorized cardroom in the state (i.e. Commerce, Bike, etc.), an Indian tribe operating a casino in CA, a horse-racing track in CA, or an online entity taking bets on horse racing in CA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu View Post
Until January 1, 2016 (or longer if extended by the legislature), a finding of suitability of a licensee or supplier by any US state gaming agency can be accepted provisionally by CA, and later issued a permanent okay. In other words, any company currently licensed or found suitable by any US state gaming agency can be provisionally allowed to operate in CA immediately. So, once regulations are in place, sites can go operational immediately instead of having to wait for the CA agency to complete processing of their applications.
How can both these things be true?
cheet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 07:42 PM   #31
For President
 
ScreaminAsian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: ice cream sandwich training program
Posts: 15,187
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ Fox View Post
The bill is now available. (Note that it is SB1463, not SB1436.) Here are the highlights:

...

15. 5% withholding to the FTB (California's tax agency) of net tournament winnings when they are at least 300 times the buy-in and more than $600. Withholding is on a tournament-by-tournament basis.
when it says 'and' does that mean there's a withholding if either condition (300x buyin, and net win of more than $600) is met? or that both those criteria need to be met in order for there to be a withholding?
ScreaminAsian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 07:45 PM   #32
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,165
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheet View Post
How can both these things be true?
The CA casinos, horsetracks, cardrooms, etc. will be the CA-licensed operators of the sites. The non-CA poker networks (PartyPoker, 888, IGT, USDG, ShuffleMaster, etc.) will be their approved suppliers.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 07:46 PM   #33
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,165
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian View Post
when it says 'and' does that mean there's a withholding if either condition (300x buyin, and net win of more than $600) is met? or that both those criteria need to be met in order for there to be a withholding?
Both.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 07:53 PM   #34
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Didace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,530
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreaminAsian View Post
when it says 'and' does that mean there's a withholding if either condition (300x buyin, and net win of more than $600) is met? or that both those criteria need to be met in order for there to be a withholding?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu View Post
Both.
Isn't that pretty standard and not unique to this bill?
Didace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 07:53 PM   #35
veteran
 
cheet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,477
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

ok sounds good, so can this just pass immediately plz?
cheet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 08:02 PM   #36
grinder
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 618
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

It looks very good as it allows every current CA gambling licensee (cardroom, Indian casino, racetrack and OTB) to get an online license. Of course, the $30M prepayment will be a barrier to some. But really, you don't need a whole lot of licensees - probably on the order of ten - to generate a highly competitive marketplace that will benefit the consumers.

Probably not more than 3-4 cardrooms could even afford $30 million in cash. Sites will have to team up with companies like Party Poker to help offset the costs...Id also expect Indian Casinos to team up with each other to help finance it...

I bet only a few even go for a $30 Million price tag, and the rest sit back and analyze the market for the first year or two...Can you imagine 10 web sites in Ca alone? Heck thats even too much $ for 10 world wide (10 big sites big enough to recover a $30 Mill fee)

And expect rake to be initially high just to cover the costs.
DeNutza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 08:05 PM   #37
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,165
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Didace View Post
Isn't that pretty standard and not unique to this bill?
No. This bill is talking about withholding for CA state taxes. The sites would no doubt also have to do standard backup withholding for federal taxes as well (i.e., 28% on net tournament winnings of $5,000 or more unless you provide them with a W-9).
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 08:52 PM   #38
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The America becoming
Posts: 2,182
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Anyone know how easy/difficult it would be for players to alter the regulation of ipoker via a ballot initiative AFTER it was passed? For instance, to lower rake, pool with other states, or lower barriers to entry?
Jonaspublius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 08:56 PM   #39
old hand
 
jweez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,620
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

If they are targeting profits earned during the 2012-2013 fiscal year, which begins October 1, 2012, they must have intentions of really moving this quickly.
jweez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2012, 10:16 PM   #40
old hand
 
dmyers1166's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Our lab cali
Posts: 1,652
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by jweez View Post
If they are targeting profits earned during the 2012-2013 fiscal year, which begins October 1, 2012, they must have intentions of really moving this quickly.
Plus, CA budget must be in I'm guessing 6/1 or so it is close to that. They fudge this a lot but no pay if late and it has to balance. I think they are hoping for min 7 licenses to help the budget might represent 10% of the deficit so it is a reasonable amount of money plus taxes jobs etc. Might get to 15% or so .. It's mostly a battle between tribes, other tribes and cardrooms. Nice to had the pony tracks to the mix.
dmyers1166 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 12:00 AM   #41
tax practitioner
 
Russ Fox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 868
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

The CA budget deadline is rarely met though it no longer requires a 2/3 vote. However, the funding does require such a vote. This measure also requires a 2/3 vote, so it does require Republican support to pass.

I believe California is looking at between a $10 and $16 billion deficit for the next fiscal year so this measure really is just a drop in the bucket. The key measures (from a Democratic point of view) are the tax increases that will be on the November ballot.

-- Russ Fox
Russ Fox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 01:10 AM   #42
old hand
 
dmyers1166's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Our lab cali
Posts: 1,652
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

^^^ correct math issues tonight for me . I doubt tax increase will fly, I could be wrong but really doubt it .., if dems 100% doubtful but maybe the money will be enough from the interests, then like 2 or 3 rebs needed.

Based on the last few times if it gets to a vote it will pass. Getting to a vote seems to be the issue.
dmyers1166 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 01:52 AM   #43
grinder
 
LegalRobbery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 598
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Does anyone who is informed on the issue have a guess at how likely it is that this passes?
LegalRobbery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 02:15 AM   #44
banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 290
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianospike View Post
I'm concerned that this will require a rake sheet that is the size of a large novel, given the diversity of games and stakes that can be offered online. Plus, it will make California players incompatible with other states later on down the road. Laws can always be changed. It's in both the casino's and player's interests to see this one changed. We should try to push for this, imo.

Aside from that, thank you PX as always for your thoughts and comments.
Not really. There is an extremely obvious way around the confusion to tweak things gently without constantly having to revise the drop...VIP programs.

They can offer more or less rewards to keep everyone happy. I think these businesses are more intelligent than everyone thinks. You have to give action to get it.

So while $2 a hand drop for $1-2 might be penal, they could easily have a VIP program to in essence make it all a %. Free food in commerce top section etc...the rake is high but you can get some of it back.
Scott Tom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 03:06 AM   #45
grinder
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 618
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Tom View Post
they could easily have a VIP program to in essence make it all a %. Free food in commerce top section etc...the rake is high but you can get some of it back.
Lets hope not....Sounds like a copy of Stars business model. A site that gave more to the pros than the recreational players.

A site that has now admitted in 2012 that they are having a hard time getting new recreational players...And they dont understand why.

The sites never had a problem of attracting recrereational players..its keeping them thats the problem..

Im voting for all the casinos (NV and CA) that team up with Party Poker..The last site to do anything right.
DeNutza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 03:17 AM   #46
old hand
 
CallMeLucid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Spewtarded
Posts: 1,823
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

OMG EVERYONE USE THEIR ONE TIME ON THIS BILL!
CallMeLucid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 04:56 AM   #47
4L Fantasy Football Champion '14
 
Golfing_Stud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: I'm with her!
Posts: 4,855
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ Fox View Post


2. All Internet gambling that is not authorized by this law will be specifically illegal (a misdemeanor).



-- Russ Fox
Could be a stupid question but.......

I just want to be clear, if this passes it's a misdemeanor for a site like Merge to offer poker to Californian players correct ?

Not a misdemeanor for me to log into my account and register for a SNG the day after it passes if I'm unaware or aware for that matter about the bill ?


Thanks to anyone able to answer this.

Last edited by Golfing_Stud; 02-26-2012 at 05:11 AM. Reason: I see where PokerXanadu said it's a misdemeanor for players, ugh I hope there is some amount of time to cash out then.
Golfing_Stud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 05:03 AM   #48
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,667
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfing_Stud View Post
Could be a stupid question but.......

I just want to be clear, if this passes it's a misdemeanor for a site like Merge to offer poker to Californian players correct ?

Not a misdemeanor for me to log into my account and register for a SNG the day after it passes if I'm unaware or aware for that matter about the bill ?


Thanks to anyone able to answer this.
NO.

This is a player penalty. In theory, you could be prosecuted for playing on an unlicensed site.
TheDarkElf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 05:12 AM   #49
4L Fantasy Football Champion '14
 
Golfing_Stud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: I'm with her!
Posts: 4,855
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDarkElf View Post
NO.

This is a player penalty. In theory, you could be prosecuted for playing on an unlicensed site.
Thanks Dark I see where PX had addressed this and edited my post, do you think they'd allow us to get our money off the non-Californian site or have a some sort of grace period after it's enacted ?
Golfing_Stud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2012, 05:19 AM   #50
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,667
Re: California Senate leader co-sponsors Internet gambling bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfing_Stud View Post
Thanks Dark I see where PX had addressed this and edited my post, do you think they'd allow us to get our money off the non-Californian site or have a some sort of grace period after it's enacted ?
Can't say for sure, but it will be a couple of months before this one passes (if it does), so you have time.
TheDarkElf is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online