Man.. this whole situation is confusing the hell out of me. I could've sworn that the legislature makes the call and not the governor. If that's not the case, maybe we can squeeze that into an amendment since I think that would help us out in a lot of states?

I'd give Wisconsin a toss-up.

Alabama Governor Bob Riley does all he can to stop gaming in the state. Everything from bingo to lotto. Spencer Bachus will do all he can to get Alabama out all the way up to saying these sites are connected to child porn.

Zero chance for Alabama IMO.

Florida

I'm nearly certain Florida will remain an opt-in state. The legislature is desperate every year to find new sources of revenue as the FL constitution requires a balanced budget.

However, there are some scenarios where FL might opt out. Specifically, if somehow a state legislative vote is required to determine whether or not the state opts out. In this case, the very strong pari-mutuel lobby will likely oppose remaining an opt in state, along with the anti-gambling expansion lobby. Also, in the case of such a legislative vote, the new Seminole compact may come into play. The compact specifies a change in terms if the legislature changes Florida law to allow Internet poker or gambling (see this thread).

Part of the problem with predicting a state opt-in/opt-out is that the bill provision for opt outs is so muddled it is hard to make a prediction. The faults in the provision lie in:

1. How does a state determine an opt out? Is it the governor's decision? The legislature? The provision allows the governor to opt out by written notice, but doesn't necessarily imbue the governor, or any other entity, with the authority to make that decision.

2. The language of the provision is a mix of prohibition and limitation. It states that accepting bets or wagers from anyone in a state that opts out is forbidden, but the language of opting out is all about "limitation" on wagers by the state. I believe the provision is meant to give the option to each state to set limits on wagers (buy-in limits, wager caps, prohibited games, etc.).

I sure hope someone introduces an amendment during markup to clarify these points so that:

1. It takes an act of a state legislature to opt out.

2. The "limitation" language is removed, leaving only one choice for a state - opt out completely or remain opted in.

It's all well and good to post theories and random suggestions about which states that will opt in/out. But we're supposed to be +EV gamblers who go to great lengths to understand the probability landscape before us and then make appropriate bets, si?

Surely some of our senior mods could get in touch with the Intrade people. Get them to set up a market for us. C'mon boys and girls, let's put our money where our theories are.

This would also allow those who are considering actually moving pursuant to the opt-in choices to make better decisions.

Regards, Lee

I like the InTrade idea. But anybody considering moving at this stage of the process should reevaluate their understanding of the probability landscape imo.

Great idea, Lee

I'd say that FL is a 99.9% opt-in state.They just uncapped the limit poker and they were already talking about intrastate poker so.....this is VERY important to me due to the fact that i'm moving to Largo in Dec. Hopefully this can be a nice LEGAL second income for me.....as that being said I will not count my chicks before thay hatch so....One time baby....One time....

Hey Lee, I enjoyed reading your take on the 1/2 NL scene on Poker News Daily.It actually has me thinking about moving up limits due to some of the factors you reported on...got me thinking a little.

I will make a predictions for north Carolina (my home state) and Delaware (my current state of residence).

First, North Carolina is a good candidate to opt-out, though it may actually be a fence-sitting state. The voters tend to vote Democrat but lean towards blue-collar conservative Dems. There is fair opposition to gambling in general, owing mainly to social conservatives.

That said, there is a casino, a lottery, and some weak but loud calls for legalization of sweepstakes cafes.

Second, take the below quote and replace every instance of New Hampshire with Delaware. Add to it that the current governor Jack Markell pushed for expanded gambling in the form of table games and parlay sports betting.

Texas Opts Out

I think this also comes down to the procedure of the opt outs.

If it's up to the governor we are for sure an Opt Out state. He seems to hate all forms of gaming and will fight tooth and nail against anything that increases gaming in TX. Why he wants all that tax revenue to go to Oklahoma and Louisiana is beyond me, but that's his hard stance.

If it's up to the state legislature then there's a glimmer of hope. I've heard from some of the state reps who are pro gaming. For exactly the argument that the citizens are going to other states to gamble. So, they're not really protecting anyone. All they're managing to do is deny the state revenue and jobs. You know, a rational thought process. I'm not sure how many really support gaming though. So, I would still put my money on opt out, but there's a chance of an opt in with this route.

100% agree. I went to college there, though that was some time ago, Mississippi routinely kicks ALs ass in competition for regional tourist dollars, sucks millions of gambling $ out of the state, and donks like Riley and Bachus turn the other cheek.

Actually, these factors work against us rather than for us. Uncapped poker is about the only increase in revenues that the FL pari-mutuel facilities received to counter the competition from the new Seminole compact. The pari-mutuels will oppose any new competition from federal licensing of online gaming. They'll much prefer a protectionist intrastate poker bill.

P.S. You'll practically be my neighbor when you move to Largo. We'll have to have tea sometime.

Is there any hope for Washington state under this proposed bill? Or, does the fact that the existing Washington State law is so nasty preclude any chance that Washington state may decide to allow online gaming that is supported and regulated by US law?

Granted, the tribes have a stranglehold on the state legislature here, but would they have to start over with a new lobbying effort, or is Washington already effectively eliminated (due to existing state law) by the wording of the bill?

I'm not sure about Massachusetts, but I definitely have my concerns given the fact that the pending casino bill (and previous attempts) have all had language in them to criminalize online poker players; only a fight by the PPA was able to get that language out.

I worry that we will get pro-poker legislation just as our casinos begin to open in 3-5 years, and protectionist instincts (and lobbying) will be in very high gear at that point.

I'll bring the crumpetts lol

Well, I hope Fl doesn't opt-out cuz I won't move if they do.I was looking in Clearwater for a place but it looks like I get more bang for my buck in Lago, I just hope the phrase "Largetto" won't apply to my place.I went to UT so i know the area pretty well, the deciding fact for me to choose Largo was Indain Rocks beach over pier 60 area.Looking forward to a couple of months of beach during the day and online poker at night.Dam I need this leg. to happen.

Hope your right. The only think I remember about MN is the time they tried to pass legislation to block gambling IPs a while back. Not a great but if I also recall when they finally decided not to pursue it I think they said something about waiting on clearer legislative guidance. Perhaps with this bill that would be enough and they will opt in.

Good thread, and I love the intrade idea. I think some of this will depend on the opt-out structure and the identity of the Governor/Legislature (example: Tim Pawlenty opts out Minnesota 100% of the time if he's running for President in the next election)

States I know:

I agree with Skall, New Hampshire likely opts in. The one caveat is the tax law passed last year, depending on interpretation, may be a crushing tax burden that makes games unprofitable. Sure, licensing doesnt change the rules, but it makes the interpretation of the law for cash games a bigger issue

Vermont is either an opt-out or sites will not license Not a big gambling state and, while national politicians are either on board or lean favorable, state law says that losers of a wagering game can recover their losses within one month. Not sure how the Federal law would deal with this, and whether sites want to take a license with this on the books. Also a state with a comparatively good budget situation and the only state that doesn't have to balance the budget

Mass likely opts-out. This is a closer call and we have a good ground game here, but look at the current casino debate for a good example of MA politics. Gambling attitudes have been wierd: one of the biggest lotteries in the nation, but rabid opposition to full casinos historically although this is changing. We will be viewed as threat to the union's lottery winnings and the racetracks control the most powerful politician in the state. Unless we can figure out a way to wedge ourselves in and get leverage in the casino debate, MA won't be playing.

One more opinion, although I have less of a feel for local politics (beyond lots of reading of national press).

Russ Fox is correct and California opts out and eventually creates an intrastate platform (instrastate prediction mine). It will be the only state to create its own platform as it has the perfect storm of scale, political factors, and revenue requirements.

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/c...=1279904020283

As you can see, there is not much action on this contract. The market is very thin, so for a price of about $130, the contract could be moved to 55.5, which would boost morale, if nothing else.

I think so if the money's good. WA is in enough fiscal trouble with their budgets that they are doing just about anything they can to pick up some free cash. Their Race to the Top bid in education went against many of the ideas that they had passed in the previous legislative session about how they were going to revise education, at least as I had read the bid.

Not to mention that the WA ban on online gambling really wasn't the most carefully crafted political work ever. It was presented as an update to an existing law, and legislators were convinced that internet gambling was largely an unregulated environment. I know my state legislator professed to not know the extent to which the law would go (that's not reassuring, but refreshingly honest?) and would support a reversal. That being said, I don't think there's the political willpower in our state to engineer the reversal without some kind of impetus... like free money.

So while it's certainly not a shoo-in by any means, I think it's too early to put Washington in the definitely will opt-out category.

Ya big alk deff agree, our indian casinos here deffinetly do not have much power and I think if they did that would be the only problem otherwise I think we are golden.

And actually I remember this not passing... not them not pursuing it but I could be wrong either way it did not work.

Minnesota Opts Out

Unfortunately politics and lobbyist money will determine this outcome instead of good sense and freedom.

There are two scenarios, both bad.

Scenario One - It is up to the governor.

Tim Pawlenty is almost certain to run for the GOP nomination in 2012 and if he has the chance to decide the fate of on-line gambling before he leaves office early next year he will choose to opt out. He will likely be running against social conservatives Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, so he will need to prove to the religious right that he is one of them. At the very least he will need to opt-out so that he does not damage his standing with them.

If it is up to the next governor:

The GOP candidate is hard-line conservative Tom Emmers. He seems to be in line with the Michelle Bachmann's of the world and would almost certainly opt out.

The Democratic nominee has not been decided yet, but they would almost certainly opt out for the reasons I will state below concerning the state Legislature.

Scenario Two - The State Legislature decides.

The Democrats control both the House and Senate in Minnesota. For years Canterbury Race Track and Casino and more recently Running Aces have been pushing hard to get slot machines into their facilities, but they have been staunchly opposed by the Democrats because of the well-funded Indian Casino lobby in the state which donates large sums of money to the Democratic Party. There is no way the casinos don't put up a big fight against on-line gambling.

I also believe that Canterbury and Running Aces will strongly oppose on-line poker in the state and both sides of the Racino lobby will come down hard against on-line gambling.

If the GOP were to somehow take control of the Legislature this fall they would be less likely to opt-out, but may elect to do so if there is a GOP governor urging them too or if the card clubs urged them to.

The chances of Minnesota not opting out are slim and none. The opposition is too well-funded and entrenched here to not get an opt-out passed.

The only hope would be if the Indepence Party were to win the governor's office. The only way they do that is if Jesse Ventura comes back and runs for. When Jesse was governor I thought we was a lunatic. Now I would probably vote for him.