Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Individual State opt-out prediction thread

07-23-2010 , 04:55 PM
I lived in Alabama for years, but now reside in Mississippi. Both states, just like the other 48, could use the tax revenue. Alabama Gov. Bob Riley is very anti-gambling and has taken extraordinary steps to eradicate what he considers illegal gambling from the state. There's also the Bachus factor. Alabama does use the dominant factor test for skill games though so poker might have a chance. Riley will be out of office in January due to term limits so his successor will have more influence than he will. My gut tells me Alabama is an OPT-OUT, but there is Indian and pari-mutual gaming in the state so I think it's more complicated than most people realize.

Mississippi, on the other hand, has a significant amount of legal gaming. Harrah's and MGM both have casinos in the state. The Mississippi Choctaw tribe, mentioned in the hearing by the Mohegan representative, also is very powerful. I feel Mississippi will OPT-IN based mainly on the need for money and Harrah's influence. The letters I have received from MS house members, however, address the need for the MS Gaming Commission to be able to regulate in state gaming.

I really hope we get the chance to see if our predictions are correct.
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 05:09 PM
This is my guess (in no particular order)

STATES MOST LIKELY TO OPT-OUT

Utah
Hawaii
Alaska
Washington


STATES LIKELY TO OPT-OUT

Florida
Texas
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Nevada
New York
California
New Jersey

Every other state is a toss-up for me (some because I don't have enough personal info on the state) with some leaning more to op-out and others more to opt-in
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 05:38 PM
Has there been any actual discussion about how the opt-out decision is made?

Here are the states I've lived in:

California - Probably opt-in because they need $ so bad. Tons of card rooms in CA obviously so they're already reasonably comfortable with poker.

Utah - Not worth discussing. Clear opt-out.

Oregon - Oregon will leave everyone alone and stay in.

Texas - If it is up to the governor then sure opt-out. Otherwise opt-out is still quite likely. Texas is ultra Republican, religious, and will have no problem opting out on moral grounds - despite its reputation for independence.
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 05:47 PM
I wish there was another choice in governor. I really loath Rick Perry but the democratic party is a complete disaster and I'm likely to not vote for them ever again.

But you are right. He's got bible thumper constituents. If it's up to him it will be an opt-out.

I haven't read the law but if there isn't a "default" then the law is worthless. The default should be an opt-in or this law ain't worth talking about. Keep the status quo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rant
Has there been any actual discussion about how the opt-out decision is made?

Here are the states I've lived in:

California - Probably opt-in because they need $ so bad. Tons of card rooms in CA obviously so they're already reasonably comfortable with poker.

Utah - Not worth discussing. Clear opt-out.

Oregon - Oregon will leave everyone alone and stay in.

Texas - If it is up to the governor then sure opt-out. Otherwise opt-out is still quite likely. Texas is ultra Republican, religious, and will have no problem opting out on moral grounds - despite its reputation for independence.
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 06:01 PM
The law has not been passed yet. What we know for certain is that the default will be for states being IN the system. States will have to take some action to opt out. The specifics of that action are unclear at this time; we have to wait and see how the legislation evolves.

But what we don't have to wait for is analysis of the political forces at play in our state governments. Nor is there any reason to think those forces will change over the next year or two. Of course some of the personalities will change.

But neither issue is that hard to account for. Posts saying "if its the governor's choice its x, but if its the legislatures choice its y, and if the new governor is A its x" are still great pieces of analysis. Keep 'em coming!

Skallagrim
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 06:02 PM
Oklahoma
Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA
First reply (very very quick) is from Roger L. Jackson. Favorable response.

Another interesting note: Roger L. Jackson supports medical marijuana.
from his campaign website
He seems very libertarian and I'm likin it.
Thanks for posting this information as you receive it.

Unfortunately, it would take an upset of monumental proportions for Mary Fallin to not receive the Republican nomination for Governor, as it would be extremely surprising to not see either Edmondson or Askins name on the Democrats side of the ticket. Tuesdays primary results will be interesting.

After doing a little research, imho I see the following scenarios if HR 2267 passes based on the following possible requirements:

Opt-out

- Governors signature (Most likely Opt-out path, could be influenced by states huge budget deficit. However, Fallin is the most likely candidate at this time and she is very high on the "family values" theme)

50-50

- State Legislature (Could be influenced by states huge budget deficit)

As luxv mentioned, the best recourse if either of these methods are required to Opt-out would be that the Governor or State Legislature put it on the back-burner in hopes it doesn't become and issue and they can quietly collect the much needed revenue (state is reportedly sitting on a 1 billion dollar deficit atm).

Opt-in

- Placed on a ballot, leaving the decision up to voters.

Yes, we are in the bible belt, yes it's a highly conservative state (though registered Republicans are in the minority!), but the lottery (State Question 705) passed overwhelmingly (64.7% - 35.3%) as did the State-Tribal Gaming Act (State Question 712, which among other things, allowed card games within tribal casinos) (59.5% - 40.5%).

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I still believe that whether Oklahoma falls into the Opt-in or Opt-out category is going to be highly dependent on the stance that the state tribes end up taking. Though they don't wield the influence that the states oil & gas industry does, they do reside in one of the very few sectors that have actually grown in the past few years, providing revenue that's sorely needed. In 2008 Oklahoma supplanted Connecticut in second place, and was behind only California in gaming revenue. It remains to be seen whether the tribes will embrace this "new" technology similar to the Mohegans, or take the route tribes in California have (protectionism).

Cliff notes: After doing a little research and putting some thought into it, I've changed my prediction from uncertain/leaning toward opt-out to

Oklahoma - Opts-in

Last edited by ASoonerFan; 07-23-2010 at 06:05 PM. Reason: Grammar
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 06:13 PM
Everyone seems to think Washington is a sure opt-out, but I think it could be a dark horse to opt-in. Three reasons:

1. State is in deep budget crisis, with huge deficit and in the solid red for the State revenue. Online gaming could generate a windfall of tax dollars.

2. Tribal and local gaming groups have a wide interest and influence. Perhap they have relized that banning online gaming is a poor business decision. They really want a piece of this online gaming pie as well. Thus they might have a change of heart. PPA could do some work to help them along here.

3. Current anti-online gaming law is being challenged in court. Washingtonians hate state government tagging them as class C felon for just playing poker online. Very unpopular law indeed!

WA IMO could be a surprised OPT-IN....
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 06:21 PM
When considering opt out by state legislature, please remember that the state legislature would have a limited time to opt out by some sort of vote. Even given one year, I doubt that most state legislatures would get to this issue.

Missouri is definitely in if it requires a vote by the state legislature, despite it being controlled by the GOP.

OTOH, most posts seem to indicate that if a governor can decide for the whole state (it is not certain that he could under the state's law or constitution), then many governors would opt out; like Jay Nixon in Missouri, even though he's a Democrat.

PPA and Skall, we need opt out by state legislature.
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 06:28 PM
Alright, situation seems to be getting more and more complicated. If we can't trust washington to opt out, who can we trust?

BTW, I think we'd all be better off if you made arguments to back up your predictions. It's hard to interpret someone who just randomly comes in and says "xxx will opt-xx". Most of you are doing a great job of explaining your thought process, which is awesome.

Current predictions:

Predicted Good Guys (15)

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Iowa
Massachussets
Michigan
Mississippi (I spelled it right on the first try!)
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
Nevada
Oregon
Wyoming
Virginia

Predicted Bad Guys (6)

Alabama
Hawaii
South Carolina
Texas (Would like to hear more on this one since Texas is a huge state with tons of online poker players living in it)
Utah
Vermont

Toss Up/Some Debate (7)

California
Idaho
Minnesota
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Washington
Wisconsin

Not Yet Discussed (22)

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
West Virginia

I might be biasing these pretty significantly, but things are definitely looking pretty good, IMHO. We're also making progress fast--with data that to my uneducated eye looks very well-informed.
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busted_Flat
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.
I don't know about that. Pawlenty has seen us at full force. He knows first hand what we are capable of. He won't opt into full casino gaming, but I think we have a good shot at a poker only opt-in.
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu
The "limitation" language is removed, leaving only one choice for a state - opt out completely or remain opted in.
That limitation allows states to opt into poker while opting out of casino gaming. We'll want that to stay.
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by luxv
I have to think that it's more beneficial in many state's cases to have this more under the political radar. I suspect a lot of states would like to quietly not opt-out and accept the revenue but at the same time not make a big political spectacle out of it.
This is a really good point that I hadn't thought about. I contacted all the Republican candidates running for Senate in my district. The four that responded all said they had never heard of the UIGEA. This is a big deal to us, but the general public has no clue that any of this is going on. If we can avoid just letting Governors send a letter to opt out then it would be a big plus.
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by msufan
My home state of Michigan is dying for revenue and already allows charity poker rooms and short-term licenses for charity-sponsored gambling events, of which there are many constantly running.

Prediction: Michigan opts in.
I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about but...

I'm not at all sure Michigan will opt-in. The casino industry is already pressuring the State to get rid of the charity poker rooms and I don't think it's a coincidence that they State has recently stopped issuing new licenses for charity poker room suppliers.

And we already have some low against online gambling which has in the past caused sites who were open to the US to not allow players from Michigan. Not that whatever this law is would directly affect any potential new legislation but it shows that our state government may not be online gambling friendly.

Plus I'm thinking there is a good chance that when this actually happens we will have Republican governor which I don't think will help any.
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrettyVacant
This is a really good point that I hadn't thought about. I contacted all the Republican candidates running for Senate in my district. The four that responded all said they had never heard of the UIGEA. This is a big deal to us, but the general public has no clue that any of this is going on. If we can avoid just letting Governors send a letter to opt out then it would be a big plus.
There are 100's of issues that are being debated in congress that people feel passionate about.Since you play poker this issue is on your mind.I was a page in congress for a summer after college and you'd be surprised how passionate people are about the most random issues you've never heard of.I remember there was a HUGE issue over some pigeon being put on the endangered list.Peole would write in and fuss over it just like we are doing over poker.
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 07:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer
That limitation allows states to opt into poker while opting out of casino gaming. We'll want that to stay.
Except that it also allows states to set specific limits to poker as well (buy-in caps, betting caps, etc.). A limitation option for game-type selection is one thing (works well for us), but a no-holds barred, whatever the state desires limitation option is not good, imo.
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu
Except that it also allows states to set specific limits to poker as well (buy-in caps, betting caps, etc.). A limitation option for game-type selection is one thing (works well for us), but a no-holds barred, whatever the state desires limitation option is not good, imo.
How are the sites going to be able to coordinate this? That is going to make things very complex.
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 07:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niediam
The casino industry is already pressuring the State to get rid of the charity poker rooms and I don't think it's a coincidence that they State has recently stopped issuing new licenses for charity poker room suppliers.
lol.. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at these meetings. "All that money that's going to charities could be going to us instead!"
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 07:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPFisher55
When considering opt out by state legislature, please remember that the state legislature would have a limited time to opt out by some sort of vote. Even given one year, I doubt that most state legislatures would get to this issue.

Missouri is definitely in if it requires a vote by the state legislature, despite it being controlled by the GOP.

OTOH, most posts seem to indicate that if a governor can decide for the whole state (it is not certain that he could under the state's law or constitution), then many governors would opt out; like Jay Nixon in Missouri, even though he's a Democrat.

PPA and Skall, we need opt out by state legislature.

I agree with this if the state legislature has to vote to specifically opt-out, then most states would opt-in by default because there isn't enough time to get the votes to opt-out. My fear is states would do the opposite, in stead of voting to opt-out they would be voting to opt-in, if the legislative branch couldn't get enough votes opt-in they would inform the governor to opt-out until such time the state has the votes to opt-in.
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrettyVacant
This is a really good point that I hadn't thought about. I contacted all the Republican candidates running for Senate in my district. The four that responded all said they had never heard of the UIGEA. This is a big deal to us, but the general public has no clue that any of this is going on. If we can avoid just letting Governors send a letter to opt out then it would be a big plus.
Yeah. The question here isn't "What position would the state legislature or governor take on this issue if it came in front of them and was widely publicized?" it's "Will the state legislature or governor even get wind of this? If they do get wind of it, will they consider it important enough to bother dealing with? If both of those things happen, what position will they take?"
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 07:37 PM
Kentucky:

The best thing here is that PPA has been extremely active in the Commonwealth. The bad thing is the reason for the activity -- our governor's lawsuit against online poker and gaming sites' domain names.

It could go either way. Arguments pro and con:

Chooses to participate (at least in poker):
  1. Beshear could think opting in strengthens his domain name case. He may feel that he can drop the case against sites choosing licensing and continue against those not choosing licensing, hoping those sites are seen as bad actors. He'd also like poker players off his back while he continues his suit.
  2. TwinSpires and YouBet could state a desire to offer poker. In that case, Kentucky is probably in.
  3. The state could participate just for the revenue. They know it happens already and they know poker players speak up for themselves.
Opts out
  1. Beshear could think opting out strengthens his domain name case. He may hope opting out reinforces his contention that sites are not wanted in Kentucky.
  2. Social cons could possibly get the upper hand here.
  3. Anti-casino forces could claim that this is a precursor for B&M casinos in Kentucky.
  4. Some will claim that the lottery and the tracks will lose money to online poker (the "finite gaming dollar" argument).
  5. Some will claim that every dollar spent on online poker is a dollar that isn't spent on other businesses (the "finite dollar" argument). The fallacy here is in assuming people spend 100% of their discretionary money on entertainment.
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu
Except that it also allows states to set specific limits to poker as well (buy-in caps, betting caps, etc.). A limitation option for game-type selection is one thing (works well for us), but a no-holds barred, whatever the state desires limitation option is not good, imo.
I don't see state seeking limits how games are operated. I expect those concerns to be address by Congress, such that states are choosing if they will permit all poker, all casino gaming, etc. Regardless, we do need this in a casino bill (but don't in a poker-only bill). Otherwise, we'd expect more opt outs.
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 08:36 PM
A friend on a programmers message board had an "off topic" question for me concerning Alabama politics. Since my reply to "Steve" closely ties in with the subject of this thread, I'll share my reply to Steve as follows:

Steve:

Dr. Paul Hubbert, President of the Alabama Education Association, (i.e. the state teacher's union), has been heavily involved in state politics for [at least] the last 25 years. Dr. Hubbert has never hesitated to support (or oppose) candidates for political office in Alabama who he believes support (or oppose) the economic interests of teachers. Dr. Hubbert and his AEA are one (of the two) major "behind the scenes" players in Alabama politics. The other major player is a businessman named Milton McGregor. Mr. McGregor has major gambling interests in South Alabama - primarily dog racing tracks in Greene County. Milton McGregor is adamantly opposed to any other form of "legalized gambling" in Alabama with one notable exception: His own dog tracks! (This helps explain how Mississippi has legal Las Vegas style casinos while the only casinos in Alabama are owned by Indian tribes.) Mr. McGregor has made it clear that the only "legal" gambling he wants in Alabama is gambling that he controls. Mr. McGregor has not hesitated to pour massive amounts of money into the campaign war chests of pols like our current governor, Bob Riley, who is vociferously opposed to legalized gambling. (Riley has even had a "Governor's Gambling Strike Force" running around the state busting "illegal" bingo halls, confiscating machines, and arresting operators of these facilities. There is little doubt that Governor Riley is acting at the behest of Milton McGregor.)

I don't care which Republican - Bradley or Byrne - wins the Republican runoff since I'm not voting for either one of them. I will vote (along with the teachers) for Democrat Ron Sparks come November. Why would I vote for a "liberal democrat" such as Ron Sparks? It boils down to a pocketbook issue for me - a case of economic interest pure and simple.

Legislation is currently pending before the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate to legalize, regulate, (and tax) internet poker. If this legislation passes and is signed into law by the President, the most conservative estimates by accounting firm Price Waterhouse Coopers project American taxpayers will see [at least] $5,000,000,000.00 (FIVE BILLION) dollars a year of (currently uncollected) tax revenue flowing into the Treasury's coffers. (That's FIVE BILLION a year less in possible tax increases that all you non-poker players might have to cough up to reduce the deficit and pay for our Government.)

Unfortunately, there is an "opt out" provision in the current legislation which allows the Governor (or the Attorney General) of each state to send a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury within 30 days of the law's passage informing the Treasury Secretary that state [whatever] chooses to opt out from the law. The effect of exercising an "opt out" would be to invalidate (or null) the federal law leaving any state anti-gambling laws in place. If our new (or next) Governor chooses to opt Alabama out from legalized internet poker then I'm basically screwed since I've just been deprived of a good portion of my livelihood. (If worse comes to worse, I may even have to go back to work in a regular job.)

Milton McGregor is dead set against "legal" internet poker in Alabama - mainly because he doesn't control or profit from it. Both of the Republican candidates for Governor have made it clear that they're against legalized gambling in Alabama - with the notable exception of Mr. McGregor's dog tracks. Ron Sparks, the Democratic candidate for Governor, has not said that he's opposed to legalized gambling in Alabama. For that reason alone, I'm voting for Sparks ... even though it's probably a long shot that he'll get elected in this Republican-leaning state.

The November election is going to be a showdown between Milton McGregor and the state's teachers, but that's been the status quo for the last 30 or 40 years in Alabama. It's amazing to me all the taxes that Mississippi collects from Alabamians (like me) who travel over to Tunica to play slot machines and poker. Here's a case in point. Last year a married couple from Madison, Alabama - a bedroom community about five miles from where I live - were playing poker at the Horseshoe casino in Tunica, Mississippi. This husband and wife got incredibly lucky when they hit a "Bad Beat Jackpot" at the Horseshoe for $236,000.00. (The husband's four-of-a-kind got beat by his wife's straight flush.) Of course, the husband and wife had to fill out and sign a [federal] 1099-G tax form (along with a State of Mississippi tax withholding form) before they received any of their winnings, but the point is that the state of their residence [Alabama] didn't get a cent of their bounty - it all went to Mississippi and the federal Government. I've had to fill out and sign 1099-G's - and State of Mississippi withholding forms - for the occasional tournament cashes I've had when I play at the Gold Strike in Tunica.

Alabama doesn't get a dime of that tax money - all because Milton McGregor doesn't want "casinos" in Alabama. There are even billboards around town proclaiming "Bob Riley has sold Alabama out to 'Mississippi casinos'" when it is, in fact, Milton McGregor who has Bob Riley in his pocket. Of course, Mr. McGregor wants to see another Republican elected governor as that will ensure preservation of [his] "anti-gambling" status quo.

I suppose this is more than any of you wanted to know about Alabama politics. (Ha! Ha!)

Former DJ
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 11:21 PM
Quote:
2 points I want to make:

1) I have to disagree with LetsGambol over Massachusetts. I see MA as very likely to opt in. They are a state desperate for revenue. There are virtually no religious right types. There are plenty of left-ish nanny-staters of course, but they seem to have welcomed the idea of raising revenue through "appropriately regulated" gaming. They have Keno in bars throughout MA, for example. And the instate gaming interests backed down pretty quickly in the battle to remove an anti-online gaming provision from the current casino bills. I don't think they really see it as an issue. And unlike some of the smaller tribal gaming interests, I think they realize that licensed online gaming is not a threat to their operations. I predict Massachusetts opts in.
They backed down because the casino bill is a massive jobs bill for the unions and DeLeo wants to strip anything from the gambling debate that will slow down money going to the tracks.

Online poker does not create instate jobs and will be a competitor to the lottery which means unions wont be for it.

Governor Patrick, if re-elected, is not our ally. He wants the casinos for union jobs a destination resort provides more so than for the revenue. He is against slots because it is gambling that is not creating jobs. There is a left-wing faction in the state that hates gambling, Deval does not like gambling personally outside of the job creation perspective. Especially if the Governor decides, MA does indeed opt out
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-23-2010 , 11:26 PM
the only way Texas opts out is if they get a state run site. while we are a extremely conservative state, we aren't stupid. if a national law gets passed then the higher ups will be "well, we don't really agree with this morally, but if the guys in DC say it's legal then i suppose we will too... and collect your money as taxes in the mean time"

we are one of the only states that offers almost every nation-wide lottery. also Ron Paul and a few other representatives of Texas are some of the biggest poker supporters out there.

Texas opts in, no doubt in my mind.

edit: also, i think people are being extremely pessimistic about their states opting out. there will be 5 states at most that opt out, probably less.
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote
07-24-2010 , 02:02 AM
I'll give you 5 to 1 odds at over 5 if this passes for up to $5k. That's insanely low.
Individual State opt-out prediction thread Quote

      
m