See this interview with Steve Grossman, the treasurer of Massachusetts, about the potential for online gaming in MA.

http://www.boston.com/business/techn...?p1=News_links

From the article:
The task force will also consider the impact of online gambling on Massachusetts’ nascent casino industry. “What happens if there is unfettered online poker and online roulette in Massachusetts?’’ Grossman asked. “Will that cause casino companies to bid less aggressively for licenses?’’

What can we do to help the Grossman be convinced online poker will be a good thing for the state? I know just last week there was a PPA action to send a letter to state lawmakers encouraging them to support online poker in response the Wire Act ruling. That letter went to Gov. Patrick, Att. General Coalkly and my two state reps. However, Grossman was not on that distribution list and seems to be a key player.

Ask the Treasury
Steve Grossman Twitter
Treasury Twitter
Facebook

Message sent via ask the treasury.

I haven't been able to keep up with recent events on here recently so could anyone provide a template or example of what exactly we should be sending to him aside from "online poker is good".

same here.

I wrote:



btw don't copy what I wrote, at least change it ^ a bit so it doesn't seem like they're being spammed!

Grossman will be very happy with online poker offered by the MA lottery and very unhappy with any other online poker offered.

Probably true.

But does he have more clout than the soon-to-be MA casino gaming interests?

Skallagrim

Not sure, but he's positioned himself very smartly through the MA casino bill to have a prominent seat at the table. I think we have very, very little chance of opting into a Federal bill if he's the Treasurer, at least initially.

I disagree IF there is Federal poker-only bill. IF that happens the casinos will push the lottery aside (which won't really care that much about poker-only) and MA will opt-in.

If there is no Federal bill than it is a wide open guess. This lottery commissioner sure sounds like he wants online sales and probably online lottery games. What is the difference between an online slot and an online instant scratch off ticket? Virtually none to the player.

But the casinos will still want in on that action. And after ponying up hundreds of millions directly to the state and investing hundreds of millions more in construction, they just might get it.

Skallagrim

MA aside, I think the idea that lotteries wont care about poker-only is horribly, horribly wrong. I hope that's not the PPA's viewpoint, its a really, really bad assumption.

Is there a reason to twist my words? Did I say "state lotteries do not care about online poker"?

What I said and stand by is that state lotteries will not be enthusiastic about going into online gaming if the ONLY game they get to offer is participation in interstate online poker. It is not enough money by itself and they have no B&M facilities to promote. Where a state has competing instate casino interests, those interests will get the ability to participate in online poker without too much objection from lottery officials.

Start talking about having or not having online gaming, start talking about online gaming other than poker, then the result is quite different.

Skallagrim

You said lotteries won't care that much about poker-only. I said I thought the idea that lotteries wont care about poker-only was horribly wrong. Where is the word twisting?

No reason to debate semantics. I think it is obvious that my statement indicates caring about participating in a Federally regulated interstate market limited to peer to peer poker.

Do you really think the MA state lottery, or any state lottery for that matter, is going to be leaping at the chance to create an online poker-only site to compete with WSOP.com, MGM.com, and others IF a Federal bill passes?

Skallagrim

Which part of which bill (Barton or Reid or w/e) stops states from expanding their lottery operations online?

If they dont have a way to participate then I think they will work very hard to make sure that WSOP.com and MGM.com arent present in their state competing for gambling dollars.

Forgive my ignorance, but if a Fed bill allows online poker - states can still ban it correct? I don't believe there is any form of gambling in the US that is not controlled, regulated and taxed at the state level. I just don't see states giving up all that potential revenue to Nevada or Nevada based companies.

The current framework would allow states to either opt-out or opt-in (still unclear) to/of a Federal licensing scheme. The state would get a percentage of the revenue if they are part of the scheme.

I thought the current framework was set up so states were already in and had to opt-out if they did not want to be a part of it?

What is the "current framework"? If you are specifically referring to the bill proposed by Barton, yes, that bill, as currently written, would require states to explicitly opt-out; by default, they would be in. But the bill hasn't even got out of the primary sub-committee it has been assigned to. If it did, then it would be possibly be marked up, and it could wind up being changed to being "opt-in" (meaning that states would by out by default, and would have to explicitly opt-in).

Sent message through treasury page and posted on his FB wall. Any chance they might be waiting for the B&M licenses to be sold before looking into the online aspect of it?

I don't see Mass even considering Igaming seriously until it's casinos are up and running. The only potential is if the state grants both B&M and online gaming licenses simultaneously.

http://bostonherald.com/news/regiona...ls_online_bets

WTF?!?!?!?!?! I only see video poker mentioned! Is this guy really not making the difference!!

A lot of people don't, including some of our Congresscritters.