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.

I posted on his FB wall to clarify the difference. Is the PPA going to offer input regarding this? (does the PPA not have a Mass rep?) I don't know what the timeline is but would love to know some more detail.

Yup, better cut for the state I assume.

Then he will push very, very hard to make sure MA opts out of a Federal scheme and, IMO, he'll win pretty easily.

Every state will use opt out to bargain for the best possible deal. Nevada won't have the monopoly on Ipoker.

I saw this bit of wisdom today (h/t to @taxdood):

Gambling Your Own [Honolulu Weekly]

... the League of Women Voters testified that the projected number of casino jobs for locals is unrealistic. “You don’t need anybody in front of the slot machine to make it work,” ...

lol omg ... smh, women though (plz no sexist ban )

I still don't know what is going on in that article. Wether they are using the wrong terminology or mixing them up. I emailed the the guy who published the article to see if he could clear this up. Literally within the first two sentences they refer to both:
So which one is it?!?!?!?