My comments weren't directed at you - just a general discussion of the issues. I do think it is premature to wholeheartedly back this legislation as there has yet to be a public resolution of the protectionist vs. international player base issue, as I defined in my last post. I make such posts mainly so others are not snookered by the semantics of the press releases, news articles, interviews and forum posts into thinking that such intrastate poker legislation is the holy grail we are looking for. It can be a very positive step in the right direction, but if all we end up with are a smattering of states allowing their b&m casinos to have internet poker for in-state residents only without the combined international player base, then we aren't really preserving our current rights to play poker on the internet.

I totally agree with you. I'm not as close to the situation as yourself and the Engineer. I was really trying to read between the lines of that press release (though I do obviously understand there is some danger there). It's not that I wholeheartedly back this legislation, I'm actually just looking for something to hang my hat on. Listen, if something comes out such as legislation, poker players will have the biggest voice because just as in an election, their dollars will be used to cast whether or not they favor the legislation. Lawmakers, casinos, gaming platforms, and everyone involved would then have to reevaluate the system and perhaps make changes. I think the revenue potential here is massive. You know it. I know it. But I question if they themselves know it. They will then be looking to make it right and amicable for both sides (at least I would think and hope so). Believe me. I know the importance of the internation market. I was a big player on pacific poker using the same moniker ivey10k. You can even search one of my hand histories. Truthfully, I haven't played online since pacific poker bowed out. It cost me my livelihood and I had to go out and get a job. I really only play live now. I never trusted nor did I like any other site and believe me I played them all. No one understands the need for a non-restrictive international pool better than me. I just believe that this will begin to move us in the right direction. I look forward hopefully to good things if at some point there is a meeting on online gaming inside Frank's committee. I posted what I thought was a fair question to Obama on citizen tube but as u know, no poker questions were selected. In all honesty Obama would really have to go out on a limb and make a stink to have something like this brought to his desk especially with so many other problems the country and his democratic party are currently facing notably the upcoming November elections. I'm passionate about this and I believe poker players around the country are looking for something to get excited about for its been a tough 3-4 years. Also, if you can tell me the name of the PPA director in NJ, please let me know. Because I would like to offer my assistance. The link on the PPA website for NJ goes nowhere.

Michael in NJ

ivey10k, small request...break your posts into paragraphs and space them out like in post #25 please, much easier to read that way thanks

Try sending an e-mail to Drew@theppa.org . He can let you know who is the NJ director.

Your analysis is spot-on. You should volunteer to be the NJ State Dpublic irector for the PPA, in order to bring your view to that table. Currently, their approach to NJ has them sitting on the sideline.

As you point out, the poker-positive action IS at the State level, and it will continue there.

Check out the Playtech - Sicence Games deal for another example of a partnership like Harrahs/888.

Thanks for the advice...I sometimes get lost in my thoughts. And I agree it is way too convoluted. I will do a better job of this in the future.

Michael of NJ

Thank you for your kind words. I will in fact try to learn more about the PPA's role in NJ in the coming week.

Michael of NJ

If wanting to make sure that NJ poker players get the best possible deal is the equivalent of "sitting on the sidelines" so be it. I doubt Mr. Brennan, with whom the PPA works closely and cooperatively, would use that term though.

The PPA's concern with the NJ bill is simple: we are concerned that that the provisions of the bill which require the NJ casinos to restrict play to only NJ residents will restrict, rather than improve, the online poker experience of NJ residents. PPA's Executive Director stated as much in this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...r-bill-700243/

These concerns are hardly insurmountable, and the PPA is working with iMega and the NJ legislature to see them addressed. The simplest fix would be for the legislation to simply drop its "NJ residents only" limitation in one way or another, at least with respect to poker games. Given Federal legal concerns, it is unlikely to see a bill that allows the NJ casinos to accept other US players without regard for their own state laws. There are not, however, similar federal legal concerns with the NJ casinos partnering with non-US sites and allowing that non-US player pool to be fully accessible to the NJ players.

This is an issue for poker players only. This is a great bill as written for NJ casino games players (and possibly - again the Feds intervene - sports bettors). But I do not think I need to waste space reminding 2+2ers of the value of a large pool of players when playing online poker.

The concept that the bill as currently written will NOT affect NJ players ability to play on the existing off-shore sites is not nearly as simple as implied above. iMega is commended for resisting any efforts to include penalties for players at these sites. That alone makes this bill far superior to the ones proposed in CA and FL. So does the inclusion of competition rather than creation of a single monopoly site.

But if passed as currently written, the ability of NJ players to play on offshore sites may be curtailed in any number of ways: the idea that FTP and PS are outside of the "jurisdiction" of NJ only presents an enforcement problem, not a legal loophole. If the law is passed as written and held constitutional under the commerce clause, then FTP and PS will be clearly be in violation of NJ and US law if they continue to offer games to NJ residents. That means federal seizures of the money when it can be found, UIGEA being fully and clearly applicable to NJ residents attempts to move money to these sites, and, to a lesser extent, Federal attempts to otherwise block PS and FTP activities. In that context, at some point PS and FTP may not think continuing to offer games in NJ is worth it. Thus it is not clear that by merely not making a criminal penalty for playing at the current sites, play at the current sites will definitely continue.

And if PS and FTP were to cut a "B2B" deal with the NJ casinos, this current law would still prohibit any such skin from allowing NJers to play anybody other than other NJers. And one cant really imagine FTP or PS making such a deal without a provision that it will not accept NJ players at its main site once the skin is running. This is essentially what happened in Italy, and few Italian players are happy about it.

It is a false dichotomy to suggest that efforts at the federal level to get openly legal online poker are incompatible with efforts at the state level. The PPA has been involved in EVERY state effort regarding poker over the past 2 years. It will stay involved with this one. But unless the issue of the "NJ only player pool" is resolved, it would be wrong for the PPA to fully endorse this NJ legislation.

Which is not to say the PPA will never endorse this NJ legislation, even if it can't be fixed. PPA leadership is fully aware and fully involved in ALL efforts to improve our online player's situation. If other efforts fail and this is all we can get at this point in time, then it may well be that this is what we have to take until we can get something better.

Of course a small step is better than no step. But also consider this: NH created the first modern state lottery in 1964. It wasn't until over 20 years later that the first multi-state lottery was developed. Are you willing to wait 20 years with "instate only poker" to get back to being able to play in the same worldwide games you are playing now? Obviously not if you don't have to.

Skallagrim

PS: two minor factual corrections:
1) iMega does not represent FTP and PS in Kentucky. To the extent they are represented at all, it is by the IGC (the Interactive Gaming Council). The IGC is a Canadian trade organization with FTP and PS as its largest members. The IGC works closely with and donates to the PPA. All three parties have lawyers working the Kentucky litigation and we all work together to the extent we have common interests (and so far there have only been common interests).
2) iMega and Mr. Brennan are commended for putting the best spin possible on the 3rd Circuit case, but to call it anything other than a loss would be wrong. It did not openly rule that the Wire Act does not apply to online gaming other than sports betting; and that it agreed that otherwise the legality of online gaming is subject to interpretations of state law was really never much in dispute. And of course it upheld the constitutionality of the UIGEA.

Yes an intrastate NJ bill will restrict the overall online player pool and perhaps the experience. But there are positives that can come out from this:

1) Casual players will flock to these sites for licensing and protectionary reasons. Poker players go where the novice players are and this could help the site grow.

2) Even if this fails and player pools are extremely low, states involved in addition to casinos, Indian tribes, or poker gaming sites will recognize that their strategy must change. States may pursue online initiatives with other states or neighboring states in their region. As this gets more and more messy with states clamoring for the rights to share player pools, the federal government will at some point be forced to step in, address the issue, and look the poker gods straight in the face and reach a decision. Listen, these intrastate bills can bring about a state of anarchy and confusion to our cause. This, I don't think is not necessarily a bad thing as it will ultimately force everyone to be talking about online gambling. That is what is missing today. There are not enough ppl talking about this and moreover not enough of the influential ppl (i.e lawmakers and government officials) are talking about our cause. If the topic of online poker becomes like a whirling tornado or tazmanian devil reaking havoc due to a chaotic landscape with little or no effective governance, how can the powers that be continue to disregard and avoid addressing the issue.



This is the holy grail here. If this happens, we are golden. This will be landmark if a bill is allowed as such. So you lose the American players in other states. Many sites such as pacific poker and party poker are already thriving without American players. Lets face it, online poker can survive without American players because online gaming companies have redirected their advertising and marketing dollars to emerging markets and economies (i.e South America, Asia, Australia, and not to mention pretty much the whole European continent). I'd sign today if I could play against the non-Americans while residents of other states are ruled out.


I agree. Efforts for regulated online poker world at the state level have never been more aligned with efforts at the federal level. I harken back to a great line said by a hip-hop emcee, "One hand washes the other, and both wash the face". Each one needs the other as the end goal is the same. I think the online initiative is weaker if there is no pressure or impending legislation both at the state level and the federal level. The UIGEA is like one giant tightly tied plastic bag of a vile liquid poison. In order leak the poison, we must poke the bag with as many holes as possible. Just one or two holes is not enough. We must poke as many holes as possible and fight this battle on every front. That is how we will weaken this perverse and misguided law.


I couldn't agree with you more. Let's win one battle. Dig our feet in the sand. Make our line and take our stand. Once we get traction and our efforts going in one direction, we will see that we have the wind at our backs and our momentum to guide us.

-Michael of NJ

Agreed Skillagrim. International law and international accountability partnering with local government promotes acceptance of and best international online poker practices.

Sorry, you use a lot of buzzwords strung together.

The reality is the ONLY reason that there are no US companiies in onliine poker, 10 years after it grew up internationally, is BECAUSE of government regulation. MGM went after online gaming years ago, and was stopped by GOVERNMENT. So your solution of "more government" needs some explanation to carry water. Otherwise, you may as well call out for "more cowbell"

"International law", this seems generally understood to mean either law between nations or between persons of different nations ..... okay, you mean one of these ?

"international accountability", this pie in the sky concept breaks down if you are talking about an ability of an individual player to bring a complint across national boundaries. What do you mean, accountability to whom ? Every country or state or province that adopts often conflicting rules ?

"partnering with local government", this makes me wonder if you mean that poker operations should be subject to BOTH international regulation and local regulations ansd that will make things optimal ??

"accceptance of ..... [what, by whom?]" Sorry, regulation compels adherence to the specfiied practices, it is "acceptance" only in the snese that it may be mandatory requirement.

"best" "international" online poker practices", Who decides what is "best" ? Does it vary for individual countries ? Is there an nternational Poker Czar in this utopian poker paradise ?

My point is that there already exists an economic framework for getting the optimal possible international poker industry. It is the free market for services, the same free market that built poker overnight into a leading onlliine entertainment industry.

Government interference, is needed solely to impose taxation and protect those gaming companies too unaware to catch the entrpeneurial wave, (or in the case of MGM, too hamstrubng by prior stupid regulatory rules which prevented them from entering the market.) The ONLY reason that there are no US companiies in onliine poker, 10 years after it grew up internationally, is BECAUSE of government regulation.

None of your inherently restrictive, protectionist buzzwords apply to the benefit of unmet consumer demand.

Regulation may be an inevitable evil to be dealt with and some hard bargain struck with government revenue and protectionists on behalf of market consumers, but it is nonsensical claptrap to extoll it.

Hear Hear!!

double hear mate haha