That's why Bodog actually threw out half of Europe more than a year ago? They have very little traffic in South America and the only other flagship is Asia with Bodog88. I would not necessarily call that "a pretty good ROW following".
I think we have a different understanding of "very interesting".

All it takes is 1 other decent size state to join with NJ and they will be bigger than every off shore site Americans can play on. I brought California up not because I think they will share their pool, but because they are a huge state that others will follow. A California only player pool would be bigger than every off shore site Americans play on.

It doesn't take half the country to have sites bigger than what we have now, it takes a few mid sized states or 1 large state (NY, CA, FL, PA which all are looking into regulation very seriously) to go live. As more state regulate it will become harder and harder for these sites to operate because there will be very explicit laws prohibiting them and the casino industry isn't going to let them survive.

As far as taking "years to go online" that is just a ridiculous. It's not like they will be building their own networks, they'll be using 888, Party, UP, etc. Both NV and NJ did have to start from scratch and it took them less than a year to go online. It's much more likely states will join with an existing state (like NJ or NV) and use what they have built which would take months, not years to do.

Regulated online gaming is being talked about now more than it ever has and movement is finally being made. Adelson isn't spending millions upon millions because it isn't a threat, he knows the time is now for it to be banned or for it to flourish.

Since you mentioned NY
http://pokerfuse.com/news/law-and-re...t-poker-31-03/

It's not ridiculous at all. It doesn't matter if there is software ready to go into play or not. I know that, at least in California, there will be a fairly long waiting period after passage of legislation so all the sites that want to go online can do it on an even footing. They have to give the tribes and other entities enough time to develop software from scratch if need be. No tribe in the world is going to agree to legislation if Party can get a head start on them. The regulations would go into effect immediately but no site will be allowed to go online for quite some time after passage. Starting sites on an even keel would probably be important for a lot of large states.

Furthermore much of the existing software will probably be banned from even being used in California if a bad actors clause is put into the legislation, which is actually what is most likely to happen. So PokerStars software itself, for example, might not be able to be even leased to California sites.

New Jersey's online gambling has been a dud as far as tax revenue goes. That's not exactly inspiring other states to pass legislation. Taxes are something that other states strongly consider when deciding to pass legislation. Jerry Brown in California has expressed skepticism about the grandiose promises of new revenue even in California.

You mention Florida and Pennsylvania; but Florida's bill really doesn't have much to do with online poker. As a matter of fact, I don't think that bill addresses online poker at all. That bill does address casino games and sports betting. Actually I don't think that Florida is taking online poker seriously at all. The Florida governor is one of the few governors supporting Addelson.

As far as Pennsylvania goes, no one is predicting that there will be passage of an online bill in the near future. The voters in Pennsylvania aren't all that friendly to online poker. Pennsylvania is also trying to pass a law making it a crime to play online poker punishable with jail time. Pennsylvania is many years away from passing a bill making poker legal, assuming they even decide to pass such a bill at all.

The sites that we have now are the only sites that the vast majority of us are going to have for a long time to come.

None of the sites operating right now would be kicked out because of a bad actor clause. Every bad actor clause I've seen goes back to 2006 when Party Poker left the US market (for this very reason). 888 has never operated in the US until now, WSOP didn't exist, and UP didn't exist.

PA is considered by many to be the next state (or CA) to go live even though the nut job Mario Scavello wants to put people in jail.

We'll have to agree to disagree about how long this will take.

Not true, I played on there back in like 2004 or 2005.

Oh really? I stand corrected. Did you play on there after 2006?

Nope.

It makes no difference whatsoever if a site like WSOP makes its way into a market like California. There still isn't enough software out there that isn't effected by a bad actors clause to fill the demand. Even if there was, California would still put a lengthy waiting period into their legislation in order to allow sites time to develop software. The California legislature can't assume that all parties will be able to lease software before those online business' have even applied for a license.

California's population is very pro poker; both Gus Hansen and Phil Gordon first learned to play poker in the town that I live in; there are pros, regs and fish everywhere in this state. Pennsylvania's population is generally much less familiar with poker. Nevertheless it has taken California many years to get where it is. Pennsylvania has just started even considering online poker. They may very well be the next state to sign on, but that might be years from now.

How many different sites do they need to fill demand? I've seen estimations that they could support 10 individual sites, but we both know there won't be more than 2-3 that really take off and do well. Every site/network currently operating in NV/NJ can operate in any state that passes legislation so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the bad actor clause. Sure, Stars isn't coming back, but Party, WSOP, UP, and 888 all can open up shop in any state that gets on board. 4 sites/networks isn't enough? Both 888 and Party are willing (and already do) to lease out their software so the tribes in CA could have their own individual skin or even their own site using existing software.

WSOP uses 888's software but doesn't share player pools.

California has a very segregationist perspective as far as online poker goes. The various tribes and casinos literally and openly talk about players as if they own the players. A few years ago they were only talking about allowing 3 sites to operate in the state. Now they are talking about allowing as many as 10 in. The final number could conceivably be somewhere in between. A smaller number would very likely lock out any outside companies from operating in California. Which casinos and tribes get which piece of the pie has been a major roadblock in passing legislation. If there are too many sites operating, compacts could possibly form within California but there won't be any compacts with sites outside of California for a very long time.

Although a site like the WSOP might conceivably be able to enter California, it would be a really tough job for them to accomplish that. California doesn't plan to create an environment were just any business can open shop as opposed to how things are done in Nevada and New Jersey. If legislation is written that simply allows WSOP, UP, and 888 to operate in California by applying for a license without giving the casinos and tribes first shot at obtaining one of the limited number of licenses, that legislation would have no chance of passing.

Regardless of whether any tribe can lease software, there will still be a waiting period so all the sites can start operations on about the same day. None of the parties involved in the negotiations are going to sign on if they feel they may be left in the dust.

Both of you bring up good points.. start sharing your thoughts on Cali poker @

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...-bust-1429498/

I predict it to go live '11-15-2015' you read it here first

A sudden move to worse software but a softer field is coming.

What PokerHost gives Equity that's even better than a larger player pool, is legitimacy. PokerHost is well established and has handled itself pretty well so far during this transition. That they are converting player points to cash speaks well of them especially considering that the network they are leaving would have used any excuse to grab those points.

With the new move.. i believe Equity will boost up to the top 30 spot by june

good points about regulation SantaCruz.

Thanks.

Wait, what?

All current loyalty points will be converted to cash which will reflect in the customers balance once the migration is completed. All new loyalty points obtained will be under the new networks guidelines.

What is the conversion rate?

I thought i was the only 1 that caught that..

It is my understanding in speaking with PokerHost that no value will be lost by players. As such, I'd expect them to convert oone's points to cash at whatever VIP tier your one's account has achieved at the time of migration from Merge Gaming Network to Equity Poker Network.


--
Kahn

LOL @ 10 years in business. This network is what, 6 months old? And was it not founded by the same guy who was running the shady Chico network? If that's the 10 years of experience they are talking about I'm not sure I would have brought that up.

Email they sent out backs this - all bonuses will be paid, and reflected in your migrated account once the changeover is complete (around 3am EST Tuesday).

I lolled too when reading the email, was too polite to point it out. But how would you word it in Pokerhost's shoes to make the network description more reassuring?

That reminded me of Ladbrokes - when moving to the iPoker network last December, they were telling reassuringly that the new software would be better than Microgaming's - there was no way they could tell the truth that regs who've played on both networks of course know.

I wish Pokerhost players a smooth migration. (My Ladbrokes balance was in limbo throughout the Christmas holidays - that was a bad timing for them to migrate, lol.)

PokerHost has been in operation for about 10 years. I think what they meant to say was "successful poker site" not "successful poker network".