California Card Rooms have been going thru proper channels waiting for the green light; this is unfair to them. They will raise a ruckus.

If it lights a fire under their ass to pass a bill this is a good thing.

Why do people consider bovada legitimate than? Is it because it's honestly one of the few options we have from inside the u.s

News video with the chair of the gaming commission David Vialpando.
http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/...?m=y&smobile=y

Unfair??? It may behoove you to do some history research.

cliffs? cali gonna be like new jersey?? or is this blahblah blahh blah blahhh wait another year?

Cliffs to the best of my ability:

-Santa Ysabel Tribe is poor.
-They are aware that there is a high demand for regulated poker in the US, and that California is a large market.
-They are a sovereign nation and are exercising their right as one by opening their own online poker site called Private Table.
-Their goal is to raise money for their community.

-Had a casino, casino went broke, have class II gaming rights (poker and bingo)
-Got a legal Opinion that online Class II gaming is legal under state and federal current laws
-Firing it off While California Legislators are on summer recess

Why do people make such a big deal about their crappy casino going broke? You know that even big casinos like Trump in Atlantic City is going under right?

Cliffs: There's a small tribe in California desperate for money trying to find a loophole for online poker so that they can eat.

I would be interested in trying out this site I live in Cali.

fyp

Pretty sure most native americans should be able to go around mugging people in public legally. This shouldn't ruffle too many feathers.

This project, along with other tribal efforts, was floating round a conference in Las Vegas last Fall. Unlike the tribe that paid $10+ million for a couple of player endorsements and a former UB boss, this tribe stayed a deliberate course to push the issue of tribes' rights to offer poker and, hopefully, make a few bucks for the tribe.

So, what do they get from folks like PX and AgentMarco ? Support for trying to beak the California legislative gridlock or clear the path for a "bad actor" or someone to follow in their path ? No, they get snidely slammed.

PX, you do not understand what Kahnawake brings to the table is a politically secure hosting facility..... just what they gave Party for years.

Do I think this project will stand on its own ? Not really, but guys, get some perspective and drop the political orthodoxy that has stymied online poker since 2010 or so.

Given their situation and association with shady characters, I wouldn't attribute such altruistic motives to them. I didn't rag on them until I found such things as the loans they haven't repaid, the finpay.net web site, the questionable dealings of the finpay owner, etc. My concerns are strictly for the players. From the apparent evidence I can't attribute much faith in their concern for the welfare of the players. It would be great if I'm wrong, but I don't expect to be.

Is the setup necessarily good for playing online poker? No, I would argue that the actual operations as they stand right now are shadier than Lock's.

Is the fact that they are pushing the issue good for online poker as a whole? To be seen. If it finally results in regulations being passed this year to allow intrastate poker in California, I would argue that this one move is far more effective than anything PPA has ever done.

If they even move the ball an inch, it opens a path for the Morongo Tribe to make the same move, dragging Pokerstars along with them, and side stepping bad actor language altogether. I'm not sure why so few see this as a positive move, whether it becomes a fully fleshed out site on its own, or simply opens the door thru which our beloved Pokerstars can enter California.

Forcing the Class II issue is monumental, and the way the courts and the Dems support the Tribes, I have a strong hunch that this is going to work out, that poker is poker, even online, and therefore Class II. Then Tribes across the country will scramble to get in the game.

this is the single biggest step we've seen towards expansion of online poker this year.

I was going to get into the downsides to this path, but found this article that lays it out perfectly:

California Tribe Serves Up False Hope for Online Poker

I think the fears that tribal sites are all going to be hokey and third rate is a bunch of nonsense, probably rooted more in racism than anything else. They need to offer a quality product, or the players simply won't come. All you have to do is look at how small the current regulated market is to realize if they don't come with a quality product, it simply won't work.

Will you take this same position if Morongo announces tomorrow that they are launching a Pokerstars-powered site, with a real money launch date? There are more positive implications here, why so many are so scared so fast boggles the mind.

Regarding Steve's piece, I obviously don't share his point of view. The title is pretty funny, talking about false hope, when he is clinging to and writing on false hope that a bill is going to pass in CA this session. But I digress.

I will say that there is indeed a possibility that some states may move preemptively and pass bans, but they are just as likely to negotiate with tribes in their state for a share of the pie. It is true that if online poker is prohibited by law, as it is here in Washington, the Class II issue is moot. That gives the state a fair bit of leverage in negotiating revenue share with the tribes though, they are virtually able to blackmail them into sharing revenue.

Tribes are talking, even the tribes here in WA were in conference today on the subject of internet gambling. Why would they even discuss it if they didn't have plans on pursuing change in state law here? Seems unlikely.

Another California tribe says it's going live for real money "today." See this thread. This one is bingo instead of poker.

Because they pay people and do so in a timely manner. I very much doubt the majority of players even realize who the gaming commission is.

Actually, I think that piece and a few others are extremely one-sided, to the point that I wonder which of these sites have pending affiliate deals with the Pechangas and Palas they they are trying to protect. Note I'm not making any specific accusations, but some of these "California" poker sites are suspect.

I think I'm rather closer to Curtis in my viewpoint on this stuff, though Martin makes a good point regarding FinPay's shaky background. One counter-argument for Martin to consider, however, is how unlikely it would be for a megaprocessor (Optimal/NETeller, PayPal, etc.) to partner up in a deal like this and risk a possible far larger deal with the Pechangas or someone else. If a deal like this is going to happen, it's going to absolutely involve a fledgling processing operation such as this FinPay.

There are some good points in that article. Are these really the people we want leading the charge for online poker in California? I don't think their shady backgrounds are going to play well with the general public. If this gets to the point where the non-poker media starts to cover it, it very well could make the entire online poker effort seem unsavory and non-legit to people who would otherwise care less.

Can I get a link to the bingo website? I couldn't find it or Google the tribes name. I'm ready to deposit tomorrow...

I'm not sure there is any leverage for most states to negotiate revenue sharing for online poker if it is classified as Class II poker gaming. A tribe can run Class II gaming without any compact, revenue sharing or negotiations required under IGRA as long as the same gaming is allowed by the state to be offered by anyone else (as is the case in most states). So, if the legal basis is that ipoker is the same as live poker and therefore Class II gaming, then the state can't come in and say that the tribe can't run ipoker without a compact and revenue-shariing because it's a different form of poker than what we allow to others. That is, uncapped Texas Hold'em on the internet is the same game as live uncapped Texas Hold'em, so it can't be taxed (revenue sharing) any more so than the live version can be.

So, yes, this path is likely to be contentious. And yes, it is likely to result in state prohibition bills. And yes, it is likely to fuel federal ban efforts (Adelson). And yes, it is likely to move the current CA vested interests further distant in current efforts to pass a bill.

If this had come years ago before the 2011 DOJ Opinion Letter, I would have lauded it wholeheartedly as you are doing. But right now it is only going to muddy the waters of the current path (state-by-state authorization), causing court battles and legislative backlash that will delay the goal. IMO, of course.

Please point to where I am "clinging" to a poker bill passing this session? At times I have been hopeful and laid out reasons why, but nowhere have I said a bill will pass. In fact I have said the opposite, that it's unlikely, but here is how it might happen. Conversely I also lay out reasons why it won't happen. But I digress.

As far as the topic at hand, I agree with pokerxanadu.

The general notion that poker is poker is fine but Class II also involves WHERE that poker is played. Easy case to make for B&M poker as the player has to go to the tribal casino to play.

Not so open and shut online. Is the player or the server the point of origin, because that is a huge part of this.

You tend to make it seem like it's either x or y, but it's extremely complicated and will likely take multiple years of court battles to clear up just like NJ's attempts to find a loophole to get around PASPA.

Even something as clear cut as NY vs. DiCristina was a multi-year battle.

Point being, even if you are correct and "poker is poker" it's not going to be solved tomorrow. In fact it will probably take longer to hash out in courts than it will to get a bill passed