Some of this info is already known, but this article was just posted today on the Detroit News site:

Michigan's online gambling delayed until 2021

Michigan's regulators are estimating rules to govern online casino games, sports betting and fantasy sports will take about a year to develop.

The targeted 2021 completion of the online rules are based on the time it took to develop other rule sets in the past, said Mary Kay Bean, a spokeswoman for the Michigan Gaming Control Board....

Yep ... In-casino sports betting should get going 'soon', but MI Gaming was not prepared to get into the middle of online regulations and will certainly take their time in doing so. Hopefully there's some cyber type state police that have their time in and are willing to move to Gaming to help them out. Some of the Gaming inspectors are 'retired' state police already. It's a nice avenue for them to get off the roads but stay in the state employment system. GL

ugh

huge taxes with state approved oligopoly... does anyone care about the players at all or is this all about who can take the most flesh out of people who are "sinners"?

Flint could use the extra tax money for more glasses of water FFS.

The problem in Flint was not and is not money, it's mismanagement. Taxes as regressive as this gambling one are exactly in the mode of everything wrong with governments at this point. This is just one more way of screwing over the people.

Would those taxes be passed along to the players, or would they be aimed at the operators?

It's very unlikely that you would see the word 'tax' on a betting slip, but it's possible. More than likely you will see a fee (another word for tax?) or nothing at all.

All business expenses are passed onto the customer in one way or another, it's just a matter of how they present it in order to collect and pay it. GL

Wondering the same thing.

I'd like to read up on this more as well, but no time right now. Typically businesses are taxed on profit, not revenue or 'sales'. But why wouldn't the state 'go for the gold' and collect on all bets placed ... like a sales tax on products? That way they would get a more consistent, higher and easier to track flow of funds.

If the tax was based on profit then the state would actually miss out on money the better the bookies are at balancing the bets. If each bet were perfectly balanced then the tax would only apply to the juice.

Can't imagine they would miss the boat on that ... so I will reverse my comment on not seeing the word 'tax' on a betting slip. GL

UPDATE

In a May 2020 report by OPR contributor Brad Allen, Michigan State Representative Brandt Iden says that he is "pushing for" Michigan to compact with other licensed jurisdictions to offer multi-state online poker once it launches late this year or in 2021.

https://www.onlinepokerreport.com/42...red-liquidity/

However, Iden also communicates and explains why that "might not be the case." Iden says Michigan's hesitance to sign-on to an interstate online poker compact has to do with a perceived negative impact that doing so could have on the state's online lottery revenues.

that would suck for michigan rakeback pros...

Anyone heard anything new, or did COVID put the brakes on any progress???

I haven't read any updates that point to MI online poker before 2021.

If Pennsylvania is any indicator, they'll work on launching online sports betting and online casino before online poker.

As expected, there is a new state senate bill (#969) to fast-track Michigan online casino licensing for a potential 2020 launch in the Great Lakes State, but no mention of poker.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...0-SIB-0969.pdf

Brian Pempus of US Bets covers the 3-page MI state senate proposal here.

https://www.usbets.com/michigan-onli...tracking-bill/

"There’s increasing momentum to see online casino gambling launch in Michigan this year, as opposed to the first quarter of 2021, but right now it’s probably an underdog to come to fruition."

I'm not fully versed on how the political world works ... but why in the world do we need a 'bill', which I assume becomes a law, to fast track something. Are you suggesting that there's language in a law that 'mandates' a timeline of implementation?

Why don't we just tell the folks working on it to 'get going' ...

I guess it's possible that more funding is necessary for a fast track and that does need legislative 'direction'. GL

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...0-SIB-0969.pdf (3 pages)

IMO the proposal aims to grant full iGaming licensing/launch rights to tribal and commercial entities/persons who already operate licensed land-based casinos under the 1996 Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act. These entities/persons would otherwise need to await normal approval from the Michigan Gaming Control Board before commencing operations.

The licensing privileges would extend until the CDC chief medical executive deems that social distancing measures are "no longer necessary," or until MI Gaming Control actually issues a full license in accordance with the legislation signed by Gov. Grethen Whitmer late last year.

Basically it's an attempt to acquire iGaming licenses without a full promulgation of MGCB rules and conditions as required by the 2019 law -- a process that would likely continue to be delayed due to ongoing social distancing recommendations by the CDC along with statewide re-openings/shutdowns.

Note that there's no clause within this MI-SB 969 proposal that would allow the MGCB to revoke or even scrutinize said provisional license if this were to pass and become an amendment to last year's Michigan Lawful Internet Gaming Act.

So on one hand, this bill would eliminate a significant amount of statewide iGaming licensing bureaucracy, and allow iGaming operators to launch with full authority instead of waiting what could be *who knows how long?* before regulators can legitimately organize in a land-based meeting environment to establish rules. It would also jump-start iGaming tax revenue and job opportunities for a number of state interests, at a time when traditional brick & mortar businesses are dealing with enduring uncertainty.

On the other hand, it could be interpreted as attempting to circumvent existing state law along with the state constitution by arbitrarily ramming-through a 3-page bill that utilizes the current pandemic to usurp licensing power from the MGCB.

This is just my non-legal, non-expert opinion as an observer. Those who are physically located in Michigan (regardless of their stance on this latest proposal) would have superior information and editorial insight either way.

-David

Here's a June 23rd article by Matthew Kredell via Online Poker Report. It includes quotes from the Michigan Gaming Control Board Deputy Director David Murley (links to 2017 preliminary video testimony for MI iGaming).

https://www.onlinepokerreport.com/42...ctober-launch/

"But the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) told Online Poker Report that it is already pursuing a more optimistic timeline. It is aiming to have online gambling and mobile sports betting ready to go in October..."

The article also covers the potential introduction of a separate bill that would specifically authorize multi-state agreements that would enable the Great Lakes State to form compacts with other U.S. states (but not internationally).

"The Michigan Gaming Control Board may enter into agreements with other jurisdictions, including Indian tribes, to facilitate, administer and regulate multijurisdictional internet gaming for poker by internet gaming operators to the extent that entering into the agreement is consistent with state and federal laws and if the internet gaming under the agreement is conducted only in the United States."

Meanwhile Illinois fast tracked online sports betting legislation due to the coronavirus. Over the weekend, Rivers Casino in Illinois started taking bets via their online site.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackjon.../#1a73535d4f36

Why is Michigan so slow?

Here is more analysis of MI-SB 969 (2020), provided by Brett Smiley for MI Bets.

https://www.mibets.com/mgcb-senate-9...ine-rules-regs

"Thursday is the last session day for the Michigan Legislature before the summer recess, but just prior to the most unusual vacation (or stay-cation), a group of 10 lawmakers introduced what appears to be a symbolic message to the Michigan Gaming Control Board: Please help deliver online gambling ahead of schedule..."

Dhubermex --

Any idea if this has any implication for Illinois poker? Sorry for being slightly off topic here.

Hi Chaos_ult,

I wish I had good news for you, but most of the Illinois "online poker" legislative proposal rhetoric has revolved around "poker runs" -- which are more akin to lottery/raffle/charity formats (but with motorcycles) than the "competitive, real money wagering" poker that we're all familiar with.

https://www.wkms.org/post/new-law-pa...inois#stream/0
---

I saw that Brett Smiley referenced Illinois' movements to facilitate online gambling (article in Post #119), and believe that similar measures will at the very least be considered for select jurisdictions in which there are enough informed voices and organization to urgently prioritize tax revenue from iPoker//iCasino/iSportsBetting.

The Illinois executive order signed by Governor J.B. Pritzker is very important to mobile/online gambling, but deals with a separate (yet vitally important) obstacle that sites are threatened by in multiple jurisdictions: in-house registration requirements.

By waiving these previous requirements in IL, authorized mobile wagering sites are able to forego the process that would otherwise mandate that x-player register one's personally identifiable data (PII) into a land-based casino/cardroom's database before being allowed access to that land-based establishment's sub-licensed iGaming products. So basically customers in IL can now register directly through an authorized app/site, which proponents of the executive order may argue is even more logical now due to land-based closures, since these services obviously wouldn't be able to launch or receive new business otherwise.

As for how such a mandate might apply to Michigan... I'm unsure if the MGCB has determined whether in-house registration would be required before customers could access the corresponding iGaming service. Current U.S. statewide regulations are a bit of a hodge-podge regarding this because each state has its own policies. For example, in Pennsylvania, customers are specifically restricted from accessing any licensed online gambling service... even if one is physically located in the casino that literally sub-licenses its own online gambling product. So in Pennsylvania, one must register online because that person can't register/log-on from inside casino property either way.

So in short, such an executive order (if were to even be considered by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer) would only be relevant if rules promulgated by the MGCB exclusively required online players to register at land-based casinos first (as opposed to facilitating this process like WSOP had been done during previous summers in Nevada).
---

My take is that those physically located in Michigan (and have been involved in this process for years... see timestamps below) have a very firm grasp of what the issues are in the Great Lakes State, and why urgently creating a process for online gambling licensing should (or shouldn't) be prioritized at this time.

2017 Preliminary Testimony (Timestamps): https://www.parttimepoker.com/michig...ng-study-guide

If the MGCB is able to provide a process that gets MI online sports betting and iCasino launched in Q4-2020, then online poker in Michigan could be only a few short months behind them in going live. By that time perhaps there will be more inclination as to what is going to happen in the ongoing Wire Act suit.

-David

Given the recent events in iGaming in Illinois, is there anything stopping casinos from offering online poker, or does poker have to be explicitly addressed in the law for that to happen?

Thanks for your insights

Here is a June 26th article by Eric Raskin for MI Bets.

It specifically addresses the possibility of Michigan embracing "interstate" (aka cross-state, multi-state, compacted) online poker agreements with other regulated states within the U.S.

https://www.mibets.com/interstate-pl...-online-poker/

"State Sen. Curtis Hertel Jr., a Democrat, was one of the driving forces behind the Lawful Internet Gaming Act, and now he’s planning to introduce a bill clarifying that the online poker included in that legislation can include multi-state player pools."

"'I believe [the lack of clarification on multi-state pooling]was an unintentional problem that was created by an oversight in the drafting and negotiating process,' Hertel told MI Bets. 'I don’t think it was intended by anybody, so it should be an easy fix...'"
---

My analysis: Similar to the other recent articles that I've linked ITT, this write-up contains quotes from someone who is: (a) physically located in MI, and (b) in a position to be acutely aware of processes related to incoming licensed Michigan online gambling services.

This is a good thing for those who desire regulated U.S. online poker (imo), because it addresses a potential medium-term path for cross-state legalization of U.S. online poker. The language in MI State Senator Hertel's proposal reads as follows. Note that this legislative proposal (if passed into law as MI State Senator Hertel suggested to MI Bets that it will be), would explicitly prohibit the Great Lakes State from compacting internationally.

[The Michigan Gaming Control Board may enter into agreements with other jurisdictions, including Indian tribes, to facilitate, administer, and regulate multijurisdictional internet gaming for poker by internet gaming operators to the extent that entering into the agreement is consistent with state and federal laws and if the internet gaming under the agreement is conducted only in the United States.]

Thanks for the updates David.

Hi Chaos_ult,

IMO, there's nothing "stopping" U.S. states from authorizing/licensing online poker (or outlawing it entirely). It's really up to the states either way unless the U.S. federal gov't decides there's some necessity for it to have a say in the matter (like its Nov 2018 re-interpretation of the 1961 Federal Wire Act).

Theoretically online poker could even be licensed (or outlawed) on a county/municipal level, which likewise would be up to those localities unless their respective state decides " " " "...