Nevada to offer intrastate iPoker in Q1 2012? - Page 2 - Poker News

Actually, the new NV law authorized the Nevada Gaming Commission (NGC) to develop regulations to license and regulate online poker. It did not specify that these regulations are for or are not for intrastate i-poker. It did not even specify that the NGC should go ahead and start issuing licenses. It did specify that any licenses issued for intrastate i-poker could not be effective until a change in the federal scene (passage of an authorizing fed bill or an express OK by the DOJ).

Until now, there was no specific word that the NGC intended to go ahead and start issuing active licenses for intrastate NV i-poker. Now it looks like they will do so. And these same licenses will be good for interstate i-poker once the feds give the go ahead (although there may need to be some adjustments if fed regs require something additional to what is covered by the NV regs).

This will definitely give NV a leg up on being the US epicenter for online poker companies.

I thought the bold is correct too. The interesting wild cards are:

1) The UIGEA does not apply to intrastate gambling. The fact that Nevada has online sports betting makes that pretty clear. You would figure the feds would not be thrilled about that but since it is only within the border it is not their concern.

2) A state attorney gives the go ahead saying the feds do not have jurisdiction making that requirement a non factor.

Otherwise the licenses are worthless for intrastate poker. The article seems to imply that intrastate is coming and I don't see how anyone needs a license for a play money site. I guess just to get the licenses ready so they can open on day one. The article just seems to be incomplete to me.

Last edited by John Mehaffey; 11-14-2011 at 11:14 PM.

Quote

11-14-2011 , 11:54 PM

#27

Aruj Reis

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,688

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheJacob

This is definitely good news.

More states will come along if things go well in nevada and eventually federal legislation will allow for networking between states if the states ask for it.

because states are jumping on the live gambling bandwagon left and right.

I don't know what the numbers are, but Las Vegas is still a gambling mecca for a reason, and it's not because gambling is everywhere.

Quote

11-15-2011 , 12:32 AM

#28

gman339

veteran

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,449

Quote:

Originally Posted by DayTripping

Here is an article from just a month and a half ago.

Note the part that says:

The state's new law and the regulations clearly require that the state not grant any licenses until federal law authorizes interactive gaming or the board or commission is notified by the U.S. Department of Justice that it is permissible under federal law to operate interactive games.

I believe I remember reading articles that stated the Nevada Governor would not sign off unless the above stipulation was included. So the NGC is going to start issuing licenses regardless of the fact that nothing has changed federally yet?

Quote

11-15-2011 , 12:36 AM

#29

permafrost

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,968

Quote:

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

The whole exercise was for intrastate gambling...with the possibility of interstate. Are you saying that's false and the regulation writers added intrastate licensing possibilities on their own?

Quote:

It did specify that any licenses issued for intrastate i-poker could not be effective until a change in the federal scene (passage of an authorizing fed bill or an express OK by the DOJ).

From the proposed regulations:

"5A.240 Scope and Effectiveness of Operator of Interactive Gaming License.
1. A license granted by the commission to be an operator shall not allow such licensee to offer interactive gaming from Nevada to individuals located in jurisdictions outside the state of Nevada unless the commission determines:
(a) That a federal law authorizing the specific type of interactive gaming for which the license was granted is enacted; or
(b) That the board or commission is notified by the United States Department of Justice that it is permissible under federal law to operate the specific type of interactive gaming for which the license was granted."

This shows a fed move is needed only if opening up interstate interactive poker. For Nevada gambling...from NV operator to individuals located in NV...no fed move is needed and that has been the case for a long time.

Quote

11-15-2011 , 12:43 AM

#30

gman339

veteran

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,449

Quote:

Originally Posted by permafrost

Thanks....that actually makes things more clear. I'm not sure that was clearly reported when this was originally passed. My understanding was that it was stipulated that no licenses would be issued (intra or interstate) until something was decided federally. That was obviously not the case.

Quote

11-15-2011 , 03:01 AM

#31

IamPro

one time Plz???

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 17,652

idk if its me but sounds like they are just getting ready for Fed law to pass and if it doesn't then they will move along with interstate online poker

Quote

11-15-2011 , 03:25 AM

#32

prodonkey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 14,597

Quote:

Originally Posted by permafrost

The whole exercise was for intrastate gambling...with the possibility of interstate. Are you saying that's false and the regulation writers added intrastate licensing possibilities on their own?

From the proposed regulations:

"5A.240 Scope and Effectiveness of Operator of Interactive Gaming License.
1. A license granted by the commission to be an operator shall not allow such licensee to offer interactive gaming from Nevada to individuals located in jurisdictions outside the state of Nevada unless the commission determines:
(a) That a federal law authorizing the specific type of interactive gaming for which the license was granted is enacted; or
(b) That the board or commission is notified by the United States Department of Justice that it is permissible under federal law to operate the specific type of interactive gaming for which the license was granted."

This shows a fed move is needed only if opening up interstate interactive poker. For Nevada gambling...from NV operator to individuals located in NV...no fed move is needed and that has been the case for a long time.

ty for this, I was thinking my memory was mistaken on them saying the ok was only needed for interstate.

Quote

11-15-2011 , 03:36 AM

#33

LiveActionPro

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 6,738

LOL NV will just produce some much action, GL

Quote

11-15-2011 , 04:35 AM

#34

PokerXanadu

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 10,583

Quote:

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

Actually, the new NV law authorized the Nevada Gaming Commission (NGC) to develop regulations to license and regulate online poker. It did not specify that these regulations are for or are not for intrastate i-poker. It did not even specify that the NGC should go ahead and start issuing licenses. It did specify that any licenses issued for interstate i-poker could not be effective until a change in the federal scene (passage of an authorizing fed bill or an express OK by the DOJ).

Until now, there was no specific word that the NGC intended to go ahead and start issuing active licenses for intrastate NV i-poker. Now it looks like they will do so. And these same licenses will be good for interstate i-poker once the feds give the go ahead (although there may need to be some adjustments if fed regs require something additional to what is covered by the NV regs).

This will definitely give NV a leg up on being the US epicenter for online poker companies.

FMP. Sorry for the typo! Sort of messed up the whole post.

Quote

11-15-2011 , 04:53 AM

#35

Green Bastard

journeyman

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 255

Apparently you still have to be in the casino to play online. This is from gambling911.com "Once granted a license, companies would only be permitted to offer online poker within the state’s boundaries in specified settings such as in the casinos and racetracks themselves."
http://www.gambling911.com/poker/nev...es-111411.html

Quote

11-15-2011 , 05:09 AM

#36

was_sick

grinder

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 489

Casino based Rush Poker against live degens from across the state one time??

Quote

11-15-2011 , 06:39 AM

#37

Fiveafterfive

journeyman

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 353

Quote:

Originally Posted by Green Bastard

Sounds like someone who never played online poker explaining the regulations.

I would agree that the server / databases / software / communication would all have to be within the casino building for security and inspection.

Quote

11-15-2011 , 08:48 AM

#38

prodonkey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 14,597

Quote:

Originally Posted by Green Bastard

people actually read gambling911? I read the regs they had published so far, well a lot of them, it was boring as hell, and they are patently wrong in what they say there. Unless they mean to say only those places would have the right to offer internet gaming.

here is the technical info on what they want to do.

http://gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/t...ft_11oct20.pdf

proposed operating regulations

http://gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/r...11oct25_v9.pdf

Last edited by prodonkey; 11-15-2011 at 09:05 AM.

Quote

11-15-2011 , 10:25 AM

#39

leconnaisseur

adept

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 1,092

ty government
ty USA
please tax us and spread the money around you
moaaaaaaar

Quote

11-15-2011 , 10:38 AM

#40

ICUScoobyDoo

grinder

Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 442

Come on Illinois hop on board.

Quote

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last