The federal government, as well as the state/territory governments allow wagers to be placed on "events" that are not sports, racing etc. Also, an exempt wagering/gaming service under the IGA, means it is not illegal for businesses to offer those services to Australians or for them to obtain licences under each state/territory. Real money poker is not an exempt gaming service under the IGA, nor in each state/territory. This is partly why the major sites left, and you have APL and APT pursuing "free" online tournaments, and why there is a 'fight for online poker'.

In my opinion (make your own), under the current IGA, the only way I believe real money poker can be exempted right now, is if it were to be offered in a public place, the digital device/software were to be fixed, not to be used externally of that place, and states/territories did not prevent that service from being llicenced. For example,
I live in NSW, so if we had a designated area in a club where fixed gaming devices could be placed, with poker software on these devices connectiing all players in the club with each other, and possibly even connect us with other players in other clubs, as a form of interclub competition. A percentage of gambled money such as cash game rake and tournament fees should be put towards a bad beat jackpot prize.

Although I highly doubt this would ever happen given the initial investment for these devices, and the initial low player base to offset those costs; it would be a longterm investment. But in my opinion, as the reduction of EGM's continues, and the push for regulated online gambling continues (20+years now), it could be worth clubs networking together to share members to increase player volumes, to generate higher income from rake and increase foot traffic with interclub prizes.

Crown casino had online terminals back in the day. for stakes as low as .30/.60 IIRC. there were people openly colluding, the small stakes attracted the worst of the worst of melb degenerates, binge drinking and fights ensued en masse at and around the temrinals lol. it did not go well.these terminals were promptly removed hahaha.

may have to be the better/only option moving forward though , unless the IGA is ammended.

Lol I didn't know that, I do remember reading about Crown in its early days hosting high rollers that used to deal drugs from their rooms lol; something like that. I also remember a poker league that offered a brothel massage as part of a prize..now they offer toilet paper lol. I guess a happy ending either way haha.

Although, I do have to admit that I think it's reasonable to assume that the creation of poker companies, who have grown a significant customer base over the years, has contributed to shaping acceptable poker player behaviour. Given their ability to provide their services at clubs/hotels is also contingent on the clubs/hotels lack of tolerance for anti-social behaviour. This has forced alot of these poker companies to be more proactive in reducing that risk over the years, which casinos have absolutely benefited from.

Of course that's not to dismiss the major influence which has been the fact that most gamblers just don't play poker lol, but if we had these devices in clubs/hotels/casinos right now, I doubt we would encounter these issues at an extreme level. Now the poker industry has the ability to portay a gambler who is succesful in poker as being educated, disciplined, and having fun, which certainly goes along way in influencing/encouraging a struggling gambler to change their behaviour, whilst also attracting new players to the game, who otherwise wouldn't gamble.

Australian clubs on the apps seem to be running well. Perhaps that's because other countries participate as well.

Also, it's possible for other countries to play on an Australian based site. Correct. So i'm sure europeans would come and play against soft pool in aus.

Yeah obviously if it was legal Australia could open sites to compete with the existing ones and promote them as Australian owned etc

Whether they gain market share or not would depend on whether they're well executed or not

At the end of the day the government shouldn't care as long as they get their revenue for the Australian business of any sites operating here

For players advocating for a segrated market, I have some questions for you to consider...

How would harm minimisation protections for a segrated poker market be different than for an international poker market?

Why do you believe a segregated poker market will be more effective in eliminating the use of illegal online poker services, especially if these services offer bigger guarantees?

If a segregated poker market were to come to fruition, should an Australian provider be able to offer poker to the international market seperately, considering the IGA encourages targeting the international market?

What makes a recreational players aversion to play in an international market because of "the perceived skill" differ from a segregated market, where the player pool is significantly smaller?

Illegal offshore sites offer no protection.
Most legal sites operate with gambling commissions approval.

Not dealing with an average joe middlemen. Trusted companies payout. If money is withheld, a player can use legal action to be protected. Illegal offshore sites offer no protection.

Yes, i'd say it would be a high priority. A large player pool is perferred amongst players. As there would be less "dead time". Players would be able to find a table more quickly.

Not sure the question? Recreational players are going to play on the first site that advertises to them.

If it's legal the regulated sites can advertise on TV, sponsor sporting events to gain name recognition and so on (see all the sports betting sites logos all over the sporting teams, or back in the day Stars/Tilt had their logo on the Sharks and Roosters in the NRL)

Very few recs going to be playing on random offshore sites where you have to deal with agents and bitcoin and VPNs and whatnot when they get facebook targeted ads and TV ads telling them to play on Stars or Crownpoker.com.au or whatever other legal/regulated sites exist

You are probally right, but I also believe that people are more and more interested to go deeper into poker studies. And they will fast figure out that rake deals for smaller sites will be much better. If they understand they can be winning players if they join sites with less rake they will do and mouth to mouth speak will do the rest.

Those questions were in the context of an Australia player pool vs international player pool.


Exactly, so why would you want to limit the player pool to only Australians, which would effect the guarantees and live packages, when the harm minimisation protections are no different for an international market...

So true, we aren't the average joe, so wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that a segregated poker market wouldn't be as effective in eliminating the use of illegal online poker services, compared to an international market that offers more choice.

Absolutely, but a segregated poker market would mean that Australians wouldn't be able to participate in those games offered to the international market.

Yea, I left out *difference, different* lol - was in a rush.
Someone basically said that an Australian restricted player pool would be more comfortable for a recreational player because playing in the international pool would reveal the vast skill difference, and therefore they would stop playing the game.
So my question, if I word it another way, was wouldn't the recreational players decision to stop playing the international game, be the same decision they would make in the Australian game, if they were to notice this vast difference in skill?
Even if a 50nl game in Australia was equivalent to 10nl game internationally, the fact they can't progress any further would result in the same frustration, and they would most likely stop playing.

I just find it really surprising that players would prefer to only play with Australians. I personally agree with the position that we should not have a segregated player pool - an international poker market is better all around. The current climate of illegal app poker, if anything, proves that the larger the mass of players, the higher and more frequent the guarantees - the greater the participation of players. Knowing your opponent is less experienced is not as relevant as trust in the site, and the frequent oppurtunity to win big, this is even more so when offering a variety of poker variations other than NL holdem.

For a small percentage of the poker field who are serious about improving their game, this is true, but for the vast majority of players it wouldn't apply because these advertisements would establish trust with certain brands. Also, most recreational players just want to play for the thrill and excitement of the game, they dont mind if they lose aslong they have fun; hence why social casino games are thriving.

This is a ridiculously long thread, but if there's any individual action that can be taken please PM me with any guidance you might have.

From that standpoint you may be right. If your hobby becomes work it might not be your hobby and thats why alot of people give up to early or dont want to do the study work

so we have the likes of APL now running "chinese app" like services that offer daily freerolls for "real" prizes later.

https://www.facebook.com/playAPL/

im about to jump in some early bird thing a give it a shot. hey its free.
if companies like this ( i expect WPTL to follow suit soon as they have a massive following in the SEQLD region) can start to operate in the grey area, without any word from Joey, is this any of his doing or?

i see almost every poker player in australia is currently playing on some sort unregulated site, through an overseas agent, is prohibition really working.

Crown just lost the chance to have EGM's in the new Barangaroo property in Sydney until 2041. If they are looking for a new revenue stream to prop up the property, online poker is what they should have their government relations team going hard at right now. Crown poker is a legitimate well-known brand in the country, operates several legal live rooms and has an opportunity to tie online to live-action, including the Aussie Millions.

Lease the software via stars (including support) run it for 12-24 months under the Crown banner without an issue, then go back to the government and push to be included in other jurisdictions (overseas via the stars software). If ever the government would be receptive to something like this, it’s now.

patiently waiting for crown poker to do $2.2 > $22 > $215> $10,600 satelitte structure to the AM Main. the format that APL have done is not the wobest but ultimately not the worst. they could emulate and do exaclty as you say. very marketable and profitibale product allready. easy tack on

Been following this thread for years. To say I'm cynical is an understatement. But I feel it's hopeless.
When you hear them say, Online Poker is not a government priority, especially in this climate, ie Covid-19, before that it was the election, before that it was something else guess what? after Covid-19 is all over it's gonna be close to election time, and then the same music, "It's not on the government priority list, let's see what we can do after the election" blah blah blah
If we have to wait for Online Poker to be a government priority then obviously it will never be and then obviously it will never happen. So over it

*Apologies for the long posts*
I think it is fair to say you're not alone in feeling that way. But the overall fight for regulating online gambling has been going on for more than 20+ years. Initially prohibition was because of the threat of future problem gambling, but now it is the reality of problem gambling. I would say we are in a better position now than ever before because we have all seen and experienced how little prohibition has worked. The government's recent response to tighten the loopholes, and establish national minimum safe guards, as if to try and prove that a properly enforced framework will prevent illegal offshore gambling is not really working.
Covid-19 has shown the glaring absurdity with this approach and how illegal services are easily accesible for Australians who wish to gamble.

It is reasonable to assume that clubs, casinos, hotels etc. will continue to further pursue interactive games, especially as the pressure to reduce EGM's increases - which I, and others, have previously stated support for. But the government is the only one that can "bring back" the type of online poker we want (although restricting access in homes has also been a main emphasis of the IGA). The National Self-Exclusion Register is the last of the 10 points in The National Consumer Protection Framework when that is implemented the government will then be in a better position, in the context of interactive gambling, to review the effectiveness. No doubt the reduction of time spent on illegal services to participate more in live venues games as the nation "safely" opens up will also contribute.

Keep in mind, when playing against an opponent who is more experienced than you, it is customary to feel lost, hopeless, and futile. But the more you observe and study your opponent as you play, and the more you recognise the consequences of your decisions - the better you're ability to reduce the emotional attachment to each circumstance, and improve your ability to reduce the full impact of your opponents decisions.

Joey has made clear that continuing to pursue a way for the IGA to be amended to allow states/territories to use existing licencing frameworks is the key goal.

The IGA determines, by definition, which games are lawful/unlawful, so pursuing poker to be exempted by the minister, is also another way to legalise online poker.
"... For the purposes of this Act, a*regulated interactive gambling service*is: ... "
"(k)* in the case of an exempt service—a determination under subsection*(2) is in force in relation to the service.
(2)* The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that each exempt service included in a specified class of exempt services is covered by paragraph*(1)(k) "

For example the IGA Notes state:
"The reference to a game of mixed chance and skill is not intended to include games that
would generally be regarded to be games of skill even though it could be argued that the outcome of the game might be affected by chance."
The key word here being 'generally' which would mean poker doesn't apply, since it is generally accepted to be a "gambling game".
However if we more accurately proved, contrary to what has been done by so many, THAT POKER IS A GAME WITH CONDITIONS EQUAL FOR ALL PLAYERS, WHERE THE OUTCOME MIGHT BE AFFECTED BY CHANCE, AND IS NOT A GAME OF MIXED SKILL, AND CHANCE. Then this more accurate definition of a poker game would distinguish poker from games of mixed chance, and skill i.e. Blackjack

This definition seperates poker from other games of mixed chance/skill that the government/states/territories may be afraid of (particularly the A.C.T). It would also, differentiate poker from the definitions of mixed chance/skill games under States/Territories Unlawful Gambling Acts/Criminal Code Acts - making poker, in my opinion, legal (even as a trade promotion).

Obviously if a state/territory specifically states "poker" then this definition wouldn't apply, but it might allow for an exclusion by that states/territories minister, since there is this distinction between games of equal player conditions, and games of mixed chance and skill.

Apparently David Walsh's high roller casino will have 'fully automated table games' - I wonder if the Tasmanianian government will allow him to also offer poker by then??

GGPoker is hosting with WSOP.com the WSOP online bracelet series. I’ve done the WSOP trip the last 3 years and was planning on going this year before this whole COVID situation. Would of loved to play on GG and these events.

It’s disappointing the lack of online freedom we have with online poker. The fact that there’s so many casino sites ignoring the laws and allowing Australians to play on them anyway; even recently the amount of news articles about off shore gambling happening in Australia right now.

Saddening the amount of pros that used to come to the Aussie Millions has dipped greatly it feels like. Knowing if they visit Australia they can’t play Stars or what not in their free time.

Whatever senator of government lobbies and processes the allowance for online poker will have my votes for life.

For players advocating for a segregated market, I have some questions for you to consider...

How would harm minimisation protections for a segregated poker market be different than for an international poker market?



They would be the same


Why do you believe a segregated poker market will be more effective in eliminating the use of illegal online poker services, especially if these services offer bigger guarantees?


The largest prizepool I've seen on the PPPFish union is 410k. Obviously some of the regs are probably playing 5-10 accounts but I would guess at least half of the prizepool and probably much more was made up of unique players. There's not too many places that have significantly bigger guarantees or prizepools. Just ACR, the brazilian union on pppoker and some of the US unions maybe.
A lot of the players that play on apps didn't play on pokerstars etc because it wasn't fun or they thought it was rigged. A targeted Australian site that was rec friendly would be the best long-term bet as far as moving the entire community over to a regulated platform.


If a segregated poker market were to come to fruition, should an Australian provider be able to offer poker to the international market seperately, considering the IGA encourages targeting the international market?


hmmm maybe. kinda saturated market


What makes a recreational players aversion to play in an international market because of "the perceived skill" differ from a segregated market, where the player pool is significantly smaller?

It's a combination of factors. But obviously if someone is accustomed with sometimes winning in their local $1/$2 - $5/$10 home game they would expect to do the same online. Larger player pools tend to "pulverise" recreational players quicker than smaller player pools.

Say we have 6 players. 5 recreational and 1 reg. they all play together on 1 table.

Say we have 600 players. 500 recreational and 100 regs. The regs are 10 tabling. now instead of 5 recreational per every reg there is twice as many regs than there are recreationals

This is why smaller clubs on the apps are softer than the unions (as a general rule)

For players advocating for a segregated market, I have some questions for you to consider...

How would harm minimisation protections for a segregated poker market be different than for an international poker market?



They would be the same


Why do you believe a segregated poker market will be more effective in eliminating the use of illegal online poker services, especially if these services offer bigger guarantees?


The largest prizepool I've seen on the PPPFish union is 410k. Obviously some of the regs are probably playing 5-10 accounts but I would guess at least half of the prizepool and probably much more was made up of unique players. There's not too many places that have significantly bigger guarantees or prizepools. Just ACR, the brazilian union on pppoker and some of the US unions maybe.
A lot of the players that play on apps didn't play on pokerstars etc because it wasn't fun or they thought it was rigged. A targeted Australian site that was rec friendly would be the best long-term bet as far as moving the entire community over to a regulated platform.


If a segregated poker market were to come to fruition, should an Australian provider be able to offer poker to the international market seperately, considering the IGA encourages targeting the international market?


hmmm maybe. kinda saturated market


What makes a recreational players aversion to play in an international market because of "the perceived skill" differ from a segregated market, where the player pool is significantly smaller?

It's a combination of factors. But obviously if someone is accustomed with sometimes winning in their local $1/$2 - $5/$10 home game they would expect to do the same online. Larger player pools tend to "pulverise" recreational players quicker than smaller player pools.

Say we have 6 players. 5 recreational and 1 reg. they all play together on 1 table.

Say we have 600 players. 500 recreational and 100 regs. The regs are 10 tabling. now instead of 5 recreational per every reg there is twice as many regs than there are recreationals

This is why smaller clubs on the apps are softer than the unions (as a general rule). And why pokerstars has typically been tougher than any of the other sites

Currently the AGRC is running a gambling study (https://aifs.gov.au/agrc/covid19survey ) that is trying to collect info about pre-covid and during covid people’s gambling habits.

I participated in the study because I don’t think my responses will be negative for the online poker.

Note, the AGRC has produced studies that have been negative to poker. An example of this is this are “Gambling activity in Australia “ (https://aifs.gov.au/agrc/publication...alia/export%29), “Poker activity in Australia, (https://aifs.gov.au/agrc/publication...vity-australia) etc. The AGRC is not doing anything that other academic or govt organisations haven’t done. The issues with the above studies are the same is what HILDA team produce.

The issues with HILDA data/survey include the small sample size for poker (15K+ participants in survey but only 102 online & offline poker players in the studies), the gambling expenditure question(s) is known to be flawed (but all gambling studies have this issue, though the AGRC has the “worst” form of this type of question), etc.

I found out about this survey because I’m on the AGRC mailing list as I want to know what the enemy is up to.

For anyone who is interested, there is a draw for one of five $200 gift vouchers when the survey closes.

Any updates on this proposed meeting Joey?

What benefit would a segregated market have over an open market though? There can still be sites that only offer games to Australian players, without limiting others that want to play an international market.

It would make more sense to have a complete open market, as I think more sites would be willing to pay the licensing fee/taxes, etc to operate in the Australian market if they have the ROW to trump up the turnover. If they are paying those fees, but only have the Australian market to bring in cashflow, I imagine the rake would either be through the roof or their margins would be razor thin. Also, companies like Stars probably wouldn't even bother to create a pokerstars.au or whatever, because it wouldn't be worth it.

From the governments perspective, this would make more sense as well, because the more sites that enter the Aus market means more fees/taxes for them.