Write a piece over at Online Poker Report on what I think are the four critical components of a strategy for getting online poker done in California.

Here's the condensed version:

1. Create voter-driven political pressure.

The current stalemate only happens in a context where voters are apathetic. A grassroots organization that advocated for no particular approach and displayed no formal alliance to any stakeholders could easily increase political pressure (in an election year, no less).

2. Fund regulatory agencies

Until gaming regulatory agencies in California are properly funded, there's always going to be an easy reason to defer action on poker.

3. Get PokerStars out of the spotlight

The company is too divisive. And their track record with lobbying in the US isn't that great anyhow. They should play a supporting role, not be the tip of the spear.

4. Bring racing a good deal and sell them on it

Racing shouldn't want to be an online poker operator. It's a money pit from their position. I can't see Pechanga et al bending on allowing tracks to operate - there's just no clear incentive.

So we need an attractive package to be created for racing - revenue share + exclusive right to operate skins or similar - and then stakeholders need to unite around selling that deal hard to racing.

Why do we need regulated on-line poker in California, when we have Bovada?

Unless you are from california, or can move, why would any u.s players want california to have regulated i-poker?Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Yes, talk about doing that.

The argument is that the status quo (e.g., Bovada) is not tenable long-term. You may disagree with this argument. History tends to affirm it.

Really? Bodog/bovada has been serving U.S customers since 1994, why would you assume they are going anywhere?

France, Italy and Spain have higher populations than California and don't have the geolocation requirements that block potential players in NJ and NV. Not to mention the banking issues that affect all poker sites in the US.

Even France only has two 'real' operators with a population of 67 million people. California's population of 38 million couldn't possibly sustain two poker sites, but we know 5 - 8 operators (and the tribe casinos) will want to be in a licensed market.

Bovada currently has more players than any of the legislated countries on PokerStars.fr/it/es or Winamax (counting multi-tablers as individual players). I would play Bovada if I were in the US and my options were Party Poker California or Bovada. It's just less hassle to get in and play and a larger player pool.

Regulation in CA is a big stepping stone that will be better for us long term.

Sure Bovada is an option right now, but we really shouldn't take for granted its availability in the future. I don't think it being blocked anytime soon is likely, and the DOJ ruling in '11 changed things. That doesn't mean it will be around forever though.

Many thought the status quo was sustainable in December 2010. We shouldn't make the same mistake again.

Wasn't that Nevada? Then New Jersey? Look how much those two are talked about positively. Even the players in those states don't want to play on those sites.

I almost wish I could believe in state legislation being the answer, but it just keeps proving player interest is down. Segregated player pools (with geolocation targeting AND payment processing issues) just push it down further.

I don't think this is accurate at all. Bovada wins the traffic race, and that is important, but WSOP.com is far easier to deposit and withdraw. The payment processing issues are long resolved.

I have not experienced any geolocation issues in a year and I don't recall seeing anyone complain about it in many months. Both were certainly problems early on.

Bovada charges 5% to deposit, then $50 to withdraw, except once per month where they offer a freebie through some methods. While Bovada pays quickly compared to other offshore sites, WSOP.com still blows it away. And all the WSOP.com cashouts are free.

The situation isn't ideal at all. There is no winning solution. Offshore sites carry risks (WPN and Bodog are both under indictment) and very expensive payment processing, but the state-by-state approach isn't going to build any substantial sites like PokerStars. I can't help but think DFS killed online poker.

^^ With that said, status quo for online poker will eventually fail, just like it did after Black Friday. If players want online poker, getting it legalized and regulated will prevent the next Lock Poker or the slow payments we're seeing at a couple of other U.S. facing sites.

Bovada may be invincible, but WSOP.com absolutely is. There is no reason players should have to be subjected to scam after scam when there is a solution that fixes everything.

Also, I feel the attitude of "I don't care because I have Bovada" ignores history and the big picture. Think about how many more players would be out there if echecks and Paypal were available to all and players received free cashouts in a day and didn't have to worry about the next Lock Poker.

From memory, didn´t the racetracks say something this year about they were doing fine without online gambling, but if it was regulated they wanted a piece of the action?

Also I recall the Pechanga tribe guy (Macarro?) saying something about no bill was better than a bad bill

Wouldn´t this imply that the racetracks and the tribes are not that fussed about online poker regulation? The players do not seem that bothered (judging by Mike Gatto´s comments about getting five emails a year) and the PokerStars "charm offensive" was only successful to a degree.

That just leaves the cardrooms and the poker sites who want regulation - and the affiliates!

Isn't 2016 looked at as a sort of dead year for online poker legislation since it's an election year?


Also, does Trump have a position online gaming?

Trump supports online gambling.