Do you really believe that what constituents want is more important than what lobbyists want? If poker players were a more influential lobby, then it would make a difference.

poker players not only won't lobby, most won't give $15 to the only group who lobbies for them

If only the PPA had consulted with you first they could have saved the time and money spent conducting and publishing this irrelevant poll.

?

That it won't sway legislators does not mean it had no value to its sponsor. Bottom line is they spent Pokerstars' money (via IGC) to promote Pokerstars.

They did the poll just to make themselves feel good? They are lobbying the CA legislature, ie trying to sway legislators. Just because you feel the poll will have no impact on any legislator doesn't make it true.

are you just being thick? Legislators won't even see it. Poker players, PPA members will, PPA followers will . . . . How will legislators? Did it get handed to them? Think they read the forum? Get the PPA newsletter? Follow PPA on twitter?

It was PR. I'm not knocking it, it was good PR. But it was PR

The PPA often testifies at legislative hearings, and sometimes gets quoted by mainstream media. It's a useful arrow in the arsenal.

Are you not aware that the PPA routinely communicates with legislators in various ways? I mean, it is a lobbying organization.

I know, I know, and I agree. This is not in conflict with what I have said about this poll. My mistake is responding to sarcasm, just sayin'

I'm aware, I can tell you how much they have spent on lobbyists in CA even. How aware are you?

But this poll/survey whatever you want to call it is being shared around the poker community, to promote Pokerstars, to show support for Pokerstars publicly. Real lobbying happens behind closed doors, and tweeting this poll serves a different purpose, as does posting it on this forum.

nuff said

OK so any information shared publicly by definition cannot at the same time influence a legislator. Got it.

I know you mean well but in this case and most other cases, it really doesn't matter. Did you even listen to the hearing couple months ago? Most of the tribal leaders were buddy buddies with the members of the Senate. They were cracking jokes, laughing, and perhaps grabbing drinks after the meeting. Tribes have major power in California when it comes to gambling. California voters made a mistake by voting "Yes" to Prop 5 and Prop 1A.

I am not from California and i am trying to understand.
Are these Tribes supports or against online poker in CA?

The tribes support the tribes getting more money. If they think online poker will get them more money, then they are for it. If the bill won't do that, then they are against it.

Vivi57,

Ok now it make sense.

Thank you!

The Tribes want to ALL be able to make money from internet poker. What they don't want is only the one Tribe, the one cheap enough to partner with Pokerstars, to make money while all the others are left out.

Yea, it is called capitalism. Pretty funky concept.

Financial supporters of Proposition 1A massively outspent opponents. $23,923,458 was spent in favor, and $3,783 against.
Financial supporters included:
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, $8,711,261
Morongo Band of Mission Indians, $4,620,000
Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, $3,664,827

PokerStars deal made with eye on California

It means hope for legislation passing in California this year died the day the Pokerstars/Morongo deal was announced.

And if I was a betting man, I would bet that next year the 13 Tribes will be back to opposing online poker, rather than supporting creation of a market that Pokerstars would completely dominate.

Back to the drawing board.

why dont all the tribes work with pokerstars? is that spreading it too thin?

All too negative, it is a tough road. 2014 is dead as everything turned over in the night. 2015 is a new day. Bad actor clauses will go away, or mean nothing has there is no stars in the US (NJ maybe). In other states just apply as Amaya maybe on a new platform ... If the tribes didn't want online it wouldn't go this far, they wouldn't have agreed in the first part. The tribes see the writing on the wall, it is social / internet or just a slow decline.

Morongo doesn't really have a partner now, I'm sure Amaya would rather let a bad actor bill pass at some point and just get in the market. WSOP will want a piece of the CA market, the card clubs would like a piece of online poker there plenty on bovada. In CA card clubs can only offer poker so they need to expand. That should provide enough momentum to keep it going. I'm pretty sure CA is still in the when not if column.

So 2014 is done, how does our chances look for 2015?

^^^ I'll toss out my views, please take with large grain of salt.

Positive: Tribes are on board to legalize online poker. Seems hard to come back next year with new all against online poker. Possible but unlikely.

Negative: Stars is not going to go away and with sale will be difficult to ban using bad actor language. Courts will get involved for sure, if bad actor clause is passed.

So the question is easily posed, will many tribes be willing to compete for there share of a larger pie with Stars in the game or just block the effort for another year. Will Stars try to end run the bill and let a bad actor clause go through, and try to fight the clause in court? Most other states seem to have bad actor clauses in them so passing CA and fighting the ban might be a risky but possible course.

Finally, once Stars is running in NJ can it take all the market or can Party and 888/WSOP compete gaining liquidity, but falling far behind a Stars dominated market. I'm sure getting a good idea of how Stars affects the NJ Market will take all of 2015. I think stalemate again is possible in 2015.

2016 should finally shake the tree and decide if online poker is coming back in the US or will stay in the current few states.

1179 days and counting. "The Land of the Free". Let me go find and wave my colorful rag.

Maybe Obama will push it through using his powers of executive order -_______- sigh

I, for one, would welcome that.