So, do you believe that if this bill were to pass, none of the major players would bother with California because it wouldn't be profitable? I think that would be naive.

I think they will complain loudly, but at the end of it all, they will find a way to make it work.

But I also know that this bill is only prefiled, the debate has only just begun, and other bills are likely, so mulling these issues is all well and good, for now.

Hopefully Sheldon Anti-Christ Adelson has lighten a fire under the ass of the California pro-online poker interests.

I never said anything remotely close to that. I said a lot of casual players wont bother signing up. In my opinion, in person registration prevents the CA market from reaching its full potential.

I posed a question, I didn't put words in your mouth.

But you did say it would be 'a death knell to the California market' which suggests you believe it would fail. I don't think that is the case at all. It certainly isn't going to take off like gangbusters, but rather it will take some adjustments.

Everyone has to get passed 'how it was' and get used to 'how it's going to be' in the future, because they aren't going to be the same by any stretch of the imagination. 2005 is long gone, models have to change to adjust to the new paradigm, players will have to adjust as well. I believe in time those rec players who can't be bothered to show up in person to open an account will do just that, and the game can thrive once more.

Again, this is just my opinion. But yes, I do believe that over regulation (and I hate using that phrase) could very well cause a company to cease their operations in CA. It happens all the time in pretty much every industry. Someone might setup shop, not meet expectations, and close it down two or three years in.

I know it won't be 2005 again and we'll need to make concessions but I am not willing to take in-person registration on the chin. But I am only one guy and its only my opinion.

No need to hinge on single words. I've presented my thoughts in a straightforward manner and don't expect everyone to agree with me.

Assemblyman Mike Gatto: I Approach Online Poker Regulation “With An Open Mind”

I really believe the in-person first deposit is to appease the anti-money laundering crowd (in addition to the underage gambling concerns.)

The interview with Gatto I linked just above answers this question: it's for those with concerns about underage, money-laundering prevention, cheating protections and giving the smaller tribes & cardrooms that can't afford a license a chance to participate.

Makes sense, and good on Gatto for trying to find a middle ground which appeases as many parties as possible. While personally I think it would be obvious a person was laundering money with a simple algorithm to analyze their "play", it would be much tougher to get a politician, who knows little or nothing about poker, on board with algorithmic protection. Considering I should have died on September 11th, I'm all for a rule that slows down terrorism even in the slightest.

Why I think the in-person rule is less important than others: it is 6pm on Wednesday, during the holiday period, and there are currently 69 tables in play at Commerce right now. Unless you live in Mammoth Lakes or some other remote location, there is a potential deposit location within an hour of just about everywhere in California. Players will get that initial deposit out of the way and it will be an afterthought.

Maybe it can be compromised to require in person on first deposit or withdrawal. That should help with identity Also skins for small casinos are workable, but skinning has issues with unbalancing ecology of different skins.

Small casinos will need a piece of the pie. Perhaps small casinos becoming affiliates of major licenses. I'm not sure the legislature is really equipped to figure this all out but it is a long process so many improvements will come to the bill if hearings and industry input can be incorporated.

Requiring the first withdrawal (vs. deposit) to be in person would be a phenomenal compromise.

Lower the barrier to all the casual players (including non-B&M) to give online poker a whirl, then bring them to a B&M establishment at the point they're about to have extra cash in their pocket.

At first when I read this, I thought that was a brilliant idea. But,(and Im not very educated on how its done) my assumption is that they are more concerned with people coming in for identity verification before even playing on the site.

Yeah, there's other concerns behind it - and the haze is a lot of us feel like it's going to create too high a barrier to player entry, damaging the chances of the California online poker ecosystem from ever achieving a sufficient & sustainable liquidity of games (for the operator costs involved).

Obv. fully regulated sites have player verification concerns the Party Pokers of a decade ago didn't have to deal with.

Another alternative would be setting a smaller initial deposit limit cap that gets lifted once a player does a full in person ID verification.

Create as low a barrier to entry for new players as possible to introduce them to the sites/games/new software without much effort, while still putting good safeguards in place & helping to create foot traffic/other revenue streams for smaller gaming establishments that won't have online rooms.

It would not likely generate the foot traffic to the smaller casinos. I believe the figure banted around in the glory days of internet poker were less than 10% ever cashed out, and it may of been closer to 2%. I would seem to believe this version of internet poker will be no different.

A larger percentage of players would go over the $200 level in deposits, but I still would suspect a large number of casual players may never loose $200 and be the foot traffic they are looking for.

Just to be clear, my suggestion is to set a $200 initial deposit cap - a player can make an initial deposit of up to $200 without a visit to a cardroom/casino. After that, if the player wants to make another deposit or any withdrawal, they have to visit a cardroom/casino for ID verification.

I think this proposal satisfies all the issues:

1. Money-laundering prevention.
2. Underage gambling protections - at the most, someone underage who somehow circumvents the online ID check at registration could only run up a $200 debt.
3. Cardroom/casino foot traffic - most players will eventually have to go. There may be some percentage of players who don't ever make a second deposit or a withdrawal, but those are unlikely to be cardroom/casino patrons anyway.
4. Cheating protections - they can't withdraw their ill-gotten gains without going to a cardroom/casino for verification.

There would also have to be a lock on player-to-player transfers until the in-person verification is completed.

While I agree with your points, PX, I think even the $200 max debt for minors you made in point 2 will still not win over the opponents.

I imagine many of them view gaming like drugs - 1 cent is too much. They may compare as such: "at worst, a minor would only be able to have smoked a couple joints."

I hope I'm wrong - your solution sounds like a logical compromise and I would still support it.

Those types of "opponents" won't be won over, period. The "in-person deposit" can win over those who are "concerned citizens", but not those who oppose online gambling on moral grounds.

The opponents' argument is that the underage can run up large debts (as seen in the Adelson video). The in-person deposit addresses this, but so would the initial-deposit cap. This would be our counter-argument, which doesn't change the minds of our opponents but does belay opposition from those who would be swayed by their argument.

California should go all in with online poker

having to make one deposit in a casino really is not a big deal.

jsut to pass it.

Agree with both sides, but I'd eat rotten fruit rather than die in hunger.

On the other hand, I went to WSOPc Southern California last week. The casino is about 1 hour from San Diego, and about 30 minutes from a reasonably-sized town Escondido. The casino is full of people on slots and table games. You can easily have those people sign up there and they can play online poker/other games after they went home. Not that bad if you think about it.


-jordyun

you guys realize it is only the first deposit not every deposit right? really not a big deal.

whatever we lose from the people who wont deposit cause they wont go to a betting establishment is gained by the exposure of the advertising inside of these establishments imho.

The vast majority of those people would not have been able to open an online poker account under this bill when the were at the casino because the bill requires two forms of ID plus bank account information for withdrawals at the time of account registration. Most people don't carry this around with them. It will pretty much only be players going to the casino/cardroom prepared in advance to sign up who will be registering for online poker under the current bill provisions.

it sounds to me like a lot of people simply don't want it bad enough, and basically that is the whole reason the process is going so slow. Online players simply can't be bothered to take the most basic steps.

Small wonder the issue is so largely ignored

FTR - many places accept credit cards as a form of id as long as a photo id accompanies it.

2 forms of id can = drivers license and a credit card.

Though idk if that's a state by state thing or not.