In addition to reading comprehension, you apparently have a listening comprehension problem.

At no point during the interview (approximately from minute 04:30 to 25:30) does Mr. Rose state "...California is going intrastate...".

As Ashley Adams (the interviewer) says more than once, the discussion is "theoretical", and you can tell that Rose thinks it will happen somewhere with one of the states and he says at that point several states will try to pass legislation and hook up with other states to have enough of a player base.

He talks about the size of the California market and it's apparent that the thinks it could happen there, but the California legislation is discussed without mentioning that it's been pulled, so the interview appears to have taken place sometime prior to the end of June.

Florida won't opt out, imo. They already considered proposed legislation for an intrastate system, but quickly let the bill die in committee. The government report on the issue proposed waiting for passage of the federal bill instead as one of the options, which seems the preferred route here.

+1,

FWIW, Nelson publishes periodically on various gaming law hot topics. I do not know what his rules are for signing up, but it is a good source for his take on issues, VERY readable for a non-lawyer.

Okay, let's consider your scenarios.

Scenario: California goes it State-level, poker-only, before a federal bill is passed.

1. Who among the California Congressional delegation, either party, thereafter would support a federal bill ? Why ?

2. Would it be more or less likely that a "federal" bill would authorize States desiring to offer poker to link into "PokerPowerBall", rather than fight/ preempt California's head-start ? (Same intrastate attributes as with lotteries, it is certainly not a slam dunk that any federal legislation would even be needed.)

3. PX, If California opens poker only and begins to realize decent revenues, would Fla then move on it also ? Illinois ? NY ? Ky ?

TE describes an entirely different scenario: One where California does nothing until the Federal Government fiinally passes an online gaming bill, poker-only or not. I think that expecting California to wait X years is assuming away the problem. OTOH, if someone wed to the Federal level, like Harrahs, reads the range of scenarios the same way, it would seek to discourage/disrupt California from acting first ...... for reasons that have nothiong to do with the interests of poker players in getting legalized games.

I am not "crusading" for anything, just addressing some political realities folks should consider, whether or not they "prefer' the world were different.

As long as the Federal law allowed it to continue as is, I don't think this is that big of an issue. Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, etc. arent exactly key allies to begin with. UIGEA is still bad law.

To link interstate, you need a change in law. I believe the DOJ will consider that illegal. Claiming all wagering is done intrastate using "PokerPowerBall" seems like a stretch. I thought the current bill, as amended, would allow such linkages

This all might be true but, again, all the current state bills have sucked for players. So since Im not really interested in paying $5/pot rake and being jailed for playing on unlicensed sites, I dont really care what interests Harrah has in mind. They align with my interests at the present time, so I am glad Harrah's helped kill the bill.

None of your political realities change the action steps or strategy though. Players are still better off with a bill at the Federal level. We need bills in Congress to play defense at the very least. All the state bills so far have sucked and arent worthy of support. Litigating while we can all still, fairly easily, access the games is a huge risk.

The PPA is doing stuff at the state level. They've pushed a skill game bill in MA and tried to support a ballot initiative. I believe they worked with Tuff Fish in the early stages of his California initiative. TE wrote you up principles for a good stage bills. They've talked with state legislators.

So what do you want changed as a result of these political realities? Abandon Frank's bill right before we likely have committee chairman Spencer Bachus? That seems not smart.

Any educated guesses on Illinois would be appreciated.

Thanks

Rick Perry on gambling in Texas

What are they opting out of? That new bill that they just passed where you need to be 21 or whatever?

No new bill passed and became law. HR 2267 (the Frank bill) was marked-up in the the House financial services committee and passed, the bill has a long way to go and many changes will be made before becoming law, which is a long shot this year.

In any IG bill that is is singed into law, the states will have the option to opt-out. Meaning any state can decide they don't want to be part of the federal licensing and regulation of online poker (opt-out). At this point we don't know which or how many states would opt-out. There is no finial bill yet,opt-out language and structure of opt-outs may change as the bill progresses.

So this prob wont be passed even this year?





All my friends get a few months closer to 21. xD

I'd like to talk about Illinois, as I think it could go either way. Illinois is currently one of the few states that has actual laws on the books banning online gambling. So, if Illinois were to opt-in, there may be extra legislative work required to amend current state law.

On the other hand, Illinois already has casino and riverboat gambling, mostly corporate-owned (Harrahs, etc). Some groups have been pushing for casinos in downtown Chicago for years. We already have charity poker, and state and intra-state lottery. Last year, Gov. Quinn signed a video-poker bill into law legalizing the machines in any bar in the state (but allowing individual towns to opt-out).

On top of all this, Illinois is currently in it's worst financial crises in history, with a $13 billion shortfall projected next year. Illinois' credit rating is tied with California's as the worst in the country. Quinn announced next-year's budget earlier this week, with over $1.5 billion in cuts to education and human services. Talks of giant income tax increases are frequently in the news. I would think the opportunity to raise any additional revenue outside of tax increases may prove to be too strong to resist.

I think given the current financial climate in the state, a solid lobbying effort when/if online gaming is legalized could push Illinois into the opt-in camp. Anyone else in Illinois have any comments?

But add this into the equation: states are opted in by default; they have to take action to opt out. The Menendez bill has a provision which says that state laws that existed prior to the passage of the bill can't be construed to require the state to opt out. So, just because Illinois already has a law on the books banning online gambling, doesn't mean that they have to opt out unless a new law is passed.

If this provision makes it into a final version of an internet gaming law, then I say Illinois is most likely an opt-in state.

If all Quinn or the state legislature has to do is avoid taking action on the issue (which they're very good at) to enjoy the tax increase offered by internet gambling, I think that's the route they would take.

I think this is where the potential for court battles occur. If the Feds cant tell states how to opt out, and the Governor sends a letter, in compliance with the opt out provision, saying "I am opting out under our state law as part of my responsibility to execute the laws of the state"....what happens? Lengthy court battle?

I agree. And that will be the lay of the land in the vast majority of the states, imo. I think the states will mostly take a "wait and see" attitude: let's wait and see how the benefits (revenue stream) weigh against the costs (social costs) before we take legislative action to opt out.

Yep. For the most part, a battle will ensue in any state where the governor takes independent action to opt out. The PPA will no doubt be at the forefront of much of it. But state legislatures themselves will get involved, too. None of them will want the governor to take on the power of lawmaking, a right reserved to the legislature and the people.

Such lawsuits won't necessarily be "lengthy". It's an issue which can be directly brought before the state supreme court, not one that has to go through lower courts and appeals.

Its still probably tied up in courts for a year or two based on the timeline for the Kentucky case, Russo, etc.

Pros should consider keeping a year or two of living expenses bankrolled as savings or have temporary backup plans IMO. Access could get very messy short-term in a number of states.

Alabama might not opt-out if it is the legislature that makes the decision and there is a lot of proceeds already coming to the State before the vote. Bob Riley will block the proceeds if he can. I hear the Choctaw tribe (Mississippi) spent $13 million to get Bob Riley elected. There is a lot of people and leaders pissed off at Bob Riley right now over other gaming. I still have a small bit of hope left. Can I really hit the str8 flush on the river to beat the 4 aces?

Found this on the Drudge Report about California wanting to legalize sports betting. http://www.nbcsandiego.com/blogs/pro...-99780389.html

What do you guys think of NY? I find it hard to believe they will opt out but what do i know

This is precisely my thinking for California too. Our legislature is consistently paralyzed. If the choices are (as you point out):

1. take no action: get some free monies
2. take action to avoid free monies

I expect #1 to be more likely even if the Commerce Casino and the tribes hate it. The correllary to this is if CA has a intrastate poker bill that is likely to pass soon then the equation (in their mind) is changed to:

1. take no action: get some free monies
2. take action (opt-out, implement intrastate): get more free monies and bribes (campaign contributions) from in state interests

Still #2 here likely to be delayed gratification compared to #1.

CAVEAT: this is just my naive opinion. I do not claim to be plugged into state politics.

What people in the B&M industry are forgetting about the online poker issue is that regular Online Players will continue play the same online volume regardless of who hosts the site. Most poker room managers I have heard or talked to say that the two biggest sources of new players are TV coverage of the WSOP/WPT and people who learned the basics at an online poker site. Unless this triggers a Poker Boom II they don't think online poker impacts them negatively. The accountants and executives are the ones perpetuating the online poker hurts us myth.

Intra State / Lottery Poker will attract the recreational Zynga crowd.

MARYLAND
Since no-one has discussed Maryland yet, I will take a stab at it.

Maryland just passed a bill allowing slots only parlors. No table games. There is still some arguing going on as to where one of them will be located, but they are coming. Mainly because most of the surrounding states(PA, DE, WV) had slots already and thinking people realized a lot of MD revenue was going elsewhere. However, MD is not getting table games. There has been some buzz about heading that way in the future, because the neighboring states, since MD has started in with slots, have moved into table games. If the Fed bill passes, and MD allows it in the state, then they may feel there is no longer any need to progress to live table games. With the trouble there was to get slots, the online option will probably pass here, as long as they have to opt out vs having to opt in.

The voters almost always voted pro slots, except where the parlor would be in their back yard. There is no back yard with the online version of poker. It's inside the house. The politicians recently have come to realize the people wanted slots(at least an overall majority did) and have been more favorable towards them.

If there is no time limit to opt out, that being the only option, then Maryland will at least let it happen for a while and see how it goes. If they have to opt in, then I don't see it happening. This is probably true for a lot of states, which means if the bill is passed where a state has to opt in, there is probably little future for online poker in the US.

Within the B&M industry, Maryland is the state taxation horror story. Operators are unwilling to invest real capital, given the tax structure.

In my opinion, Illinois is a good bet to act to offer online poker through its Lottery long before any federal bill passes ...... especially as the proceeds would go toward education/human services.

(I am not in Illinois, but lived there for a while the last century, and have some cursory knowledge of its politics and history .... )

How about new jersey? I live in NJ and play professionally on full tilt poker. What do you guys think the chances of NJ opting out? Do you think its gonna be time for me to move to a new state ? any thoughts about New Jersey opt out likelihood is much appreciated, as I am clueless on my states situation and I am not a smart legal mind.