Thanks for posting link. I investigated the legislature to see it's make-up just about an hour ago. It isn't pretty.

2013 Iowa Legislature Demographics

Senate: 26 Democrats, 24 Republicans

House: 62 Republicans, 38 Democrats

EDIT: I'm looking at a different source and it says 53 Republican, 47 Democrats which would be a huge improvement.

Nevada Week in Review:

(Senator) Reid on web poker: "We're going to try to thread the needle. It's going to be harder to do than it was before."

h/t: @Jon Ralston

i like how it's impossible to gauge the level of what 'harder' really means, because we've been batting 0.000.

i also like that he's continuing to be so cryptic about this ****.

At this point, I just disregard Reid. He is just putting in the good word for his image with the casinos.

On the Nevada Week in Review TV show Jon Ralston predicted that federal poker legislation would pass in 2013. Interestingly he said Heller will not be a major player in that process. Ralston thinks Reid will be able to negotiate attachment to another bill with the approval of GOP leadership early in 2013

Personally, I think if the NJ gaming bill becomes law that makes Ralston's prediction more likely.

lol ok let me clarify. I'm just passing along what Ralston said. I think if the NJ bill passes we go from 2.00% to 5.13% likelihood of a federal bill passing in 2013. I have a precise read here...

A new course for Web poker

Interesting look at what Nevada gaming has in mind when it comes to interstate compacting, but I think they are every bit as delusional about this as they were about the chances for federal legislation.

California, a State with likely more poker liquidity than any non-US nation, isn't just going to shake hands and allow it's players to deposit on Nevada sites; as CA Senator Wright pointed out in a recent interview with @AgentMarco, it isn't even clear that Nevada sites accepting deposits from California players would be permissible under the UIGEA.

They need to lower their expectations, realistic online poker compacts will be more like attorney reciprocity agreements, a Nevada corporation may not need to 'pass the California bar' in order to be licensed to operate in California, but it will need to meet other California guidelines, such as requiring residence of operation and all deposits from California customers to occur within California - making the profits earned by raking them taxable to California.

Getting legislation through the CA legislature is going to be a difficult enough task dividing up spoils amongst CA stakeholders, the last thing needed is NV pressuring them to write a bill that leaves a door open for their players to participate directly on NV sites - opening the door to any out-state US sites would likely require them to also leave the door open to foreign sites as well due to global trade agreements.

NV needs to stop viewing online gambling as a vast opportunity for direct revenue expansion and start thinking of online gambling more like offshore gambling in places like Macau; the goal shouldn't be the revenues taken out of other jurisdictions - other States will never agree to that - rather the goal should be to assist State corporations in being best positioned to profit in those jurisdictions - as we've seen with Macau, those corporate profits lead to local investment and expansion, which leads to jobs and revenue.

Austrian Courts Maintain Monopoly on Online Gambling

This ruling won't get much attention, but it could be significant, presuming US courts agree with this position, withstanding a future Federal bill, expect the US online poker market to remain fractured.

While NJ and NV are racing to see who is going to be the 'hub' for poker in the US, it's becoming more and more clear that the US market is going to be peer-to-peer, with no State being a central server taking in all the rake.

Players aren't going to be pooled without Federal legislation, we need to accept that, but lottery players aren't pooled either - you can't buy tickets to another States lottery (legally) without traveling to that State, but some lottery games are pooled (power-ball, mega-millions), so there is still hope for poker among States which license compatible software providers.

Some lottery States will likely compact to create 'mega-millions' poker platforms (running I-Poker software e.g.), and some commercial States will compact into a 'power-ball' structure for licensees with Caesars and MGM having properties in multiple States likely best positioned.

Eventually most States will likely allow both 'power-ball' and 'mega-millions' (commercial and lottery), but expect California to hold out from any compacting until the weekly tournaments and cash-game traffic on the multi-state sites exceed what they are able to offer on their own.

Bill to raise live poker pots draws support

UK Government Response to the Select Committee Report: The Gambling Act 2005: A Bet Worth Taking?

United States: I-Gaming In The United States Version 2013: Back To The States?

Online gambling site launched by Manitoba government

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...tml?cmpid=yhoo

Online gambling: Playing into the mafia's hands?

Are Online Casinos Replacing Their Bricks-and-Mortar Equivalents? (Belfast Telegraph, UK)

Jeremy Johnson accuses Harry Reid of accepting $1mil bribe from Ray Bitar (FTP) to propose federal legislation during his tough 2010 campaign.

Cued up link to audio of Jeremy Johnson with Utah AG John Swallow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCZVsmduJGU#t=38m00s

Link to NVG thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...ehalf-1295384/

Pokerfuse Article:
http://pokerfuse.com/features/in-dep...-behalf-31-01/

Note: PPA's John Pappas is mentioned as having been in attendance at the meeting with Reid/Bitar/Johnson in which Reid agreed to propose legislation even though it was unpopular in his state. (Pappas is not accused of being part of the bribe)

Intrastate iGaming: Interstate Compacts and Revenue Sharing

Iowa lottery has some interesting things to say

http://m.siouxcityjournal.com/mobile...4-0c5506c2b416

Non mobile link

http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/sta...506c2b416.html

Here is the link, not sure why it didn't work on my phone

http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/sta...506c2b416.html

Which US States Could Support Online Poker

A pretty good off-the-cuff look at possibilities. Notably absent are Nevada and Delaware....the only two states currently with legal online poker.

The math in this article is complete bunk, since it is based on pokerscout numbers. Pokerscout counts multi-tablers as a separate player on each table. On many sites, you have to quarter or more the cash game player numbers to get a real sense of how many actual players are playing at one time.

That's always been a pet peeve of mine with the Pokerscout player counts. That said, is there a reason we'd expect less multi-tabling in a statewide network?

The answer, of course, is...it depends. But the point is that it doesn't take as many players to make a sustainable site as figured in that article.

His numbers are obviously way off. Agre that the real answer is it depends. If we are talking a single site for a state based on what we have seen so far, then I'd say up to 35 could with Nevada being the cut off at about 2.7m people. If the market could be completely exploited by one site(ICafes, poker machines, mobile, console, etc) then I'd say nearly every state is viable.