It may be for a few states. In the long run, it could work out well overall, but it's not quite known at this point either. It looks like we're going that way, like it or not, so I hope everyone will do their part to make it as successful as possible.

Yeah, hearing that a couple of states may pass some online poker bill and may perhaps work together at some point in the future is way better than federal bill which automatically lumps players pools, has a free market, super low rake and simply requires states to say yes or no.

It wasn't from lack of effort Noob.

No one has doubted the effort.

Noob has a 2+2 join date of one month ago, weighing in on a 6+ year campaign. Take his perspective with a grain of salt.

Sure, if that's all there was to the R/K bill, ignoring the constitutional issues, the abrogation of various rights, the potential pitfalls, etc., than it would have been way better than the state route. At some point, you have to face the truth and be willing to sacrifice the dream for a tougher reality when the dream scenario is revealed to be smoke and mirrors for a potential disaster.

It would have been better than the state route for a number of reasons, many you chose not to list. But there is no point in arguing over spilled milk.

I only want to point out that being able to "face the truth" and look past the "smoke and mirrors" in order to avoid "potential disaster" will be just as, if not more, important at the state level as it was at the federal level.

2013 will not be an easy year. As we go "state by state" we will have to work very hard to advance poker, especially online poker, in a manner actually beneficial to players.

Skallagrim

Skall/TE/PX,

Do you think that if the NJ and potentially several others pass legislation and look to have cards in the air in 2013, congress will be more motivated to pass something? Or that the next congress (starting in a week or so) will be unable to come together on the issue?

I am an optimist here; I think the state route might serve as a good forcing function on two fronts: pushing legislation and ensuring a bill that is at least as good as the state bills.

Also, I think an outright ban will be extremely difficult to enact once the genie is completely out of the bottle, and that genie is likely going to include pit games. And the fact that stars might be a player in the NJ arena is extremely encouraging. Just having them in the game seems very pro player to me.

I disagree at the implicit notion that, as an organization the PPA was "able to "face the truth" and look past the "smoke and mirrors" in order to avoid "potential disaster" ... at the federal level". Only the inability of anyone to drag a legslated federal poker ban across the finish line, despite the efforts of the PPA, saved US players from the mistakes of the recent past.

Sorry, there is something to be said for the benefits of learning from past mistakes, whether errors of hubris or simply poor political judgement.

Poker players dodged a huge bullet when no federal ban was passed. At least now, they, and the PPA Board, are forced to face the long-standing State-level truth and look past the smoke and mirrors of the "Federal Solution" mirage.

It is self-servng nonsense for any of the PPA Board members to spin that it is somehow "arguing over spilt milk" for poker players to seek fundamental change from the top-down DC-centric strategizing of the federalist past. If you spilled the milk, clean it up .... but don't whine about folks who want to avoid a repeated performance like that.

Those who do not learn from their mistakes are condemned to repeat them; that is different than "crying over spilt milk". If poker players., or their representatives, cannot see the difference, they will continue to suffer whatever is imposed upon them by more politically effective interests.

NV will definitely have "cards in the air" in 2013. It will be limited to folks physically present in NV, however, and that will be a severe limitation, but NV knows that. I expect NV officials to make efforts to get other states to "compact" with them, but it will be a long hard slog through the politicians before even the first compact is actually achieved - hence I doubt NV sites will have cards in any other state's air in 2013.

DE has passed legislation but has hardly even begun to implement the terms of that legislation. In DE all casino games will be allowed online. The DE statute also works through the state lottery and we can only hope that they make online poker a priority. If they do, they too will need to compact with other states in order to have a viable poker site, but they will have something running in 2013.

Assuming Christie does not issue another veto, NJ will probably have cards in the air by the end of 2013. NJ also allows all casino games, but the lottery is not running the show. NJ casinos will probably be quite happy with their online slots and blackjack being only available to persons in NJ. This may slow their effort to get compacts for other state's players, but the legislation passed does specifically allow for it and the casinos clearly want it too.

Having PokerStars possibly involved can indeed only help. PS has continually shown itself to be committed to bringing player friendly online poker to the world (so long, of course, as it can profit too).

As to other states, it is still anyone's guess as to where real possibility exists. CA, IA, and IL have all run bills up the flag pole only to pull them back down again. Perhaps this year will be different, but each state is unique and presents both unique possibilities and unique obstacles.

Many other states will also take on the issue to one degree or another, if only because their lotteries want online games.

As to Congress ...

There will be some compromise bills passed sooner or later dealing with our taxing and spending situation, perhaps Reid can make something happen there. But if it does not happen by February or March at the latest, there will be no opportunity to fast track an online gaming bill. And the slow track in DC is mighty slow. Perhaps a few online slot horror stories will motivate Congressional action, but there is no way to control or count on that. Perhaps the tribes will demand action in response to state action. Or perhaps Congresscritters will just take their sweet time posturing over the issue and not do anything until they are essentially irrelevant.

It will be an interesting year, that is all I am certain about. That and the fact that getting anything decent for even a small number of online poker players in even a small number of states will take an awful lot of effort.

Skallagrim

PPA has done a good job educating the public and congress. They were stuck with reid so the cards were stacked against them and us. I believe that, as a group, they know more about the federal process than any of us.

Also the companys stopped supporting the federal approach in favor of the state approach for the same reason most of us did. Nobody wants to wait 18+ months for the federal law to be implemented.

I really don't see a chance for federal legislation. States have too much power and, like the lotteries the feds will stay out of it.

This article should give you some insight into the future prospects of federal legislation:
Chances weak for online gaming

The prevailing wisdom among industry analysts is that once the States dig their claws into the red meat of online gaming revenue, passing a bill that seeks to take any of that back from them would be impossible.

The logic being that the States and Congress aren't two opposing forces, Congress is a conglomeration of State representatives and lawyers who answer to State level opinion polls, meaning that if a highly represented State like CA is able to pass intrastate legislation, unless the Federal bill were to somehow offer them a bigger piece of the pie, taking any meat away from this guy is unlikely:


The counter argument to this logic is that unlike lottery, States haven't been legislated the authority (beyond UIGEA financial transactions) to monopolize online poker, and one accepted (though counter-intuitive) law of gambling economics is that more legal gambling leads to an increase in illegal gambling.

So once these States go online, especially given the proliferation of non-UIGEA restricted currency like Bitcoins, they themselves may make the call for Federal lottery law to extend to online gaming, and we (the PPA) should be prepared to lobby for a poker exception, this time not to a fascist gambling prohibition but to the placement of artificial borders on what is an all-American skill competition.

The argument that poker isn't gambling was ill-fated, but the argument that poker isn't lottery is self evident, so rather than opposing the attempts of States to fill the online gambling space at the service of the commercial gambling industry, we should encourage them in every way possible, because seeking freedom at the Federal level from State protectionism is at the least feasible, whereas seeking State authorization at the Federal level was a fairytale.

States would only be asked to give up their monopoly on poker - which they freely admit isn't a large source of revenue - in exchange for Federal protection of their more lucrative online offerings, and the few States still currently opposed to all online gambling would also enjoy enhanced Federal protection from offshore sites.

So while it might take some time for the process to evolve, I agree with your optimism and disagree with the prevailing wisdom, the launch of intrastate sites won't be the last nail in the coffin of Federal online poker legislation, it will be the first nail removed from the door to a bill with a realistic hope of passing.

Is there a strong legal reason why States compacting with each other should come before a specific state is opened up internationally?

What is to stop Nevada or NJ from having online poker that is open to ROW + NV or ROW + NJ? In that case those states could then get the huge industry they desire rather than a dramatically smaller player pool? There is not enough talk here (in my opinion) about getting individual states opened up internationally and instead all the focus seems to be getting states compacting with each other. Does it have to be that way or is there a real path to getting a state open to the world? If that happens, poker players would then likely have a very viable option to both live in the US and play a somewhat close to the online poker they once knew game.

There are two aspects to international access to state-licensed online poker:

1. Offshore companies getting licensed.
2. Combined player pools.

#1 is essentially happening in both NV & NJ as offshore poker sites partner with the NV & NJ casinos to provide branded sites. This benefits the state through revenue taxes and new jobs (hardware and operations must be located within the state).

#2 could happen through compacting with foreign jurisdictions, although the attitude of the DOJ towards this is yet unknown. Although the larger player pools might benefit players and is desirable to the offshore sites, it doesn't directly benefit the state or the US casinos except as a possibly secondary effect of making the US site more attractive to new US player sign-ups. Also keep in mind the regulatory difficulties of international pooling - e.g., how would a US player get fair treatment in the case of foreign cheating or fraud?

Inter-state player pools involve the same factors, with the addition that some states could opt to contract NV or NJ (or another state) to do all the licensing and regulation of the sites servicing their state residents, and some casinos will be able to leverage their multi-property b&m empires. It will be a race to carve out the largest market share once states join the legalization bandwagon. Bigger player pools will boost the attractiveness of a site, giving it a leg up on market share. Inter-state pooling will likely be implemented first, far before international pooling.

I think this thread should be closed on January 3, when it officially joins the walking dead.

Folks who want to speculate on the development of Multi-state poker deserve a better thread than a "zombie" topic.

Just got done watching all of season 2, and what has been aired of season 3, nearly all at once. Now I feel like a zombie.

+1, I actually think there is far too much concern about international play in this forum, e.g. how preposterous would it be for a US State to authorize PokerStars.nj to begin accepting deposits from countries where it isn't taxed/licensed - just months after the US DOJ settling civil allegations against the same company for accepting play from US States without being licensed/taxed?

The RoW grey market is never going to be accessible to State regulated sites, the path to international play is going to be through official 'extradition reciprocity' type treaty negotiations, not a 'don't-ask-don't-tell' regulation policy.

Why is this?

If the "company" is US based, which I assume all will be (NV, NJ, etc). Then deposits, rake, or whatever is being taxed, from ROW players will be taxed just as it is for US players. Only ROW players who withdraw winnings will not be taxed for those winnings in the US.

This assumes that the site allows ROW players to sign up and play. Combining player pools with an existing site would not allow the US or the state to tax deposits.

If NV is willing to let players from Iowa (if online poker is legal in Iowa) play on the NV site, why would they not be willing to allow players from Russia? As long as it was possible to verify age and location?

"Players from Russia can freely play on our sites. Players from our country cannot play on Russian sites." Yah, seems legit.

Of course the sites or even the regulating State would 'like' to accept outside players, but the outside State or foreign country is going to have the same objections to them doing so that the US had with the offshore sites that were accepting play from from US States.

Unless there is an agreement that includes law/regulation enforcement reciprocity and likely point of consumption taxation/revenue sharing, Nevada/New Jersey would be enabling the exact same 'crime' the US accused offshore jurisdictions of enabling on BF.

Before Nevada were ever to accept players from Iowa, the two States would have to negotiate a reciprocity agreement, and before NV accepts players from a foreign nation, it will have to negotiate a reciprocity agreement with that nation - but before Nevada can negotiate with a foreign country, the United States would first have to be entered into a negotiated agreement with either that nation or it's Federation government (the EU, e.g.).

So international players should not be viewed as the shortcut to enhancing liquidity, since accepting foreign play is going to require an additional step at the Federal level, besides the fact that the 1st world nations the US would likely negotiate with are themselves still in the process of authorizing regulation and/or negotiating state/province level reciprocity within their own Federations (EU,CA, AU).

Just as many here said that no resources should be given to the effort to get poker authorized at the Federal level because it was so unrealistic, international play is easily three years from even being plausible, so any attention given to it now would be wasted energy.

The good news is that the same arguments that will be used to break down the barriers between states/provinces will serve to break down the barriers between nations.

Many EU countries which don't tax gambling winnings are taxing poker players by labeling them skilled professionals, but by winning that argument in tax court, they have opened the door for the ECJ to rule that they can no longer protect their online poker markets on the basis of morality/addiction control.

That same argument can be used in the US to pressure States into negotiating reciprocal agreements, and eventually at the international level to say that at least with online peer-to-peer poker - as opposed to lottery-like games of pure chance - by the WTO to pressure member nations into negotiations.

You asked for Patrick's opinion about international play, so I'll cross post what he had to say from a late 2011 thread:

Bolded to emphasize the time frame forecast.

From that same thread, a detailed post from munkey from a RoW perspective:

Note we in the US are just now beginning the 'segregation-regulation phase', primarily because we held on so long to the false hope of skipping this phase through Federal legislation.

I guess it's just hard for the average Joe to wrap his head around being able to freely exchange money buying (and selling) things on places like eBay and various other parts of the internet, yet the same practice is discouraged heavily if poker is involved. I realize it's a stretch to go from buying/selling to losing/winning money, but regardless, money is being transferred.

ever hear of the stock market?

Am I the only one with my fingers cross?

yes