I see that party poker and 888 are all getting license for online poker partnering with a casino in Vegas.

I'm sure I know the answer to this and it is most likely no.
But will USA players be able to play with the international database of players that site all ready has?
Or will it something such as poker stars has it as pokerstars.FR

Partypoker.USA?

maybe in the future, but not right away.

I was thinking about this today. How big would a NV only poker market be?

How many live poker tables are running in Vegas alone on a typical evening?

Now multiply that by 5 or so to factor in multitabling.

Granted, it will be spread across several sites, but I think the NV online poker market might be bigger than any other state sans California. People go to Vegas to gamble. If the online poker stuff is connected flawlessly to the B&M stuff, I don't see any reason why a lot of tourists wouldn't at least try it.

An average of over 100K tourists are in Vegas every day. If an incredibly tiny percentage try online poker, that's a HUGE amount of fish

Nv = 2% of US. Us is like 20% of world (comparing stars)

I assume in Nv people are 5 times as likely to play poker than anywhere else.

= 0.2x0.02x5=2%

So nv pool of biggest site should be about 2% of what stars is today.

That translates to 2-5k players. In peak times.

Wohooooooo how exciting.

I think that is optimistic.

I've often thought this myself, namely that the traffic for Nevada would be somewhat comparable to what traffic is like currently on the remaining U.S. facing sites. That of course could get diluted depending on how many sites open and you might encounter even less traffic per site. I know that many have their hopes for legislation passing during the lame duck session, but if Romney wins the election doesn't that increase the chance that he will veto any such bill since it is in the republican platform to oppose federal legalization of online gaming?

The B&M casinos do not want to bring people to Las Vegas so they can play online poker, they want online poker so they can bring people to Las Vegas.

I think that's way optimistic. Nevada has 3,000,000 residents. The B&M casinos are not going to promote online poker for the people who are already in Las Vegas. They want them in the restaurants, shops, and playing live craps, blackjack...etc.

Two things here. Romney has nothing to do with the lame duck. Many politicians have come right out and said they don't adhere to the party plank at all. That said, the chances of getting the multi state compacting bill we would need go way down if rMoney wins.

You're kidding right? Nevada casinos don't want people to play on their online poker site? WAT

So all that lobbying money they are shoveling at Reid is just for the hell of it?

It has been discussed many times on here how casinos are planning on integrating a system to deposit/withdraw at the casino cage to play online.

Online poker is the only way casinos make any money from tourists in their hotel rooms (other than room service)

You are forgetting the >100k tourists in Vegas every single day. IMO, a pretty decent % will try "100% legal" online poker during their stay.

5k would make them the #2 site(s) in the world.

3k would make them top 5.

I'm assuming 2-5k players would be TOTAL players, not just cash game. You're looking at more like Merge and Revolution, not the size of Party.

Anyway, I think 2-5k players on all NV sites total is much more likely than having a big site of 2-5k players. The liquidity of NV only market will be brutal IMO.

I also think you're buying wayyyyy too much into the hype that tourists will play online poker in their hotel room.

They'll gladly take that action IMO, but the reason for them moving was to be part of an interstate system.

oh noez, 2nd degree use of sharkscope, a Class E felony!
2 usernames from the same IP, a Class D felony!

ummmm, no

I'd be happy with January of 2013 at this point, but only if the player pool is not exclusively persons physically located in Nevada.

This is what it's going to be.

I agree that playing Nevada internet poker from a LV hotel room will be an infrequent event. But travelers at the airport have the potential to significantly add to the player pool. And they are likely to be the type of players that we would be glad to play against.



And there is the sizable northern Nevada interstate highway traffic, which might be enticed (by deposit bonuses or other promotions) to stop and play legal internet poker wherever there is WiFi.

The key is proper marketing.

Let's say no federal legislation passes any time soon. How long is it going to be the case that "this is what it's going to be?"

Until the federal government passes a law allowing interstate pooling.

As far as deterring botting, collusion and serious cheating, I think criminal penalties will be indispensable in curtailing them like they were for example in the effective elimination of the use of electronic devices for blackjack and roulette in the late 70's and early 80's.

balance forfeiture and life ban is sufficient

SCOTUS has held that this consent is necessary only in situations where the interstate compact may affect the political balance of the States within the Federal system; since it wouldn't affect the balance of power among States or violate any Federal law, a multi-state poker compact wouldn't require a new law - Congress would need to pass a new law to block it.

not EVEN. if we want to deter professional online poker cheaters, and we do, give them something more to lose than their investment plus having one of their non-poker-playing friends or relatives (accomplices who should also be charged imo) banned for life from a game they never would play.

what difference would it make if jjprodigy's grandma got banned for life from all sites?

expedited death penalty for anyone cheating at online poker and double life sentences for anyone aiding and abetting someone who has cheated at online poker.

cue Amnesty International in 3...2...1...

They were discussing when Nevada could go interstate. The Nevada law has a provision specifically requiring some sort of federal green light to pool with other states.

They would obviously prefer number 1, but the DOJ clarification that the Interstate Wire Act only applies to sports betting satisfies number 2.

The real problem Nevada has, the reason the Governor is hesitant to launch before a Federal 'green light' is international law - the WTO.

Unlike sports betting where the liability for excluding out-of-state competition falls on the Feds because of the Wire Act, WTO members may challenge Nevada's law directly if they launch licensed commercial (non-lottery) online non-sports gambling.

FWIW, this year I have actually asked both the Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission and the then Chairman of the GCB about particpating in player pools with foreign licensed operators, including affiliates of Nevad licensees. They clearly would prefer to see how the industry develops under current law.

As Nevada is not a party to the General Agreement on Tariffs or whatever it is called, how could Antigua challenge them directly ? Most likely, the challenge, if any, would be attached to the pending challenge regarding whether the US could have or did effectively withdraw gambling from WTO coverage going forward. (I forget when that challenge was brought.)

The point is that Nevada's Governor, a former Federal Judge, is not likely worried in the manner you claim.

Antigua wouldn't challenge Nevada, they will challenge the US based on Nevada's protectionist law; the 2007 arbitration award was limited to Oregon's internet horseracing law, if/when other States launch commercial non-sports betting sites - with the Wire Act officially off the table - the Federal government could hold those States (possibly the public officials) liable for the next arbitration award (likely to be more than $21M of IP since Horseracing isn't even an area Antiqua could compete).

Oregon had cover in the authorization in the IHA, Governor Sandoval clearly wants some coverage for Nevada in the form of a law or specific written permission - he's indicated in public meetings that he doesn't even want to move forward with intranet without it - from the Federal government.