The table is set up where the server is located, that you can see it from Chico doesn't mean that is where it is.

Someone is going to make that argument. It won't be you. Someone is going to argue that the gambling activity takes place where the server or the cashier is located. That someone won't be me. And someone is going to decide which of those arguments wins. That someone won't be any of us, as this is not the forum where the argument will be heard or decided.

All of this is opinion and speculation by a bunch of poker players, pundits, and enthusiasts. A bit of mental masturbation, as it were.

My personal opinion is that the gambling activity takes place at the point where the money changes hands. So if players go to the Smoke Shop on the reservation to deposit and withdraw, then they are gambling on Tribal lands.

It gets a bit more complicated if you add in credit card transactions. But there are probably other e-commerce parallels to indicate where point of sale occurs.

If you're looking for an e-commerce parallel, it wasn't too long ago that California ruled that merchants who did business with California residents had to pay sales tax, no matter where the business was located. Hence now companies like Amazon charge sales tax to California residents.

Someone that knows the law better than me should correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding was that Amazon (and other online retailers) made a calculated decision that it would be more profitable to charge the tax than to bear the costs of litigating the issue. In legal terms, the issue is not settled.

What are you talking about?

It's really simple see. NJ laws says the game takes place where the servers are. If that is so, then California law means NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING.

A server is on tribal land and a player is in LA. NJ law says that it takes place where the server is, so the game would be where the server is, not where the server and player are...simply where the server is.

Server - a computer or computer program that manages access to a centralized resource or service in a network.

Now if for some reason this is legal but violates IGRA, they simply move their servers where they are not...ie takeover the old UB/AP servers in Canada.

What are you not understanding?

So whats stopping the tribe from offering poker to every state if they are basing their play based on where the server is located. They minus well go all out.

Baby steps

They could using that definition, but so could foreign operators.

Some states ban, NY, WA .. others? ... in CA no law against iPoker, and no law against Poker (tribe says poker is equal to iPoker) and class II.
Tribe is going to take it in baby steps as stated above, try for CA. If they get away with it then many states could be in play.

What is missing from this discussion in Pokerstars . . .

If no bill comes out of Sacramento this year (likely), then the Morongo Tribe could make this same play, with Pokerstars on board. With the group of 13 holding fast to bad actors language, this could be the only path for Pokerstars to enter CA.

Its a much bigger issue than whether or not this one little tribe can successfully launch and run an online poker site, and I think most are overlooking this angle.

Trailblazers always get pricked by the thorns. That is the nature of being the trailblazer.

I would think Amaya, especially as a publicly-traded corp, won't want to jump on the trailblazer bandwagon, thumbing their nose at the State of CA and the US DOJ. OTOH, if a CA bill gets passed that includes the bad actors clause and they can't get licensed in CA, they may rethink their strategy.

If such bad actors are specifically prohibited by state law, I think this door closes. Class II isn't won't work around specific prohibitions in state law. And in that case, then yes, I agree that Amaya would want no part of taking the risk.

If this path Santa Ysabel is taking survives a legal challenge, then clearly the "need" for passing a new State law is gone for likely any Tribe.

"Thumbing their nose" hardly describes another, better funded tribe opening legal intrastate poker if a court already has said it is allowed by the IGRA and existing State laws and compacts.

As for Santa Ysabel, don't gloss over that they were able to get a "Letter of Support" from the Isle of Man. That was no random event or accident.

Agree with all but NY. For Turning Stone, et al, poker is class II.

The site is not up for real money yet, right? Anyone think the tribe is bluffing?

^^^ The tribe says there not bluffing, (of course), however no way to get money on there yet but the smoke shop route. So for now it looks like a bluff, but the bluff at least stirred the pot. 8/31 is very soon so unlikely anything passes but one last shot could help.

I would expect a banned Stars would go to court and try to get the bad actor clause thrown out. Its going to court one way or another.

What if... And this is a big "what if"... But what if Pechanga reached out to Santa Ysabel and convinced them to do this in order to pave the way for PS to enter California?

One way or another, this move seems like a good thing for Pechanga/PS. It forces the issue with class 2 ipoker under the NIGC and potentially lights a fire under CA legislature to pass a bill with or without the bad actor clause. All of this is being done without dragging Pechanga/Stars' name into a political and legal mess.

#conspiracytheory

Not for nothing, but if people are under the assumption that the "PrivateTable Poker" servers are on tribal land in California, well, I have reason to believe you're wrong.

The "pokerclient.ini" config file installed with the client software contains the following:

[server1]
ip1=67.211.101.17
port1=15667

[server2]
ip1=67.211.101.18
port1=15667

The IP addresses in the 67.211.101.x block are part of the Mohawk Internet Technologies data center in Quebec, part of the Kahnawake outfit in Canada.

I seriously doubt any computer hardware directly involved in the offering of online poker for this site exists on any tribal lands located in California.

Where is the dang bingo site already? I'm ready to gambol...

Are you saying the tribe can write a law similar to NJ gambling law and say all facets of the game occur on tribal servers housed on tribal land, AND their new law would apply outside of their lands...to all CA residents for example? If they have that power, why limit scope to just CA and just gambling?

^^^ Poker is class II, vs other gambling that is class III.

In some states WA,UT class II poker is illegal. In CA, poker is clearly legal. Then the question is online poker same as live b&m poker and a whole lot more.

Jeeeeeez bro

No one is saying it's going to hold up to a challenge, but it is a reality at this point.

As to why you won't see any tribe go crazy: if for some magical reason it does hold up, their sites are useless. Foreign sites start offering and legislators start legislating. The only certainty is that they won't have a site in the morning. Also, if they operate solely in a state like California, then they have 2 defenses(Legal Class II gaming) and only 1 challenger. If they operate everywhere, they have 50+ challengers and 1 only defense.

Just to be clear, Class II poker is not illegal in WA. All online gaming is explicitly prohibited though, so regardless of whether or not online poker is classified as Class II, WA Tribes could not take this route.

There is plenty of Class II poker at Tribal casinos in Washington though.

The tribe is not writing a law here, they are using an existing federal law and claiming authority to conduct online poker as Class II gaming, from Tribal lands. One of the questions that will need to be addressed is the scope of 'from Tribal lands.' The comparison to NJ is that NJ's constitution only allows gaming in Atlantic City, and NJ's internet gambling law asserts that the gaming takes place at the server location. It's a point of comparison, though it would not be a precedent that would be used to bolster the position of a CA Tribe.

Court challenges move slower than legislative processes. What is far more likely is that either the CA legislature or the US Congress (or both) will address the issue legislatively before it ever reaches a high court.