Sure - once you get past the whole we stole their country thing I don't really see the point in giving them anything at all.

There is a federal law that is relevant here. And here is the funny thing about laws. They don't just expire after a couple of years. They remain intact until they are superseded by some other law. Assuming this ever happens. The past may be the past, but the law is still the law.

I realize you personally might not like this. Run for office - if you get elected, then you might be able to get the laws changed. Or start your own lobbying group. Or leave the country.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act only gives tribes the same gambling rights that exist outside of tribal soil. States can, and have given tribes more, but they are under no obligation. Tribes cannot just open sports book if no sports betting exists in the state without state authorization. The same rule applies here. This is why there are no tribal casinos in Utah, there is no other gambling.

The tribes in California have no right to claim exclusive online poker rights unless their gaming pact with California specifically addresses online gambling in this way which I seriously doubt. Since card clubs are legal outside of reservations, I cannot see how they can claim exclusive rights.

They may have a case with horse tracks, but I doubt that either. As long as state land does not get gambling advantages over tribal land, no federal law has been broken. Maybe the gaming pact says something different, if so, I would love to see what silliness California agreed years ago as it pertains to online gambling they probably never thought would be legal anyway. I doubt there was ever any such agreement.

I did an extensive research project on this not too long ago. As far as I know, no state has given tribes the rights to do any type of internet gambling beyond horse racing.

One of the concerns is the inclusion of horse racing tracks and OTB's, not the inclusion of the card clubs already dealing poker. (Don't forget, HR wasn't in last year's bill - this year's bill solves one problem, but introduces another).

There is of course the issue of the gaming tax as well (probably far more important than the inclusion of HR).

Neither of these are necessarily deal stoppers. We already knew some tribes were against last year's bill as well, whereas many were for it. I think CTBA represents the tribes that were basically against. We might be getting a very different view from some other tribal lobbying group soon.

I read the whole thread and didn't find my answer yet (or I might have just missed it).

When is this supposed to be voted on and, if passed, when would we likely see the first CA online poker room?

I got an email from PPA saying January 2014 - hopefully that is not accurate and it would be sooner.

The problem is that states have the right to prohibit Indian gaming like you said Utah does by prohibiting all gaming, but if they allow anyone else to offer it, they can't regulate (or tax) the tribes who offer it.

Since the players aren't on Indian land, it's presumed that those rulings won't apply, but CA law declares that "Wagering instructions concerning funds held in an advance deposit wagering account shall be deemed to be issued with the licensee's enclosure."

Using this "legal fiction", by law, if you make a bet with a racetrack using your home computer, you are not making a bet from your home - you are making a bet within the enclosure of the racetrack.

So CA seems to have painted themselves into a corner in regards to putting any restrictions or tax on tribal internet gaming.

Yes, this is the state's issue. I was replying to someone saying that a federal law stood in the way of this. I guess in an indirect way it does. There is a compromise there somewhere, but if there is not, the tribes will kill it. I wonder if one could argue that the IGRA does not apply to internet gambling. If that argument were found to be true, the tribes opinion does not matter anyway. That could take years of court battles though.

Possibly, ... hopefully.

It appears the interests of the HR industry are being advanced by Dennis Cardoza, who is both a US House representative and racing horse owner and enthusiast. He is also a unpaid member of the board of directors of the thoroughbred owners association. His efforts are a bit controversial, and are described in this news article.

Exactly right, years before the UIGEA two states tried to shut down a Tribal lottery site, one state the court ruled for, the other court (WI) ruled that the lottery itself was drawn on tribal land, and the UIGEA was passed before the appeals ever made it to higher court, so waiting for that question to be settled could easily take years.

so judging by this: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...27_status.html

they have read the bill. now these window licking politicians will talk about it ?

edit: what is the process from here on out?

Who's we?

Sweet!!! ONE TIME!!! (thats the first time i've ever said or wrote that)

How does the quoted concern of the indian tribes reconcile with highlight #6 that specifically details who is eligible to participate. It doesn't sound like they're being precluded from anything but rather being specifically invited. Am I missing something here or are the tribes just making **** up to screw with this. I mean, obviously, indian tribes are already operating authorized card rooms in the state.

There point of view: they own all gamblers, skill gamblers, and they and only they are allowed to take all there money. Unless it is on horses, and those damn cardrooms.

I think maybe one of the big sticking points is there is an option for other casino games, though not sure house backed games are legal off reservation in CA. Only slots, are allowed on tribal lands and I think they have other casino games. The tribes are very protective of these games has they are really the golden goose of gaming.

In a few years, currently legal games can be authorized. I don't think slots are legal off tribal lands, nor house banked games. Blackjack is played off tribal lands but it is a different game that Vegas style. House takes a rake and anyone can be the bank. I don't know it and it is 6:5 blackjack so never play it.

Clearly what the tribes miss, is that if you allow Poker you will get more people in your casino. I would never go to an Indian casino. Give me promo, free room, etc. Guess what I pay your rake and take my wife with the winning from the fish. She will play in the casino and all of us will be happy. That argument is for another day though.

+1

Some cardrooms & tribes will be precluded from participating by the high upfront deposit required ($30M).

Horse tracks and OTBs aren't authorized for live cardrooms but they would be qualified to run online poker.

This must have been discussed during the last bill, but how hard is it to open or buy a cardroom in California and does that provide a window for deep pocketed participants to get involved?

Since they didn't mention the fee specifically I didn't make the connection, but that makes sense. It just seemed like such a blatantly false assertion to make. I must be confusing propaganda with lies or something.

It is also permitted for the cardroom to not charge unless there is a certain minimum in the pot. For example, I have seen one cardroom that does not charge a rake unless there is at least $20 in the pot.

As to competition: The casinos/cardrooms are, in general, very aware that they have competition, even in the BM environment. While they may not be as active in changing the things that matter to most of us (e.g. rake), they often are quite aware of where their competition stands with respect to most issues. For instance, in one competitive market one casino sends people to survey the number of people playing in the other casino's poker room at least on a daily basis. The surveyed competitor is quite aware that the other is doing this and watches for the people who come in to monitor them.

Unfortunately, in the B&M world rake is not high on the list of things that most fish look at wrt. their choice of casino/cardroom. For most players, there are things which significantly outweigh a non-egregious difference in rake.

In the online environment, rake will probably be higher on the list of things considered by more players. Given enough licensed sites, it will certainly be an area which will adjust due to competition. The CA model of $X/hand does make it easier for most people to compare the relative amount of rake being taken by different licensees. This should make it more likely that rake becomes a significant area of competition. However, the casino industry is well versed in how to make other things matter more to most players (i.e. the fish) than the amount that they are paying to the house. To most players, it is more important how much the promos/comps/badbeat might provide to them than the amount of rake they are paying.

While this is certainly true in live play. I don't think it transcends very well to online player mentalities. Even bad players.

Word of mouth is huge in online poker. Players will migrate to the most popular and praised sites.

The predators will follow the pray, so the best site that can attract the most fish will become the biggest site, in a high weak player environment. If the weak players are greatly reduced the rake becomes the biggest factor for regs to drive a sites numbers. I think this is the world today, but open the doors to all CA, legal etc. and for a while there will be a lot of rec players that can change the environment to not requiring to low a rake.

Hopefully we all get to see this sometime in the future. Current environment is getting old, and I'm almost willing to take any scrap thrown on the floor. Plus, DOJ is somewhere close to the door.

When does this thing get voted on?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5&postcount=84

If I had to guess, two dates stick in mind, around June 15 when the budge goes up for vote, or when the annual game of chicken ends with the budget.

If not voted on during with the budget, then Aug 30/31 when all of the other bills are voted on in one mass long session before adjournment.

Will this bill potentially allow Ca to share player pools with foreign countries or just other states?