Rich can speak for himself, of course.

And if you are really convinced supporting the current CA initiatives/bills is worthwhile you are obviously free to copy the DAP style and use it for CA residents.

But I have my reservations about everything that has so far been proposed in CA and those reservations center on the part I put in bold in your post.

All the CA bills I have seen so far would intentionally and irrevocably isolate CA poker players from the rest of the US. I personally am against this.

The main reason this has been in every CA bill is also the main reason no CA bill has yet passed: it is the basis for protecting and dividing the market so that only the chosen few will have the ability to rake CA poker players (and as long as they cant agree on who the chosen few will be, no bill will pass).

We all know that CA has a big enough market to support poker all on its own. And we all want to see online poker in CA. But those of us not in CA also want the ability to play online poker against CA players. Allowing for that, however, interferes with the monopoly (or shared monopoly) that has been enshrined in all CA bills so far.

Be careful what you wish for.

Skallagrim

I agree that the tribes and other select interests should not be able to run a monopoly but is the clause of isolating California truly irrevocable? Do you believe that if a federal bill passed California would not participate in a national/international market?

I have to say I don't have a lot of faith in some tribes seeing the big picture and fighting tooth and nail for exclusivity. I'm just not sure as to the power they have to stop the flow once the flood gates have been opened. Considering a federal bill passed I would think a lot of intersests with influence and money would be able to make something happen. Maybe the tribes do see the big picture and that is why they're trying to shut it down.

Skallagrim let me ask you this if I may. If a federal bill passed opening up an international market would California businesses benefit more from participating or from keeping their own little corner of the sandbox to themselves?

Earlier iterations of the CA bill specifically made opting out of any federal legislation a requirement, which could only be changed by a vote of the CA legislature.

This bill is sneakier - it says that CA could opt in to federal legislation, but only by vote of the CA legislature. Same thing in practice - CA will be opted out of any federal regulatory regime unless the CA legislature votes to opt in.

CA casinos/cardrooms would indeed benefit by being isolated as they would not have to compete with the rest of the world for the CA players. That equates to higher rakes, higher profits for the sites and more state revenues. At some point it becomes self-defeating of course, as the higher rake and smaller player pool will also result in less participation by CA players.

Bottom line, in the short term CA casinos/cardrooms will profit more under a CA protectionist bill while the state collects enormous advance payments against site revenue taxes. In the long term, they will have to eventually open up their market to combined player pools to sustain expansion of player participation. In the meantime, CA players will be gouged.

The effects of a boycott will be negligible. Sometimes I wonder if you guys are really from America. There are three ways to get things done here: cash, check, or credit. Every 1000 units of community pro-poker effort is neutralized by a single "nope" from an anti-poker faction that has political influence. I'm not excited about it either, but reality is depressing.

That is the million dollar question (actually more like the 100 million dollar question).

A properly marketed and raked CA site should have no trouble competing nationally or internationally, especially if it also had B&M presence in CA and can leverage B&M comps and such to hold on to its local market while competing for the rest.

But the key word is should, and nothing is guaranteed.

Many CA interests are obviously afraid of the competition and do not want to risk losing their slice of the pie to "outside interests."

Would those protectionist sentiments carry the day? It probably depends on who you are asking. I am far too away from CA politics to have an answer and that is why what I am expressing here I have clearly labeled as my personal opinion not a PPA position.

All I will say is that it appears to this interested person on the opposite coast that the interests pushing for the CA bills are doing so precisely because of the guaranteed market each bill has so far promised. I truly wonder if they would be comfortable with a bill that did not guarantee them a closed market.

Skallagrim

Skall,
From someone here in CA, I think your concerns are well-founded and we all should be mindful of them.

COPA is the largest coalition repping the cardclubs and tribes and it seems pretty clear they not only want to exclude non-California businesses from competing, but also California companies such as horsetracks, Zynga, Yahoo, etc. My read is that they want the CA online poker market all to themselves. And without their support, I don't think an online poker bill passes here in CA.

Read paragraphs 3 and 4 from their most recent fact sheet on why they were opposed to SB 1463 as recently amended:

http://www.calonlinepokernow.com/Ame...t-Sheet-v2.pdf

http://www.calonlinepokernow.com/

At this point I'm just not clear that the appropriate strategy for us here is to support SB 1463.

FWIW, I hope with all my hope that Harry R. listens to the L.V. groups backing a fed effort, and inserts a provision that all states with B&M casino's that offer poker are auto opt in.

In the long run does it matter, if a fed bill passes, it is interstate commerce, can really CA prohibit what is regulated in a Fed bill. You can opt out (no gambling at all), but can you set up a system that pushes out other states businesses while allowing your own state private business a monopoly .. States regulate gaming but now the Feds would have a law and that seems like an easy court fight to allow interstate business access to the local market. I'm not a lawyer but I once stayed and Holiday Inn Express.

Finally for the interest behind a federal bill, CA is the golden goose, somehow I don't see a bill that passes at fed level that allows CA to fence off it's poker players.

I've been behind, reluctantly, a CA only bill as it seemed the fastest way to poker. However, since they casino's want us to just pay and don't care about how much or what the games are like, fine let it die and we can try for Fed in December. In the mean time, DOJ is busy with Stars/Tilt, I continue to pay my 6K in rake to somewhere else and no money is going to the tribes. At least Commerce who hates the feds at least seems to support a CA bill they can get my tiny bit of live rake. I will be happy to email the tribes to say they lost business with there position and I think the bill dying off may in the long run be the best for all of us.

I started to say any bill with that provision would be DOA, but not only would it not arrive, it would never get off the ground.

How much influence would COPA and various tribes have when it comes to opting in/out if and when federal legislation passes?

Some versions of 2010, had that clause in it. I know lots of objections, and maybe I'm just wishful thinking. At least it would be nice that the CA Legislation would have to vote to opt out and throw away free money.

Would you grant they grant a provision you can't have intrastate unless you allow interstate, in a fed bill of course. I'm sure LV is happy to compete and not require a monopoly.

So start a DAP where you get your point across to your elected officials.

Boycotting a business for acting in what they view as being in their best interest is rarely effective - and if you think about it, it's downright stupid.

Tried that, it at least had some activity. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57...-plan-1197566/

Will boycotting pass legislation on it's back? Not a chance. But for anyone willing and able to contact these places and not go to them, why not? It gives us more of a voice and it lets them and others see we are taking our stance serious. We'll spare the thread and leave it at that.

I guess it would be better in the long run that any legislation failed if there was a great chance of CA staying solo in a monopoly. I was blinded by sights of all the fresh fish filling tables from easy click of a button bank deposits.

Coalition of California tribes gearing up for online poker fight

Cool, I thought this was completely dead. CA moving forward has got to push the feds. (And if it doesn't I'm personally fine with that heh..)

http://pokerfuse.com/news/law-and-re...ne-poker-bill/
Not sure if throwing horse racing tracks out will help the bill pass, but maybe it will get it through before the end of the month. What do you guys think about this?

Edit: But then again I doubt that Senator Rod Wright would do this because of the following:
I forgot about the fact that he was a huge supporter of horse tracks.

How in the world do they justify asking for this???

Tribes are always very greedy. They want everything and they want you to put your knee pads on too.

Anyways,

http://www.californiaonlinepoker.com/sb1463/
It appears that they would want to tax the companies at 10% of their revenues, which from my understanding is quite high. In fact, in the UK they drove out most of the companies with a tax rate of 15% and they are saying that 10% might be a little to high.

This could end up being bad for the players, not to mention the tax rates on the players have not been established, to my understanding. Might not even be a good bill for us.

Not much great in this bill, taxes too high, criminalize players, other items. Most likely the tribes see the writing on the wall and don't want to gamble if a Fed bill will pass.

As players we may want to let it die and hope for Feds though CA may opt out so all moot. If that would be true then it would be best to give it a go, at least we have "legal" poker and a big pond of fish for the taking. The rake I expect will stun everyone and it may only last a small time until it dries up but I guess we could enjoy a year or two. If the live fish dump money in same way as b&m it would be great.

A few weeks and we will new but the wheels are turning a bit.

From what I read it seems like the tribes have a huge influence on California's gambling legislation. I would not be surprised if we did not get to play online because of the tribes if/when a federal bill gets passed. Seems like they call all of the shots.

http://www.pe.com/local-news/politic...1297#f32038934

its just gettin pretty rediculous the reasons people give for not supporting

Just wondering, if the Federal Bill passes for online poker, is it more likely California would opt out?

The California tribes want to fence in Cali players. If California has their way, they will not have interstate or international pooling. We don't know if they will get their way or not, though.

the dream is to put California up against it by preemptimg their legislation, leaving them the choice between federally pooled ipoker or nothing-- which is pretty unacceptable for California atm, no matter how hard their tribes want to argue otherwise.

I guess we need to root for the Federal Bill then...