So I've been told.

there still hasn't been a hearing on the bill yet. I don't think it will have much of a shot this year. This has been posted too http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalert...-07092013.html

It sounds like some cardrooms are against current bills or want some adjustments to the bills more in their favor. Anotehr obstacle to stall things, but I'm not sure if they have enough "stake" to really slow things.

also, this is very interesting. http://www.gamblingcompliance.com/node/51924
Subscription reqiured , but it says in summary pokerstars is ramping up lobbying efforts in California to confront bad actor clause in bill language.

This story, and the card rooms hiring lobbying efforts is the first attention CA legislation has seen in a month. I wonder if this is a sign that bills are being considered and will begin picking up steam in august. Because right now, no hearings and its closing in on time over for 2013 session.

Stars denied in AC showing interest at Cali now? One time!

Denied?

I stand corrected. Still... ONE TIME!

Until something gets on the table and has a great chance of passing, I'm not getting my hopes up.

Don't underestimate the power of greed by the tribes.

Don't underestimate anyone's greed. But I really hope that people realize that OP in Cali really will help the state.

Let's face the facts. Legalization of online poker will help the greedy tribes than the state of California.

I'm content with the status quo than to have a regulated poker resulting from a skewed bill.

I'm in California and I play online poker everyday...

^^^ but don't you want to play those live players .... we are all greedy .. I'm happy to have a regulated CA environment, I want more but it will take time and one step to that goal is intrastate.

Real issue is tribes doesn't agree with the other tribe and the card room and lets bring in the tracks and now we are stuck again. Some movement is better than none, but at least we have the current state to live with for now.

Of course I'd love a "fair" regulated online poker to be available in California but the way things are headed, I prefer the status quo. Yes, I realize our options aren't too optimal but I'd rather have something that's still beatable than games that are raked to death. I know I shouldn't be but I've become pessimistic over the recent months.

As a gov employee and someone that would like to keep his options open for future employment status quo doesn't really work. Would hate to lose a job opportunity due to them finding out my financials don't quite match up.

All that being said I do wonder if something that is pretty bad passes what type of options there will be to upgrade it in the future.

I think as long as their is competition I am not as pessimistic about facing massive rake percentages. I suppose that is a possible outcome but I would assume new poker site operators will take a look at successful business models such as PS and at least take into consideration running a site with a reasonable rake structure. At this point I would like to see something pass and then hope that it evolves into a fair competitive online poker ecosystem.

Doubt it means much more than "Hey we care about getting our share" but extra bucks and effort do mean some movement ...

http://www.pokernewsreport.com/calif...nterests-13319

Maybe the Horse Tracks create the 3 leg of the tripod and all is happy in the state. Likely outcome of that is more stalemate, with hollywood park out of the horse business though only a few major tracks exist.

Maybe August brings some movement, if the vote would ever happen, poker would come to CA.

To those in the know,

What would need to happen to have one of the ipoker bills to land on the floor on either chamber during the annual mass approval of the majority parties legislation?

September 13th looks like the last day of the session. Traditionally the day where hundreds of bills head to the Governor's for approval.

August 16th or August 30th look like the committee deadlines for bills.

http://assembly.ca.gov/legislativedeadlines

And would I be correct, if it does not get approved by both houses by the end of the session, we start from scratch next January?

Thanks

Meh. The schedule, deadlines, etc. have no bearing on passage of a CA bill. When the squabbling factions (cardrooms, race tracks, tribes) make a back-room deal on who gets what, it will fly through to passage regardless.

I saw on Twitter yesterday that Darrell Steinberg said that this bill is dead for 2013. If you consider the underlying reason why California Democrats are even looking at online gambling--money--this makes complete sense; this is the first year in recent memory where California is not looking at a budget shortfall.

Yep,

Next year, either the Tribes, or the card rooms can open their wallets and bribe.....eeerrr. give campaign contributions to those in charge and it would have a better chance of passing.

The Correa bill, SB-678, has been amended to include his full bill text and sent to the Committee on Governmental Organization:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...201320140SB678

Can anyone explain in layman's terms what these new changes mean. I see the word "urgency" a lot, which makes me hopeful. Is this something we should be excited about?

The bill previously was just a placeholder with meaningless text. Now it's an actual bill.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/bill-chapters.htm:
I don't think there is any good reason yet to get excited. It still has a long way to go to get through. This is just the first step.

Didn't see any player penalties that were in the previous bills.

Under this bill, it will be a misdemeanor to offer or play any Internet gambling (including poker) not authorized by the bill, and any property, real or personal, used in or derived from such play can be seized.

Cliffs of SB678:

Players must be 21 and located in CA at time of play.

Three types of operator licenses:
Poker Room Operator (5 year license)
Poker Platform Operator (10 year license)
Service Provider (10 year license)

Three distinct types of operational systems:
Player Management
Funds Management
Poker Platform.

A Poker Room Operator is licensed to operate the Player Management and Funds Management systems. A Poker Platform Operator is licensed only to operate the Poker Platform system, and can’t have access to the other systems unless they are also licensed as a Poker Room Operator. A Service Provider is authorized to provide any of these systems to a Poker Room or Poker Platform Operator.

Eligible for Poker Room Operator:
Licensed card room.
Indian casino.
Consortium of above.
Consortium of any Indian tribes, as long as consortium is controlled by at least one tribe that has a casino.

Eligible for Poker Platform Operator:
Any of above which has continuously operated a live card room for last three years.

Operations must be located in CA.

Anyone who took unauthorized bets from US after Dec 31, 2006 ineligible for a license.
Licensees not allowed to use assets (player database, software, etc.) of anyone who took unauthorized bets from US after Oct 16, 2006 ineligible for a license.

Good player protections including:
player funds segregation;
dispute resolutions;
privacy and security;
cheating, collusion and fraud;
site transparency;
24/7/365 telephone customer service;
multi-accounting;
independent systems testing.

No deposits by cash or money order. Withdrawals to a registered bank account. No p2p transfers authorized.

Rake can be a percentage of the pot, or per hand.

Allows for state authorization of interstate compacts.

Revenue tax of 10% of Poker Room Operators.
Upfront one-time license fee (amount not yet specified), against future revenue taxes.

First licensed issued not later than one year after enactment.

Misdemeanor to offer or play any Internet gambling (including poker) not authorized by the bill, and any property, real or personal, used in or derived from such play can be seized.

Internet poker parlors prohibited, excepted at the live card rooms of licensees.

According to our lobbyist (and others) it does not appear that this bill will be brought up in the remaining weeks of the California legislative session. Technically, bills introduced in the first year of the legislative session can be revived in January but must pass the House of Origin no later than January 31st. The recent updated bill is intended to spur discussions over the Fall recess, although, at this time, the Senate Governmental Operations Committee has not set any interim hearings on the topic.

John A. Pappas
Executive Director, PPA