Just started playing on Merge would hate to do jail time for playing a .50 cent SNG.

If the bill passes, it will immediately be a misdemeanor to either play on an unlicensed site in CA or to offer play to CA players. But it won't be illegal under CA law to get your money off a non-CA site. There won't be a grace period where you can legally continue to play on non-CA sites until the CA sites are live.

Look on the bright side. If the state puts a bunch of players in jail for playing on unlicensed sites, it will be easy to get some games going while you are there.

hahaha

This is pretty awesome!

You are dark.

How does this not violate the dormant commerce clause?

Each state gets to define it's own penal laws. It's been that way in this country for a couple of 100 of years.

This could be wicked awesome.

So what would the likelihood of other states joining? And a reasonable timeline for them joining if it passes in CA? I'm in Mass.

Ok. All online commerce in my state requires you to pay a $30 million license fee to my state. Residents of my state cannot engage in commerce with unlicensed businesses.

Since they made it a crime to play on unlicensed sites, not just unlicensed out of State sites, the barrier to commerce could be viewed as regulatory rather than protectionist.

That argument would probably hold up against offshore competition, and presumably a player pool agreement would be reached before they need to defend that position v licensed outer State competition.

Concerning the licensing fee, here is what the bill actually states:

"19990.58. (a) Any entity licensed to operate an intrastate
Internet gambling Web site shall remit to the Treasurer for deposit
in the General Fund a nonrefundable license fee in the amount of
thirty million dollars ($30,000,000). This amount shall be credited
against fees imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) on the licensee’s
gross gaming revenue proceeds for the first three years of operation.
Upon depletion of the license fee, the department shall notify the
licensee to commence monthly payments to the state in accordance
with subdivision (b).
(b) A licensee shall remit to the Treasurer on a monthly basis
for deposit in the General Fund, an amount equal to 10 percent of
its gross revenues."

Not sure what your point is.

I think he is talking about how Amazon does not have to put up a $30 mill fee to do commerce yet for online poker they must. Not positive though that both businesses are viewed even remotely the same and said fee makes that obvious. The $30 mill is only upfront money for the 10% tax revenue not a fee on top of that revenue.

You left out a critical part of that 5% to $3, understandably so. I have a site where I charge 4.5% rake - raked to the penny. Another site charges 5% rake collected at 5 cents per dollar. Which site has lower rake? About how much more will you save or lose per 100 hands? How much of a preference do you have for one site or the other, all other things being equal?

Since you're posting in these forums you are already going to be substantially more educated in the intricacies of this game than your average Joe, yet you couldn't even come close to answering the questions I posed. Actually nobody could, they were trick questions - the answers depend on a number of different variables, sometimes the rake will be higher - sometimes it will be lower, sometimes it will be the same. And we haven't even gotten into trying to apply all of that information to any sort of rewards programs the sites may offer. Have fun with that.

That obfuscation does not encourage competition, it actually discourages it. The vast majority of customers are left with absolutely no clue about how much they are paying in rake so why would a site lower their rake? And even if a customer did know he was paying a lot in rake, it's not exactly easy to see if a different site has lower rake especially once you add rewards systems into this whole mess.

Now instead of all that let's again say you play on a site that charges $2/hand. I open a site that charges $1.80/hand. Which site has lower rake? About how much more will you save or lose per 100 hands? How much of a preference do you have for one site or the other, all other things being equal? Suddenly, competition is born!

^^^ Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?

Please clarify how this system works. Are you saying that, at every $1 increment, 5% is removed for rake? So, if a pot reaches $2.50, then $0.10 would be taken out ($2 times .05), not $0.125 (which would be 5% of entire pot)?

You have it exactly right.

Yes, you're missing the point. The point is that I can make anything illegal to raise revenue or protect in-state industry and call it whatever I want, presumably under the guise to protect the children or w/e bull**** they want to dream up.

"Recent studies show MMORPGs are extremely addictive and an adverse health risk for children and teens. To protect California children from these games, you must acquire a license to provide online interactive gaming services to CA residents."

It seems really close to the out-of-state winery issue that went to the Supreme Court imo.

You think you can, but our government doesn't treat poker like MMORPGs. Historically gambling has only been permitted in certain jurisdictions, and only when some sort of regulatory body is there to oversee it. MMORPGs are seen as not being an issue to even consider to even being concerned with. Perhaps that is wrong. Maybe you should try to organize similar minded citizens and try to regulate or even criminalize the playing of MMORPGs.

I wish you luck with your endeavor.

God forbid there be a thread in PL where DoTheMath doesn't bring up the rake issue.

if unchanged, I think some of this law will be visiting a court room, unless 30 mill is just to high and no one want to serve CA players.

Thanks I will be watching this thread closely then

If you get pinched, just remember:

• you have the right to remain silent;
• never rat out your friends;
• don't bend down to pick up the soap; and
• if you set some games up while behind bars, you might want to let the guys on death row win (implied odds!).

Disclaimer: IANAL (although I have seen every episode of Law and Order), so this should not be misconstrued as professional legal advice.

Can anyone summarize any tax information provided in this bill? With regards to what the sites and individual players might need to pay, etc.

Thanks.

This bill doesn't impose new taxes on players. You will have to pay CA income taxes and federal income taxes on your winnings just as you are required do now.