While I want to see PokerStars and do agree with many of their arguments as to why they should be allowed, I really hope they and their partners back down (and of course seek new partners).

This amendment actually harms the bill's prospects of passing.

The tribes who pushed this provision can't be surprised that PS will dare to stand up for itself. All sides have had years to come to consensus. It's sad that they have not, but the same supermajority requirement that enabled this amendment to be added is the same supermajority requirement that will allow PS and its partners to push back.

It's not too late for this amendment to be removed, so of course everyone involved should expect PS and its partners to seek to make that happen. Perhaps failure here will drive everyone back to the bargaining table for a fair an equitable joint approach to moving forward. We as players will need consensus for anything to pass.

Both sides keep trying to push the others to the brink. As they say, politics is a contact sport. Don't be so surprised...this entire history of gaming legislation looks just like this.

And, I'm not sure if you really want PS to leave the US. Who'd lobby for poker directly? PPA will, and I'm sure you will, but which sites will? How are Washington's tribes doing on that front?

i dont want PS here, its not PS anymore since amaya. why anyone in the US would want them is beyond me considering theyve been nothing but shady/dishonest/and cheated their players out of alot money, including ones who have been loyal customers for a long time and literally paid hundreds of thousands in rake individually

so you're saying there's a chance?

they were at least a dozen votes short without the amendment, and appear to have made a calculated move to get more votes not less. Since it wasn't going to pass as it was, this can't have hurt its chances.

Seriously, stand up for itself? Pokerstars is a foreign owned enterprise, a brand built on years of illegal gambling in the US. They have no real standing, I don't see that they are owed anything. The tribes, on the other hand, have treaty rights. You really think Pokerstars will win this tug o war?

I think you are wrong. It's not going to be amended yet again in the short time remaining. I would be surprised if these amendments weren't just what was needed to slide the balance towards Pechanga.

What is the point of bargaining any further anyway, if Pokerstars is unwilling to take a time out? Time is being taken out for the players, wouldn't it be better to get the clock running?

Pokerstars didn't lobby for our bill in Washington, they lobbied against it. It didn't let them come in as a forward facing brand, and that is critical to them. I don't know that our Tribes are interested in offering online poker, it is probably cost prohibitive, and they have no reason to support a bill that opens a market for the sole benefit of Pokerstars.

I don't care if Pokerstars gets in or not, but whether or not we get to play shouldn't be on condition that Pokerstars gets in the market

(emphasis added...)

Can we just get online poker in this country and then worry about who did what to who?

Do I like Amaya? Uh, hell no.

But let's do whatever it takes to get online poker going and then we'll worry about the details later...

Like, three sites start, POKERSTARS MEGA SITE, and two other sites, those of us who aren't happy with PS/Amaya, can play on the other site(s).

Thank you, agreed...

I didn't see this before what I posted above.

+1

Just want to give another +1 to this. I have been playing in the NJ regulated games since the beginning. The games went along just fine before PokerStars arrived. And things still would've been fine if they were not able to get in.

Sure, they have the best software, that's the best thing they have going for them. Besides that, this isn't the same Stars we all used to love. New owners don't care about the players, raising rake (at HU it's at ridiculous levels), cutting rewards, and not willing to listen to players on anything. I'm indifferent to whether they get in, and I'm not willing to hold out just because they won't be allowed in right away. Games will still good without them.

^ If you're concerned about Pokerstars raising rake and cutting rewards, what kind of rake and rewards do you expect from these tribes if they keep Amaya out of CA? Do we expect them to not get greedy when they don't have to worry about competing with Pokerstars?

I don't think it should be either. The problem, though, is the lack of other companies willing to step up to the plate at the starting phase of poker legislation. If Stars isn't there to lobby to open the door, at which point other companies come in once they see a possibility of passage, it may become a problem. I hope other companies will do more on this front, but you know the issues there firsthand as well as anyone.

As for your state, PS by itself is incapable of stopping anything from passing that any interest in Washington wants. PS really isn't in your way. To the contrary, the tribes have all the control there and they can pull the trigger at any time.

No one proposed holding out. This is simply about removing the "bad actor" amendment, not the entire bill.

I don't quite see it that way, but neither of us really know. We both have incomplete information (like in poker). That being said, I see an attempt to appease the Pechanga/Agua Caliente faction while hoping the PS faction will have to accept it. I understand Gray's hope there, but I don't think it will go that way. It doesn't seem that the PS faction tribes are thrilled with getting pushed around.

There are a few things. For one, there is a belief that this provision would really keep PS out permanently. So, they can be expected to fight back.

The other issue is that this could be seen as a template for future states, which would probably keep PS from lobbying for poker. You live in a state where tribes could make this happen. Connecticut tribes could probably do the same in their state. I live in Kentucky, where Churchill Downs could pull the trigger almost unilaterally. It hasn't happened.

If I thought PS was harming the CA poker fight, I'd be first to condemn them. I just don't see it that way.

first of all, Pokerstars is lobbying for Pokerstars, lets not equate the two

if in my state they take the same approach as in CA we'll get the same stalemate. so its a wash if they dont bother. they havent helped so far ...

but if they force their way into CA over tribal objections its more likely tribes in my state, and other tribal gaming states, will dig in and fight legislation tooth and nail

Sent from my LGL33L using Tapatalk

Of course. No doubt there.

But that's not what's going on. If PS gets into CA, it will be with a good amount of tribal support. If they don't, the rejection will be over the objections of those tribes.

This amendment really looks like a Hail Mary from Gray. He sees that the Pechanga coalition won't give in, so why not appease them and see what the other side will do?

However, the other side (the PS coalition) is the stronger of the two. Even if they were inclined to go along with such a change, it's hard to see them deciding they need to get rushed into it with two weeks to go and no alternate partner in place (and who knows what kind of contract they have with PS). Keep in mind that the 5 year ban applies to their partners as well, so long as they stick with PS.

The only real hope, IMO, is that both coalitions see that, with the supermajority requirement for this legislation, it can't pass unless they come to consensus. There really is consensus to be had if they'd work to make it happen.

Here's a video I recorded with a general update on the fight. I recorded it on Thursday, the day before this all escalated:

I haven't been following the events of Cali poker as much as I liked, but one thing I'm confused about is this 'bad actor' 5 year ban clause recently introduced. Doesn't Nevada have something similar already in effect?

Pokerstars and PPA are calling the Cali bad actor clause "unconstitutional" and "anti-competitive" in their press releases, but are they really?

Nevada has been trucking along just fine without legal challenge to their bad actor clause, which seems to imply that the clause has sound legal justification. Why would the Cali bad actor clause then not have the same legal treatment?

This is 100% point of view

It's just as true to say If PS gets into CA, it will be over the objections of a good amount of tribes, and if they don't it will be with a good amount of tribal support.

So this is the problem. You are making a conscious choice to take the Pokerstars position, knowing full well it is futile. This means the process goes on and on.

See, Pokerstars has nothing to lose waiting another two years. Nothing changes for them, they still have a vast revenue stream in other markets. Pechanga has nothing to lose either, online poker would be a nice new revenue stream (assuming Pokerstars wasn't in there dominating the market), but they make quite a bit without it.

Meanwhile, the players are left out of the equation entirely.

This amendment really looks like a Hail Mary from Gray. He sees that the Pechanga coalition won't give in, so why not appease them and see what the other side will do?

We disagree which is the stronger coalition, but that is fine. But at some point, those partners are going to recognize the futility of fighting for Pokerstars. They could choose to move forward in another direction.

I don't think their CA partners are as wedded to Pokerstars as the PPA appears to be

There is no consensus. What you seem to be looking for as consensus is actually concession by the other side.

Another form of consensus would be for Pokerstars to accept the five year wait, get the clock running, let the market open for CA players, and move on to lobbying in the next state

Dammit stars just accept the 5 years penalty. It's already been 5 years with no California online poker revenue for you. Another 5 years then you can join all you want is better than than 20 years ofmno revenue

Would Stars accept if the bad actor ban is reduced to 2-3 years? Any chance of something like that happening this year?

Looks like two more tribes joined the opposition . . . not because they are taking Pokerstars' side, but because the ban has a cut off date, rather than being an actual five years. Their fear is that Pokerstars et al could jam up the regulatory process for virtually the entire period (running to the end of 2022) and they want it to be five years from the day the first hand is dealt.

Their concern is valid, I thought making it a cut off date rather than an actual period of time was a bit of a sketchy move, and don't think for a moment that the Pokerstars coalition won't jam up the process to make sure nobody gets a head start.

So this bill isn't going to make it, the legislature is going to adjourn with no bill, and California's poker players are going to be exactly where they were at this point in 2014.

So, where will we be at this point in 2018? 2020? 2022?

Is it really Pokerstars or nothing in California, and are California players okay with that?

The latest amendments eliminate the felony penalty for players who play on unauthorized sites. That's a big win for players.

Pokerstars (and the PPA) seem to be claiming that the latest amendments will exclude Pokerstars from the California market forever, not just for five years. I don't see how that is the case, unless it is due to this added provision:

"A covered person shall not be found suitable for licensure under this section unless that covered person expressly submits to the jurisdiction of the United States and of each state in which patrons of interactive gaming operated by that covered person after December 31, 2006, were located and agrees to waive any statutes of limitation, equitable remedies, or laches that otherwise would preclude prosecution for a violation of any federal law or the law of any state in connection with that operation of interactive gaming after that date."

One can deduce from this that PokerStars would not agree to the provision as risk management against prosecution by other states, and therefore would never enter the CA market out of choice. It would not be the CA legislation that is banning them forever, as they now claim. I find this rather disingenuous.

I also don't see how the bad actor provisions are specifically targeted at Pokerstars only. Perhaps they are the only company that has an agreement already in place with CA interests and also took U.S. customers after 2006, but they are certainly not the only poker site provider that would be considered a bad actor under this bill. Perhaps the others are staying away because they know they would not qualify under the bad actor provisions, or they are letting Pokerstars spend the lobbying money to fight it while they wait on the sidelines.

It would be nice if the players had a choice to play on PokerStars as well as the other sites. But as Curtinsea notes, if PokerStars were out of the picture (i.e., the affiliated cardrooms and tribes dropped them in favor of another provider in order to get the bill passed), the players would be served by other decent providers, and there would still be plenty of market competition to spur innovation and competitive pricing.