Just a reality check here ..... BUT .... does anyone see POKER in the list of authorized games listed in the conditional Governor Christie just issued :

Insert “2. Section 5 of
P.L.1977, c.110 (C.5:12-5)
is amended to read as
follows:
"Authorized Game" or
"Authorized Gambling Game"
- Roulette, baccarat,
blackjack, craps, big six
wheel, slot machines,
minibaccarat, red dog,
paigow, and sic bo; any
variations or composites of
such games, provided that ..."

Seriously, before the champagne corks ar popped, WHERE is online poker authorized in this Conditional Veto ?

I would love to be wrong, but this conditional veto deck looks stacked so as to exclude online poker.

(The original bill referred to the section of NJ law that the Conditional Veto now restates with some specificity, but does not specify "poker". Was this an oversight or a poison pill to chase away PokerStars ?)

It may be added by regulation at some point, but it looks dealt out of THIS hand.

Poker could still be dealt in, but it looks like he will require more testing for games where players compete:

. . . to be compatible with the
public interest and to be
suitable for casino use
after such appropriate test
or experimental period as
the division may deem
appropriate. "Authorized
game" or "authorized
gambling game" includes
gaming tournaments in which
players compete against one
another in one or more of
the games authorized herein
or by the division or in
approved variations or
composites thereof if the
tournaments are authorized
by the division.
"Authorized game" or
"Authorized gambling game"
shall also include any game
that the division may
determine by regulation to
be suitable for use for
wagering through the Internet.

Nevermind, I over-reacted .... I went back tohe original statute that was amended ..... All that was dded was some internet specific provision at the end.

Poker IS dealt live today, so it will be covered, no problem .... just an overabundance of caution, mixed with some paranoia.

Carry on....... enjoy.

This section was deleted: Page 4, Section 2, Lines 36-39: Delete in their entirety

I think DQ is right in OP, I think poker needs DGE approval as bill stands.

But DQ didn't say it needed approval, he said it was out.

Poker would just need to be deemed in the public interest and be deemed suitable for casino use (cheat-proof).

This would suck if we are the ones excluded from play after all this......

In a real world sense, I was WRONG. I went back to look at exisiting law, poker isn't mentioned there either, but it clearly is dealt/approved. .... so the issue I feared had arisen was not a real one.

Carry on.

+1 - I appreciate your caution though, DQ.

- WOL

This was the first thing I noticed when I read Christie's document a couple hours ago, but quickly realized what DQ discovered - the list of specific games is from the original statute, with just the addition at the end of authorizing gaming on the Internet.

OTOH, under Christie's provision changes every decision will undergo scrutiny by the DGE before it is approved for the Internet. Christie's changes have essentially put the DGE in complete power over who and what gets approved - no one will be able to point to the new statutes and say, "but the law authorizes it". The only thing the law will do is authorize the DGE to authorize it.

It's probably overall a non-issue for online poker but I'd take a cautionary note from it. The practical result could be roll-outs over time for stake limits, buy-in limits and game selection.

But ipoker is not cheat proof. Collusion and botting run rampant. All people need is a cell phone, or sophisticated software to give them an unbeatable edge over the average Joe...

Or at least such could be argued by anyone that has a reason to, and it would be hard to refute these claims to a public that is not as dialed in as we are.

What I am thinking about is what you posted about how casino operators don't like ipoker because grinders suck off much of the money. Obviously, if poker was excluded there would be an uproar and eventually it would be added back in, but how much time would be lost?

It just seems to me that if the UIGEA has taught poker players anything, it's that closing the barn door before the horse is out is greatly preferable than chasing the fool beast down after it gets out.

I agree, poker will likely be looked at differently, in fact the language referring to tournaments for player-to-player games is troubling, as Christie may limit poker to MTTs initially to deal with the collusion issue - perhaps PokerStars can sell him on the benefits of Rush/Zoom style cash poker.

I also agree that cash poker doesn't bring in the money other games do, but having tournaments to satellite into live tournaments could help AC foot traffic, which could also be something Christie considered.

I would think a TE directed, poker-player onslaught would also help, from both instate and out-of-state players. NJ has that provision that tourists can play if they are in NJ while playing. So potential tourists' opinions would be given some weight here.

I disagree. Cash players can be enticed to come to AC via player point room comps or using points to buy into live tourneys.

That isn't something unique to poker though, awards could be used to entice slot players or anyone else, whereas online satellites to live tournaments is a proven strategy semi-unique (hard to believe that there are slot tournaments) to poker.

woot woot, now we need more states to get in on this.