None of the current owners have ever operated online poker sites that we know of, the point of the statute seems to be to prevent a company like PokerStars from coming into IL and buying an existing riverboat in order to get an operators license and market their name, utilize their customer list, etc - the second provision prevents them from using their software.

If the goal was to exclude anyone that accepted online bets they would have included 'in violation of the laws of IL', which dates back 10 years, but they chose to use the 10 years to be consistent with the requirement for a casino license (minus the conviction) while still effectively only excluding those who accepted bets after the UIGEA was passed.

I don't like the exclusion of the best online poker company in the world from any US State, but as 'bad actor' clauses go, this one is the most likely to hold up to an Article I (bill of penalty) challenge, and NV's attempt to ban 'covered assets' has unlawful taking written all over it, but this one accomplishes the same goals with none of those risks.

I'm really hoping that the US get's back to play online poker. As I see it, it wasn't anyones fault except Lederer and FTP. I don't know why your banned to play seems pretty unfair tbh. You should sort out your gun laws than banning online poker.

I don't think a licensee would be required to obtain a separate vendor certification for its software. It's not like NV where each stage requires a separate license. At least that's the way the definitions in the bill read. It may be implemented differently.

Well, well, this would be an improvement.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/367...te-on-gambling

Leads me to believe that this is charged by a possible up and coming company who is looking to enter the online gaming market.

This is flawed.

I think that if Illinois passes this bill. Iowa will not be far behind. Also, Iowa and Illinois already let you buy each others lottery tickets, so I am thinking there might not be a problem with them pooling together for online poker. FWIW. I hope it passed I live in Illinois and the state needs all the money it can get. Heck, legalize pot and hookers too.. Oh forget get the hookers!

You can buy lottery tickets online, and go play video gambling machines. Pass this already.

They have been workin on the brick and mortar portion of this bill for quite sometime.....it looks like they actually gonna get the whole show thru this time.

The statute doesn't spell it out, but a licensee doesn't seem to be granted the authority to operate software, it just allows them to put their 'skin' over it;

Does anybody know how long this will take to get passed?

Hard to know for sure, looks like there was a definite try to push it thru quickly, but appears to be some opposition which was blamed on the DEMs but then you have Jack wagons like this guy below too....who knows what his motivation actually is.

“I don’t understand why we are in this big of a hurry to do this,” said Sen. Matt Murphy, R-Palatine, who has supported expansion in the past.

Really?

Like you say, the provisions of the bill don't actually spell it out. It is just your interpretation of the bill provisions that a licensee will also need a vendor certification to run its own software platform. And that might well be the way it gets implemented, but it might not be as well:

Since a gaming licensee that owns and runs its own software platform won't be "providing or offering" the software to a gaming licensee, they may not need separate certification as a vendor just to run their own software.

I may need to do a better job of reading the definitions;
But this would seem to indicate that the licensee would only be authorized to develop the data network and interface ('skin') with developing of actual internet games requiring the vendor certification.

It's definitely not clear one way or the other, but unless my interpretation is what they were trying to accomplish (prevent a software vendor from buying a casino to circumvent the 'bad actor' provision), then the licensee bad actor provision would be completely redundant and much of the stipulating language in the software vendor definition would be superfluous.

Not really. PokerStars is currently unique in their desire to expand to b&m gaming among poker site operators. Most sites just want to be service providers (or operate as online licensees without b&m operations, if that were on the table), so the vendor bad actor provision is not superfluous by any means. And the question remains - did any of them that only offered online poker actually violate US federal law anyway?

Honestly, I think the vendor bad actors clause is more designed for future bad actors (those that offer unlicensed play in IL after enactment of the bill) than for past misdeeds.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, IMO if the goal was to keep out PokerStars (you may recall that gambling industry (AGA?) objection is what was credited with killing this effort last year) this is the most well written statute I can envision for accomplishing that goal without making it obvious what the goal really was - which invites both bill of attainder and illegal taking challenges.

They didn't even use the term 'violation', they used the term 'contravention', normally reserved for civil violations, and while offering poker may not have criminally violated the UIGEA, all unlicensed (not specifically authorized) wagers are unlawful contracts in Illinois, giving rise to a 'contravention' of that (UIGEA) US law.

On the other hand, if keeping PokerStars out wasn't their intention, then much of this statute is superfluous gibberish, so guess I'm more inclined to give the authors more benefit than you seem to be.

Does anyone have questions they would like me to ask the legislators? I have some relationships with the people involved on this bill.

F.Y.I. besides "when will it get passed" or "what are the odds that...."

Will a licensee be required to also obtain a separate certification as a vendor to operate their own proprietary online wagering software or will their online wagering license cover the software as well?

how many licenses do they expect will operate under this regime?

will they try to combine all the rooms onto a single illinois network?

when will it get passed?

will frequent player points be awarded based on rake paid or mgr?

will they offer 180-man sngs? and how often do they estimate $10's will pop off at peak hours?

do the framers of this legislation already have interstate compacts in mind? or do they want to try out intrastate for a while to see what they can get going?

i'm sure you already know what to nudge them for. godspeed and gl

I will check on this. I will also find out how the software is going to be laid out. Is there going to be a difference between "casino" and "poker" and will the software be able to add "skins/other states software". Will the poker software be universal?

As far as I knew, the casinos(licensee) would get their software from a software provider. They wouldn't create their own. There are gaming software company's here in Illinois that have been involved with the legislators for a while. I assume they would want them to get a software deal with the licensee.

Senate sub committee on gaming right now....no time to watch

http://new.livestream.com/blueroomstream

...

The more important scenario would be the possibility of a poker network buying a licensed IL riverboat, and thereby sidestepping the vendor bad actor provision which as written could exclude the poker network from ever getting a vendor certificate.

I think something will get done this year. I am not sure of the odds of it passing this soon though.

There is a super majority of Dems in both the Senate and House here. The Casinos were not happy about allowing the Horse-track or/and ALL the other casinos to obtain licensees. That was the hold up last year. They are very cut throat. They will say "no deal" just to screw over a competitor over pennys.

Sounds like they are past that now.

Now we have to deal with the pensions. So who knows? There is hope though, for certain.

Ok, I got you. Good question. I will ask on Saturday. I know for a fact one of the legislators sat down with a Bwin exec(or some English Publicly traded gambling company) to talk over aspects of online poker. So, they are aware of outside poker powers.

Why would we as poker players care if P-Stars bought a casino? Is that good or bad? I don't see how it would matter for us as players. They cannot just start pooling players or anything...