Altho I did not read TAmiller's posts, and am certainly less enlightened for my lack of doing so; the bottom line remains that, but for State-level legalization of intra-state sports-betting, any operation will inevitably violate the 1961 Wire Act.

What I find fascinating is the current push in Nevada to allow creation of entities, i.e businesses, to place bets legally at Nevada licensed sportsbooks ..... I'd like to see how those operations can avoid/be immunized against Wire Act prosecution if their communications with shareholders, investors, prospective investors, customers, whatever cross State lines .... (I somewhat suspect the effort is really effectively the "Billy Walters" Bill, to give him favorable tax treatment on his instate betting activity. Absolutely brilliant of him, if true.)

Why do I think that if NJ had won the first round, an appeal would have already been heard and ruled on? Oh yeah, because that is what happened in De.

We should just codify the NFL's superiority to states' rights in the Constitution, so the courts won't look so bad.

Bear in mind, gambling has never been treated as a right by American constitutional doctrine, even during the era when courts were more sympathetic to economic liberty claims. (See, e.g., Champion v. Ames.)

And I would predict that it never will be and that we will always be at the mercy of legislatures. The legitimacy of gambling regulation is way too entrenched in our legal system to be seriously challenged even if Lochner were revived (and that won't happen either).

I think the amici filed by the four states today in support of NJ's argument is a pretty big deal.

Good catch:

"Congress could pick economic winners and losers among the States based on nothing more than pure favoritism, historic tradition, political
expediency, or geographic convenience.
For all these reasons, set forth more fully below, the District Court’s
decision must be reversed."

----filed by West Va, Georgia, Kansas, and Virginia

It is worth noting, in terms of political analysis, that while the amicus brief expressly eschews any position on the merits of legalizing sports-betting, each of these States has a politically active lottery in s generally Red State environment.

Definitely not the 4 states that I guessed.

Of course it is.

I suspect that the Anti-Obamacare drive may be pushing a similar view of Federal-State powers, so it may not have been a leap to get this argument accepted among these potential amicus. I am a bit disappointed that California, which is considering sports-betting did not join in.

But keep in mind, MOST Red States also already have legalized chance gaming and, of these 4 amicus; one of them pools gaming prizing with Delaware while another one's State Lottery has B&M casino interests and is the fastest growing gaming industry in the country.

LOL, there is a book called The Fan Man, which has an entire chapter consisting of one word, repeated over and over and over.

I think you'd like it.

(The Fan Man, by William Kotzwinkle)

For you, the word is "lottery", ......... that is all you can ever see, which is a somewhat constricted view of legislation, which is what this forum discusses.

Did you learn nothing from the last seven years about where the battle FOR online poker needs to be fought ?

I think sba9530 has learned a lot more over the years than a certain Donkey.

I also think that a nationwide system of monopoly poker run by a syndicate of state lotteries is not the online poker future most US players want or envision.

NV and NJ are already existing examples of viable free-ish* market alternatives to the "Jackpot Poker brought to you by your friendly State Lottery" model supported by DQ.

Now, lotteries operating as local affiliates to free-ish market options is an interesting idea, and one that is being explored, especially in smaller states. And letting State Lotteries operate their own sites under a free-ish market has never been opposed.

But State Lottery monopolies? Yeah, that needs more support <hopefully obvious sarcasm>.

Skallagrim

* "free-ish" meaning a regulated system that will have some degree of limitation, maybe large - maybe small, on which sites, suppliers, and operators can participate.

You still do not get something basic ...... I do not "support" any particular model for the market(s) that may emerge any more than a meteorologist supports "hot weather in Nevada during the WSOP".

If I handicap the Heat or the Thunder as likely to win the NBA title, that does not mean I support them a a fan or bettor or in any other sense.

In political terms, Nat Arem's predictions do not "support" candidates. Why can't you understand that the nature of political analysis is NOT supportive of the outcomes, just predictive.

(Conversely, don't feel bad. Even Karl Rove, an otherwise brilliant political analyst, supported political outcomes of his financial backers to the point, he refused to accept the numbers that came in on Fox.)

You personally can "support" Reid 2.0 or casinos or poker only models or whatever else you want to, and sba9630 can support/oppose you or whomever he wants to as a personal matter' but I am just handicapping the political process and posting observations.

If the PPA Board on which you sit wants to argue "poker only" in every message in every political arena until you are blue in the face, fine. If you have some personal stake in their doing so, good for you. But doing so would come at a clear political cost and would marginalize players' input in chance gaming dominated States.

Abandoning your favorite theme of "poker-only can pass, where chance cannot" may be hard for you personally to accept as the right strategy, but try and be objective about various State-level political landscapes the PPA will face.

In poker terms, you might want your personal favorite strategy to win, but poker-only has been priced out of the game by the buy-in in most States .... Perhaps you do not understand the gaming industry enough to realize that the table stakes and revenue targets have changed, even in Nevada.

Regarding the first part of this post that is snipped, suffice it to say that I am glad to hear you admit that your real message is: "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated." I assume that having accepted assimilation yourself it is now only natural to urge others to succumb to the inevitable conquest of the Borg, err.. I mean singular mind, ... oops, I mean State Lottery Monopoly Poker.

More importantly, as is made abundantly clear in this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...3&postcount=16 - the part of this post I have quoted misrepresents the positions I have maintained and the positions of the PPA.

No one at the PPA, including myself, believes that 1) online poker legislation has to be poker only (although all of us do believe in the importance of recognizing and adjusting for poker's difference from house banked casino games) or 2) that state lotteries cannot be bargained with and made allies - except when, as DQ seems to ignore or embrace, the state lottery demands a monopoly on online poker. You cannot bargain with someone who demands it all and will settle for nothing less than all. At best you can beg and plead for some consideration. There is no good reason why anyone would have players accept and embrace that outcome as online poker's political and economic future.

Unless, of course, that person is already assimilated.

Skallagrim

The post statement you "snipped" explained the difference between "supporting" legislation and predicting the likely outcome for legislation "or elections or anything else) :


"You still do not get something basic ...... I do not "support" any particular model for the market(s) that may emerge any more than a meteorologist supports "hot weather in Nevada during the WSOP".

If I handicap the Heat or the Thunder as likely to win the NBA title, that does not mean I support them as a fan or bettor or in any other sense.

In political terms, Nat Arem's predictions do not "support" candidates. Why can't you understand that the nature of political analysis is NOT supportive of the outcomes, just predictive. ...

... I am just handicapping the political process and posting observations."

If your self-indulgent routine of Inspector Clouseau youtube posts or Star Trek or evil dragons afoot on 2+2 or whatever other strawman fantasy makes you feel empowered; go ahead and satisfy your need to pretend I am secretly "supporting" some strawman legislative model and you heroically are fighting to the death against such sinister schemes. Wail away to your heart's content.

However, let me break reality down into really simple concepts again:

My predictions do not "support" any particular model for the market(s) that may emerge any more than a meteorologist "supports" "hot weather in Nevada during the WSOP. I am just handicapping the political contests.

breaking: Will bicycle accident delay the NJ sports betting schedule?: http://blog.northjersey.com/meadowla...ting-schedule/

BTW, may be a little off topic, but what happened to the Fantasy Sports betting in AC?

I believe it's being offered, or at least it's been approved and can be offered. Just not sure anyone cares.

Fantasy sports betting seems like a nice thing to offer alongside regular sports betting, but on it's own I agree that probably nobody cares.

June 26th seems to be the next date of significance. Does anyone know what happens after that?

NJ responds in NFL et al sports betting case [pressofatlanticcity.com]

So here’ the opening fastball: “Remarkably, the Leagues and the Department of Justice have now all but abandoned the reasoning on which they prevailed below. They instead urge this Court to affirm – both with respect to the Leagues’ Article III standing and the constitutionality of PASPA — on grounds the district court considered but declined to adopt. This Court should reject that curious invitation.”

NJ horsemen file their brief in sports betting case [pressofatlanticcity.com]

I’ve talked before about the “rational basis” argument made maybe most effectively by U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman for the Department of Justice in this case. So again, the horsemen go directly at this, declaring, “Appellees argue that Congress is free to destroy the equal sovereignty of the States, so long as it has a rational basis for doing so.”

Ouch.

They continue, “The fundamental constitutional doctrine of Equal State Sovereignty is not some trivial doctrine that Congress can ignore at will, as the United States and Sports Leagues suggest.”

I would just like to see -105 lines

Another look back at today’s New Jersey sports betting courtroom showdown [northjersey.com]

The seats were all taken in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals courtroom in Philadelphia on Wednesday as a case involving Aetna and a dispute over allegedly fraudulent billing was being argued.

Of course, most of those in the 90-seat room were just making sure they had a seat for the main event – an 11 a.m. oral argument that would feature former U.S. Solicitors General Ted Olson and Paul Clement arguing opposite sides of the landmark New Jersey sports betting case.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/busines...-betting-legal

Whoa...the NFL better go after fantasy football unless they want the integrity of the league damaged:

Maurice Jones-Drew says teammate almost didn’t block for him to beat him in fantasy [larrybrownsports.com]

...Maurice Jones-Drew shared a story about how one of his teammates nearly didn’t block for him on a play because the two were competing in fantasy football that week...

...And we have our equipment guys keep us up on [the fantasy scores] during games....

(emphasis added)

nice catch

Thanks...

And the crawfishing has begun...Jones-Drew, his team, and others are now claiming it was all "just a joke".

There was just way too much non-humorous detail to me (such as the equipment guy statement), for this to be "just a joke."

Christopher Soriano
‏@CLSoriano

BREAKING: Third Circuit affirms NJ #sportsbetting decision - prohibits sports betting in AC.

NJ #sportsbetting decision is 128 pages including a partial dissent.

Summary of NJ #sportsbetting decision coming to @DuaneMorrisLLP Gaming Law Blog shortly.

h/t: @taxdood

Wow. What a crushing blow. It seems funny to me that the DoJ isn't intent on going after Washington and Colorado state (which those states have legalized recreational marijuana use) but yet will fight tooth and nail to prevent NJ in implementing sports betting? What the hell is going on in our government?! I'm pretty sure this will go all the way to SCOTUS.