it seems like everyone is making a big leap from 'sportsbetting is legal' to 'online sports books' up and running

there is a huge obstacle that still stands between those two positions called The Wire Act

I might be wrong, still waiting to hear how

I never said online sports betting would be permitted, as a lawyer in training the word "or" is very very important.

there is zero connection between sports betting and online poker

wake up, the casino industry has moved on from internet poker

internet poker operators have moved on from internet poker

the poker players alliance has moved on from internet poker

So you're saying this isn't a possible step that could make it legal on all states.

This seems like a good point. I hadnt even thought about that. Unless they nix the wire act, i dont see how this will help online poker at all. Ive been excited about this too lol. Why is no one else talking about this point in the other threads ha

Curtis - could you explain something to me please (this is a genuine request).

I understand the Wire Act prohibits interstate gambling transactions - i.e. a gambler in California cannot call a bookie in Nevada to place a bet.

If a gambler in California had a bookie in California he could use, how would that violate the Wire Act?

This is something I have struggled with about online poker as well. I don´t see how the Wire Act prevented states operating their own ring-fenced markets prior to the DoJ opinion in 2011 (although it may not have been financially viable).

Thanks.

DC

Why do you say that? It may not be economical for casinos to run a poker-only online casino, but poker + sports betting may be a different story.

Definitely not getting my hopes up though.

I asked the question about the Wire Act and most tend to agree it is irrelevant regarding intrastate gaming.

Which led me to ask 'then why did it take a reinterpretation of the Wire Act to get intrastate poker?' which didn't get answered very well either.

But I'll stand corrected, that the Wire Act only applies to interstate transactions and therefore really has no bearing on anything related to online gambling, apparently

Fight for poker!

Fight for casino, and we'll get poker too!

Fight for sports betting, and casino, and we'll get poker too!


See the argument improving there?

Honestly, the court ruling is a good thing, and sports books and gamblers should rejoice. Im not trying to rain on their parade.

But it isn't OUR parade, we (online poker players) have not gained anything, anything at all

What argument? I didn't say we should direct our efforts to fighting for casino and sports betting.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

I wouldn't say not anything. The corporations that drive the industry and often legislation are always looking for addons to boost profit. The same goes for government spenders, for revenues. Once state-licensed online sportsbooks have a foothold, they will likely look to expand to casino gambling and/or poker gaming. At a minimum it's a back door to more states adopting regulation of online poker. There is a chance we might also see some instances where online poker is tacked on to authorization of online sportsbooks.

It's the same phenomenon that we see with online casino gambling legislation. Have we ever seen an instance where a state bill to authorize online casino gambling does not include online poker? It won't be as automatic with online sportsbook legislation, but over time it will lead to online gambling expansion creep including online poker.

Thanks Curtis,
It is confusing for me too.
I feel that the "reinterpretation of the Wire Act" might just have been a coincidence after Black Friday. After all, the DoJ´s opinion was about online lotteries rather than poker or casino.
I am inclined to agree with Xanadu that - in time - some states will regulate online poker as a follow-on to sports betting.
DC

I follow your logic, but it is flawed.

Yes, we gain another back door, but its even further back than before and the back door we were looking at before is now a back door to another aim altogether.

It isn't an improvement, I think it is even less than a push

Okay, you're wrong:

1. Online and mobile sportsbetting already exists intrastate within Nevada

2. The Wire Act excludes cross-border operation of "legal" sportsbooks online or mobile:

18 U.S.C Sec 1084 (b)

"(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of information for use in news reporting of sporting events or contests, or for the transmission of information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on a sporting event or contest from a State or foreign country where betting on that sporting event or contest is legal into a State or foreign country in which such betting is legal."

Now you're just being a pessimist. Sports betting legislation is additive to the mix, on top of those states seeking online gambling legislation.

online poker is now in the third row, where we were right up front. Not sure why that is hard to see.

online poker means as much/little to the casino industry now as live poker means to the casino industry

Frankly, online poker means as much to the Stars Group today as live poker means to the casino industry

Yes, acknowledged above

But while you're at it, can you explain why the DoJ opinion was even relevant to intrastate regulation? It was the impetus, was it not?

Also, what language in RAWA was going to preclude intrastate regulation?

I mean we focused a lot of energy on Wire Act issues, and now it seems like we're saying 'oh that was never a thing'

Just abit confused

PASPA specifically prevented states from regulating intrastate sports betting. It was the entire point of the bill. States were given time, 18-24 months if I remember correctly, to opt in. Only Nevada opted in to full sports betting and 3 others partially. 46 states now have permission to regulate intrastate online sports betting and 3 more have the right to go to Nevada style sports betting. The only state unaffected is Nevada, other than losing their monopoly that is, so this is huge for sports betting.

It is also big for poker legislation, if only because states will be dealing with gaming regulation. Poker will get at the very least some talk as the result of this. It actually already has. Though, state by state expansion of poker probably doesn't mean a boom for players.

I agree that it's not quite as big a deal for online poker as some are making it out, but put me in the camp that sees this as a slight positive for us.

It might be better to be third in line for something that is happening rather than first in line for a pipe dream.