I think the argument that I-poker is a Class III game is silly, and when litigated, will get trounced in court.

Internet poker could only be classified by the NIGC if all participants were located on tribal land ("to declare that the establishment of independent Federal regulatory authority for gaming on Indian lands, the establishment of Federal standards for gaming on Indian lands"), but since that isn't of any real benefit, there isn't much point arguing which class intranet poker would belong.

CA would have no reason to object to them classifying their intranet poker any way they want, as long as they don't accept internet (off tribal land) players.

For someone with access to the actual compacts, I'd be interested to know if they include any territorial commitments from the State, if CA has told Tribe X that they won't allow anyone else to offer 'poker' in county Y or an xx mile radius, then every State-wide license could be a violation, but if the compact protects them from 'class II/III (which implies B&M) competition', then it should not be a violation.

Otherwise, tribes don't have any 'right' to offer gaming beyond their boundaries, so asking them to voluntarily accept taxation and regulation for the 'privilege' might have a terrible political connotation (surrender sovereignty), but legally they should be fine as long as licensees treat (geo-location) tribal customers the same as they would out-state customers.

interesting post ty for the info

The ratified California Tribal-Sate compacts are available online from the California Gambling Control Commission.

The one that I reviewed gave exclusivity only to Indian tribes (not the specific tribe, but tribes in general) within the tribe's "core geographic market" which was defined as 10 counties. The freeway driving time to the farthest point was more than 2 hours (at least 110+ miles) from the tribe's casino. The exclusivity is for only the subset of Class III games which were authorized under the compact.

If the state does authorize such gaming by an entity other than an Indian tribe that that geographical area, the tribe explicitly has the right enjoin such gaming and to cease paying fees to the state ($2M/y for the example tribe) and cease payment to the state monies intended to pay down bonds issued based on tribal payments to the state ($33.8M/y for the example tribe). The actual use of the bond money is not explicit in the compact, but the section establishing the payments was for payments directly into the Revenue Sharing Fund. The Revenue Sharing Fund is/was a fund intended to share profits with Indian tribes that do not have compacts. If the authorization is for Gaming Devices, tribe also has the right to terminate the Compact, but must then cease operations.

Those class III gaming activities which are authorized and permitted under the compact are:

(a) The operation of Gaming Devices.
(b) Any banking or percentage card game.
(c) The operation of any devices or games that are authorized under state law to the California State Lottery, provided that the Tribe will not offer such games through use of the Internet unless others in the state are permitted to do so under state and federal law.

Gaming Device was effectively defined as a slot machine. The actual definition of "Gaming Device" in the compact is:

"Gaming Device" means a slot machine, including an electronic,
electromechanical, electrical, or video device that, for consideration, permits:
individual play with or against that device or the participation in any electronic, electromechanical, electrical, or video system to which that device· is connected; the playing of games thereon or therewith, including, but not limited to, the playing of facsimiles of games of chance or skill; the possible delivery of, or entitlement by the player to, a prize or something of value as a result of the application of an element of chance; and a method for viewing the outcome, prize won, and other information regarding the playing of games thereon or therewith.

The last portion of your statement is nonsensical. You say that the electronic form (version) of poker is not an electronic copy (facsimile) of poker.

Further, it appears you may be reading more into the definition than is there. The definition is not for "internet poker" it is just for "poker". "Internet poker" is, inherently, an electronic version/copy/facsimile of poker. Federal law is actually extremely clear that Class II gaming does not include any electronic copy of a game of chance (See 25 USC § 2710 (7)(B)(ii) ). It is also quite clear that Class II gaming does not include any banking card games. Class II games include all other card games (except those explicitly prohibited by the state, as long as they are played in compliance with any state laws and regulations regarding hours of operation, bet sizes and pot sizes).

Arguing that the electronic versions of card games are Class II games is the same as arguing that house-backed card games (e.g. blackjack) are Class II games. Actually, that is not quite accurate. If the card game is not a "game of chance" then the electronic version would not be excluded from Class II games. [Potentially, back, yet again, to the skill/chance argument.]


An important thing to keep in mind here is that we are dealing with multiple different codes which can easily define things differently. The code(s)/bill(s)/compact(s) are at both the state and federal level. For wording within the compacts, the terms as used within the IGRA would generally apply, unless explicitly stated otherwise. For dealing with interpreting the IGRA, how terms are defined in this State bill are unlikely to matter. Unless the feds explicitly allow it, a state does not get to define the terms used in federal law.

Hmmm... something else I just noticed. The definition of tournament was changed such that the department must approve all tournaments.

Tournament is now defined as:

(ah) “Tournament” means a department-approved competition in which registered players play a series of authorized games to decide the winner.

The bold part was added in the amendment(s).

Poker is a Class II game under IGRA.
House-banked games are indeed Class III games under IGRA, whether live or on the Internet.

Arguing that Internet poker is a Class III game because it falls under the "electronic version of a game of chance" provision is the same as reclassifying non-banking card games as games of chance under IGRA, which they are not.

Which you keep on glossing over. Why? Especially considering the verbiage of the amended bill?

Please cite where it states that in IGRA.

Failing that, some other federal law.

Failing that, some relevant court finding.

Failing that, ... well I guess you just FAIL.

The part of the quote in parenthesis is a direct quote from the Declaration of policy for IGRA.

Thanks for the link.

The exclusivity is clearly for offering gaming devices rather than type of game, so even if CA was licensing other businesses to offer internet slot gaming within their area of exclusivity, as long as those businesses don't provide the internet devices they should be fine.

I think the real concern is similar to the problems in FL, where internet cafe's are/were (PX?) offering gaming in what seemed clear violation of tribal compacts.

CA would surely need to require internet cafe's operating within those exclusivity zones to block access to licensed sites if they offered slots, so it would seem fair and reasonable for them to do the same even if they only offered poker.

Edit: On a side note, it's now clear (after seeing the compacts) why CA didn't go the lottery route with their Bill as most industry experts predicted.

If the government (CA lottery) offers a game, then the tribes would have been free to offer it as well without taxes or regulation, but by going the free market route, tribes can be treated like anyone else (outside tribal lands).

I am glossing over it because the general skill/chance argument has been discussed many times in this forum. Frankly, it appears to pop up and be strongly argued even in situations where it has absolutely no relevance to the legal issues at hand. I just haven't felt like going through the typical arguments for the various levels of the mix of skill vs. chance in poker yet again (i.e. how much skill vs. how much chance over how long a period).

If there are aspects to the argument that are specific to this situation, then I have no problem discussing them. I just didn't want to be the one starting it.

Keep in mind that the issue is what applies under the IRGA.

Even if the proposed California bill (state) became law and explicitly stated "Poker is not a game of chance", it would not, necessarily, result in in the IGRA, as interpreted in Federal Court, wrt. operation in California, interpreting poker as not a game of chance. While there would be a tendency to use how the State defined it, such definition would be superseded by any Federal definition. It would certainly be an area that could be litigated.

It should be noted that the bill only states that skill affects the outcome in the long term. It does not state that poker is not a game of chance. It merely states that skill affecting long term results is a necessary component of poker.

We agree that it is a Class II game when played live. We disagree about how it is categorized when played over the internet (i.e. electronically). We agree on that. Ok, so your argument is that all non-banked card games (or at least poker) are not "games of chance". I see nothing in the IGRA that defines "game of chance". In fact the term only appears within the IGRA in the definition of "Class II gaming". You appear to assume that all non-banked card games are automatically not "games of chance". Chance is certainly at least a part of poker and a very significant part of any single hand. I see nothing that implies that a card game can not be both non-banked and a game of chance. So...why do you think that all non-banked card games, or poker specifically, are not games of chance (under the IGRA)?

[NOTE: the Class II definition says (significantly simplified):

(A)"Class II games" mean:

(i) Bingo (with restrictions)
(ii) Card games (with restrictions)

(B) the therm "Class II games" do not include:

(i) any banking card games
(ii) any electronic copy of a game of chance, or slotmachines of any kind

(See 25 USC § 2703 (7))

Well I can understand making the argument that poker is not a game of chance, it goes directly to the level of chance/skill involved in poker and what level of criteria was intended to be used in the IGRA to qualify a game as a "game of chance". I think this is an uphill battle and, if fought, could end up being in court for an extended period of time with a significant chance of losing.

To me, there is a significant question as to if this is a battle that needs to be fought. Frankly, I feel that it is a battle that is much easier for the parties involved to win by just covering the issue from the point of view that Ipoker might be a class III game. The only place where it really matters is on tribal lands. Generally, it primarily maters wrt. the content of the compacts. The compacts are, effectively, contracts between each tribe and the State. Assuming that all parties to the compacts desire the outcome that the tribes can offer Ipoker then it is a relatively easy matter of stating that if Ipoker is a Class III game, then it is one of the Class III games that the tribes can offer. That is a simple change to the compacts. The level of effort needed is probably quite a bit less than would be required to try to litigate wrt. Ipoker being a Class II or Class III game (i.e. is, or is not a game of chance).

Servers on tribal land ... solves that issue, no?

Looking over the NIGC Rule regarding the definition of "electronic or electromechanical facsimiles", I concede to you.

It certainly raises a better debate than the class II/III issue, but not so much the servers as the money, CA is among the States that follows the Advance Deposit Wagering legal fiction doctrine, allowing internet betting on horseracing because "bets take place where the money is located", which IMO would be the best angle to threaten litigation.

The court would likely either have to rule CA wrong to allow i-wagering on horseracing or allow tribes to offer self-regulated i-wagering on any games their compacts allow, which is just one more reason I can't see i-poker ever getting resolved in a meaningful (large player pool) way without Federal intervention.

I-poker sounds much more like a a card game than an electronic facsimile of a game of chance or a slot machine. Especially when one reads that bingo (clearly a game of chance), including electronic bingo, is explicitly permitted. It is pretty clear to me that the desired goal was to classify electronic versions of banked games (craps/blackjack/roulette/etc) as Class III games. I suppose some nitty lawyer could make an argument about the exact wording, since it is a little ambiguous. Whatever.

Poker can be played electronically, without the internet, or even an intranet. Some card rooms utilize e-tables and others have at least experimented with them. Whether such tables "catch on" or not is totally irrelevant. They represent a potential technological improvement to gaming facilities.

Do you really think that Congress intended to strip the abilities of the tribes to take advantage of technological improvements?

Of course the state of WI is trying to shake down a tribe for offering poker in their card rooms via e-tables. They might actually get something. Such is the way of the world. It is often more efficient to cut a deal with a bunch of shysters than to bear the enormous legal costs of fighting it out in court.

I see nothing wrong with the state of CA enforcing it fees and regulations on a company that provides a poker platform, even if it is in a partnership with one or more tribes. But the tribes themselves must be able to keep their sovereignty.

Any cliffs on what's going on at the moment, and when I need to vote on something?

Thank you for the link. It was interesting reading.


I would say that it is very close to allowing Ipoker as a class II game. If it was "bingo, lotto, and other games similar to bingo" then internet versions of those could be considered to be Class II games if all participants are on tribal land (see 25 CFR § 502.8).

Banked card games are already Class III, irregardless of being in electronic format, or not. Actually, yes. Given the wording of 25 USC § 2703 (7)(B)(ii) it appears to be Congress' specific intent to not permit technological improvement if the "improvement" moved the game from being a card game to that of being an electronic copy of a card game (any game of chance).

Keep in mind that a considerable portion of the definition of class II games is obviously, and specifically, intended to handle grandfathering games that were already being played (e.g. 25 USC § 2703 sub sections (C), (D), (E), and (F)). Basically, bingo and non-banked card games (i.e. poker) were already being played/run by Indian tribes at the time. The intent, generally, was to let them keep doing that, but to put most new/additional stuff, or house banked games, in Class III where it would be subject to Tribal-State compacts.

It should also be noted that if Congress desired, it would have been quite easy to have the same carve-out for electronic, computer, or other technological aids for card games as there is for bingo. It is, however, clear that this carve-out does not exist for card games.

NOTE: Determining the actual intent of Congress is a much more involved process than any effort I have put in. In other words, I could be completely off-base. Yes, unfortunately, that is often the case.

Keep in mind that using e-tables is not something that any tribe must do to run poker. Using e-tables instead of a live dealer is something that is a cost/benefit trade-off. E-tables don't take up as much room and do not need a dealer, and probably other staff, present at all times. When I have seen e-tables used is in order to not have a full poker setup take up room more profitably occupied by slot machines.

The tribe you mention could have chosen to use a live dealer. If they had, then there would be no ambiguity as to needing to have a compact cover the use of the e-tables. Actually, that was my main issue. The Ipoker being class II/III issue was merely something I noted while investigating around the issue of having (at least) two significantly different regulatory environments within the State.

The original wording in SB1463 which stated that this bill was to regulate Ipoker "on both tribal and nontribal lands" was totally unacceptable.

The current wording is not good. It currently states "throughout California". Frankly, if I were in charge of a tribe and this bill passes with that wording I would certainly litigate.

Better would be "throughout California except tribal lands", or "in California except on Indian lands as defined in 25 USC § 2703 (4)."
This would dump the entire issue on each tribe separately and/or on each licensees. Arguably, this is where the State should put it. The tribes have sovereignty. It is not the State's responsibility to help them enforce their rights. It is the State's responsibility to not itself usurp those rights.

Potentially even better would be something like "throughout California, except tribal lands unless authority for licensees to operate on specific tribal lands is granted by the tribe sovereign on those lands."
Then define tribal lands as those included in the definition of Indian lands in 25 USC § 2703 (4).

If it is the choice of the State to pursue getting agreement from each tribe to extend the area of operation of licensees onto tribal lands (i.e. as part of each compact negotiation) then the commission/department needs to be directed to handle keeping track of, and informing licensees, as to on which tribal lands operation is permitted.

Most of the CA tribes want to get a license, as consortia, to run i-poker sites in CA. Generally, the tribes don't want i-poker licensing to require or reopen any compact negotiations.

Can CA scoot around the legal issues of tribal sovereignty and IGRA enforcement? Probably, as long as there aren't tribes who are unsatisfied with the bill provisions. The CA legislators may have addressed all the tribal objections with the current amendments, but we won't know for sure until the tribes who were objecting weigh in on the new wording.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cali...-calderon.html

http://pokerfuse.com/news/law-and-re...es-poker-only/

Is there benefit for us to have people show up at Tuesday's hearing?

Is anyone planning to attend?

ONLINE GAMING Group releases poll before first hearing

The author of this article is obviously out-of-date as the bill was already changed to poker only and licensing in-state gambling licensees only. However, it's interesting to see these lists in his article:

I would guess that COPA is now on board with the bill, since the amendments match what they wanted. I wonder who else is switched from opposing to backing.