Jump to content

Us Online Poker Regulation Since Black Friday Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://www.egrmagazine.com/news/1677372/ag...=daily-snapshotThe AGA which is the lobby group for the land based casinos doesn't support the Barton Bill and a Bill will be introduced in the Fall that they do support.A few differences will be that there will be no money for the Federal Government, it will all go to the States where the players are located and the States where the sites are located and regulated. Also the Bill will greatly favor Nevada and New Jersey to be the States where the sites locate their online operations.Also States will have to opt into the Federal online poker area where in the Barton Bill they will have to opt out.
AGA poker bill due in autumn 06/07/2011Stephen Carter The American Gaming Association (AGA) will not support Congressman Joe Barton’s internet poker bill and will instead push new legislation in the autumn which would favour Nevada and New Jersey as licensing and regulatory authorities in a future US egaming market. The AGA-backed poker-only bill would also differ from the Barton draft on how resulting tax revenues would be split between federal and state level. “Taxes would be divided between the state where the bettor is, with the state where the regulator is. The federal government would only receive the income tax on winnings,” said Frank Fahrenkopf, chief of the powerful US land-based casino representative organisation. In a keynote address at the Gaming Executive Summit in Madrid today he said: “Ten days ago Joe Barton of Texas introduced a bill that was modelled on the draft that was worked on by Senator Reid and Senator Kyl in the lame duck session. We are not supporting it. We are not opposing it, but we are not supporting it." Fahrenkopf said the AGA was “hopeful that after the summer break, a bill will be introduced” which would provide the following: “Number one, it would give oversight to the Congress department of the United States but they would delegate the licensing and regulatory authority to those states that have the longest history in gaming regulation, that have the law enforcement on staff and the financial wherewithal to do tough regulation. Probably, that only means Nevada and New Jersey.”ARTICLE CONTINUED AT LINK ABOVE
Link to post
Share on other sites
A few differences will be that there will be no money for the Federal Government, it will all go to the States where the players are located and the States where the sites are located and regulated. Also the Bill will greatly favor Nevada and New Jersey to be the States where the sites locate their online operations.Also States will have to opt into the Federal online poker area where in the Barton Bill they will have to opt out.
Just based on the opting in thing I'd rather have the Barton bill. What I'm banking on (and I'm sure many else are, too) is that when states see the Barton bill pass they just choose to not take action, and let the money roll in without it looking like they are promoting gambling.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just based on the opting in thing I'd rather have the Barton bill. What I'm banking on (and I'm sure many else are, too) is that when states see the Barton bill pass they just choose to not take action, and let the money roll in without it looking like they are promoting gambling.
+1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just based on the opting in thing I'd rather have the Barton bill. What I'm banking on (and I'm sure many else are, too) is that when states see the Barton bill pass they just choose to not take action, and let the money roll in without it looking like they are promoting gambling.
Exactly and any state where poker is legal should be able to license online sites, anything else is unfair to states like Florida and Mississippi. They are supporting the Reid bill from the way it sounds and the Reid bill sucks. I don't get why they want states to have to opt in thus reducing the online volume. It's dumb and it doesn't make sense. Georgia will probably do nothing to opt out but I doubt they'd ever opt in. Stupid government bull! Anyway just because the B&M casinos don't support it doesn't mean the Barton bill won't be the one to pass. I imagine the fact that Reid is the sponsor of the bill they support actually hurts it's chances versus Barton who is a republican in a republican majority congress and his bill is the bill the PPA is endorsing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

interesting article Hey Bob when will they start doing better tournaments this side of the border. I keep playing at Seneca because there daily tournaments are decent compared to ours. Plus I am not the only Canadian that plays those tournaments I have met quite a few of us cross borders who play poker there. Maybe it's time the Fallsview or Niagara start catering to us by putting on better daily tournaments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rose we can't even play online poker, the last thing we need is someone derailing the UNITED STATES regulation thread to talk about Canadian casinos. Ty gurl

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like they're going to try again in New JerseyNJ Senator Ready To Take Another Shot At Online Gaming

Posted: Friday, 19 August 2011 5:10AMNJ Senator Ready To Take Another Shot At Online GamingDave Polaski ReportingEarlier this year, Governor Chris Christie vetoed a measure that would have made New Jersey the first state in the nation to legalize online gaming. The sponsor of the bill now plans to re-introduce it.State Senator Ray Lesniak (D-Union) says online gaming would create up to 1,900 new jobs for New Jersey, and produce tens of millions of dollars in new tax revenue. Most importantly, Lesniak says it would benefit two struggling Garden State industries -- Atlantic City casinos and horse racing. "Both industries are dying a slow death, and they need the additional revenues that online gaming would provide for them."Lesniak says online gaming could offer a "bridge to self-sufficiency" for New Jersey's horse racing industry, as purse enhancements would help generate larger meets and greater public interest. "We have two new racetrack operators -- at Monmouth Park and The Meadowlands -- who are good business people...but they need a lifeline."
Link to post
Share on other sites
California egaming delayed until 2012
California egaming delayed until 2012 23/08/2011Stephen CarterCalifornia Senate President Darrell Steinberg has publicly backed intrastate egaming in California, but has delayed legislative action until 2012 due to “significant, unresolved issues”. In a letter yesterday to potential stakeholders including card rooms, tribes and racetracks, also signed by Senate Governmental Organization Committee chair Rod Wright, Steinberg wrote: “We believe the concept of bringing intrastate internet gaming to California has merit and is worth pursuing in a smart, methodical way”. However, despite many hearings and hours of testimony around the issue, said Steinberg, “ignificant, unresolved issues remain, including tribal exclusivity and waiver of sovereignty immunity, the types of games that would be authorized, and who would be eligible to apply for licenses and potential federal constitutional questions.” As he did not believe that “well thought out, fair solutions to these differences” could be reached by the end of the legislative year on September 9, Steinberg informed stakeholders that an “objective proposal” would instead be developed in time for consideration by the legislature when it reconvenes in 2012. ARTICLE CONTINUED AT LINK ABOVE
Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes me uncomfortable with the Barton Bill..."Only residents of the U.S. would be allowed to play on licensed sites."Why??? Do we NOT want to TAKE MONEY from people all over the world? Are the new providers in US market simply too afraid that they won't be able to compete against Poker-stars (and others)?Or was this mis-stated, and it was supposed to read more like, "Residents of the U.S. would only be allowed to play on licensed sites"? The latter would certainly make more sense...

Link to post
Share on other sites
What makes me uncomfortable with the Barton Bill..."Only residents of the U.S. would be allowed to play on licensed sites."Why??? Do we NOT want to TAKE MONEY from people all over the world? Are the new providers in US market simply too afraid that they won't be able to compete against Poker-stars (and others)?Or was this mis-stated, and it was supposed to read more like, "Residents of the U.S. would only be allowed to play on licensed sites"? The latter would certainly make more sense...
The experts in the Poker Legislation forum at 4 read the Barton bill as open to international player pools, after a period (of 2 years I think?) where it would be US-only.But it also seems like the people who know what's going on think that a Reid bill will be introduced soon, which is much more likely to be what actually ends up getting passed. It may or may not borrow terms from the Barton bill.
Link to post
Share on other sites

From all I've read the Barton bill is actually vague as to whether or not non US players will be allowed to register and deposit on US sites. As for non US based companies i.e. those not affiliated with a B&M casino or land based Dog/Horse track/poker room, may be allowed to get a US license after 2 years.We online poker players need to push for and support the Barton bill NOT the Reid bill. The Reid bill will screw us in the long run by severely limiting who can get licensing to B&Ms in Nevada and NJ meaning about 3 or 4 casino groups will pretty much have a monopoly on online poker in the US and rake will be ridiculous. It also requires the states to choose to opt in instead of an automatic opt in like the Barton bill. Also if as Bob's post states above the new or Reid bill doesn't bring in federal tax money it will never fly with the current state of affairs in DC. The Barton bill is more palatable to most politicians imo because it is sponsored by a republican and it brings in federal tax dollars and it has wording to strengthen the UIGEA against other forms of online gambling. Some of the strongest opponents to online poker have said they could support a poker bill if it had wording to strengthen the UIGEA. Nothing Harry Reid is behind will be good for the online poker community. He is only interested in lining his pocket with funding from the Caesars. Don't forget he wrote a join letter with Kyl to the DOJ that was responsible for the DOJ cracking down on the three major sites. He is NOT our friend and if the PPA switches gears and backs the Reid bill I'm done with the PPA!Right now the push is getting the Barton bill worked into spending/budget bill(s) through the new super committee and imo this is our very best chance to get some decent legislation. See the daily action plan on 2+2 here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The experts in the Poker Legislation forum at 4 read the Barton bill as open to international player pools, after a period (of 2 years I think?) where it would be US-only.
Is there any reason to ship money to a country that can (and apparently does) willy nilly seize your funds? What would be the incentive for Europeans to switch to US sites, when there is pokerstars?EDIT: Corrected the w-n mix up.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any reason to ship money to a country that can (and apparently does) nilly willy seize your funds? What would be the incentive for Europeans to switch to US sites, when there is pokerstars?
The reason for non-Americans to want access to regulated American sites is that it's going to be the only way to play against the large number of American recreational players. With regulation will come sites that people will trust and it should be fairly easy for Americans to get their money on and off. That combined with a lot of advertising should mean a large pool of recreational American players who everybody should want to play against.That being said Poker Stars is still going to be attractive since I'm guessing regulated American sites will have a significantly higher rake structure than Stars does with everybody from the State and Federal level wanting their piece of the pie, along with all of the other things like customer service and software quality etc that Stars has going for it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason funds can be seized now is because of the UIGEA and murky waters regarding online poker. With legislation in place this will change and with names like Caesars/WSOP and Wynn Resorts heading up online poker sites people will be very likely to have a certain amount of automatic trust in these companies. The volume is another thing, with legislation it is inevitable that the US sites will quickly become the top sites in the world, PokerStars may remain the largest for awhile but if the US sites allow non-US players a company like Caesars with the WSOP brand could well over take even PokerStars within a year or two. If the Barton bill is the one to pass then I think the competition will drive down the rake to be pretty much in line with Stars, especially if non-US players can deposit since it will be to each US sites benefit to attract players away from Stars. Bob is absolutely right imo about the vast number of recreational players that will come out of the woodwork when the US gets legislation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any reason to ship money to a country that can (and apparently does) nilly willy seize your funds? What would be the incentive for Europeans to switch to US sites, when there is pokerstars?
If you have been following the issues with Full tilt it is less about the feds siezing the funds and more about Full tilt advancing the money to US players. If tilt had not allowed US players to play and lose millions without withdrawing it from their checking accounts then we all would have been refunded by now. Black friday was just the catalyst to bring down the house of cards.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That being said Poker Stars is still going to be attractive since I'm guessing regulated American sites will have a significantly higher rake structure than Stars does with everybody from the State and Federal level wanting their piece of the pie...
FWIW, the notion that a regulated US market will be a monopoly and/or have unreasonably high rake is either false or at the very least highly contested.- There are multiple examples of countries where regulation has passed and rakes are consistent with Stars, Tilt, etc.- France has regulation which has resulted in rake which is significantly higher, but beatable.- The provisions stipulated in the currently proposed legislation should provide sufficient competition to prevent price gouging.Disclaimers: My information about the extant situations is picked up second-hand from reading the Poker Legislation forum at 4. The currently proposed legislation obviously may not pass, or may pass with significantly different terms.
Link to post
Share on other sites
gg mergesaw this in a topic just now posted on 4DOJ taking action on Merge
Notice that the article only says action against Merge processors and that knowledge of any actions or indictments against Merge or Merge skins is unknown. Processors have been having funds seized so imo this isn't much news and while subject poker is considered a trustworthy poker news source this article seems a bit of a stretch or a sensationalism. I'm no more nervous about Merge that I was before.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...