California has Draft Online Poiker Legislation.. Great news??? NOT SO FAST....

[ftpjesus]

As posted on Calvinayre.com http://calvinayre.com/2013/05/15/bus...tate-compacts/

Yes you see it in the headline. The very bill under consideration in CA would in fact BAN the very thing that would drive online poker to success in CA and other states which is interstate play.. Not only that but it bans CA ever joining any co-op play should the Feds authorize such as well.. Is it possible California just is trying to see how many ways it can honestly fuck itself over financially when it really needs the revenue?? Feel free the check out the entire article linked above..

[4Dragons]

As posted on Calvinayre.com http://calvinayre.com/2013/05/15/bus...tate-compacts/

Yes you see it in the headline. The very bill under consideration in CA would in fact BAN the very thing that would drive online poker to success in CA and other states which is interstate play.. Not only that but it bans CA ever joining any co-op play should the Feds authorize such as well.. Is it possible California just is trying to see how many ways it can honestly fuck itself over financially when it really needs the revenue?? Feel free the check out the entire article linked above..

Democrats and freedom don't go together, just centralization of power and control.

[sah_24]

As posted on Calvinayre.com http://calvinayre.com/2013/05/15/bus...tate-compacts/

Yes you see it in the headline. The very bill under consideration in CA would in fact BAN the very thing that would drive online poker to success in CA and other states which is interstate play.. Not only that but it bans CA ever joining any co-op play should the Feds authorize such as well.. Is it possible California just is trying to see how many ways it can honestly fuck itself over financially when it really needs the revenue?? Feel free the check out the entire article linked above..

Politicians and freedom don't go together, just centralization of power and control.

FYP

[PLOL]

"There would be no limit on the number of licenses beyond the number of eligible licensees, but licensees would have to have owned their land-based gaming facility for five years preceding the bill’s enactment."

Lol, this is to prevent Pokerstars from buying a California facility and getting a license.

[sah_24]

"There would be no limit on the number of licenses beyond the number of eligible licensees, but licensees would have to have owned their land-based gaming facility for five years preceding the bill’s enactment."

Lol, this is to prevent Pokerstars from buying a California facility and getting a license.

LOL wtf happened to free market , "LAND OF THE FREE" tho !

[GrenadaRoger]

"There would be no limit on the number of licenses beyond the number of eligible licensees, but licensees would have to have owned their land-based gaming facility for five years preceding the bill’s enactment."

Lol, this is to prevent Pokerstars from buying a California facility and getting a license.

my blind read: you are probably right....the existing card rooms and indian casinos are likely standing behind those provisions....although there has to be a way into California for Pokerstars--there must be a struggling card room or indian tribe wanting some Pokerstars money; all we need is a stooge to front the Pokerstars money, such as Allen Glick fronting for mob interest in the Stardust Casino of Las Vegas 40 years ago...

but where could PokerStars find someone easily manipulated, greedy, sleezy and lazy enough to act the part, plus one with some connections to the poker world?

[Dan Druff]

While Pokerstars entering the market would be good for the players, I totally understand why lawmakers are shutting them out.

Because it's the fair thing to do.

Pokerstars had an 11-year head start while operating illegally. It's not fair that they get to come into the legalized market now with that edge.

Live by the illegal cardroom, die by the illegal cardroom.

However, I do think this bill is crap, specifically the forbidding of interstate cooperation.

[sah_24]

While Pokerstars entering the market would be good for the players, I totally understand why lawmakers are shutting them out.

Because it's the fair thing to do.

Pokerstars had an 11-year head start while operating illegally. It's not fair that they get to come into the legalized market now with that edge.

Live by the illegal cardroom, die by the illegal cardroom.

However, I do think this bill is crap, specifically the forbidding of interstate cooperation.

I just think thats a joke that laws are made to ban something in a brand new open free market , and then those laws are immediately changed or new ones are passed so existing interests can have 100% control of that said market . When online poker started the casinos chose to not enter the new industry , because they were making record profits . Now those profits are gone and they want their piece of the new market . It's all just a rigged joke called government !

Boggles my mind how a seemingly intelligent person such as yourself thinks that is a good thing , it creates unfair markets that have no competetion and therefore deliver and inferior product to consumers ! Lol ultimate poker much !

Also any group of entrepreneurs that wanted to enter the market, you gotta make deals with the existing casino crooks that wrote the legislation . Thats a complete fucking joke !

[ThreeBet]

What a horrid bill

[Dan Druff]

While Pokerstars entering the market would be good for the players, I totally understand why lawmakers are shutting them out.

Because it's the fair thing to do.

Pokerstars had an 11-year head start while operating illegally. It's not fair that they get to come into the legalized market now with that edge.

Live by the illegal cardroom, die by the illegal cardroom.

However, I do think this bill is crap, specifically the forbidding of interstate cooperation.

I just think thats a joke that laws are made to ban something in a brand new open free market , and then those laws are immediately changed or new ones are passed so existing interests can have 100% control of that said market . When online poker started the casinos chose to not enter the new industry , because they were making record profits . Now those profits are gone and they want their piece of the new market . It's all just a rigged joke called government !

Boggles my mind how a seemingly intelligent person such as yourself thinks that is a good thing , it creates unfair markets that have no competetion and therefore deliver and inferior product to consumers ! Lol ultimate poker much !

Also any group of entrepreneurs that wanted to enter the market, you gotta make deals with the existing casino crooks that wrote the legislation . Thats a complete fucking joke !

You are speaking of this from the player's point of view, but you need to step back and realize the truth about Pokerstars and the others.

They broke the law for over a decade and gave themselves a huge head start in the industry.

The US-based casinos didn't, because they couldn't. They had to operate within the law. It's simply not fair to allow the veteran companies into the US market who only gained experience by offering games when they weren't supposed to.

The reasoning for the US-based casinos not pushing harder for online poker in the past is irrelevant. The bottom line is that it was illegal, and they had to play by the rules, while Stars and the others did not.

And again, I am not a supporter of this crappy bill. But to state that it's fair to just allow Pokerstars to come in and trounce the new sites is ignoring how they got so good in the first place.

[chinamaniac]

I just think thats a joke that laws are made to ban something in a brand new open free market , and then those laws are immediately changed or new ones are passed so existing interests can have 100% control of that said market . When online poker started the casinos chose to not enter the new industry , because they were making record profits . Now those profits are gone and they want their piece of the new market . It's all just a rigged joke called government !

Boggles my mind how a seemingly intelligent person such as yourself thinks that is a good thing , it creates unfair markets that have no competetion and therefore deliver and inferior product to consumers ! Lol ultimate poker much !

Also any group of entrepreneurs that wanted to enter the market, you gotta make deals with the existing casino crooks that wrote the legislation . Thats a complete fucking joke !

It's simply not fair to allow the veteran companies into the US market who only gained experience by offering games when they weren't supposed to.

Stars paid their fines etc.. right? Dealt with all legal concerns...

this should not be an issue

[Kuntmissioner]

delete- covered by druff

[smithbk]

They broke the law for over a decade and gave themselves a huge head start in the industry.

What law? I forget. UIGEA can only enforce that which is unlawful under a federal or state law. The Wire Act? The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled otherwise in 2002. The DOJ affirmed the narrow limits of sporting events and contests in 2011. The governing types liked to say "illegal online gambling," but saying the words doesn't make it so.

I always found your stance here intriguing.

[sah_24]

I just think thats a joke that laws are made to ban something in a brand new open free market , and then those laws are immediately changed or new ones are passed so existing interests can have 100% control of that said market . When online poker started the casinos chose to not enter the new industry , because they were making record profits . Now those profits are gone and they want their piece of the new market . It's all just a rigged joke called government !

Boggles my mind how a seemingly intelligent person such as yourself thinks that is a good thing , it creates unfair markets that have no competetion and therefore deliver and inferior product to consumers ! Lol ultimate poker much !

Also any group of entrepreneurs that wanted to enter the market, you gotta make deals with the existing casino crooks that wrote the legislation . Thats a complete fucking joke !

You are speaking of this from the player's point of view, but you need to step back and realize the truth about Pokerstars and the others.

They broke the law for over a decade and gave themselves a huge head start in the industry.

The US-based casinos didn't, because they couldn't. They had to operate within the law. It's simply not fair to allow the veteran companies into the US market who only gained experience by offering games when they weren't supposed to.

The reasoning for the US-based casinos not pushing harder for online poker in the past is irrelevant. The bottom line is that it was illegal, and they had to play by the rules, while Stars and the others did not.

And again, I am not a supporter of this crappy bill. But to state that it's fair to just allow Pokerstars to come in and trounce the new sites is ignoring how they got so good in the first place.

What law were they breaking pre UIGEA ? Your argument is really sketchy at best for that and it is widely known that Addelson and crew helped push the obviously joke bill that UIGEA is (hence why no one got to read and it was attatched to a must pass bill in a lame duck session ! lol american govt) . We get a worse shit product because the whole thing is rigged , you see this in multiple industries and now its being glorified here. Sad that intelligent Americans defend shit like this ! It's total obvious corruption ! Has 0 to do with what is fair or good for people !

[sah_24]

You are speaking of this from the player's point of view, but you need to step back and realize the truth about Pokerstars and the others.

They broke the law for over a decade and gave themselves a huge head start in the industry.

The US-based casinos didn't, because they couldn't. They had to operate within the law. It's simply not fair to allow the veteran companies into the US market who only gained experience by offering games when they weren't supposed to.

The reasoning for the US-based casinos not pushing harder for online poker in the past is irrelevant. The bottom line is that it was illegal, and they had to play by the rules, while Stars and the others did not.

And again, I am not a supporter of this crappy bill. But to state that it's fair to just allow Pokerstars to come in and trounce the new sites is ignoring how they got so good in the first place.

What law were they breaking pre UIGEA ? Your argument is really sketchy at best for that and it is widely known that Addelson and crew helped push the obviously joke bill that UIGEA is (hence why no one got to read and it was attatched to a must pass bill in a lame duck session ! lol american govt) . We get a worse shit product because the whole thing is rigged , you see this in multiple industries and now its being glorified here. Sad that intelligent Americans defend shit like this ! It's total obvious corruption ! Has 0 to do with what is fair or good for people !

Also if stars violated some federal law pre UIGEA then the current sites are still violating that same law right now , because a legal online gambling law has never been passed . Federal law overrides any state laws right ?

[Dan Druff]

They broke the law for over a decade and gave themselves a huge head start in the industry.

What law? I forget. UIGEA can only enforce that which is unlawful under a federal or state law. The Wire Act? The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled otherwise in 2002. The DOJ affirmed the narrow limits of sporting events and contests in 2011. The governing types liked to say "illegal online gambling," but saying the words doesn't make it so.

I always found your stance here intriguing.

The UIGEA made it more clear that the law was being broken, but it was already illegal to offer internet gambling prior to October, 2006.

The UIGEA just made it a lot easier to prosecute and seize.

If you want to dance around what you think are technicalities and claim that Stars was doing nothing illegal by offering real money online poker to US residents, go ahead.

However, Stars wouldn't have coughed up a 9-figure fine if they weren't actually doing anything illegal, and had a defensible position to their actions. Nor would Party have done so, even though they stopped offering games to Americans after the UIGEA. Nor would Neteller.

If Stars hadn't been breaking US law by offering real money games, they would still be doing so today, and would face no penalty for doing so.

They have stopped because it finally became reality that the US government was going after them, so they backed down, played nice, and are now trying to enter the new regulated, legal market.

The bottom line is that American companies simply were not allowed to enter this market prior to 2013, and if they did so, they risked losing everything (as well as jail time for their management). They had to sit on their hands and watch Stars perfect their online poker model for 11 years. You can't argue that an American company could have competed with them at any point, can you?

Therefore, Stars was gaining an unfair advantage by participating in the market illegally, and thus should be either completely shut out or heavily delayed in order to let everyone else catch up. Simply put, giving them a license right now would be equivalent to rewarding them for breaking US law.

[chinamaniac]

The bottom line is that American companies simply were not allowed to enter this market prior to 2013, and if they did so, they risked losing everything (as well as jail time for their management). They had to sit on their hands and watch Stars perfect their online poker model for 11 years. You can't argue that an American company could have competed with them at any point, can you?

Therefore, Stars was gaining an unfair advantage by participating in the market illegally, and thus should be either completely shut out or heavily delayed in order to let everyone else catch up. Simply put, giving them a license right now would be equivalent to rewarding them for breaking US law.

My answer to the American companies is TOO BAD. Stars did shit illegal and paid their price.

American companies could have been building their models and offering play money all of this time etc...

[smithbk]

Not trying to veer into douchebaggerry here or troll, so I'll drop this soon. I am not a legal expert. I don't understand gaming regulations.

The UIGEA made it more clear that the law was being broken, but it was already illegal to offer internet gambling prior to October, 2006.

The UIGEA just made it a lot easier to prosecute and seize.

UIGEA "prohibits gambling businesses from knowingly accepting payments in connection with the participation of another person in a bet or wager that involves the use of the Internet and that is unlawful under any federal or state law." So something must already be illegal.

If you want to dance around what you think are technicalities and claim that Stars was doing nothing illegal by offering real money online poker to US residents, go ahead.

Actually, I'm trying to understand the fundamentals of the illegality.

They have stopped because it finally became reality that the US government was going after them, so they backed down, played nice, and are now trying to enter the new regulated, legal market.

Does the government going after you make you guilty? (I know the IRS thinks so!)

************************************************** **************

I'm guessing (to the best of my limited understanding) that your basis is that any gaming that is not regulated and defined by legislature is by nature illegal. My apologies if that is completely wrong.

You played online poker after UIGEA, right? Did you think the sites were illegal then? If not, what caused the change in position?

Thanks for your time and consideration,
Brian Smith
(Okay, this may read as though I am a 14-year-old kid. I'm really a couple years older than you. I, too, was crestfallen with Pac Man - 2600, but not nearly as much as with Donkey Kong.)

[garrett]

California is the only State who can pull this off, and given all the different interests it makes sense. California has roughly a population of 37 million, as opposed to NJ's 7 million I read somewhere.

With 37 million people, they could easily operate a few sites with similar to traffic to Merge of today. The problem would be too much competition saturating that pool down too much, spread across a few too many sites. California's sites would still be fine, although of course it would always be better to have 1 Federal system with all Sates pooled together, but it just does not seem that is the way the U.S wants to form this market. Instead giving the revenues to each States coffers.

California is probably the size of many countries combined on a site like Pokerstars, so although yes it is less than ideal, California is so big it would still be quite functional.

[Sandwich]

Stars paid their fines etc.. right? Dealt with all legal concerns...

this should not be an issue

LOL. Let Isai Scheinberg come to the U.S. and tell that to us in person.
While stars itself settled out, criminal indictments remain pending against individuals (some of whom are probably still at stars), no?