Normally this sorta promotional bit wouldn’t catch my attention for any longer than it takes to press the “mark as spam” button. But for whatever reason, new somethings related to online poker and real money get a second look these days.

And this one … knowing the tensions we’ve seen between California card rooms and the poker sites we used to think of as the “good guys” (before government officials said, “no no they Full Tilt and PokerStars are the bad guys!”) … well, hmm, call me @JeffMadsenObv, but is it coincidence that California’s first brick-and-mortar card room to open an online poker site did so on April 15?

Aha. Exactly.

Likewise, might we see more California casinos opening up online outposts soon … and how many similar ops across the country will be trying to entice players to their no-money real-money tables with WSOP seats? Also kinda curious … a $7,500 cash buyout option for the winner. (That seems pretty good, no?)

More…

Watch the archived hearing here

Wednesday’s hearing on HR 2267, which would regulate and license Internet gambling, brought out strong opinions from both sides in over two hours of testimony in front of the House Financial Services Committee. The next step in the legislative process is a mark-up of the bill, tentatively planned for next week where members of the Committee can add amendments to the legislation, with a vote to move the bill out of Committee and have the full House of Representatives vote on the legislation later this year. A couple of items from the hearing:

Bachus v Duke on Ultimate Bet scandal

One of the more contentious moments of the hearing was when Ranking Member Spencer Bachus (R-AL) entered into evidence a two-year old article from MSNBC.com discussing the Ultimate Bet superuser scandal. That article stated that over $75 million had been stolen from its players. Duke corrected Bachus, stating that the figure was $22 million, and the entire amount was refunded to its players. Duke also stated that the scandal was a reason why regulation would be beneficial to those who play online poker so that justice could be served for the parties responsible for the scandal.

Disagreement among opponents

Another point brought up during the hearing was while anti-terrorism/money laundering consultant Michael K. Fagan, a former US attorney, was against all forms of Internet gambling. Meanwhile, California cardroom executive Tom Malkasian was also against the legislation, but he and his coalition of California cardrooms and Native American casinos have been pushing hard for intrastate gambling in California. Another Native American executive, The Honorable Lynn Malerba of the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut was for the legislation, but the tribes had to be on a level playing field. Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA), who is against the legislation, got into a war of words with Malerba, stating the legislation could threaten the sovereignty of Native American casinos.

You can watch the hearing at the link above, and read the press release from the PPA regarding the hearing:

More…

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that a L.A. County Superior Court Judge has thrown out a lawsuit brought by two poker players against five L.A. County casinos in which the players had contended the casinos falsely advertised their jackpot games in which a buck was taken from pots for the jackpot as being “no purchase necessary.”

In May 2009, poker players Dennis Chae and Jeff Kim sued five L.A. County casinos — the Bicycle, the Commerce, Hawaiian Gardens, Hollywood Park, and the Hustler — arguing that the $1 taken from the pots in jackpot games didn’t jibe with the casinos’ claim the games did not require a purchase to play. Judge Emile H. Elias ruled both that players couldn’t sue to recover gambling losses, and that Chae and Kim “chose to play the games despite the knowledge that they would be charged” the jackpot fee.

In a state law dating back to 1989, jackpot games are considered “illegal lotteries” in California if they require a fee to win. Since the mid-1990s, casinos have therefore advertised poker games in which a jackpot is taken as “no purchase necessary,” a disclaimer which apparently includes a promise to deal jackpot games without a fee upon request.

Sounds sort of like those giveaways at McDonald’s in which one doesn’t technically have to buy a Big Mac and fries to play, but folks rarely ask to play without buying something. As Commerce Casino general counsel Andy Schneiderman explains, “there are very few players, if any” who request to play jackpot games without paying the fee. Schneiderman also notes that all the games the Commerce offers “are approved by the state, including jackpot games,” and so the casinos were confident they’d win the case.

Read the full article here.

The California Nations Indian Gaming Association’s 15th Annual Western Indian Gaming Conference got underway yesterday, in Palm Springs … and one hot topic of discussion seems to be dominating all others: Internet poker.

As is always the case in regulatory debates, it’s about who gets what cut. And the California Indians are split over what their involvement in it all should be, if any.

From the Palm Springs Desert Sun:

Jacob Appelsmith, bureau chief of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Gambling Control, called the Internet poker initiative that could resurface in 2010 a complex, difficult issue for tribes.

It goes to the heart of tribal sovereignty, Appelsmith said. Tribal involvement in intrastate poker legislation with California card rooms also holds potential to jeopardize the exclusivity rights that tribes have to conduct gaming, he said.

The initiative already has polarized tribes, among them the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, which has not wavered in its objection to intrastate online poker with tribes and California card rooms.

And how ’bout this kicker:

Daniel Tucker, chairman of the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation and newly elected chair of CNIGA, the nonprofit association comprised of federally recognized tribal governments, told tribal leaders in a letter last week that the drive by members of Congress to legalize Internet gaming nationwide represents the greatest threat to Indian gaming in the past 20 years.

Reminds me of Texas vs. Oklahoma legal battles … and the Californindians are still deciding which side to fight for.

Here’s a list of the 59 poker rooms that, as of right now, have signed on to officially embrace the 2009 TDA rules:

Aces & 8`s Poker
Amelia Belle Casino – Amelia, LA
APT Poker Room – Galaxy Starworld Hotel & Casino, Macau
Asian Poker Tour – asianpt.com
Avenue Card Club, Hove, UK
Aviation Club – Paris, FR
Bay 101 – San Jose, CA
Bay Mills Resort & Casino – Brimley, Michigan
Beau Rivage – Biloxi, MS
Big Slick Poker Tour – Prince George, BC
Binion`s Horseshoe – Las Vegas, NV
BLACK LIONS POKER CLUB, BUFFALO NY
Borgata – Atlantic City, NJ
Caesars Palace LV
Canterbury Park – Shakopee, MN
Card Player Cruises – At Sea in the World
Casino Del Mar, La Concha Resort – San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Casino Oostende, Belgium
Cherokee – Tulsa, OK
Club 52 at Melbourne Greyhound Park – Melbourne, FL
Colorado Central Station – Blackhawk, Co
Commerce – Commerce, CA
Crystal Crown Casino, Sunny Beach, Bulgaria
Daytona Beach Kennel Club & Poker Room
Derby Lane Poker Room- St. Petersburg, FL
Diamond Jo Casino – Dubuque, IA
Eureka Resort and Spa – Mesquite, NV
Federação de Poker do ES (FePES) Vitória-ES, Brasil
Firelake Grand Casino – Shawnee, OK
Fortune Rooms, Northern Ireland
Foxwoods Resort and Casino – Ledyard, CT
Golden Gates/Blackhawk, Co
Golden Nugget – Las Vegas, NV
Grand Sierra – Reno, NV
Grey Eagle Casino – Calgary AB Canada
Hollywood Casino – Lawrenceburg, IN
Hollywood Park Casino – Inglewood, CA
Horseshoe – Tunica, MS
Horseshoe Casino – Bossier City, LA
International Club – London,UK
LUCKY CHANCES CASINO – San Francisco Bay Area
Mandalay Bay – Las Vegas, NV
Mirage Resort Casino – Las Vegas, NV
Northern Stars Poker Tour – Manitoba, Canada
Ocean`s 11 Casino San Diego County, Oceanside, CA
Orchard Farms Poker Room – USA
Peppermill – Reno, NV
Red Rock Resort Casino and Spa – Las Vegas, NV
Ringo`s Little Vegas – Spokane Valley, WA
Rio – Las Vegas, NV
Spirit Mountain Casino – Grand Ronde, OR
Tachi Palace Hotel & Casino – Lemoore, CA
The Casino at Portmaso – St. Julian Portomaso PTM01, Malta
The Poker Room @ Seabrook Greyhound Park – Seabrook, NH
The Silks Poker Room @ Tampa Bay Downs – Tampa, FL
Tri State Casino – Cross Lanes, WV
Venetian – Las Vegas, NV
VFW Post 194 – Salisbury, MD
Wynn Casino – Las Vegas, NV

Few details, other than that I think you can now bet on horse racing there … as of a few minutes ago, or at least today. (No sports betting?)

My source is @CommerceCasino:

And awaaay they go!! The Racebook at Commerce Casino is now open!!
3 minutes ago from web

While we know sports betting and poker have gone hand in hand ever since Stu Ungar introduced the concept of winning millions playing cards and almost immediately losing it all on the Bengals, I’m not so sure there’s as much overlap between the horses and poker. Could be wrong … and still, the convergence of poker and horses is kinda what we were going for in Texas earlier this year, except we had horses first and were trying to add poker, as opposed to the other way around.

This should be a semi-fascinating case should it not get insta-folded as frivolous: Two “recreational” California poker players, Dennis Chae and Jeff Kim, have sued the Bike, Commerce, Hustler, Hollywood Park, and Hawaiian Gardens casinos — alleging that the dollar-a-pot raked for bad beat jackpots makes them illegal lotteries.

In a 2005 advisory, then-Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer cautioned casinos that the promotions violated state law unless players were allowed to win the jackpots without paying the fee. It’s the same legal principle that requires McDonald’s to give away game pieces for its popular Monopoly game to consumers who ask for them, regardless of whether they buy anything.

On its surface, the lawsuit seems like a hustle. I’m not sure how much in damages are they’re seeking, but the suit requests class-action status and hopes to enlist 10s of thousands of poker players as plaintiffs. But at the same time, Chae and Kim may have a technical point, at least to the extent that casinos advertise these promotions. We’ll have to see about how the finer details of rakeage break down according to California law. Honestly, can’t see this getting too far … but then again, it’s hard to say how many people might jump at the chance to score some rebate and slightly improve their EV retroactively.