PokerStars, the biggest most legitimate online poker site in the world, which got that way by thumbing its nose at the US government for their stupid laws, has gotten the big X in Nevada, and in New Jersey … so where to next? According to my personal Linked In recommended jobs feed, the less pokery-sounding Stars/Tilt parent Rational Group seem to be setting up shop in California, with a new open position(s?) to beef up their “social” gaming presence. Seems to make sense, with Cali kinda a holy grail as the only state, along with Texas, that could supply a profitably massive player pool. Or it could just be a play to recruit some Bay area tech talent …

Meanwhile, to catch up those of us who may have checked out for a semester, gaming law expert I. Nelson Rose explains rather succinctly the other day, in an appearance on Fox Business, where things currently stand with Obamapoker the slow rollout of American online gambling. And, he explains, why California online poker doesn’t really stand a chance this year (even though politicians are still happy to take your donations for giving it the good-ole college try) — go 2014!

photo: James Berglie

During the past month, Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) has been on the move in his quest to bring about federal legislation favorable to online poker with an equally favorable revenue component for government.

At the end of June, the Congressman hit the road for his 3rd annual visit to the World Series of Poker—this time, to preview his latest federal legislative bill before introducing it into the U.S. House of Representatives. The official introduction of his newly minted bill H.R. 2666, the Internet Poker Freedom Act of 2013, followed on July 12.

Days later, Barton held a telephone press conference to discuss the new bill which “establishes a program for the licensing of Internet poker by States and federally recognized Indian tribes, and for other purposes.”  The teleconference was attended by media outlets across the country, including this reporter. However, it wasn’t until last week, when I met with the Congressman in his congressional office in Washington, D.C., that I got the complete picture of where he stands on poker and poker legislation. At the end of this day, Barton remains as unclear as anyone on the likely time table for passage of federal legislation to legalize online poker, by the Congress, but he exudes confidence that day will come.

Barton Invokes the President’s Name 
Barton is methodical. He is an engineer by training. He is a seasoned politician. He has held his Congressional seat since 1984. He rates himself as a good amateur poker player. By all accounts from mutual friends, this is an understatement. With a slight twinkle in his eye and a  poker player’s understanding of a well-placed semi-bluff, Barton goes further than mere prediction in stating that he expects President Obama to sign his legislative bill to legalize online poker, if it reaches his desk.

Barton talks the talk at poker tables and he walks the walk around the House in gambits to prod progress on the right online poker bill. He seeks a sensible federal law that will allow online poker in states that are so inclined, under the best conditions for all concerned.

He is also a pragmatist who recognizes the road will not be easy. His latest online “poker only” bill, like the others in which he has been intimately involved, previously, is designed to exempt poker from the category of “games of chance” which are subject to anti-gambling statutes. During our hour-long visit in Washington and a subsequent telephone call, Barton resonated as “the genuine article.”

More…

I intended to blog about the DiCristina decision since it was released on August 21st, but I haven’t made the time until now. With the usual great commentary about the case coming from all over the gaming spectrum, many of the more interesting points about the facts of the case itself and about what it means for poker have already been made. This post is really intended to be something of a summary of the commentary and reactions to date. If nothing else, hopefully Pokerati can act as a repository of documents and reflections on the case.

The Decision
Let’s start with the facts and the decision itself, a copy of which is here (all 120 pages of it). This summer, a jury convicted Lawrence DiCristina of operating (and of conspiracy to operate) an illegal gambling business contrary to the federal Illegal Gambling Business Act (IGBA). Those were the only federal charges against him. Mr. DiCristina ran a two-table, twice-weekly poker club in the back room of a Staten Island warehouse. The house at this business charged a 5 percent rake; the dealers were paid 25 percent of the rake collected. The defendant brought a motion for acquittal, arguing that the operation of the poker games didn’t violate the IGBA. The US District Judge in the case, Jack Weinstein, wrote his memorandum, order, and judgment in response to this motion. After an extensive discussion of the statute and its relationship to poker, Judge Weinstein vacated Mr. DiCristina’s conviction and dismissed the indictment.

More…

It’s November, and the online poker political buzz seems ready to kick into high gear … we’ve got the Senate Indian Affairs Committee taking on the issue today (with Al D’Amato testifying on behalf of poker players from the MoneyMaker-Duhamel era) … and the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade revisiting the issue tomorrow morning.

Meanwhile, the New York Post is reporting that “the smart money is betting Washington will legalize online poker” … with the suggestion that Harry Reid has his own version of the Barton Bill forthcoming. That’s hardly a surprise around here … but what could be something of a WTF, if it turns out to be true, are reportable rumors that Jon Kyl (R-AZ) will likely be a co-sponsor.

Kyl, of course, is one of the original architects of the UIGEA who will be retiring at the end of the current Congressional session. Ahh, it’s all starting to make a little sense now … can you see the path through Congress starting to emerge?

More…

After hearing AGA and Big Casino big dogs barking up a big game about coming federal poker legislation, Mike went to a G2E session offering an almost opposite perspective on the “inevitable” future of fully legalized online poker in the US.

Attorney Tony Cabot moderated a debate between I. Nelson Rose and Martin Owens, two venerable internet gaming counselmen who’ve been following the legalities of internet poker (worldwide) since long before the DOJ knew the names Isai Scheinberg, Ray Bitar, et al.

Episode 2: Giddy-up? “The Inter- vs. Intra-state Divide”
[audio:/tao/g2e-2011-inter-intra-state.mp3]

Rose took the strongest position that the federal iPoker legislation stirring up so much excitement is going nowhere … at least not before we see state-by-state legalization … kinda like what happened in the Washington DC, only less sketchy and corrupt?

It’s all about the money, Rose and Owens say. Supposedly horse racing — with maybe a little Powerball lottery mixed in for liquidity’s sake– is where we’ll find the model for the intrastate internet poker … 7-year timeline for laws to populate across the continent … Keep your eye on Iowa as the dark horse in this race.

This week’s online gambling news includes stories from Canada, Australia, and the World Series of Poker in Las Vegas! we also have our interview with Professor I. Nelson Rose about his expert opinions on Black Friday! Also, J Todd makes friends wherever he goes… even at the top of the mountain!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4kaZ7wM-ZY

Most of you have heard about the Radio Free Poker discussion going on over at QuadJacks/UStream. But if you get a chance, step away to listen to this week’s 2+2 PokerCast. (Sorry Marco for redirecting listeners … but don’t worry, they will be back.) I got to be part of a rather good lineup of informed voices answering Mike and Adam’s thoughtful questions.

download
[audio:http://pokercast.s3.amazonaws.com/twoplustwo_168.mp3]

(And LOL when they refer to the lineup on the QJ never-ending stream as “the cast of Rent”.)

I show up at about the hour-and-a-half mark. But others on the episode (most of whom I’m looking forward to listening to, too) include:

Bill Rini — the old-school blogger and early poker-boom programmer, who btw was having a lot of really insightful posts in the week or so leading up to Friday, and has carried on from there.

I. Nelson Rose — one of the foremost authorities on gambling law in the United States. Be sure to check out his latest … an assessment of our current sitch, where he sees, too, the timing of the online poker indictments as “suspicious”.

Todd Terry — Manhattan attorney turned online pro. I think Jess has told me about this guy.

Mason Malmouth — the non-Sklansky of 2+2. Wrote a book or something. 🙂

Tonight I’m carrying on the Pokerati’s vigorous rambling with Gahagan, as we record Rabbit Hunt. And then back to Donkdown Radio (more LIVE stuff) where it all began on Wednesday.

Like seriously, how hooked up is anyone about to embark on a long road trip or do lotsa chores around the house?

Check it out … with so many individual states hungry for cash, California being the hungriest, that state will definitely be taking a look at the issue until they somehow figure out a way to collect the most duckets from all those poker geeks calling California home.

The arguments themselves are nothing new — for or against — but you will notice a slight shift on the “Gogogo online gambling FTW!” side that we’re all supposed to be a part of …

Here, Patrick Dorinson, spokesperson for the Coalition of California Card Clubs and Tribes, is clearly pushing for the intrastate model, with the California Gambling Control Commission setting the rules. He addresses that critical component so matter-of-factly that any new recruits to the online poker side would hardly know this is different from the federally regulated, interstate model pushed Barney Frank, the PPA, and others … you know, what we’ve all been supporting for a long time. That one, according to statements in Washington DC congressional debate, looks to rely on regulatory standards set by the Nevada Gaming Control Board … with maybe some input from New Jersey and the Indians.

More…

A couple of great pieces for weekend reading…

Amy Calistri always has eyes on the stock market and the corporate goings-on of poker-related businesses, and her latest take on the sale of the WPT assets is right on the money. She gives the latest about stockholder rage over the WPT/Gamynia move and puts into words what I’ve been thinking for years, since shortly after I left the WPT fold and began to notice its downfall. That’s not to say it can’t rise again, but it might need new leadership to make that happen. An excerpt:

Frustration and envy appear to be the seeds of the series of missteps that sapped millions of dollars and focus away from the company’s core business. While the WPT helped create the poker boom, its television production business model only got a small piece of the obscene profits that were being generated by poker’s popularity. Online poker companies and online media sites reaped the lion’s share. This infuriated the WPT; they felt they were owed.

Gambling law professor I. Nelson Rose can break down a legal document or political issue like nobody’s business, and it’s a good thing he took the time to analyze the Menendez bill introduced to the Senate this week. Thanks to Poker Grump, this piece takes a look at the 91-page document and sheds some light on the proposed participation of states in the regulation/licensing of online poker, the tax on deposits to online sites, and the possible exemption of sites like PartyPoker from licensing. A sampling from the article:

Taxes might be a problem. The Frank bills have no limit on what taxes states can impose on operators, but limit the federal government to what is called a fee of 2% on deposits. Menendez is asking for less and more: A Federal Internet gaming license fee of 5% of deposited funds and a State or Indian tribal government gaming license fee of another 5%. This does get over the big problem with the Frank bills, that the big states, like California, where the customers will be, have no incentive to support Internet gambling operated and taxed by Nevada. Under Menendez, California gets that 5% tax. Although the states won’t like this provision: Tribes are treated like states, so if a player is on Indian land, that tribe gets the full 5% and the state in which the tribe is located gets nothing.

Of course, the tax system is still screwy, since it is a tax on deposits, not revenue. But it might work.