WA State Legislator introduces HB1114 to regulate internet poker

As reported by OnlinePokerReport.com, a bill to regulate internet poker in Washington State (HB1114) was prefiled for introduction by Rep. Sherry Appleton (D23) on Friday, January 9th.


This bill would allow state licensed card rooms and Tribal casinos to offer games online, where those games are offered on a licensed and regulated platform. This will allow the top international providers the opportunity to provide services to those card rooms and casinos. There is no 'bad actors' clause, but the providers are not allowed to operate their own room, only provide business2business services to existing card rooms. This means the top platforms operating as networks, offering skins to local interests, with shared player liquidity on common platforms.

This bill also opens the door to interstate cooperation, where player liquidity could be further spread on platforms licensed in multiple states.

Most of the regulatory detail is left up to the Commission to establish. This will allow the Commission to adapt more rapidly, to changing technologies and markets, than if every small detail was codified in the RCW, where any changes would need to be done by the legislature.

You can find, and follow, the bill here. On that page, you will find links to the full text of the bill, what progress it has made, and a button to give you an opportunity to comment on the bill. It would be good to have as many WA players as we can give positive feedback on this bill.

Does this mean anything for all in the usa? pokerstars?
Btw thx for posting this

goodhandluke said:

Does this mean anything for all in the usa? Pokerstars?
Btw thx for posting this

Click to expand...

It is a state bill, so it will affect Washington State players the most. But it opens the door for player liquidity sharing with other states, which is key to long term goals.

There is no bad actors clause that would keep Pokerstars out, but it won't allow Pokerstars to offer a stand alone room; they would be able to serve as a network and offer skins to local card rooms/tribes

Hope it passes as it might open the doors to other states allowing legally to play online. good post

wow, it would be great if WA allowed online gaming

maybe others will follow suit and get the ball rolling. let us have our freedom. if you can buy lotto tickets (white trash retirement plan) then you sould be able to play online poker.

For WA. to come out of the dark ages would be marvelous. That there is no 'bad actor' clause is important. Even more important IMHO, is that it looks like the homegrown casino's/cardrooms are not allowed to run the show themselves. And the fact that it apparently offers global pooling is what will set this apart from all other States. In theory, anyone, in any state, could play via any WA. site that pops up.

Someone has their head screwed on correctly in WA.

HOWEVER!, It does beg the question of whether WA. State is trying to control a site like Stars when it states that the provider can not run its own room, but rather must be purely a B2B provider.

I hope you were involved in this Curt, I know you know what needs to happen, and how it needs to happen. Do keeps us up to snuff on this.

Curt for President!

Even though I'm not from WA, I agree that the more states that have online poker options, the more chance that other states will follow suit.

I supported the bill and entered a comment online. It can't hurt, even if I'm not a voter in that state.

dj11 said:

HOWEVER!, It does beg the question of whether WA. State is trying to control a site like Stars when it states that the provider can not run its own room, but rather must be purely a B2B provider.

Click to expand...

If you have a choice between a Tulalip Casino themed Pokerstars client or no Pokerstars and no online poker, which would you choose?

Local interests will fight international operators, unless they can find a compromise. This bill is that compromise. Remember, those local interests are lobbying in WA, Pokerstars is not.

I hope you were involved in this Curt, I know you know what needs to happen, and how it needs to happen. Do keeps us up to snuff on this.

Click to expand...

I wrote the bill

that would be great for wa and maybe a few more states will follow suit and maybe there will be another online poker boom

Really wish they could just all hop on a federal bill here, but nonetheless, I will be happy if another state gets poker. We need to get the ball rolling here.

dj11 said:

HOWEVER!, It does beg the question of whether WA. State is trying to control a site like Stars when it states that the provider can not run its own room, but rather must be purely a B2B provider.

Click to expand...

Had a great conversation with Pokerstars' front man for lobbying, and he was enthusiastic about the bill, and actually viewed this approach in the same light it was conceived - as a way to spread the game across jurisdictions while placating local interests. He didn't balk at all. Good sign!

curtinsea said:

Had a great conversation with Pokerstars' front man for lobbying, and he was enthusiastic about the bill, and actually viewed this approach in the same light it was conceived - as a way to spread the game across jurisdictions while placating local interests. He didn't balk at all. Good sign!

Click to expand...

Your synopsis of the bill suggested that it was also Stars that could not operate their own room. I understood that each public provider had to use a 3rd party for the actual games, but again, your synopsis suggested Stars couldn't provide its own room. Might need to tweak the wording to clear that up, maybe by specifying 'within the State of WA.'

Carl Trooper said:

Really wish they could just all hop on a federal bill here, but nonetheless, I will be happy if another state gets poker. We need to get the ball rolling here.

Click to expand...

Beginning to think the only Fed bill we should want is one that says the Fed will leave it totally up to the states and fall under Commerce Dept. regulations. If that occurs then all peeps, in all states could easily jump on to NJ or NV sites, as those are normal interstate commerce things.

I can't see poker in the US getting any better by adding another stand alone state. States that are legalizing online poker need to set-up an interstate system that can bringing all the players together under network of skins...
I just don't feel like these dangling carrots will ever suffice. I want PokerStars back!!!!! I want what every other 1st world country has!!! This exclusion of US players is and has been total garbage and totally unamerican!!!!!

dj11 said:

Your synopsis of the bill suggested that it was also Stars that could not operate their own room. I understood that each public provider had to use a 3rd party for the actual games, but again, your synopsis suggested Stars couldn't provide its own room. Might need to tweak the wording to clear that up, maybe by specifying 'within the State of WA.'

Click to expand...

No, you read it right. Pokerstars would not be able to have a stand alone room. They would be a network provider (a la Merge) with local card rooms and casinos operating branded skins.

It would still be Pokerstars, with the added advantages local operators could bring (satellites and promotions).

If the networks were able to offer their own stand alone room, they would be in direct competition with their partners, and with brand recognition. It doesn't make sense to operate that way. I understand that is exactly how it works in NJ, but the NJ casino industry is/was desperate, and willing to take whatever they could get. Tribal gaming is alive and well, they are not desperate at all. And they hold all the cards in the rest of the states.

billyboy313 said:

I can't see poker in the US getting any better by adding another stand alone state. States that are legalizing online poker need to set-up an interstate system that can bringing all the players together under network of skins...

Click to expand...

Precisely what this bill does. We have to have more states move forward before networking across state lines is viable.

curtinsea said:

No, you read it right. Pokerstars would not be able to have a stand alone room. They would be a network provider (a la Merge) with local card rooms and casinos operating branded skins.

It would still be Pokerstars, with the added advantages local operators could bring (satellites and promotions).

If the networks were able to offer their own stand alone room, they would be in direct competition with their partners, and with brand recognition. It doesn't make sense to operate that way. I understand that is exactly how it works in NJ, but the NJ casino industry is/was desperate, and willing to take whatever they could get. Tribal gaming is alive and well, they are not desperate at all. And they hold all the cards in the rest of the states.

Click to expand...

They way I read that suggests Stars can't have its own OLP site anywhere!. How will the Russians react to that?

dj11 said:

They way I read that suggests Stars can't have its own OLP site anywhere!. How will the Russians react to that?

Click to expand...

it doesn't say that at all

We really need folks in Washington State to do two things, both very quick and painless . . . .

This first is to comment in support of the bill. It is easy to do, here is where to do it. I commented on a bill this morning, and one of my state reps e-mailed me in short order. All of the legislators see these comments, and all three of your legislators are notified. This is an important step. You don't have to get too elaborate, just indicate support for the bill, and a little bit about why you think it should be a regulated activity instead of a prohibited one.

The second thing to do is to send an e-mail to Rep. Hurst. If Hurst does not schedule the bill for a hearing, which is completely up to him, then the bill goes nowhere. We must urge him to hear the bill.

One other thing you can do is write your state senator and ask him to introduce a companion to HB 1114 in that chamber. This is more of a long shot, but if we can get a bill there, we have two chances at getting a hearing and advancing the bill to the 2nd half of the session.