California Indians Finally on board.

T

trent32la

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Total posts
2,852
Awards
1
Chips
0
Been reading a lot of articles about Cali online poker getting legalized, it teased me into thinking we'd get it back this year, however nothing has been done. The Indian casinos are getting involved and are for it which just means we are one step closer! I highly doubt we'll be able to get in the Global player pool, New Jersey is just getting a pokerstars.NJ site where its segregated for just that state. But who knows, maybe Cali players will be able to get on Titan again with a Global player pool?
Thank you for the article dj11.
 
dj11

dj11

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Total posts
23,189
Awards
9
Chips
0
I may be wrong, but I think that the new UK OLP rules still allow for a global pool, while the French and Italian models do not. The UK plan seemingly has only caused a minor disruption in the player experience, having to do with a new client and some tweaks to their trackers and where HH's are stored. If so, then the UK gets to track its players, as if they were in a segregated market, without all that much of a disruption.

If this is working, it could be the model presented to the Ca Legislature from the 'conglomerate' and everyone in Ca would be thrilled. Except some lingering moralists. But then Ca isn't known for all that many moralists are we?

Both the French and Italian models are performing weakly. I bunch those models in with the NJ, and Nev models which limit the player pool to a level below the needed critical mass. Doomed to failure
 
curtinsea

curtinsea

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Total posts
495
Awards
1
Chips
2
It is unlikely any state in the US is interested in opening the market to the global player pool, for the single reason that local interests will not be able to compete with the international operators. States have an obligation to businesses in their states, and only a bill that serves those interests is likely to become law. While it may not be ideal for the player, this is what the US player is faced with.

California Tribes have made it clear that they will only support a ring-fenced market. They don't even want to share liquidity with other US states, for the reason I have given above. There is no talk at all going on in CA regarding international player pools, in fact the opposite is true.

Pokerstars seems to have recognized that operating as a network, and offering skins to multiple operations, is the best way to create allies in a market instead of foes. This is something I have been advocating for nearly two years, and given the coalition formed around Pokerstars in CA, it seems pretty clear that the industry is ready to adapt to this model to gain access to US markets.

The US has many and varied gaming interests who all want either a piece of the pie, or no pie for anyone. The online industry will need to adapt if they want in the US market.
 
XXPXXP

XXPXXP

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Total posts
5,511
Awards
2
Chips
0
good think is progress on tables now, and developments are seen.
but think mostly CA will be in a separate branch of stars - like wsop NV something.

the main reason is still about tax collection.
 
WallA

WallA

Rising Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 5, 2014
Total posts
23
Chips
0
I've been doing a fair amount of my own research on the regulation of poker in California, from what I've read if anythings gonna go down in 2015 regarding pokerstars coming back to California it's going to be presented next month in December, so we'll know fersure soon enough!
 
Carl Trooper

Carl Trooper

Degenerate Idiot
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Total posts
3,381
Awards
6
Chips
0
lets go already, its been 3 years and this country is driving me insane.

Between that stupid fat idiot Sheldon and the rest of these politicians, god I am mad ha
 
dj11

dj11

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Total posts
23,189
Awards
9
Chips
0
I have this vision of how the Ca OLP market can thrive. Win-Win for all parties, OLP sites, B&M sites, Local and state governments.

It will not be centered on any particular platform (most of us would want Stars to be that platform), and any legislation would work toward insuring that no monopoly existed. Superior business practices might create a de-facto monopoly, but it would not be codified into law.

All the card rooms in Ca that want to join would have little incentive not to join. OLP site would need to show they have been responsible for some reasonable period of time, OR put up such a massive deposit up front that they should have been responsible for that period of time. So for instance Stars has shown itself extremely responsible for like forever, and any entry fee would be small, vs , lets say Lock, who if they wanted in would have to put up a deposit equal to all the money all Lock players have ever deposited at Lock. Bovada/bodog has a good rep, Merge has a good rep now but not for such a long time, and would pay more. Those are examples.

Initial deposits by players would be IN PERSON, at any B&M card room in the network. Personally I live close to many card rooms and it isn't a problem, many do not live close to a card room. Ca. has card rooms all over the state, so requiring that intitial depost to be made is at most an inconvenience to some. Every card room here in So.Ca requires players to get a Players Card. It is a form of ID, and control. I had to prove I am who I say I am, and that I am old enough to play poker. As I've said before this is a good thing. It addresses the 2 biggest issues used against OLP, underage, and problem gambling. There are other reason this has been a good thing historically for the B&M card rooms.

Those player lists would become part of a Statewide Poker Player database. Some newly established Government entity would have access to that database.
Initially the Ca IRS would not have access to that database.

When I as a player walk into any participating card room, with anything like a wad of buck in my pocket, the card rooms should be thrilled. Even if I put it all into an OLP site, they know that I have been exposed to the card room atmosphere and it will start working on the inner me and the innate human nature to socialize while gaming. It might not pay off for them on day 1, but any reasonably sane marketing peeps can figure out the long game.

After obtaining a Players card for that card room, I go to an OLP cage and state my intention; "I want to deposit $xx at <OLP site name> in the name of <username>". A cashier takes the money, verifies my card, accesses the site, and makes that deposit instantly. I get some sort of receipt and walk away. I am done there. A smarter card room would probably put that cage where I get a full tour of the card room. Temptation is immutable.

After the initial flood of OLP players, which would create long lines, and new friends, there probably would not be much action at those windows, and the staffing would be minimal, eventually handled at the normal Cashiers window. The process would take about as long as stopping at the concession stand to pick up a drink before hitting the table.

I would think all parties would welcome a global player pool. Ca. stacks up extremely well with a long and well established pool of poker talent. It is the daily world wide leader in players playing poker (active tables). No other government entity (State or Country) even comes close. While france might be a good comparison population wise, poker wise France is second rate.

The important part as I see it for the different parties as thus;

For the Gov, a chance to show control, they would be responsible for insuring consumer protections. The State may make a few more bucks without increasing any taxes anywhere along the line. If they see this as some sort of magic bullet, or magic windfall, they will doom it. The State may see more normal income from Gamblers who sometimes forget to add in any gambling income to their tax forms. There would definitely be some new jobs created, regardless of where the OLP sites are based, as the state can require, in any case, that servers be located in Ca. and tended to by California residents. They might also require customer service positions, in state, for each OLP site involved.

For B&M card rooms. Imagine their absolutely best advertising campaign ever, then multiply by at least 2. They get players walking in their doors with money in their pockets. That's a gawd damned bonanza to them.

For the OLP sites; duh, they get the foothold they want.

For the players...... really, you expect me to tell you what you will get?

For the Moralist objectors... a fairly well establish way to prevent underage gambling, and a pretty well established way to point out problem gambling (like addiction).

For the non participating card rooms or those entities who still hold on to a fenced OLP notion of poker in Ca..... Nothing, or at best a NJ experience.

What have I missed?
 
curtinsea

curtinsea

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Total posts
495
Awards
1
Chips
2
I have this vision of how the Ca OLP market can thrive. Win-Win for all parties, OLP sites, B&M sites, Local and state governments.

I like the way you think, but there are certain realities that we must work around, because wishing them away won't accomplish anything. First and foremost, what the players want is not the number one concern in this debate, as much as we would like to think so. So long as there are consumer protections, there is little beyond that that is going to be codified.

It will not be centered on any particular platform (most of us would want Stars to be that platform), and any legislation would work toward insuring that no monopoly existed. Superior business practices might create a de-facto monopoly, but it would not be codified into law.

Elaborate on how you see this developing . . . . There are like 60 interested parties in CA and the market will likely only support 5 distinct platforms. Do you see network/skins as the way forward? (for instance, the coalition that Pokerstars is building in CA looks like it will be an intrastate network, with each of the parties having a skin, as well as a Pokerstars branded room)

All the card rooms in Ca that want to join would have little incentive not to join.

There is plenty of disincentive . . . there has to be a positive cost/benefit ratio, and you shouldn't assume every room would be able to generate that. Also, some of the smaller card rooms may be completely ignored by the platform operators, giving them no means of entry into the market.

OLP site would need to show they have been responsible for some reasonable period of time, OR put up such a massive deposit up front that they should have been responsible for that period of time. So for instance Stars has shown itself extremely responsible for like forever, and any entry fee would be small, vs , lets say Lock, who if they wanted in would have to put up a deposit equal to all the money all Lock players have ever deposited at Lock. Bovada/Bodog has a good rep, Merge has a good rep now but not for such a long time, and would pay more. Those are examples.

Sites like Carbon, Bovada, and Lock will never be allowed to operate in a regulated US market. Period. Those sites are currently breaking state and federal laws, completely flouting US authority. No way they ever get licensed anywhere in the US.

Initial deposits by players would be IN PERSON, at any B&M card room in the network. Personally I live close to many card rooms and it isn't a problem, many do not live close to a card room. Ca. has card rooms all over the state, so requiring that intitial depost to be made is at most an inconvenience to some. Every card room here in So.Ca requires players to get a Players Card. It is a form of ID, and control. I had to prove I am who I say I am, and that I am old enough to play poker. As I've said before this is a good thing. It addresses the 2 biggest issues used against OLP, underage, and problem gambling. There are other reason this has been a good thing historically for the B&M card rooms.

I personally like this, but the industry opinion is that this is an impediment to those initial deposits, and actually hurt developing a nascent market.

Those player lists would become part of a Statewide Poker Player database. Some newly established Government entity would have access to that database.
Initially the Ca IRS would not have access to that database.

I like this as well, I also think there should be player profiles available, so everyone can know who is who at the tables. Hiding behind anonymity should be a thing of the past, especially in a regulated market. This will hurt the regs, but it will entice the recs, and the poker economy needs deposits more than it needs grinders.

Problem is, entering a social security number seems to be a deal breaker for a plurality of players. This is an obstacle players will have to make an adjustment to overcome.

When I as a player walk into any participating card room, with anything like a wad of buck in my pocket, the card rooms should be thrilled. Even if I put it all into an OLP site, they know that I have been exposed to the card room atmosphere and it will start working on the inner me and the innate human nature to socialize while gaming. It might not pay off for them on day 1, but any reasonably sane marketing peeps can figure out the long game.

After obtaining a Players card for that card room, I go to an OLP cage and state my intention; "I want to deposit $xx at <OLP site name> in the name of <username>". A cashier takes the money, verifies my card, accesses the site, and makes that deposit instantly. I get some sort of receipt and walk away. I am done there. A smarter card room would probably put that cage where I get a full tour of the card room. Temptation is immutable.

After the initial flood of OLP players, which would create long lines, and new friends, there probably would not be much action at those windows, and the staffing would be minimal, eventually handled at the normal Cashiers window. The process would take about as long as stopping at the concession stand to pick up a drink before hitting the table.

All good stuff

I would think all parties would welcome a global player pool. Ca. stacks up extremely well with a long and well established pool of poker talent. It is the daily world wide leader in players playing poker (active tables). No other government entity (State or Country) even comes close. While France might be a good comparison population wise, poker wise France is second rate.

Only players and the international operators see this as a good thing. Local stakeholders and the politicians they lobby do not. If they embrace the network model, this makes sharing liquidity across borders possible without hurting local interests. I don't think local stakeholders are quite there yet, and probably won't be for a few more years. Better to get started intrastate and develop the infrastructure now, and the work to amend statute later to expand across borders, once the liquidity issue is better exposed.

The important part as I see it for the different parties as thus;

For the Gov, a chance to show control, they would be responsible for insuring consumer protections. The State may make a few more bucks without increasing any taxes anywhere along the line. If they see this as some sort of magic bullet, or magic windfall, they will doom it. The State may see more normal income from Gamblers who sometimes forget to add in any gambling income to their tax forms. There would definitely be some new jobs created, regardless of where the OLP sites are based, as the state can require, in any case, that servers be located in Ca. and tended to by California residents. They might also require customer service positions, in state, for each OLP site involved.

What I put in bold is a stumbling block, something the international operators are not willing to do. It is surprisingly expensive to set this infrastructure up, and the sites that have already done so in NJ do not want to have to duplicate it in other states. There are ways to have access to the data without having the actual equipment located within every state. This is a big issue the operators need in order to be profitable.

It also isn't as many jobs as some think. Most of the jobs are going to be in customer service, and there won't be that many of them. The tax revenue is not as much as people think either. If the state were able to tax at 10%, we're talking about $30 million (on the top end) annual tax receipts. That is a drop in the bucket ($11 Billion or so in annual tax receipts in CA), less than three tenths of one percent.

For B&M card rooms. Imagine their absolutely best advertising campaign ever, then multiply by at least 2. They get players walking in their doors with money in their pockets. That's a gawd damned bonanza to them.

Good selling point, but they would actually need to market the online sites. This is probably a push.

For the OLP sites; duh, they get the foothold they want.

Yep, they are the winners no matter how it works

For the players...... really, you expect me to tell you what you will get?

Yaay!!

For the Moralist objectors... a fairly well establish way to prevent underage gambling, and a pretty well established way to point out problem gambling (like addiction).

For the non participating card rooms or those entities who still hold on to a fenced OLP notion of poker in Ca..... Nothing, or at best a NJ experience.

What have I missed?

There certainly is a way to have a win/win/win situation. But to get there, the sites have to give a little, the casinos have to give a little, and the players have to give a little.

Problem is getting any of them to do it.
 
Top