New York introduces Online Poker Bill!

http://www.onlinepokerreport.com/11822/new-bill-regulate-online-poker-introduced-new-york/

And from what I gathered, just in the nick of time too. NYs budget deadline is today ,March 31.

I would LOVE to have regulated online poker here! Get us into that wsop pool with other players!

april fools

Haha, no luckily it isn't.

YES....i hope something comes of it.....

BAD ACTOR CLAUSE WORKAROUND

Simply change the name of your company.....re-organize your LLC.......

punctual said:

Simply change the name of your company.....re-organize your LLC.......

Click to expand...

I dont think they want to take that route.

Not worth the gamble for them. NJ banned PS for 2 years. Its 100% worth to sit out 2 years and come back in on good terms than try shady stuff now.

As a fellow NYer i really hope they legalize online poker as well as poker in raceway casinos. Its like pulling teeth to get people to want to play a game now a days. Plus its a long drive to AC

I read the the article and hope something good does come out of it. Good luck NYers. Thanks for sharing.

mannaconda26 said:

As a fellow NYer i really hope they legalize online poker as well as poker in raceway casinos. Its like pulling teeth to get people to want to play a game now a days. Plus its a long drive to AC

Click to expand...

My feelings exactly. I'm a NYer and we have a racino 5 minutes away from my house. I play horses there sometimes - anything to avoid playing a machine. I have played electronic craps but I feel like a sucker. Never have won a dime. If you leave the few times you are up, the entertainment factor goes way down. It seems like a no-brainer for them to allow poker rooms in these venues but this does not seem to be on the horizon. Instead they are going to build 4 full service casinos in the boondocks to "goose" the economy in those areas. That will not happen to the degree they anticipate. Build on what you already have would be a better approach in my mind.

Game_Gran said:

My feelings exactly. I'm a NYer and we have a racino 5 minutes away from my house. I play horses there sometimes - anything to avoid playing a machine. I have played electronic craps but I feel like a sucker. Never have won a dime. If you leave the few times you are up, the entertainment factor goes way down. It seems like a no-brainer for them to allow poker rooms in these venues but this does not seem to be on the horizon. Instead they are going to build 4 full service casinos in the boondocks to "goose" the economy in those areas. That will not happen to the degree they anticipate. Build on what you already have would be a better approach in my mind.

Click to expand...

Funny how the state will gladly offer risky slots but refrains from offering games of skill like poker. Imagine the HYPOCRISY!!!!

Not cool, I got so excited LOL

punctual said:

Simply change the name of your company.....re-organize your LLC.......

Click to expand...

Doesn't work that way. Not only are the businesses and those involved subject to the provisions of the bad actors clause, so is the intellectual property, as in the software itself.

"GRANTING THOSE PERSONS LICENSING PRIVILEGES OR ALLOWING THE USE OF THE ASSETS OF SUCH PERSONS IN CONNECTION WITH INTERACTIVE GAMING IN THIS STATE, IF THOSE ASSETS WERE USED UNLAWFULLY, WOULD REWARD UNLAWFUL GAMING ACTIVITY, WOULD PERMIT MANIFESTLY UNSUITABLE PERSONS TO PROFIT FROM THEIR UNLAWFUL GAMING ACTIVITY AND WOULD CREATE UNFAIR COMPETITION WITH LICENSEES THAT RESPECTED FEDERAL AND STATE LAW."

would be nice if the bill is finally approved and can regulate the online poker in NY, I'll watch for more news: D

You can read more about it here: https://www.cardschat.com/news/bonacic-introduces-new-york-online-poker-bill-2232 Although, they are not projecting it to be approved within the year. They need to get a companion bill going in the House as well.

You know, I've had a thought--one of Washington's go-to arguments for not passing a law is that the states should be the ones to pass the law. But if enough states want the same law, shouldn't it be made a federal law anyway?

Lheticus said:

You know, I've had a thought--one of Washington's go-to arguments for not passing a law is that the states should be the ones to pass the law. But if enough states want the same law, shouldn't it be made a federal law anyway?

Click to expand...

That's not really Washington's (DC) go-to position. They prefer to take authority whenever and wherever they can. But the states themselves definitely do not want to cede authority on this issue.

It should be up to the states to determine if and how they want internet gambling. Gambling is traditionally a state issue, and this should be no exception. Some states do not want gambling at all (Utah and Hawaii), and it wouldn't be right for the feds to force it upon them. Some states want full casino gaming (NJ) and don't want to be limited on what they can offer by the feds.

And then there are the tribes, which bring an entirely different wrinkle into the issue. Tribes do not want to be regulated by state government, and it's a contentious issue for them.

If/when states want internet gambling, it's within their power to make it happen. They need not depend on the feds to do it for them.

curtinsea said:

Doesn't work that way. Not only are the businesses and those involved subject to the provisions of the bad actors clause, so is the intellectual property, as in the software itself.

"GRANTING THOSE PERSONS LICENSING PRIVILEGES OR ALLOWING THE USE OF THE ASSETS OF SUCH PERSONS IN CONNECTION WITH INTERACTIVE GAMING IN THIS STATE, IF THOSE ASSETS WERE USED UNLAWFULLY, WOULD REWARD UNLAWFUL GAMING ACTIVITY, WOULD PERMIT MANIFESTLY UNSUITABLE PERSONS TO PROFIT FROM THEIR UNLAWFUL GAMING ACTIVITY AND WOULD CREATE UNFAIR COMPETITION WITH LICENSEES THAT RESPECTED FEDERAL AND STATE LAW."

Click to expand...

In that case I would imagine every company would be considered a bad actor since (so I've heard) they all use the same Random Number Generator.

And let's be honest, this "bad actor" clause is just a way of picking and choosing the companies politicians want to enrich. I think the government shoudl not be deciding who can compete in a free market economy.....

punctual said:

In that case I would imagine every company would be considered a bad actor since (so I've heard) they all use the same Random Number Generator.

And let's be honest, this "bad actor" clause is just a way of picking and choosing the companies politicians want to enrich. I think the government shoudl not be deciding who can compete in a free market economy.....

Click to expand...

They don't all use the same RNG. They do the same thing, but the programs themselves are unique to the companies offering games. It is the overall software package that constitutes the intellectual property; the user interface, the RNG, the branding, the graphics, etc.

The bad actors clause is really the 'keep pokerstars out' clause. They use a convenient date that lets Party and 888 in but Pokerstars out. I don't think anyone is fooled. I also don't think it needs to be legislated.

Using UIGEA as the red line for the bad actors clause is disingenuous, because UIGEA did not make online gambling any more or less illegal than it was before its passage. But it does separate Pokerstars from the pack.