Seraphim
Visionary
Silver Level
Ok sooooo say my state was to regulate online poker would that make it possible to play on ft/ps once they get paid ect?
Charade You Are
you can call me Frost
Silver Level
Depends on what your state law is. Some states will require that sites have land-based operations, or minimum # of land-based slots, or...
Even if PS/FTP were to get a license, I doubt you would be playing "the" PS/FTP with the ROW. You would most likely be playing a US or state only version.
Never forget, it's all about who can grab the most pie.
Even if PS/FTP were to get a license, I doubt you would be playing "the" PS/FTP with the ROW. You would most likely be playing a US or state only version.
Never forget, it's all about who can grab the most pie.
coyotegal
Rock Star
Silver Level
With Bally and IGT getting in the game, my best guess is that though most think it wont happen soon, It will and most states will join in as fast as they can... .... I doubt those big corp.s would be investing in the game unless there was lots of $$$$$$ to be made. So my guess is that the poker most of us in the US will be playing soon, will be on a platform brought to us by IGT and Bally .... they are ready and waiting...
curtinsea
Rock Star
Silver Level
I've given this a lot of thought and research, as I am working with a group to estabish online poker guidelines in WA State. So far, I have found nothing that would preclude playing on a site that had a player pool that included other states or countries. While the Fed has jurisdiction to regulate interstate commerce, it doesn not seem to me that the lack of such regulation equals prohibition.
For instance, the initiative we are working on requires an in-state presence. So presumably one could start a poker room as a "skin" on for instance the Merge Network, and would be able to offer play against the network's entire player pool, while protecting WA players' interests and insulating them from future issues with the law.
pokerstars does have closed pools in at least one country, and if it penciled out for them, could certainly do the same for a specific state, if it deemed the safest way to operate.
If the Barton Bill is passed, this will all change. There is language in that bill that will pretty much require that only large casinos, and/or slot machine operators, will be able to be licensed to offer online poker. That a cardroom would have to be licensed for "at least 150 tables" excludes WA state, which has a maximum of 15 tables in poker establishments. Some of the language in that bill serves the large casino interests but puts a start up company, and existing poker sites, behind the 8-ball.
For instance, the initiative we are working on requires an in-state presence. So presumably one could start a poker room as a "skin" on for instance the Merge Network, and would be able to offer play against the network's entire player pool, while protecting WA players' interests and insulating them from future issues with the law.
pokerstars does have closed pools in at least one country, and if it penciled out for them, could certainly do the same for a specific state, if it deemed the safest way to operate.
If the Barton Bill is passed, this will all change. There is language in that bill that will pretty much require that only large casinos, and/or slot machine operators, will be able to be licensed to offer online poker. That a cardroom would have to be licensed for "at least 150 tables" excludes WA state, which has a maximum of 15 tables in poker establishments. Some of the language in that bill serves the large casino interests but puts a start up company, and existing poker sites, behind the 8-ball.