Illinois proposes to allow online poker to be run by race tracks

[mshalen]

Here is the link. Very strange happenings in the state legislature. They also want to allow bookies to take bets over the internet as well as construct more land based casinos.

http://www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=317377

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the link. Very strange happenings in the state legislature. They also want to allow bookies to take bets over the internet as well as construct more land based casinos.

http://www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=317377

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds awesome! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MiltonFriedman]

The money is there .... If I were not dead, I'd be on the next plane to Springfield.

[Orlando Salazar]

maybe they were the ones behind Frist...hmmmm.

[MiltonFriedman]

Tip of the iceberg .... There is a HUGE hole in the UIGE Act, expressly authorizing IntraState online gambling ...except on sports.

Contrary to the Frist Crew .... gambling is a cultural phenomenon for the US, it is an accepted way for a State to raise money, AND there is a huge unmet market demand for "legal" online poker in the US.

This Illinois bill will NOT pass, it is an 11th hour "crisis" posture, but it will gain momentum.

[1p0kerboy]

Hey Engineer,

Isn't this kinda what we don't want? I mean, the minute States start putting up their own online poker platforms won't it push us farther from us being able to play on a national/international scale?

[soulvamp]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Engineer,

Isn't this kinda what we don't want? I mean, the minute States start putting up their own online poker platforms won't it push us farther from us being able to play on a national/international scale?

[/ QUOTE ]

The minute that happens, it seems to me that it would put the US in an impossible position with the WTO. At that point, the US would have no choice but to accept the WTO's position or pull out of it completely.

[MiltonFriedman]

There is no multistate or federal lottery in the US, yet there is "Powerball", a lottery drawing aggregated among 16 (?) states.

Of all online games, poker is ideally suited for aggregation of different platforms in a networked room.

[Grasshopp3r]

There was a proposal in North Dakota to run an intrastate poker platform in 2005. It was shot down by an opinion letter from the Justice Dept. that gave the ND legislature cold feet and they did not pass the law.

Nevada passes intrastate poker and gambling a while ago, but has not implemented anything.

Illinois is more important than Nevada and ND combined due to its size. Maybe this is the answer. If they were to move forward with other states, it is possible that they could get something done.

[Orlando Salazar]

If it happens, i hope they use tiltware software with the ability to fold face up show one card, and request time extensions.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a HUGE hole in the UIGE Act, expressly authorizing IntraState online gambling ...except on sports.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your "expressly authorizing" is not quite correct. The states "expressly" authorize gambling, not UIGEA.

UIGEA does not apply to legal intrastate wagers (poker, sports, ponies, etc.). It is saying that states legalize gambling and the Feds are not involved.

[kidpokeher]

[ QUOTE ]

Nevada passes intrastate poker and gambling a while ago, but has not implemented anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

You got more info on this? Last I heard, online gambling was illegal in NV.

[Grasshopp3r]

Nevada Passes Online Gaming Bill
by Stuart Kernaghan, WINNERonline.com
05 June 2001

BREAKING NEWS

Nevada lawmakers on Monday passed historic legislation that paves the way for legalized online gambling in the state.

The bill, which had been making its way through the state legislature over recent weeks, was caught last week in a legislative roadblock that threatened to kill the initiative. But hard work by its supporters and an effort to join the bill with another piece of legislature ultimately proved successful.

Senators voted 17-4 in favor of the Internet wagering measure, which had been attached to a work card bill for gaming employees to ensure its success. The bill then moved on to the governor's office, where Governor Kenny Guinn is expected to give it the final stamp of approval in the next few days.

Opponents of the bill argued that the $500,000 licensing fees would prevent smaller casinos from entering the lucrative online gaming market. But supporters claim that the high price of entry will ensure that only reputable companies launch Internet gaming ventures.

Proponents of the bill have long argued that Nevada has a duty to lead the way in the growing field of online gaming. Bill Bible, president of the Nevada Resort Association, noted that, "The important thing is that [the bill] maintains Nevada's leadership in legalized gaming throughout the world."

This does not open the doors for the immediate launch of online casinos, however. The Nevada Gaming Commission must now draft and adopt a strict set of regulations before it was even in a position to offer Internet gambling licenses. That process could take anywhere from 18 to 24 months.

The state will also have to deal with the U.S. Department of Justice, which views online wagering as illegal. Brick-and-mortar casinos wanting to cash in on the highly lucrative online gaming market will likely challenge that position, however.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

Whoa, cool.

It wouldn't shock me if this actually happened.

[tsearcher]

There had been talk about this for a while. At least one of the OTB joints were considering offering poker. They believed they didn't need additional legislation since they are already licensed for parimutuel betting.

The race tracks can be a powerful ally of the poker lobby since the state governments tend to favor them. The tracks are always looking for additional revenue and subsidies. Electronic Poker would be a natural fit for them. They already have the hardware necessary and are experienced in parimutuel betting.

[kidpokeher]

Cool, thanks. Found some more info here: (http://casinogambling.about.com/library/weekly/aa061101.htm) Looks like they're asking for 6% of the gross win.

It's odd considering Nevada was one of the states blocked by Prima and others when UIGEA went into effect. I wonder if there is another law somewhere saying Nevada residents can't play online.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
This Illinois bill will NOT pass, it is an 11th hour "crisis" posture, but it will gain momentum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Milton,

The governor here is generally not in favor of expanding gambling, so the fact that he's changed his mind (however temporarily) opens the door a little bit. If he can get the House speaker on his side then this has a real chance.

Another scenario is that there is a compromise version of the budget that leaves the provisions about internet gambling intact. The internet poker provisions seem to have flown mostly under the radar, which is probably a good thing in this instance, and also with the internet stuff you avoid NIMBY politics (or their opposite, since some pro-gambling downstate legislators can't be happy that all the new casino licenses are proposed for the Chicago area).

I would say there's like a 20% chance that some fairly sweeping gambling measure passes and perhaps another 15% above and beyond that that you have a toned-down version which passes that includes internet poker. These are utter guesses though as I'm not a state politics wonk.

[MiltonFriedman]

"Expressly authorizing" may have been an overstatement, but not by much .... The UIGE Act "expressly exempts" IntraState online gambling, provided two rather easy conditions are met.

Whether the IntraState exemption does extend to sports betting depends upon something called the Professional Sports and Amateur Sports Protection Act, about which I do not give a damn.

[mshalen]

It was the internet betting and track reference which caught my eye. Previous reports talked about the tracks being upset at additional casinos being allowed to open and the tracks wanted to share in the added revenue the state would get. It appears that they may be throwing the tracks a bone but not understanding the ramifications of what they are proposing. I have been following this for a while (as I live in close proximity to 3 of the proposed casinos) but this was the first time I saw any reference to online wagering. There was no internet mention in today's Tribune coverage but I will keep my eyes open for any additional info.

[MyTurn2Raise]

6% rake....awesome


please keep the gov'ts out of internet gambling

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
6% rake....awesome


please keep the gov'ts out of internet gambling

[/ QUOTE ]


Freaking idiot.

There is zero possibility of legal or even quasi legal online poker without the various governments deep involvement.

Party poker as it was is GONE. Get over it.

Tuff

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

6% tax on income d/n= 6% rake.

[Skallagrim]

Nevada has no law against PLAYING internet poker. The Nevada law being talked about above is one that allows for licensed Nevada internet betting but makes it illegal for anyone without a Nevada license to offer it. No licenses have been issued; so if this is a valid law then the sites open to Nevada residents are breaking it.

This Nevada law directly violates the WTO as pointed out above, and the Commerce Clause of the US Consititution, unless the UIGEA is read as an express waiver of Congress' sole authority to regulate (or not) the internet (a questionable proposition).

If Illinois passes such a bill and actually allows a site or two it will create such legal headaches throughout the Government that I would love to corner the aspirin market.

Skallagrim

[Legislurker]

The Commerce Clause is going to end up being the most important shaper of US gaming law after the WTO. If the Supreme Court says it entitles the gov't to put doctors in jail for prescribing legal overdoses for terminally ill patients or to shut down small marijuana farms for medical uses, then for sure it can be used for gaming law. This is why its important for Antigua to keep up the heat at the WTO. If we want anything at all like we had before, there has to be one uniform imposer of gaming law(a federal one).
Powerless states in the matter would make for the best outcome. The powers of the states are basically whatever Congress leaves them unless it turns out ALito and Roberts radically depart from past Supreme Court rulings, and even then most Commerce Clause rulings have not been by narrow margins and their votes might not be enough to shift it.

[MiltonFriedman]

Nate,

I have seen Illinois politics for years. This is not unlike the "Funding Disaster looms for Chicago Schools" scenario. That internet gambling was floated is encouraging. If the racing lobby is behind it, then there is a slight chance .... but not likely this year.

(Gov. Blaze is not too adept at getting crises resolved from what I saw in the quoted reactions, but the inclusion in his proposal is good news.)

Your NIMBY point is a good one, since the purveyors would be established already. .... I do not know if Cahokia Downs still operates, but it would be great if it eventually operates an online site a couple of miles from the Eastern District of Missouri, but doesn't allow St Louis IP players ....

[MiltonFriedman]

In the UIGE Act, Congress has expressly exempted Intrastate online gaming. ... end of Commerce Clause debate.

States HAVE been left a right to offer IntraState online gaming.

[MiltonFriedman]

You are sweating the rake ??? How about the income tax liability, which will be reported to the IRS or, more likely, withheld from cashouts.

[vinyard]

[ QUOTE ]
6% rake....awesome


please keep the gov'ts out of internet gambling

[/ QUOTE ] Reading Comprehension isn't your strong suit, eh?

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
In the UIGE Act, Congress has expressly exempted Intrastate online gaming. ... end of Commerce Clause debate.

States HAVE been left a right to offer IntraState online gaming.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know I respect your opinion Milton, but the part saying "end of Commerce Clause debate" should be stated as an opinion.

The UIGEA was so horribly drafted that its final interpertation is beyond the predictive ability of mere humans. There is the IntrAstate provision, but no express commerce clause exemption, usually a requirement. Plus, it still makes certain federal laws (the wire act) pre-emptive over state laws, hardly a sign that Congress wants out of ruling in this area.

I suspect the courts would not rule this an express commerce clause opting-out, but rather merely a federal regulatory law making use of state law, a not unusual thing. But thats just my opinion.

[MiltonFriedman]

"They believed they didn't need additional legislation since they are already licensed for parimutuel betting."

Creative, but I'd think their license doesn't allow them to offer paramutual betting on anything other than horse racing at horse tracks with which they have an express agreement.

I do like the understanding that poker IS like a paramutual pooling..... except for the added distinction that the "racing"/playing is done by the players themselves AND the placing of wagers is itself a large part of the playing.

[kidpokeher]

[ QUOTE ]
Nevada has no law against PLAYING internet poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure about that?

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/gaming/2006/jul/24/566627238.html

Online poker players in Nevada already are breaking the law and getting away with it. Nevada law prohibits the accepting and placing of bets with operators that aren't licensed here. While offshore casinos would argue they aren't based in Nevada or processing bets here, Nevada regulators disagree.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/gaming/2006/oct/08/566658027.html

Although playing online poker is already illegal under Nevada law, state officials have no intention of prosecuting players.

The ultimate in hypocrisy, isn't it?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Engineer,

Isn't this kinda what we don't want? I mean, the minute States start putting up their own online poker platforms won't it push us farther from us being able to play on a national/international scale?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. Actually, I think this may be EXACTLY what we want (I actually spent time thinking this through today. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif). One excellent feature of IGREA is that states need to give access to get access. So, if a state wishes to gain interstate and international business, they have to open up their own state. A state with a head-start on legalization would likely jump at the chance to bring American-branded sites to the world. Then, once one state is in, a few others that already have legalized gambling (regulatory infrastructure, established brands, etc) won't wish to miss out. Also, as IGREA is an uphill battle this year, our real goal is political momentum. This sort of thing really helps, at least IMHO.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a HUGE hole in the UIGE Act, expressly authorizing IntraState online gambling ...except on sports.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your "expressly authorizing" is not quite correct. The states "expressly" authorize gambling, not UIGEA.

UIGEA does not apply to legal intrastate wagers (poker, sports, ponies, etc.). It is saying that states legalize gambling and the Feds are not involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's what he meant, but you're absolutely correct. Even HR 4777 expressly allowed states to choose to offer Internet gambling, except for sports, so long as states verified that all wagering was conducted intrastate and that all bettors were of age.