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

[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: 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