AGA close to introducing new ipoker legislation?

[parttimepoker]

LAS VEGAS (AP) — The commercial casino industry wants Congress to skip proposals already on the table for regulating the estimated $6 billion online poker industry and pass new legislation that would let states decide whether to allow online gambling and would require online casino companies to be licensed...

The Associated Press: Casino industry seeking new online poker bill

(I get that the AGA won't actually introduce the legislation, but they'll clearly be editing / authoring any new bill)

[Jeremy]

Nice, I'd put a lot more faith in the AGA than the PPA, that's for sure. While it will suck for the current online gambling sites and favor Vegas, it will probably still be the best thing for the overall online gambling industry inside the U.S. Hopefully this doesn't become dead in the water like so many other gambling bills have.

[parttimepoker]

Well, I know it's been said before, but this is a pretty unique time for ipoker. Major competition has been eliminated from US, USFG desperately needs any revenue they can lay their hands on, Nevada has ipoker regs in place and the AGA is for the first time squarely behind a bill and making a large public push for it.

Should be interesting anyhow.

[321]

AGA bills would be a disaster for several reasons, especially in a desire to prevent tribes and any non-US companies from being able to compete, and even more importantly, the AGA supports the concept of states having to "opt-in" instead of the far more sensible idea of requiring states to "opt-out". The way the country and many states are divided over partisan politics (and not even issues themselves) getting two houses a legislature plus a governor to agree to opt-in via a bill written by a person from the other party will be very difficult. In contrast, this phenomenon works in our favor if states have to agree to opt-out.

It's terrible news that AGA is again trying to get a bill passed that prevents competition, and probably would violate WTO rules (or at minimum would ensure that US players would never be able to play in a liquid pool with non-US citizens).

The PPA has the right idea... get bipartisan support for a bill that allows free competition, and assumes all citizens have a right to do something unless their state opts out.

[parttimepoker]

The PPA (and I'm actually a fan of the PPA) has apparently little to no chance of getting something through. It might be the right idea, but it has very little traction.

While an AGA bill might be a "disaster", it would still be better than the status quo (from a player perspective), which is little to no poker at all.

Also, states are so flat broke it's hard to imagine too many of them option out (as a percentage of the population). Even half of the US would be a more than sustainable player pool.

[321]

The PPA bill has traction. It's by far the closet we have come to genuine legalization. But if the argument is "we surrender now because we will get fed better in prison", then a case can be made that an AGA would be better than the staus quo.

But that's not a sensible way to approach anything. You compromise when you _have_ to compromise, not before.

The bottom line is there are two key differences between the PPA and the (rumored) AGA bills...

1) PPA = opt out, AGA = opt-in. I can't imagine any affiliate or player actually prefering opt-in. Thus the PPA bill is better in this way because there can always be a comprimse _later_ to make it opt-in.

2) The PPA allows for a free market. Anyone can seek a license. The AGA bill restricts possible licencees to AGA members. That means: no Indian tribes; no current European or Canadian companies (no Party poker, no Ladbrokes, etc); and critically, no company without a brick and mortar class III casino -- no googlepoker, no facebookpoker, no commercecasinoonline poker, no Zynga... _unless_ they partner with an existing AGA member. I don't see why any player or affiliate would prefer this. If limited legalization comes that prohibits foreign companies, I want to at least see google and facebook and similar compaies to be able to build their own cardrooms, not require them to pay some random brick and mortar casino for the ability to be skins.

[Jeremy]

Thanks for pointing this out 321. I didn't realize all that. So it's basically a bill written by the Las Vegas casino lobbyists to monopolize the online gambling space inside the U.S.

[321]

The text of the bill doesn't exist yet (so far as I know), but those two aspects have been in previous news stories about the rumored bill.

Maybe what will appear will be different, but they obviously want to introduce something different than the PPA bill which is a simple opt-out/free market one.

[parttimepoker]

The PPA bill has traction. It's by far the closet we have come to genuine legalization. But if the argument is "we surrender now because we will get fed better in prison", then a case can be made that an AGA would be better than the staus quo.

The PPA has no legislative traction. Let's be honest about that. If they did have a little bit a few months ago when the Barton bill was released, they've lost it now thanks to Full Tilt / Stars being branded as criminals and the AGA publicly dissing Barton's bill.

The PPA does a good job of marshaling member action to advance the general cause of online poker in DC, but to think they're going to overrule the AGA or suddenly posses political clout that they've never had in the past is wishful at best.

There is no "surrendering". Online poker already lost. There's nothing to hold out for. It's not "we get fed better in prison", it's "we get fed at all". The PPA does not pass a bill that casinos are apathetic about, let alone one they actively oppose.

Thanks for pointing this out 321. I didn't realize all that. So it's basically a bill written by the Las Vegas casino lobbyists to monopolize the online gambling space inside the U.S.

This sounds bad when you say it that way, but the truth is only the major US casinos are going to be able to win the trust of a general public that regards online poker as crooked to the hilt, and also illegal. A name like WSOP - and the promotional acumen / budget that comes along with it - is what it will take to get casual players back online.

We've already had an unregulated market. Players were cheated out of millions by one room, and another room is currently unable to pay out the $300 million they owe to players. Doesn't seem like that's worked out too well.

[321]

This sounds bad when you say it that way, but the truth is only the major US casinos are going to be able to win the trust of a general public that regards online poker as crooked to the hilt, and also illegal. A name like WSOP - and the promotional acumen / budget that comes along with it - is what it will take to get casual players back online.

People would flock back in droves now if they had a chane to play at Stars, Party and iPoker. No doubt about that. But the casinos know they are not needed in the slightest if legalization came. That's why they are doing everything they can to keep Facebook, etc, out of the equation.

The general public would be ten times more happy to play at facebookpoker than at mgmpoker. The AGA's concept is the last gasp of the 20the century trying to prevent the free market Internet and the 21st century from existing.