Hawaii has one of, if not the, strictest anti-gambling legal policies in the country.  Basically, everything is illegal.  That may change soon.  A bill has made it out of the first round of committees that would classify poker as a game of skill.  Not a game of chance.  The intended effect of this is to make both online and live poker legal in the state.  Presumably, to bring in much needed revenue.  Surf, shrimp trucks, and poker.  Hevean no longer is a ballfield in

[Please excuse my delinquency.  Normally I link to an insightful article on the topic.  Sadly, the internet connection where I am now blocks all "gambling" websites.  And there is no way to tell the error message that poker is not gambling.]

Even I must admit that sometimes other people write good pieces as well.  In that vein, check out this article.  I could have linked to a less informative article on the same main point and written my own analysis.  But this article pretty much sums it up.  No need to reinvent the wheel when you can use your saved time to play a quick 200 hands.

We all clamor for legalized online poker.  Well, at least that’s a safe assumption if you’re reading this site.  So at first blush the news that the Congress is considering a new bill that would legalize and regulate (via licenses) online poker would seem like a great idea.  Heck, even Rep. Barney Frank supports it.  But after looking into the legislation a bit more, I’m not so sure I agree.  Not yet.  There’s a spectrum that ranges from complete no-holds barred, wild wild west online poker to the strict outlawing of even talking about the subject.   The middle is full of proposals that would legalize online poker to some extent.  The key for me is where is the line between what I would accept (not just want) and what I would not.  How much am I willing to sacrifice to get online poker.   I’m pretty sure I’m willing to give up the use of credit cards as a funding mechanism (as the current bill mandates).  I’m even willing to agree to licenses (though that means less competition and innovation — the old capitalism argument).  But what happens if the government limits the number of hours, or times, I can play?  What if the tax rate is 50%.  What if…?  When this internal discussion I’m having ends, I’ll likely side in favor of this new bill.  But it’s getting closer by the day.  And even I, someday soon, may have to put my money where my mouth is — and walk away from the virtual felt.

It’s amazing what a simple change in political administration can do.  In a sharp  departure  from what its predecessor government did when it defended an online gambling law ban to the highest court, the current administration announced yesterday that it will grant licenses for online gaming, including poker.  I love the Dutch.

On Thursday, the PPA is organizing a rally outside of the Washington state capitol building.  The purpose is to protest the state’s harsh anti-online poker law.  If you’re in the area, or want to fly in for it (the PPA is covering much of the cost, include hotels), stop on by.  I’m sure your support will greatly welcomed.

PokerStars has hired Randall Sayre, a former Nevada Gaming Control Board member, as a gaming consultant. This as a shrew move.  The man certainly has insight into the machinations of the gaming commission, connections that could help get legislation passed, and, perhaps most importantly, a good reputation that PokerStars can trade on should internet poker ever be legalized.  Basically, this is a move to position PokerStars as the lead site (ahem, ahead of Full Tilt Poker) in the presumed race to be a licensed internet provider.

Iowa has taken another step toward becoming the first state to legalize online intrastate poker.  The Iowa legislation has moved out of committee by a 9-6 vote (not exactly overwhelming support though) and now will be heard by the full state Senate.  The fate of the bill likely will not be known for some time, but this is welcomed news after New Jersey’s mildly surprising decision to pull the plug (for now) on its intrastate poker efforts.

State Senator Lou D’Allasandro, a long-time proponent of legalizing various forms of gambling to raise revenues, has withdrawn his efforts.  At least for the time being.  Apparently, he feared that any such bill would fail.  And rather than risk failure (and, I’m thinking, setting back legalization momentum efforts considerably), he tabled the issue.  New Hampshire, while cash-strapped like many of its neighboring states, has yet to legalize gambling.  Interestingly, Governor Lynch’s rationale is not anti-gambling per se.  Rather, he is concerned with the many laws that would have to changed to pass such legislation.  Well, at least this is his public stance.  At least southern NH is not too far from Connecticut.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed legislation that would have made NJ the first state to legalize intrastate online poker.  He cited “legal and constitutional concerns” and supposedly was concerned with underage gambling and the possibility for back-room illegal gambling halls fronted by a handful of Internet-connected computers to spring up across the state.  Gov. Christie is not known as one to shy away from hard choices or to play partisan politics, but I have to wonder whether talk of him having higher political aspirations coupled with his Republican affiliation influenced his decision.  Another factor could have been the negative effect online poker could have on Atlantic City, given that Gov. Christie’s recently took control of the city and promised to reverse its economic swoon.  Can’t imagine he’d want to do anything to hurt his chances for success with another election to win (assuming he does not run for President that is). 

Regardless, the cause is not over.  The NJ legislature could override the veto or the bill could be re-worked to address Christie’s concerns and re-submitted for consideration (though this takes time).  Or maybe California passes legislation and NJ realized the errors of its ways and reverses course.  Don’t place your bests on this though just yet.

Now this is cool.  Some high-ranking judges in Sweden were convinced to take poker lessons as part of their adjudication of a trial involving an arguably illegal poker tournament.  The issue of course is whether poker is a game of skill or a game of chance.  The lesson was intended to teach the judiciary that poker is a game of skill, with luck determining only the cards that are dealt and not the outcome of the hand.  Now if only American judges would follow our Scandinavian counterparts’ lead.