Check this out.  Two one-time, and current, rivals have joined forces against a common enemy and sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General critiquing the federal government for not regulating poker.  With this uniting of forces, perhaps the Congress will be unified as well and push through joint legislation.  For once in my life, I actually am saying “Tax Me, PLEASE!”

Friday’s a BIG day for many poker players.  It’s the last day poker players can make a claim in federal court for funds seized/frozen by the federal government on Black Friday.  So if you have money out there, stake your claim.  If nothing else, it will show solidarity and interest in poker to the feds monitoring the situation.  Good luck!  It may be the last online hand you win for quite some time.

All indications are that the AGA will not back the legislation introducted by Congressman Joe Barton in response to Black Friday.  The strange thing is that the bills are fairly similar.  I get wanting to protect your interests above those of others, but there is something called biting off your nose to spite your face.  (Anyone remember Seven?)  It has to be in poker’s best interest (and gaming generally) to legalize poker (and gaming), and then later tweak it if necessary.  These internal divisions are killing us.

With a new round of poker legislation inching upon us, what do you want in a poker law?  Are you willing to hold out for only complete legalization with minimal taxation?  Or should poker advocates take a more moderate stance, with limited licenses, higher taxes, ability for states to opt out, government oversight, etc.?  Let me know your thoughts.

Seems like there are a lot of great articles being written these days.  Check out this one from the LA Times about confusion in poker law generally and the hypocrisy of the federal government in its action.  (The author slips in a discussion of how the federal quagmire may be an opening for California to start an intrastate system.)  Hopefully, you enjoy this article too.

The Swedish high court has released its long-awaited ruling on whether poker is a game of skill.  Sort of.  The Court held that poker is a game of skill when played in tournament form, but a game of luck when played in cash game form.  Apparently, the sample size of hands you are forced to play was the determining factor.  Strange.  But here’s the kicker.  Swedish cash game players were happy with the decision because it meant that their livelihood was not deemed a profession, which are taxable.  Got to love Sweden.

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.

The New Jersey state assembly has passed a bill that would make online poker (and other casino gambling, though not sports gambling) legal if played by NJ residents on licensed sites.  The measure already passed in the state Senate.  The final hurdle before it becomes law is the receipt of Governor Christie’s signature.  Observers predict — though this is a bit like reading tea leaves — that he will sign the bill given that to date he has not voiced his opposition to it (Gov. Christie is not one to mince words after all) and that NJ is severely strapped for cash.  However, and this is pure speculation on my part, given Gov. Christie’s rumored interest in running for national office (read:  the Presidency) on the historically conservative Republican ticket, he may not want to align himself with gamblers.  My hunch is it passes.  We should know more within 45 days.  That’s the deadline by which he must veto the bill or it becomes law.

There are few interesting points about the legislation and its potential implementation.  The law specifies that “all equipment used by a licensee to conduct Internet wagering…shall be located…within the territorial limits of Atlantic City.”  It further specifies that “[a]ll Internet wagers shall be deemed to be placed when received in Atlantic City by the licensee.”  In other words, AC now is the hub for the NJ Internet gambling scene.  Could mean hundreds if not thousands of jobs and an influx of money into the depressed area.  Running Internet sites is costly and demands many people — servers, tech support, customer support (stop laughing), and so forth.  Exactly what Gov. Christie probably wants to revitalize AC now that the state has taken control of AC’s restoration — so yet another reason why he may sign the bill. 

How this affects the current mega-sites (FTP, PS, etc.) is unclear, however.  Allow me to offer few possibilities.  The legislation could result in the sites pulling out of New Jersey like they did in Washington, fearful of legal repercussions.  Then again they could keep operating in New Jersey and take their chances that NJ (which, unlike Washington, does not expressly criminalize online poker) will not enforce its turf and sue/arrest them claiming that the intrastate law means interstate poker sites are de facto illegal.  Or, and all poker-playing NJ residents hope, the two sides create a mutually beneficial situation (the orange juice and orange peel example from college negotiations classes).  For example, NJ could hire FTP or PS (or, more likely, a separate newly formed company) to be the intrastate operator and use the mega-site’s already developed software (with some tweaks of course).  The state wins by quickly getting a world class site with robust software (read:  immediate revenue) and the sites win by operating in a jurisdiction that otherwise may be closed to them.  Bottom line is it’s too early to tell how this will play out, but it need not play out poorly for poker players.

The poker world had been in a tizzy recently amid speculation of whether Sen. Reid’s proposed poker bill, and its 15-month blackout period, would become law.  Sadly, or maybe not so sadly for others, there is nothing left to discuss.  The bill has been taken off the table.  We may now go back to discussing the merits of intrastate online poker and when (if) New York will decide to cash in on what are predicted to be almost record-breaking Wall Street bonuses by legalizing live poker in New York City.  Okay, maybe that’s just me.

Much has been written recently about the proposed blackout period in the current poker legislation.  Briefly, it would ban all online poker in the U.S. for 15 months until formal and legal sites/regulations are established.  I have held off until now with my thinking on the issue because I did not want to rush a response and because there was a lot of unsubstantiated information swarming around the internet.  Well, here are my thoughts:

(1) I entirely support legal, formal, regulated online poker in the U.S.  Even if that means sacrificing some things we currently enjoy.
(2) I do not want a blackout period.  However, I support a blackout period IF it results in a structured organized online poker apparatus. 
(3) A blackout period is not necessary.  Often legislation is enacted that makes things legal/illegal on Day 2 that were the opposite on Day 1.  For a recent example, take Four Loko.  There is a strict cutoff for making it illegal to sell the drink in New York City.  It is legal on Day 1 and will be illegal on Day 2.  I see little justification for why regulations governing how poker sites are run (21 and over, taxed, GA issues, etc.) cannot be implemented overnight in a software update (or maybe at most over the course of a few days of maintenance).  Heck, most of the changes already exist.  The paperwork for sites to register/get approved to can occur in the interim between legislation passage and the effective date as well.  [NOTE:  Sites voluntarily leaving the U.S. market to better chances of governmental approval is a separate issue.]  And so this now brings me to my main reason for opposing the blackout period…
(4) Call me a cynic, but you may also eventually call me a prophet.  I have strong concerns that once the blackout period goes into effect the legislation will get stalled/changed/repealed/etc. and we will be stuck in a land of no poker and existing legislation that affirmatively makes it illegal to start a site.  Purgatory.  Heck, hell.

Onto other news.  The Kentucky-iMEGA litigation continues.  Kentucky recently filed an opposition to iMEGA’s stance that the state lacks standing (which means having a legal leg to stand on as an injured party) to sue.  This is a standard development in litigation and one that likely will not be resolved for at least a couple of months.  Stay tuned.