Pokeraddict
Pokeraddict
Joined: Feb 21, 2012
  • Threads: 36
  • Posts: 786
November 27th, 2015 at 2:51:58 AM permalink
Adam Laxalt, Nevada's Attorney General, supports a federal bill that would ban regulated online gaming. This would put an end to online poker and sports apps in Nevada, as well as poker and casino games over the Internet in New Jersey and Delaware.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/laxalt-says-hell-support-ban-online-wagering

His opinion runs contrary to what 100% of the Nevada Legislature and 99.6% of Congress voted. Governor Sandoval and the Nevada Gaming Commission also oppose Laxalt's position. MGM Resorts, Boyd Gaming, Caesars, William Hill and Cantor all support online gaming.

Laxalt's campaign was headed by an Adelson (Las Vegas Sands CEO) lobbyist that is a board member of an anti gambling agenda reportedly financed by LVS. Laxalt's sister works for the same lobbyist company. Adelson, whose goal is to outlaw online gaming, was a contributor to Laxalt's campaign.

If you like using Nevada sports betting apps or support legal online gaming, you might want to contact your representatives.
DrawingDead
DrawingDead
Joined: Jun 13, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2233
November 27th, 2015 at 6:11:21 AM permalink
Quote:

contrary to what....and 99.6% of Congress voted.

Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Congress has not ever and definitely would not now vote to allow online gambling, and there remains no significant support within either caucus of either party in either house of Congress. In large part because opposition from the general public remains massive, consistently polling at over 80% "no" from left, right, and middle. The legal opening used by the three states that adopted some form of it came from an internal Justice Dept. memo dealing with pooling among state lotteries. The only places that have since had any significant political or legislative movement towards it at all are the few states where the casino industry has some juice, which are the ones where it now already exists. And, aside from the Nevada sports apps (which by the way predate any re-interpretation of the Wire Act by years) in those three states the few online operators still left that haven't given up and closed up shop are barely scraping along while losing money because they have attracted very few players, collectively wagering a total of almost nothing. Your problem isn't from the most recent boogeyman adopted by the online poker enthusiast subculture. Your biggest problem is convincing a suburban mom that it is okay to have it potentially available in her home. It ain't happenin'.
"I'm against stuff like crack and math" --AxelWolf
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
November 27th, 2015 at 8:17:06 AM permalink
Quote: Pokeraddict

Adam Laxalt, Nevada's Attorney General, supports a federal bill that would ban regulated online gaming. This would put an end to online poker and sports apps in Nevada, as well as poker and casino games over the Internet in New Jersey and Delaware.

No it wouldn't. It would only restrict interstate poker liquidity networks. The feds have zero authority over intrastate gaming like sports wagering in Nevada or online casino wagering in Delaware or NJ.

That said, I'm opposed to Sheldon's position on the matter. I prefer regulation and taxation to prohibition as a general matter of policy. But he has more lobbyists than I do. And more Maybachs. :)
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Ibeatyouraces
Ibeatyouraces
Joined: Jan 12, 2010
  • Threads: 68
  • Posts: 11933
November 27th, 2015 at 8:24:58 AM permalink
Lobbyist = person who bribes politicians.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
November 27th, 2015 at 8:30:54 AM permalink
Quote: DrawingDead

Your biggest problem is convincing a suburban mom that it [online gambling] is okay to have it potentially available in her home. It ain't happenin'.

That might have been true ten years ago, but right now the average suburban mom is spending a buck here and there on moves for Candy Crush or chip packages for Double Down Casino. If it's okay to spend a few bucks playing an online game where you can't win money, why should it be illegal to play one where you can?
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14232
November 27th, 2015 at 12:17:03 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

Quote: DrawingDead

Your biggest problem is convincing a suburban mom that it [online gambling] is okay to have it potentially available in her home. It ain't happenin'.

That might have been true ten years ago, but right now the average suburban mom is spending a buck here and there on moves for Candy Crush or chip packages for Double Down Casino. If it's okay to spend a few bucks playing an online game where you can't win money, why should it be illegal to play one where you can?



Ya know, that might well be the winning legal argument on this if phrased just right.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
Pokeraddict
Pokeraddict
Joined: Feb 21, 2012
  • Threads: 36
  • Posts: 786
November 27th, 2015 at 4:04:04 PM permalink
Quote: DrawingDead

Huh? What in the world are you talking about? Congress has not ever and definitely would not now vote to allow online gambling,



This is not accurate. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) passed in 2006 and specifically gives states the right to legalize and regulate online gambling. The regulatory language states:

Quote:

(B) Intrastate transactions.— The term “unlawful Internet gambling” does not include placing, receiving, or otherwise transmitting a bet or wager where—

(i) the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made exclusively within a single State;

(ii) the bet or wager and the method by which the bet or wager is initiated and received or otherwise made is expressly authorized by and placed in accordance with the laws of such State, and the State law or regulations include—

(I) age and location verification requirements reasonably designed to block access to minors and persons located out of such State; and

(II) appropriate data security standards to prevent unauthorized access by any person whose age and current location has not been verified in accordance with such State’s law or regulations; and

(iii) the bet or wager does not violate any provision of—

(I) the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);

(II) chapter 178 of title 28 (commonly known as the “Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act”);

(III) the Gambling Devices Transportation Act (15 U.S.C. 1171 et seq.); or

(IV) the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).



The UIGEA passed 98-0 in the Senate and 421-2 in the House. That equals 99.6%. Nevada online poker passed 100% in both chambers in 2013. Sports app regs were developed by NGCB without opposition.

These are the federal regulations that WSOP.com and Nevada sports apps operate under. The same goes for online poker and casinos in New Jersey and Delaware as well as a variety of state lotteries. All would be wiped out if RAWA passes Congress.
Pokeraddict
Pokeraddict
Joined: Feb 21, 2012
  • Threads: 36
  • Posts: 786
November 27th, 2015 at 4:09:10 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

No it wouldn't. It would only restrict interstate poker liquidity networks. The feds have zero authority over intrastate gaming like sports wagering in Nevada or online casino wagering in Delaware or NJ.

That said, I'm opposed to Sheldon's position on the matter. I prefer regulation and taxation to prohibition as a general matter of policy. But he has more lobbyists than I do. And more Maybachs. :)



RAWA preempts all state online gaming laws and existing federal ones, even if the transaction does not cross state lines. It does not grandfather in any state online gaming industries in its current language except horseracing and fantasy sports. The assumption the language in RAWA makes is that the Internet is by definition interstate, giving the feds the control to trump state law even if the transaction does not cross state lines.

Here is an article about how it would outlaw Nevada sports betting apps in its current form:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/analysis-net-gambling-bill-accidentally-criminalizes-some-nevada-sports-bets

Quote:

If approved, the bill would end most forms of online betting, including interactive poker in Nevada.

Because the bill would stop transmission of gambling information through wire communications across state lines, mobile sports wagering in Nevada would also be halted, crippling sports book operations in the state.



I cover this industry. This is a big deal and is not only aimed at the Delaware/Nevada poker agreement. It aims at destroying the entire industry at the wishes of a mega political donor. I figure many here would be most interested in the loss of mobile sports betting.
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
November 27th, 2015 at 6:01:49 PM permalink
The actual text of both versions of RAWA is very brief. It doesn't mention anything about sports betting that the existing law doesn't already. In other words, sports betting is already illegal on the internet.

http://gaming.unlv.edu/papers/cgr_op29_minton.pdf
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Pokeraddict
Pokeraddict
Joined: Feb 21, 2012
  • Threads: 36
  • Posts: 786
November 27th, 2015 at 7:27:29 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

The actual text of both versions of RAWA is very brief. It doesn't mention anything about sports betting that the existing law doesn't already. In other words, sports betting is already illegal on the internet.

http://gaming.unlv.edu/papers/cgr_op29_minton.pdf



Sports betting over the Internet and on mobile devices is 100% legal in Nevada when spread by a licensed gaming company. Sports Connection (Station) offers a website and mobile app. Cantor, William Hill, Aliante, Boyd and South Point offer mobile apps. If RAWA passes, it would put an end to all of those. You would have to go to a sportsbook to make a bet. Currently, about 1/3 of all Nevada sports bets are on mobile devices.

Michelle Minton did a great job with that white paper. She is heavily involved with the movement to keep current federal law that permits allowing states to decide whether to legalize and regulated online gaming. She opposes RAWA.

  • Jump to: