Legalized Online Poker in California Appears Dead for this Legislative Session

California’s state senate will not vote on a bill offering online intrastate poker until the next legislative session.

The Morongo Band of Mission Indians, which operates one of the largest tribal casinos in California working together with California card clubs, offered a bill that would allow online poker within the confines of California, but the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians—along with the California Tribal Business Alliance—opposed it. The opposition claims it would disrupt the state's tribal gambling compacts.

In a recent survey of 802 randomly selected registered voters conducted by EMC Research for the Pechanga tribe reported that 82 percent of the voters believe the state needs to look for new and But the poll also found that voters did not support legalization of Internet poker as a means to accomplish this goal.

In the EMC survey, 44 percent of those responding “strongly opposed” state legalization of Internet poker while 17 percent “somewhat opposed” it.

Fourteen percent “strongly supported” and 24 percent “somewhat supported” legalized online poker in California.
Many tribes, particularly those in the Palm Springs area, which are located in close proximity to the Morongo Casino, remained neutral in their opinions of legalized Internet poker.

A majority of members of the California Indian Nations Gaming Association (CNIGA)—an association of 36 tribes, including Morongo—voted in favor of a resolution "To support the concept in principle of a joint venture enterprise between California tribes and licensed card rooms to offer online intrastate internet poker and to proceed with further analysis."

Will California Have In-State Online Poker?

California’s Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians, which owns the Morongo Casino Resort and Spa (pictured left) just west of Palm Springs, is spearheading an effort to enact legislation that would allow Californians to play poker online, thus legalizing Intranet poker in the Golden State.

The tribe argues that online poker in California will generate much-needed revenue for the cash-starved state, while providing far superior protection for players than the current level of protection offered by unregulated, offshore sites.

Under the proposal, the Morongo tribe and others would run a joint venture online poker operation with several Los Angeles-area card clubs. The state would get a percentage of the winnings, though the exact amount has yet to be determined.

Money Always Talks, But in a Bad Economy it Shouts!

"It's a way to head off competition," said Morongo spokesman Patrick Dorinson to the Desert Sun newspaper. He added, "This would be a game for Californians run by Californians. In a state strapped for cash, this will definitely bring in revenue."

Morongo hooked up with the Commerce Casino and other tribes to form a new group—the “California Tribal Intrastate Internet Poker Consortium LLC.”

Some California Tribes Favor it. Some Don't. Others Straddle the Fence

But rival tribes say this endeavor could jeopardize tribal gambling in California. Morongo’s proposal squares them off against other tribes, specifically those holding membership in the California Tribal Business Alliance (CTBA). Some other tribes have taken a wait-and-see neutral stance, at least for the time being.

The Viejas Band of Mission Indians, which owns a casino just east of San Diego, opposes it—as do other San Diego tribes, such as the Pala and Pauma Bands of Mission Indians. Tribes in the Palm Springs area are neutral. The Desert Sun quotes Alva Johnson, director of government affairs and public relations for Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, as saying, “We are still studying the proposal and do not have a position at this time.”

Michael Lombardi, of the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, expressed his neutrality, although he added, “We're opposed to widespread Internet gaming” put under the control of the U.S. Treasury, as proposed at the federal level.

The Governor Hasn't Taken a Position ... Yet

While the tribes are lining up on all sides of the fence, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the matter, and it’s probably a little early for him to stake out a position. After all, the bill that would make this happen is still underdevelopment and has not yet found a sponsor to introduce it when California’s legislature returns from their summer recess in a few days.

In a blog post four days ago I mentioned that Robert H. Smith, Chairman of the California Tribal Business Alliance, a lobbying group representing seven member tribes, wrote to members of the California Legislature, saying, “While there is no bill on the subject currently, we expect a proposal to surface shortly that will allow card clubs and California Indian tribes the exclusive right to operate an internet card game gambling web site.”His letter added, “Card game gambling on the internet would take business away from brick and mortar casinos. Card clubs and casinos provide jobs and tax revenue for the local communities where they are located. Online wagering does not.”

The Law Does Not Prohibit Intrastate Online Gaming

When Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) in 2006 and prohibited banks and credit card companies from transferring money for Internet gambling, they left the door open for states to allow online gambling within a state's boundaries.

George Forman, a lawyer working with the Morongo tribal council to draft this legislation, said there is nothing in federal law that prohibits a tribe from participating in state-authorized gaming outside the tribe's Indian lands. According to Forman, “The Sault Ste. Marie tribe in Michigan did just that when it bought an interest in Greektown Casino in Detroit.”

Morongo spokesman Patrick Dorinson has said that the bill will provide a cleaner, safer version of what is now a business run by unregulated foreign operators.

Some Tribes Claim This Law Violates a Promise Made by the Tribes to the People of California

Nevertheless, David Quintana, the legislative director for the California Tribal Business Alliance, said that allowing Internet poker in California would violate a promise tribes made to voters to keep gambling within Indian reservations. "This opens up gambling anywhere,” he said. “There's no tie to Indian land, and that's not what we promised voters in the state of California."

With no official legislation, not even an author for the bill—only a lot of drafts floating around—and the legislature not yet back in session, it’s far too early to predict how this will wind up. But if a bill is introduced that gains traction in California’s legislature, look for a lot of fighting between the tribes lining up in support of this bill and those standing in opposition.

Follow the Money

We’ll keep you apprised as this begins to sort itself out. As is the case with a lot of gambling legislation, the best way to figure things out is to follow the money.

A new "Durrr Challenge." This time it's in person!

With his original, 50,000 hand online, multi-table challenge against Patrik Antonius seemingly stalled at the halfway point against, Tom "durrr" Dwan (pictured right) announced a new Durrr Challenge—and this time it will be played up-close and personal, in a brick-and-mortar casino.

The new one, entitled the "Durrr Million Dollar Challenge," will be a lot easier to play and complete than the Durrr vs. Antonius uber-marathon 50,000-hand, online, multi-table event. The new live challenge match will run 500 hands, and feature a $500,000 buy-in with blinds of $500-$1,000. Neither player can leave the contest until 500 hands are reached or a player is down to the felt.

Dwan’s opponent will be Sammy "Any Two" George, a London businessman who’s aptly named, and is famous for playing any two cards. Although comparatively unknown on this side of the Atlantic, he appears regularly on UK poker shows like Poker Million and The Big Game.

The Durrr Million Dollar Challenge is slated to take place in London during September. While the 50,000 hand Durrr vs. Antonius marathon may not be finished by December—if that early—a 500-hand match should take no more than 15 hours to complete, which I estimated based on 35 hands per hour.

So if they go at it in one fell swoop, the new Durrr Challenge could be played in one long day of poker. If they want a more sensible pace along with a good night’s sleep, they’ll be able to finish this match in a weekend.

Be A Guest on my Radio Show Contest is Underway

Last week I announced a contest on my Internet radio show, Keep Flopping Aces, which airs each and every Thursday evening at 9 p.m. Eastern Time (6 p.m. Pacific Time). The winner will be a guest on my show and we'll discuss poker for an entire hour. In addition, I'll also send the winner an autographed book.

If you'd like to be a guest on my show, just send me an email telling me the following:

1. Why you want to be a guest. (a short paragraph, please)

2. Why you would be a good choice as a radio guest. (another short paragraph)

3. List four to six topics you want to talk about on the air.

The list need not be extensive. A few sentences or just some bullet points about each of the topics will suffice,

So far I've gotten more responses than I anticipated, and there are quite a few that are promising. But I'm not going to make my decision yet. I'll let it run at least another week and probably two more weeks, so you still have a chance to enter. I’ll contact the winner and we’ll decide on a convenient date for an on-air appearance. I'll announce it on the air, and then we'll do the show.

Send your entry to: loukrieger@aol.com. Please put “radio contest” in the subject line so I don’t ditch it accidentally, and be sure to nclude any pertinent contact details in your email.

That’s all there is to it. If you are chosen you’ll get an hour on the air and an autographed book, and a podcast you can download and keep forever.

Does Online Poker Steal Business From Traditional Casinos?

In a letter to members of the California Legislature, Robert H. Smith, Chairman of the California Tribal Business Alliance, a lobbying group representing seven member tribes, wrote:

“While there is no bill on the subject currently, we expect a proposal to surface shortly that will allow card clubs and California Indian tribes the exclusive right to operate an internet card game gambling web site.”

Smith goes on to say, “Card game gambling on the internet would take business away from brick and mortar casinos. Card clubs and casinos provide jobs and tax revenue for the local communities where they are located. Online wagering does not. The potential is there for the same kind of economic undercutting experienced by local retailers when online shopping becomes popular.”

He cuts to his version of the chase by saying, “Card game gambling on the internet would take business away from brick and mortar casinos.” But this argument, which has been employed so many times before, just never seems to pan out.

I don’t know anyone who plays online and chooses to do so rather than play in a live game. Most online players use the internet because they can play multiple tables simultaneously—in which case there’s no real competition between what’s offered online and in person; they’re really totally different products—or they play online because they have neither the large block of time required to drive to a casino, wait around for an open seat, play, and then drive home again, or they play online because they simply don’t live anywhere near a brick and mortar casino.

I’ve yet to hear anyone decide to forgo their annual vacation in Las Vegas because they’d rather stay home and play poker online. For many, live poker offers a social interaction that simply can’t be had in cyberspace, and for them, it makes live games preferable to playing online, regardless of how much multi-tabling they have to give up when playing live.

I understand that the tribes don’t want to lose their lucrative casino business, but to me, this is a false issue and a specious argument. In my opinion, just the opposite is true.

Playing online drives players who cut their poker teeth on the internet to traditional casinos. It doesn’t cause them to stay away because they chose to play cyberpoker instead. One doesn’t have to look any further than the phenomenal growth of the WSOP, a growth fueled by online players, to see that online poker and traditional casino poker help each other. They are not competing for the same dollar.

Senator Robert Menendez Introduces Bill to Regulate, License, and Tax Online Poker

Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), pictured left, introduced the Internet Poker and Games of Skill Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act. Similar to the legislation Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced in the House of Representatives—his bill, H.R. 2267, now has more than 50 cosponsors—the Senate bill provides a parallel track to speed up the process of enacting a law to establish a licensing and regulatory framework and oversight over online poker.

Key provisions of the bill include:

* Creating a registry of unlicensed online gambling operators to strengthen enforcement efforts of truly unlawful gambling;
* Mandatory implementation of technologies to protect against underage gambling and to monitor and detect individuals with excessive gaming habits;
* Dedicated funding to develop and implement prevention and treatment programs for problem gamblers;
* Mechanisms to collect the billions of dollars in tax revenue that is currently being lost
* Clarification of the Wire Act to create consistency in how online gambling activities, such as horse race betting, are treated under Federal law.

The PPA will continue its advocacy work during the August recess so that key Senators know their constituents want them to cosponsor this bill.

“Through our efforts on Capitol Hill during National Poker Week, the tides are turning and support for licensing and regulating Internet poker versus infringing on Internet freedom is growing,” said PPA Chairman and former Senator Alfonse D’Amato. “The PPA is pleased that Senator Menendez chose to introduce his bill to license and regulate Internet poker and include additional consumer protections. His continued support for protecting the Internet freedoms of poker players specifically, and Americans generally, is greatly appreciated.”

The full text of the bill can be found at http://www.theppa.org/.

C O N T E S T---Do You Want to be a Guest on my Radio Show?

Have you always wanted to talk about poker on the radio? Now’s your chance.

I’m going to announce this contest tonight on my radio show, Keep Flopping Aces, which is webcast on http://www.roundersradio.com/ at 6 p.m. Pacific Time (9 p.m. Eastern Time) and can be heard in reruns on Friday, and as a downloadable podcast on demand.

Here’s the deal. If you are chosen you’ll be my guest on a subsequent show and I’ll send you an autographed book too.

All you have to do is send me an email telling me the following:

1. Why you want to be a guest. (a short paragraph, please)
2. Why you would be a good choice as a radio guest. (another short paragraph)
3. List four to six topics you want to talk about on the air.

The list need not be extensive. A few sentences or just some bullet points about each of the topics will suffice, and I’ll keep this contest open until I find a response that strikes my fancy. Then I’ll contact you. We’ll decide on a convenient date for your on-air appearance, and do the show.

Send email to: loukrieger@aol.com. Please put “radio contest” in the subject line so I don’t ditch it accidentally. Include any pertinent contact details in your email. That’s it. That’s all you have to do. If you are chosen you’ll get an hour on the air and an autographed book, and a podcast you can download and keep forever.

A Dodgy Play on the River

There Is Poker Content; It's Just Five Paragraphs Down

I ride my bike nearly every morning, and during the summer here in the desert—where temperatures can climb up to 115 and above during the heat of the day—I go early. Very early, in fact, when most other people and every poker player I know is still sound asleep or just getting ready for bed.

Because of some road construction that has to be gingerly navigated to get to my favorite routes, I’ve lately taken to riding in an area I call the ghost towns. It’s part of north Indio, where there are a gazillion new gated communities all built a few years ago, but because of the depressed economy, they’re still pretty much empty.

But that’s good for cyclists. The roads are all new, smooth, and the main roads are mostly six-lanes, so there’s plenty of room to ride and no traffic to pose any dangers.

In these conditions, it’s easy to mentally drift away while riding. It’s like meditating on two wheels, and this morning I found myself thinking about some really poor play I witnessed playing $2-$5 no-limit hold’em with a $500 maximum buy-in at my local casino.

Overly Aggressive on the River

The game was only about an hour old when this hand came up. I’d already pegged the two participants—a woman who was aggressive whenever she had a hand and was not afraid to go all-in, even when it meant overbetting the pot significantly with a good hand, but not necessarily a great one—and a guy seated immediately to her right who made a lot of calls he probably shouldn’t have.

Five players saw an unraised flop, and the woman, who was third to act, bet after the previous two players checked. Everyone folded around to the guy on her right who called a flop of K-J-7 of mixed suits.

The turn brought an eight. The guy checked; the gal made a smallish bet of about half the pot and the guy to her right called. The river card was a nine, and while no flushes were possible, numerous straights were.

Now the guy came out betting. It was a smallish bet, and whether it was a blocking bet or a bet with a nut hand designed to get a call was tough to tell. But the gal thought for a moment and then raised all in—a bet of about $270 which was close to the amount her opponent had in front of him.

The guy went into the tank and stayed there for nearly a minute before he said, “I call.” The gal turned over J-9 for two pair and the guy turned over the same hand for a split pot.

I was pretty surprised at the cards that were turned over. I think the gal’s raise was extremely aggressive, especially since she should have realized that her opponent had demonstrated his willingness to call river bets during the first hour, even when he had hand he probably should have released.

She couldn’t beat much, and with a board of K-J-7-8-9, any ten would have beaten her, along with 6-5, Q-10, or even K-J. While there could have been a set out there, I didn’t think that was very likely, because neither player made an attempt to protect their hand and knock out any straight draws with a big bet earlier in the hand.

Her play was better than his. At least she had some fold equity attached to her action on the river. Calling with J-9 was very dodgy. After all, what could he beat? I don’t think she would have made that move with A-K, or any other one-pair hand, because while she was aggressive, she was that way only with good hands—and one pair with that board is not a good hand by anyone’s judgment.

I was in that game the better part of four hours and while I came away a winner, I never did get a chance to confront either of them heads-up. Oh well, there’s always another day.