GPWA Times Magazine - Issue 18 - October 2011

From: John Pappas, PPA To: Joe Brennan, iMEGA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I am the first to admit that passage of a federal Internet poker bill has not moved as quickly as we would like, but that does not mean we should abandon ship. Over the past 12 months alone, there has been great momentum in favor of a federal bill. It started in December 2010 with the serious consideration by Majority Leader Reid to include Internet poker regulation language in the lame-duck package, and has led to earlier this summer when GOP Congressman Joe Barton introduced legislation to license and regulate online poker (the legislation currently has 25 co- sponsors, with more added each week). The tide is turning, albeit slowly, and the Poker Players Alliance continues to believe that there is hope for an Internet poker bill at the federal level in the near term. The PPA does recognize the benefits and value in individual states pushing for state-level action, and in fact has supported several of these efforts. This war for poker must be fought on all fronts. Yet, we remain concerned with several significant and inherent flaws with a state-only effort. The most compelling issue with a state-by-state approach is that Internet poker is at its core a borderless and global activity. Americans, and other poker players worldwide, love to play online because of the great variety of players and games they encounter. Beginner poker players can find ample tables in which to learn their craft while wagering small amounts, novices can practice against players whose skill far exceeds their own, and professionals can find multiple opportunities to leverage their poker skills with some of the top players in the game. Under a state licensing regime, the pool of players is limited to those within the state – a significant reduction in competition and types of hands available to play. While this may not be a deterrent to players at first, after several months of play it is likely that players will become bored and stop playing on state-sanctioned sites – either by moving to unlicensed and unsafe sites or by not playing at all. This would have a significant impact on the revenue estimates these states relied upon to pass Internet poker regulation to begin with. Along with a limited pool of play under state licensing, this approach lends itself to the enemy of the free market and competition from a business perspective – a patchwork of state laws with which online operators will have to comply. The PPA and our friends at iMEGA have long touted how licensed and regulated online poker can be an economic boost by legitimizing a thriving industry and the job creation and entrepreneurialism that go along with it. Having 50 different regulatory regimes will not encourage new entrants to this market, and may even deter those who decide to obtain state licenses from doing so in more than one state. Yes, Joe, I agree with you that the efforts in the states are helping to build the case for federal online poker regulation. Where we differ is in prioritizing state regulation over federal legislation. There is hope in Congress for a federal Internet poker licensing and regulatory bill, and we need all who support Americans’ freedom to play the great game of poker to rally behind federal efforts. Fed or State? – The Great U.S. iGaming Regulation Debate