Notes

Baccarat Pros ? Do They Exist?How to Play Common Texas Holdem Starting Hands.4 States That Have Come Closest to iGaming Legislation
Baccarat gives amateur gamblers the most effective opportunities to win. Its banker bet features only a 1.06% house edge.

The only problem here, though, is that gamblers remain facing a house edge, no matter how small. They still need some luck to beat the casino.

Unlike blackjack, baccarat doesn?t lend itself to advantage play. But can professional gamblers still beat baccarat exactly like in blackjack? Actually, baccarat does offer a couple of routes towards long-term profits. I?ll discuss these procedures along with should they?re simple for aspiring baccarat pros to pull off.

How Can Baccarat Be Beaten?
Real money baccarat features two advantage gambling methods in hole carding edge sorting. The latter permits you to predict face-down card values by looking at the long edges.

Hole carding involves attempting to see one of many face-down cards before they?re dealt. Below, you can observe more on how best to pull off either of these techniques.

Edge Sorting
Edge sorting revolves around exploiting flaws on card backs. Needless to say, you can?t find these irregularities if they don?t exist.

Therefore, you must find a flawed deck. Luckily, many manufacturers produce decks which have slight imperfections.

Probably the most famous flaw includes when some cards include a full-diamond pattern on one long edge. Meanwhile, the other cards have a half-diamond pattern on this same edge.

Edge Sorting Playing Baccarat

These differences don?t mean much at first glance. However, they pay big dividends when you're able to use them to separate card values.

For example, seven is an important card since it improves a hand?s likelihood of reaching eight or nine (top score). If you know which side will receive the seven in advance, it is possible to wager on that side.

The problem, though, is that you'll require specific conditions set up to successfully sort edges. Here?s what you?ll need to accomplish this technique:

High-value cards (6, 7, 8, 9) rotated at a 180-degree angle so the relevant edge is showing.
All the cards also rotated 180 degrees so the relevant edge is revealed.
This arrangement helps you differentiate high from low/mid cards.
This arrangement can?t be changed, or else you?ll have to start over.
Casinos don?t use these specific setups in baccarat games. Having said that, you need to negotiate for these rules ahead of time.

Hole Carding
Dealers are supposed to keep face-down cards a secret. Otherwise, you?d gain more information and boost your chances of winning. Most dealers are very good at not showing hole cards. They keep face-down values hidden during both deals and following shuffles.

Certain croupiers, though, do have a problem with this aspect of the overall game. They could carelessly expose the first card in the shoe before dealing it.

Knowing just one single card ahead of time provides over a 6% edge for that hand. You merely need to know how exactly to properly utilize the information.

As explained in the edge sorting section, you can gauge which side includes a better potential for winning based on the card they?ll receive next.

Obstacles to Baccarat Advantage Play
Beating baccarat is incredibly difficult. Otherwise, every gambler and their mom would be crushing the house. Listed below are the biggest roadblocks that you?ll come across when trying to win in baccarat.

Most Casinos FIND OUT ABOUT Edge Sorting
I have to be honest about edge sorting?it?s extremely difficult. The biggest problem is that casinos are well alert to this technique.

The entire gambling world learned about sorting edges through Phil Ivey. With the help of Cheung Yin ?Kelly? Sun, Ivey dominated casinos to the tune of $21 million in profits.

He had to give the amount of money back after losing two lawsuits, where judges stated he essentially ?cheated.? Ivey actually just tricked the casinos instead of blatantly cheating, but that story is for another time.

Anyways, the gaming industry got a lesson about edge sorting through this incident. They learned how it operates and what rules to avoid agreeing to when negotiating with high rollers.

The latter aspect is key. You must ask the home for special rules so as to properly accomplish edge sorting. In Ivey?s case, he made special requests for ?superstitious reasons.?

The Borgata (Atlantic City) and Crockfords (London)?both casinos that Ivey hit?likely didn?t know much or anything about edge sorting beforehand. Now, almost every casino knows of it and will refuse to grant high rollers certain rules (e.g. rotating cards 180 degrees).

Bad Dealers Are Hard to Find
Unlike sorting edges, hole carding isn?t some pie-in-the-sky advantage gambling method. It still works beneath the right circumstances.

The difficult part, though, is finding these situations. Most dealers are adept enough in order to avoid showing cards. They typically only expose a face-down value every now and then.

Estimates suggest that the odds of getting a bad dealer who consistently reveals hole card values (a.k.a. ?flasher?) is only 1 in 200. You?ll need to play at lots of tables and during many shifts to find what you?re looking for.

Casino Chips

Unfortunately, it is possible to?t dig through countless baccarat tables for flashers just anywhere. Only gambling destinations like Las Vegas and Macau provide realistic route towards locating flashers.

Both locations feature a large number of casinos that run three daily shifts. If you?re not prepared to proceed to Vegas or Macau, then you?ll have significantly more difficulty finding bad dealers.

Spotting Hole Card Values Is Extremely Hard
Even when you find a flasher, you need a well-trained eye and plenty of skills to capitalize on the situation. You must also learn how to sit to identify card values.

Here are points to consider on which solution to sit:

Slouch back in a casual manner.
This position puts your eyes more level to the table without looking awkward.
Practice attempting to look at hole-card values without fixating.
The target is to appear as an informal player who?s just relaxing at the table. This way, nothing looks unusual to pit bosses or surveillance when you begin winning big.

It?s certainly possible to develop the skills to become hole carder. However, you must focus on your technique and ability to catch flashed card values.

Hole carding certainly isn?t a straightforward endeavor. You must put plenty of work into both locating flashers and learning to be a great player.

How Much Can You Win Through Advantage Play?
Advantage play in baccarat may be difficult to pull off. However, the rewards for beating the casino are great.

Ivey won a combined $21 million from the Borgata and Crockfords. Of course, he started with a $1 million stake. However, he still managed to increase his original stake by 21x.

By using this math model, here?s an example to show how much you could win:

You sit back to a baccarat table with $10,000
You win profits worth 21x your funds just like Ivey
$10,000 x 21 = $210,000 in winnings
If you have the ability to consistently spot one hole card value in each hand, you?ll gain around a 6% advantage. Needless to say, the dealer is unlikely to flash a card every single round.

So, I?ll just assume that a typical flasher only reveals one card every five hands. Here?s an example on what you could win in this scenario:

You bet $100 per hand.
You hold a 6% edge on rounds in which a face-down card is flashed.
The dealer exposes a card once every five rounds.
100 x 0.06 = $6 per hand when cards are exposed
6 / 5 (rounds) = $1.20 per round
The table sees 100 hands each hour
100 x 1.20 = $120 each hour
Obviously, your variables with both edge sorting and hole carding changes. But you can easily see how lucrative either of these pursuits can be with the right approach.

Do Any Active Baccarat Pros Exist AT THIS TIME?
I highly doubt that any edge sorters exist today. If there are any, they?ve likely found a fresh way to benefit from defective decks. Phil Ivey really blew the doors off this system. Any casino in the know will never grant the same requests that Ivey got.

Hole carding, however, still offers a legitimate route towards baccarat profits. It?s certainly not easy, but it works.

Legendary gambler James Grosjean has used hole carding to create big-time profits. He?s likely used this technique in baccarat at some point during his career.

I predict that other hole carders exist in Vegas and/or Macau. They might even take their show on the highway and hit up spots like Atlantic City, Biloxi, Reno, Tunica, and Atlantic City.

Of course, hole carders are much rarer than card counters. However they still exist and will take advantage of any game with face-down card values once the opportunity arises.

Conclusion
If you?re looking for an easy route towards gambling profits, then baccarat isn?t for you personally. Baccarat only offers two ways to beat the game: hole carding and edge sorting.

The latter is virtually impossible these days. You need to convince the casino to essentially alter the overall game rules that you should sort edges.

Hole carding is really a more-common advantage gambling method. However, you?ll have to spend countless hours looking for a dealer who flashes hole-card values.

In conclusion, baccarat pros do exist in a few capacity. Of course, they might also transition their skills to other table games with hole cards, too.Do you know the Best Starting Hands in Texas Hold?Em?
The Royal Flush is the greatest hand you may get in most poker games. However, in Texas Hold?Em, players only start with two cards. You have to decide whether you would like to invest in the pot before you understand your final five-card hand.

To create this decision, you must know the best starting hands to find. While players could have their personal favorites, the best hands are generally the ones that give you the highest chance of winning. Poker isn?t rocket science, folks.

Here are the very best starting hands in Texas Hold?em:

A pair of Aces or ?Pocket Aces?
Pocket Kings
A Pair of Queens
Pocket Jacks
Ace and King of exactly the same suit
A Pair of Tens
Ace and King of different suits
Ace and Queen of exactly the same suit
Pocket Nines
Ace and Jack of the same suit
As you can see, the very best hands are either a strong pair right away or provide you with a good shot at landing a Royal Flush. Let?s have a closer look at how to play the five best starting hands in Texas Hold?em.

How to Play Pocket Aces in Texas Hold?Em
The best starting submit Texas Hold?em, & most other poker games, is pocket Aces. You start with a couple of aces immediately puts you before any other player with less pair.

For this reason, players with Aces usually bet aggressively. That is a solid strategy, nonetheless it isn't perfect. Some players even argue that you should limp with pocket Aces in certain situations.

You should bet less aggressively if the board is showing a straight or a flush. In general, though, the very best strategy with pocket Aces is to build the pot as quickly as possible.

Increasing the pot prematurely can backfire, though. Remember, you do not want to scare another players off. You need to raise the pot quickly, but on the length of the round so the other players usually do not fold prematurily .. You don?t want everyone else to realize you?ve immediately drawn an absolute hand.

Best Texas Hold?em Technique for some Kings
Starting with a set of Kings puts you in a great pre-flop position. As with pocket Aces, pocket Kings give you a great potential for winning the pot that round.

In the event that you start the round with pocket Kings you then ideally desire to raise twice before the flop. Start with a little raise that, hopefully, another player will call and raise. This can allow you to raise again, building the pot even more.

Assuming the board goes the right path, you should continue being aggressive with a pair of Kings. Pairs are not unbeatable, though, which means you should be searching for straights and flushes.

Pocket Queens Texas Hold?em Strategy
Another one of the best starting hands for Texas Hold?em players is pocket Queens. Here is the third-highest pair and is hard to beat without help from the board.

As a result, many players with pocket Queens elect to play aggressively. How aggressive you're should depend on the board and your position. For instance, slow playing from an early on position could help build-up the pot more.

A pair of Queens is a strong starting hand, but you still want to avoid multi-way pots. Raising preflop will let you narrow down your competition. You should be on the lookout for Aces or Kings on the flop, which could spell disaster for your hand.

How to Play a Pair of Jacks in Texas Hold?Em
The fourth best starting hand a Texas Hold?em player will get is a couple of Jacks. This hand is a good starting hand, but your strategy ought to be heavily based on your situation at the table. The board will also have a big influence on the method that you play this hand.

Pocket Jacks certainly are a strong hand, but they could be hard to arrange for. Aces, Kings, and Queens all beat Jacks. Also, you're very vunerable to lower-ranking starting hands like Ace-King and Ace-Queen.

So, what should you do with a set of Jacks? You still want to build the pot, nevertheless, you ought to be more cautious than in the event that you had a stronger starting hand. The flop could have a huge influence on what aggressively you can play the rest of the rounds of the hand.

A couple of Jacks is strong enough to at least start to see the flop. However, once you begin to sense another player has you beat, it is likely time to fold.

Best Strategy for Ace-King Suited in Texas Hold?Em
A high pair is not the only method to secure a strong starting hand. One of the greatest starting hands for Texas Hold?em players is an Ace and King of the same suit.

Moreso than any starting hand on this list, you will likely need help from the board to win with an Ace and a King. If you do not land a straight, flush, or pair then all you have is the high card.

On the bright side, you start with an Ace-King suited puts you in a great position to land the flush or a straight. You're also only 1 card away from having an extremely strong pair. If you do not get help from the flop, though, it might be easier to fold if other players are betting aggressively.

Online Texas Hold?Em Tips
One of the reasons Texas Hold?em has remained popular is that it is widely available online. Many strategies for land-based games easily translate to online play. However, playing real-money Texas Hold?em online allows players to utilize new strategies, too.

Work with a Texas Hold?Em Starting Hands Cheat Sheet
Arguably the biggest advantage of playing Texas Hold?em online is that players have significantly more tools available. For example, you should use a Texas Hold?em starting hands cheat sheet. These reference cards will help you quickly determine how to play any starting hand.

Utilizing a cheat sheet is especially helpful for inexperienced players. Veteran players ought to know how exactly to play any starting hand that they come across. A well-crafted cheat sheet will tell players how to handle every starting hand that they come across.

Cheat sheets are not the only tools online players have at their disposal, either. Also you can use poker calculators and trackers to help you play. There are also various online learning tools, like poker coaches, which can help you learn to play.

Take full advantage of Bonuses and Reward Options
Another huge advantage for online poker players is that they can use bonuses and rewards programs. Many land-based poker rooms have reward programs, but few brick-and-mortar casino bonuses can contend with their online counterparts.

Also, you certainly do not need to travel to the poker to claim your bonuses. You can claim tons of bonus funds, free tournament entries, and more from the comfort of your house.

Using bonus funds to cultivate your poker bankroll is a superb way to play more hands. New players may use these bonuses to understand how to play the best starting hands in Texas Hold?em. Some poker rooms even have VIP reward programs, which can reward players for years to come.

Only Use Trusted Online Poker Rooms
If you do decide to venture into the world of online poker, then you need to make sure that you only use safe gambling sites. Online poker has been around for decades, so there are tons of sites available.

The very best poker sites offer players various tables from which to choose, including popular varieties like Texas Hold?em and Omaha Hold?em. They also use state-of-the-art security software to keep players? information safe.

Finding the right internet poker room can be a lot of work, especially for new players. Luckily, our poker experts have spent years completing the study for you. We recommend using sites like BetOnline to get the best online poker-playing experience.

How Do You Play the Best Starting Hands in Texas Hold?Em?
Having a strategy to discover the best starting hands in Texas Hold?em will allow you to benefit from your strong starting position. Both land-based and internet poker players need to plan for these situations. The tips above can help you make the most of a strong starting hand.Summary of American iGaming Law
If you ask 10 average Americans about online gambling legal status in the states, you?d likely hear 10 different answers.

Some individuals believe all forms of online gambling are banned by federal law, while some think individual states have the right to regulate the iGaming industry on their own. Once the divergences between online poker, casino gaming, sportsbooks, and daily fantasy sports (DFS) sites are put into the mix, ascertaining the legality of online gambling is admittedly a mess.

In 2003,Chris Moneymaker?s momentous win at the World Series of Poker (WSOP) Main Event sparked an internet poker boom, the one that saw a large number of operators enter the American market. At that time, federal law on the subject of gambling through the web was unclear, allowing sites like PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker to grow into truly massive, multibillion dollar operations at their respective peaks.

By 2006, however, the proliferation of iGaming had spawned full-fledged online casinos, filled with slots, table games, and even keno and bingo. With millions of Americans wagering real dollars on iGaming platforms, nearly all that have been offshore operations that paid nothing in taxes to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Congress saw fit to act.

That action became highly controversial, as lawmakers on Capitol Hill slipped a provision referred to as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006 into a spending bill to support defense of U.S. ports. That port bill was obviously passed without much delay, allowing the federal government to officially outlaw the practice of conducting iGaming-related business with American customers.

The UIGEA relied on a 1961 law referred to as the Wire Act (18 U.S.c � 1084), which prohibited wagers from being placed through ?telephonic? means. Clearly, that law was written before the internet age, but as the early modem and dial-up era of online connection was affected through telephone lines, the Wire Act was widely interpreted as being applicable to online gambling aswell.

In 2007, U.S. Attorney Catherine Hanaway delivered testimony to Congress explaining the way the DOJ interpreted the Wire Act at the time:

?The Department of Justice?s view is and contains been for quite a while that all forms of Internet gambling, including sports wagering, casino games and cards, are illegal under federal law. While many of the federal statutes do not utilize the term ?Internet gambling,? we think that the statutory language is enough to cover it.
As we have stated on previous occasions, the department interprets existing federal statues, including 18 U.S.C. Sections 1084, 1952, and 1955, as pertaining to and prohibiting Internet gambling.?

When the UIGEA was passed, major operators like PartyPoker immediately complied with the brand new law, pulling up their proverbial stakes and withdrawing from the U.S. market altogether. Conversely, sites like PokerStars and PartyPoker continued to serve American players, seemingly daring the federal government to enforce the UIGEA?s restrictions.

That staring contest played out for five years, until April 15 of 2011, once the Department of Justice (DOJ) unsealed an indictment known as USA v. Scheinberg, 10 Cr. 336 (2011). That indictment targeted the owners and operators of PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, and the Cereus Network, which covered both Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet Poker.

Immediately, the domain names for these established online poker rooms were seized, and the sites were shuttered, replaced by a sternly worded warning from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Known forever afterward as ?Black Friday,? that day signaled the beginning of America?s iGaming prohibition. The UIGEA was now an enforceable law, making the lucrative business of online gambling a risk for entrepreneurs, and the pool of iGaming platforms that were ?U.S.-facing? quickly dried up. The ones that remained were considered ?rogue? sites, and apart from rubber-stamped licenses issued by sham gaming regulators in places like Costa Rica, Curacao, and the Kahnawake reservation in Canada, they weren?t regulated in any real sense.

Despite the lack of regulated iGaming, millions of Americans continued to search out rogue sites while wagering volume remained unabated. Simply put, the demand for online gambling remained strong, even as the supply side suffered serious setbacks.

Perhaps recognizing that Americans benefited more from iGaming regulation than prohibition, the DOJ issued a surprising reversal of longstanding policy in December of 2011 ? changing its official interpretation of the Wire Act.

In a letter to subordinates, U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole outlined the DOJ?s revised stance on the Wire Act?s scope:

?The Department?s Office of Legal Counsel (?OLC?) has analyzed the scope of the Wire Act, 18 U.S.c � 1084, and figured it is limited only to sports betting.?
Without warning, the DOJ had restricted the Wire Act?s coverage to sports betting activity only ? meaning regulations couldn?t be utilized as precedent for banning poker or casino gambling conducted online.

Legal experts observed that the DOJ?s ruling paved just how for individual states to explore their own iGaming legislation, as federal law no more prohibited the industry.

Just 13 months later, Nevada and NJ took the plunge, turning their land-based casino hotspots in to the second and third states to legalize online gambling, respectively. Delaware became the initial state to take action in June of 2012, however the state?s small stature and insufficient a casino industry left the spotlight on the Silver and Garden States.

From then on initial flurry of legislative activity ? which created regulatory frameworks for iGaming to be offered by licensed casinos and ?racinos? (in Delaware) ? industry insiders expected several states to check out suit. Those hopes grew when New Jersey?s collection of online casinos and poker rooms began exceeding expectations out of your gate, sending millions of dollars in badly needed tax revenue to state coffers.

Unfortunately, the early momentum witnessed in those three states never materialized nationwide. While several states, including coastal powerhouses in California and New York, floated their very own iGaming bills, the complexity of the debate has led to ongoing delays atlanta divorce attorneys instance.

At this time, that elusive fourth state to authorize iGaming has yet to step of progress, leaving only NJ, Nevada, and Delaware as havens for safe, secure, and legal online gambling.

Even so, the list of states currently considering iGaming legislation continues to grow, and in 2017 the prospects for discovering that fourth state have never been better.

The list below highlights four states where iGaming bills are increasingly being debated, ranked in descending order using the likelihood of passage:

1 ? New York
Back November of 2015, when New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sent a cease and desist letter to major DFS operators DraftKings and FanDuel, the Empire State seemed like the last place online gamblers would like to be.

Schneiderman?s actions forced the DFS sites out of a leading American marketplace, disturbing the semblance of peace enjoyed by the iGaming industry since 2011. Once more, lawmakers were targeting online gambling operations, leaving players out in the proverbial cold.

As for other games, specifically online poker, a couple of bills have been introduced in 2014, but the so-called ?conversation starters? failed to garner any serious consideration.

All in all, New York?s iGaming landscape was a barren wasteland, until last year that is.

In June of 2016, the N.Y. Senate passed SB-5302 ? a bill introduced by state senator John Bonacic which may legalize and regulate internet poker ? by an overwhelming 53-5 margin. At the time, iGaming industry insiders widely believed that the N.Y. Assembly would quickly move to pass regulations, with powerful assemblyman J. Gary Pretlow having previously authored their own online poker proposal in 2014.

Unfortunately, Pretlow soon declared the web poker initiative ?dead? in the Senate, effectively shelving the problem until 2017. Because the Chairman of the Assembly Racing, Gaming and Wagering Committee, Pretlow?s stance about them is considered to be crucial, as he looms because the potential ?kingmaker? in gambling debates.

In explaining the Assembly?s decision in order to avoid consideration of SB-5302, Pretlow expressed concerns over the potential for cheating, and for out-of-state players to gain access to New York?s internet poker rooms, among reasons for delaying passage.

On the DFS front, in August of 2016 ? following a group of negotiations between DraftKings / FanDuel executives and state authorities to boost consumer protections ? Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a law authorizing DFS within hawaii. The move was hailed as a major success by iGaming proponents, signaling a state?s willingness to explore the and adapt, instead of fall back on blanket bans.

With the right to play DFS now secure in NY, internet poker has returned to the forefront of the debate.

Some identical bills are under consideration by the state?s Assembly and Senate: AB-5250 and SB-3898. Pretlow sponsored the former, while Bonacic sponsored the latter -continuing both men?s lengthy involvement in New York?s iGaming debate.

If approved, poker would be defined as a casino game of skill under state law, rather than game of chance. Around 11 interactive gaming licenses would be issued to land-based casino and racetrack operators within hawaii, and those entities would be free to partner with established iGaming providers like 888 Holdings, bWin.Party, and so on.

In order to obtain a license, operators would pay a set $10 million fee to the state, while a 15 percent tax on gross gaming revenue will be applied annually thereafter. Only players 21 and up, who are physically located within New York?s borders, would be permitted to play for real cash.

In February of the year, Pretlow gave an extended interview to an area media outlet, outlining his renewed confidence that online poker would be safe and secure. Pretlow?s comments were quite optimistic, and he managed to get clear that 2017 should be the year NY joins NJ, Nevada, and Delaware:

?When I really do sign off on something, my colleagues feel that it is a great deal and they don?t question why I made a particular decision. They understand that if that decision was made, it?s for good reason.
So I don?t really see there?s likely to be much opposition to moving this along.?

Compared to that end, the N.Y. Senate even included a line item for online poker revenue in its most recent budget proposal. Utilizing the budgetary process to enact law is normally unpopular, but other states like Pennsylvania have explored the option as a means of bypassing partisan legislative gridlock.

Once more, however, the Assembly decided to get in the way, removing the online poker revenues from the budget altogether. As Pretlow explained, hawaii?s political hierarchy intervened to keep online poker separate from the budget debate:

?It won?t be in the ultimate budget, I don?t believe, because there are people opposed to it who are higher than me and don?t want to buy in the budget.?
On May 9, the Senate Finance Committee passed SB-3898 via voice vote, sending Bonacic?s bill to the full Senate for review. The Senate Racing, Gaming and Wagering Committee, which Bonacic chairs, previously became the initial committee to send SB-3898 up the legislative ladder.

At the time this page was written (5/18/17), SB-3898 is being debated by the entire Senate. Taking into consideration the years? worth of tinkering and adjustment, you might suspect that this version satisfies the demands of varied stakeholders, so Senate passage can be regarded as highly likely.

Of course, lawmakers can be fickle creatures, so until both Senate and Assembly provide final passage and send online poker to Governor Cuomo?s desk, nothing is set in stone.

Proving this fact, Pretlow gave an interview soon after the Senate Finance Committee vote, during which he raised several pressing concerns held by fellow members of the Assembly. In accordance with reporter Andrew Whitman, with local news station FiOS-1, Pretlow talked about the concern that NY is expanding its gambling industry too quickly, and the necessity to involve tribal gaming operators in virtually any major iGaming proposal.

And adding to the intrigue, the Cuomo administration has remained curiously quiet in terms of internet poker, offering neither support nor opposition.

Despite that fact, his willingness to sign DFS regulations into law suggests that Governor Cuomo far from a hardliner on iGaming. If the Senate and Assembly arrived at terms prior to the current legislative session ends on June 22, NY is poised to become the fourth iGaming-legal state in the country sometime this year.

And when Pretlow?s newfound fears cause another delay, punting internet poker into 2018, the slow but steady progress in the last two years indicate that passage will be all but guaranteed.

2 ? Massachusetts
When lawmakers in Massachusetts enacted the Expanded Gambling Act of 2011, the intent was to create a brick and mortar casino industry by allowing one slot parlor, along with around three Las Vegas-style casino resorts.

The opening of Plainridge Park Casino in 2015 fulfilled the slot parlor requirement, while MGM Springfield and Wynn Boston Harbor are set to open in 2018 and 2019, respectively.

However when the Bay State budged on casino gambling, a surprising move given Massachusetts? historical aversion to passing ?vice? laws, in addition, it paved the way for iGaming discussions.

Stephen Crosby, who serves as chairman of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC), is definitely on record as supporting a full-fledged ?omnibus? package of iGaming regulations. Although he couched that support in early stages by saying that iGaming must wait until the state?s new land-based casino licensees were selected, the choice of Wynn and MGM in 2014 left him fully up to speed.

In August of 2016 a bill referred to as HB-4569, which sought to temporarily regulate DFS in Massachusetts until full-scale regulations could be implemented in 2018, was signed into law by Governor Charlie Baker.

When HB-4569 became law, it prompted the creation of a particular panel tasked with studying the depth of DFS and iGaming possibilities to convey legislators. Crosby was voted to chair the Massachusetts Special Commission on Online Gaming, Fantasy Sports Gaming and Daily Fantasy Sports, which convened for the first time in November of 2016.

Crosby used the forum to lead the charge for omnibus legislation, telling reporters after the meeting had adjourned that regulating all aspects of iGaming under one umbrella was the best approach:

?Would it make sense for the Legislature to attempt to craft an omnibus regulatory bill for several of these new electronic gaming technologies ? because there?s so many of them?
Hopefully, this is an opportunity for us to keep?the initiative that we?ve made about trying to come up with some omnibus legislation that may give the Legislature and then most likely the Gaming Commission the various tools to regulate most of online gaming

If they could craft a bill, which incorporated regulatory priorities, fundamental values, whatever, that could be applied to all these games ? e-sports, [daily fantasy sports], online poker, whatever all the new ones are ? maybe they could give it for some agency to implement, and the agency does the grunt work every half a year making it apply to whatever the new technology is.?

The special panel is scheduled to provide a report on its findings on or before July 31 of this year.

To kick off the 2017 legislative session this January, state senator Ted Barr (R-Gloucester) ? who serves as the state?s Senate Majority Leader ? introduced a two-page placeholder bill referred to as S-200.

The bill would authorize Massachusetts to issue interactive gaming license to its existing land-based casino licensees, provided those venues don?t spread games that could compete with a proposed online lottery program.

State senator Jennifer Flanagan (D-Worcester & Middlesex) also revived her 2016 effort to legalize online lottery sales in the state, which achieved passage by the Senate before lapsing in the Assembly.

With the introduction of S-182 in late January, Massachusetts now has a set of major iGaming expansion bills raised in the legislature.

Unfortunately for fans of poker and casino table games, it looks likely that only online lottery regulation will be seriously taken up in 2017, with Massachusetts playing things nearer to the vest on the omnibus iGaming package.

As iGaming industry expert Steve Ruddock of Online Poker Report detailed in a recently available report, that strategy is founded on the fact Steve Wynn owns among the two Massachusetts? land-based casinos which are still under construction. Wynn has long been known as an opponent of online gambling measures nationwide, and despite comments by way of a company-paid lobbyist at a particular Commission meeting in March, he maintains that stance today.

As a Wynn representative reiterated to Online Poker Report, the mogul hasn?t softened his opposition to iGaming at all:

?Among other concerns, we continued to believe that online gambling struggles to effectively identify and authenticate the finish user, creating a threat of underage gambling.
We still maintain our position with this matter, as communicated by Mr. Wynn during the last several years.?

The Wynn issue is probable a hurdle to overcome, but as Ruddock observes, the hardline stance adopted by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey provides a more pressing obstacle.

Healey is no fan of online casinos, slot parlors, or poker rooms, as expressed by the next statement delivered on your day she assumed office in January of 2015:

?In this new era, the general public must feel confident that no casinos will be brought online before meeting their commitments and following a law.
I've a responsibility to the general public to make sure gaming accountability, and have made this a priority for my new administration.?

With local media outlets reporting that Healey is exploring a potential gubernatorial run in 2018, her signature could be the only thing standing in the form of full-fledged iGaming passage in Massachusetts.

That?s obviously not a good sign for iGaming enthusiasts, but if you?re searching for encouragement, her involvement in crafting the state?s DFS regulations should provide some solace. Healey worked diligently to produce a laundry list of the strictest DFS regulations yet enacted, making certain recreational players wouldn?t be preyed on by well-heeled professionals, among a litany of similar consumer protection safeguards.

She wasn?t an ally of DFS either, but upon recognizing the legal quandaries created by an unregulated industry, Healey did the right thing and shielded Massachusetts from rogue operators and unscrupulous practices.

If she can perform the same with online casinos and poker rooms, Massachusetts may one day support the safest & most secure iGaming industry in the country.

3 ? Pennsylvania
With a dozen brick and mortar casinos operating through the entire state, Pennsylvania is not bound by the same type of gambling aversion that hampers other Northeastern locales.

To that end, online gambling bills have already been introduced in the Keystone State as soon as 2013 ? exactly the same year regional neighbors NJ and Delaware joined the iGaming fray.

The initial crack at internet poker and casino regulation, HB-1235 sponsored by state representative Tina Davis (D-141), stalled out in the House. However, the Pennsylvania Senate initiated a full-scale economic study in December of 2013, through the passing of SR-273 ? which called for Econsult Solutions to oversee an iGaming impact study.

Once the research firm returned its results in-may of 2014, predicting that Pennsylvania would collect $68 million in iGaming?s first year, followed by $110 annually thereafter, the ?data? convinced lawmakers that online gambling would provide lasting financial benefits.

Of course, Econsult Solutions couched its study in an estimated taxation rate of 20 percent for poker, and 60 percent on casino and slots. Those figures were far from set in stone, because the subsequent debate over Pennsylvania?s proposed iGaming industry would later prove.

The research findings compelled state senator Edwin Erickson (R-26) to introduce SB-1386 in June of 2014, but lawmakers took no action on that particular proposal.

By 2015, with evidence of iGaming?s positive economic impact making headlines in New Jersey, lawmakers in Pennsylvania renewed their efforts to get in the web gambling game. Added incentive was provided by hawaii?s ongoing budget crisis, which left a projected budget shortfall of $2 billion at that time.

State representative John Payne (R-106), who serves as chair of the home Gaming Oversight Committee, introduced HB-649 in February of 2015. The bill would?ve legalized both online poker and casino games. Online gambling operators would?ve paid a $5 million licensing fee, with gross gaming revenue taxed at 14 percent across the board.

In a statement issued to announce HB-649?s introduction, Payne provided a mission statement for Pennsylvania?s renewed iGaming effort:

?Right now millions of Americans, including Pennsylvanians, participate in illegal online gaming where no regulation currently exists. By enacting effective state policy, we are able to help curb the illegal market while ensuring strong safeguards come in spot to protect consumers.
We are currently facing a projected $2 billion budget shortfall. I believe it?s important we consider all responsible options to improve revenue before we consider asking our taxpayers for more money to fill that deficit.

The implementation of legalized online gaming in Nevada, NJ and Delaware demonstrates the technologies exist to regulate Internet gaming safely and effectively. This legislation may be the first step toward ensuring future growth as the industry expands.?

In November of 2015 the home Gaming Oversight Committee passed HB-649 within an 18-8 vote, marking the 1st time legislators there had successfully passed an online gambling measure. This victory appeared to the stage for what most thought to be imminent iGaming passage in Pennsylvania.

Instead, another year-and-a-half devolved into rancorous debate over a multitude of barely connected issues, including video gaming terminals (VGTs) at airports, the expansion of slot parlors at racinos, and of course, the all-important question of tax rates.

The drama began in June of 2015, when state senator Kim Ward (R-39) introduced SB-900. The bill needed a much higher 54 percent tax, which aligns with Pennsylvania?s land-based slot levy, along with $10 million licensing fees, and a requirement that players sign up for online accounts by visiting a land-based licensee venue first.

These conditions are widely regarded as untenable for iGaming operators, leaving no room to show a profit and effectively shuttering the industry before it ever begins.

When SB-900 began attracting interest from conservative lawmakers, draining support from Payne?s HB-649 along the way, the stage was set for the budgetary gridlock of today.

By 2016, with Payne diligently tabling HB-649 to keep the measure alive, Pennsylvania brought up a couple of amendments to tackle the increasingly controversial VGT issue. Those amendments were mounted on a new iGaming proposal, however, further muddying the waters.

The entire year was defined by ongoing collaboration between your opposing sides, including 47 separate hearings on the matter. But despite an edict from Governor Tom Wolf ? who included a line item of $100 million to $250 million predicated on iGaming revenue in the 2016-2017 budget ? Pennsylvania lawmakers were unable to reach an agreement before legislative work ended in 2016.

Fast forward to mid-May in 2017 and not much has changed.

In fact, the problem is becoming increasingly clouded by the introduction of no less than three separate iGaming bills: HB-392, SB-477, and HB-524.

Each one of these proposals would authorize sweeping changes to Pennsylvania?s online gambling landscape, like the legalization of DFS besides internet poker and casino games. The bills also call for expansion of land-based gambling products like multistate progressive slot and tablet gaming at airport terminals.

Where in fact the bills differ is the tax rate applied to online gambling revenue.

The two bills put forth in the House stick to a 14 percent tax, which aligns closely with the 15 percent standard established by New Jersey?s successful iGaming gamble.

The Senate bill opts for a higher 25 % tax, while raising the licensing fee for land-based operators from $8 million to $10 million, and the fee for software providers along with other vendors from $2 million to $5 million.

This divide has resulted in an extremely convoluted discussion between both legislative bodies, one made even more urgent by the state?s looming tax-share deadlines.

To illustrate the complexity of the ongoing discussions, the home ? which is widely considered to be more receptive to iGaming compared to the Senate ? decided in April to stop on HB-392. Instead, the bill?s sponsor, state representative George Dunbar, added his name to HB-271 as a co-sponsor.

The new bill, the fourth to emerge in Pennsylvania thus far in the 2017 session, is written as a ?shell,? with only one original provision about tablet gaming in airports.

As Dunbar told INTERNET POKER Report, this shell bill is supposed to give the Senate carte blanche when it comes to crafting their own online gambling provisions, considering that body?s continual tinkering with House efforts:

?We put in a very important factor, tablets in airports, and basically said, ?You load it up using what you want in it. It puts the ball in their court.
We sent up the bill to allow them to load up combined with the budget for them to determine this is what we must do to accomplish this. It?s around them to change the budget or send the bill back again to us with everything onto it.

?We just need them to inform us what they need. We?ve told them what we want, and they?ve taken no action for some reason. We truly don?t know why. It?s time for them to put up. That?s where we?re at. I?m sure they?re going to come up with something.?

As of today, each one of these bills is being bantered about within the House and Senate, but the proverbial clock is ticking with regards to the May 25 (soft) and July 15 (firm) deadlines for local tax-share distributions.

Even with that incentive looming overhead, the sheer abundance of moving parts in Pennsylvania?s legislature has made an already intricate issue far too complicated. Variable tax rates on DFS, poker, and casino games, the divide between industry standard taxation and land-based equivalents, and an inability to split up online regulation from brick and mortar gambling expansion looks more likely to prolong Pennsylvania?s iGaming debate until 2018.

4 ? California
The situation in California is becoming so convoluted that people?ll spare you the gory details, but sufficed to say, the Golden State has didn't strike the iGaming motherlode.

Industry experts have long tabbed California because the prime destination for iGaming expansion. The state is home to a large number of tribal and commercial casino venues, alongside racetracks, card rooms, and other legal gambling ventures. So when the largest state in the union, with nearly 40 million residents, the potential revenue stream generated by taxing iGaming operators will be truly enormous.

For those reasons, California has always been prior to the curve ? at least when it comes to proposing new legislation.

Way back in '09 2009, more than 2 yrs before the DOJ even reversed course on the Wire Act, state legislators authored a draft document outlining the framework for statewide internet poker regulation. That document, entitled ?California Online Poker Law Enforcement Compliance and Consumer Protection Act of 2009,? proposed the creation of an online poker industry which would fall in line with the UIGEA of 2006.

On the next nine years, California would visit a string of internet poker bills introduced on an annual basis, a list of which can be found below:

2010 ? SB 1485 ? Internet Gambling Consumer Protection and Public-Private Partnership Act
2011 ? SB 45 ? Internet Gambling Consumer Protection and Public-Private Partnership Act
2011 ? California INTERNET POKER Association (COPA) draft bill
2012 ? SB 1463 ? Internet Gambling Consumer Protection and Public-Private Partnership Act
2013 ? SB 51 ? Internet Gambling Consumer Protection and Public-Private Partnership Act
2013 ? SB 678 ? Authorization and Regulation of Internet Poker and Consumer Protection Act
2014 ? SB 1366 ?THE WEB Poker Consumer Protection Act
2014 ? AB 2291 ?THE WEB Poker Consumer Protection Act
2015 ? AB 167 ? THE WEB Poker Consumer Protection Act
2015 ? AB 9 ? THE WEB Poker Consumer Protection Act
2016 ? AB 2863 ? THE WEB Poker Consumer Protection Act
2017 ? AB 1677 ? The Internet Poker Consumer Protection Act
As you can plainly see by this graveyard of failed online poker bills, California has attemptedto pass this type of law every year since 2010 ? with many years seeing multiple attempts.

Unfortunately for the millions of internet poker enthusiasts there, California has succumbed to a prolong legislative standoff between several interested stakeholders.

In the centre of the debate is internet poker behemoth PokerStars and the business?s need to operate within California?s newly created online poker market.

Many legislators and local casino operators welcome PokerStars, recognizing that California?s online poker experiment stands to benefit from the company?s wealth of resources and experience. Actually, a coalition consisting of Commerce Casino, Hawaiian Gardens Casino, and Bicycle Casino ? three of the biggest land-based operators in the Los Angeles area ? were joined by the Morongo Band of Mission Indians to create a pro-PokerStars coalition in 2014.

In 2014 another coalition emerged, comprising 13 tribal groups under the leadership of the Pechanga Band of Luise�o Indians, to take on the PokerStars alliance.

According to this tribal coalition, PokerStars should be deemed a ?bad actor? based on the company?s conscious choice to operate within California after the UIGEA of 2006 made doing so illegal. Because the bad actor argument goes, PokerStars gained an undue competitive advantage over online poker rooms like PartyPoker, which willingly abandoned the U.S. market following the UIGEA became law.

Proponents of the bad actor theory declare that by continuing to serve Californians until ?Black Friday? struck five years later, PokerStars accumulated valuable data on customer activity that its competitors lack. In the coalition?s first public statement, issued in March of 2014, the tribes voice strong opposition to PokerStars? go back to the California market:

?Going back quarter-century our tribal governments been employed by constructively with the State to protect and fortify the trustworthiness of the California gaming industry by ensuring the honesty, good character, and integrity of licensees, employees, owners, and vendors. To now weaken California?s suitability standards would undermine our collective goal of fabricating a legislative framework that protects consumers from nefarious operators.
As we prepare to enter another chapter of gaming in California, we urge the State Legislature to maintain the highest standard of suitability as a way to prevent unscrupulous entities and brands from any involvement in legislatively authorized internet poker opportunities.?

That statement drew a line in the sand, and from that point onward California?s multitude of online poker bills have become battlegrounds for lobbyists representing both coalitions.

The anti-PokerStars coalition has floated several proposals to address the bad actor issue, including a mandatory 10-year suspension and a $60 million one-time fine suggested by the Pechanga just this past year. Intense negotiations on both sides led to that fine being cut to $20 million during the most recent debates this April, but Assemblyman Adam Gray (D-21) abruptly backtracked on those terms and opted for a five-year suspension period instead.

The bait and switch tactic didn?t review well with anybody, prompting the once promising collaboration between the rival coalitions to fall apart.

Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-22) has sponsored internet poker bills each year since 2014, but even he was forced to admit defeat for the 2017 session following the latest clash between PokerStars detractors and advocates.

Speaking to Online Poker Report this April, Jones-Sawyer effectively shelved AB-1677 until 2018 at the initial while citing Gray?s sudden change of heart:

?I don?t desire to sound like a minister or psychologist, but we?ve got to start from ground zero where we?ve got to at least get people to want to make an effort to get it done again.
When I first started on this in earnest, we were going slow and methodical, and we'd some successes. We weren?t trying to rush anyone and we weren?t pitting one side against the other, as best we could.

(Gray) may have thought there was a way to make the offer, to finally get this done. I don?t know very well what happened after that to unravel something for which I thought we were very close.?

Now we have to return to the same methodical strategy as before, but we may have to go even slower as you don?t want to have people pushed against the wall. That?s when people begin to get yourself a little nervous and strained.

Obviously, we?re not likely to put anything over the desk now. In the event that you look at the Assembly, we have other big things such as the transportation bill to focus on.

This would not be a good year to place something controversial in. I think the ability to workout something next year includes a bigger chance if we do some of the come-together healing things right now.?

Considering the lack of enthusiasm voiced by Jones-Sawyer, among internet poker?s most vocal supporters in the state during the last four years, California seems no nearer to passage than it had been back in 2009.

And that?s a shame too. A densely populated, cosmopolitan locale like California could easily transform internet poker into a perennial cash cow, proving forever that well-managed iGaming industries are economic engines.

But before bad actor sticking point has been successfully negotiated, players there are left to ride exactly the same wash / rinse / repeat cycle which has defined California for nearly a decade.

Conclusion
Any state which occupies the iGaming debate enters into a tangled web of legal, budgetary, and political interests, as proven by the recaps above.

Making any change to regulations involves cooperation on an immense scale, but for multiple reasons, iGaming regulation has proven to be a tough nut to crack. Between the varied positions held by existing land-based gambling operators, including tribal organizations, and the direct impact of tax revenue and licensing fees, legalizing the online gambling business is nothing short of a Herculean task.

As the longstanding meccas of American gambling, Nevada and New Jersey both had added incentive to capitalize on iGaming expansion after the DOJ?s revised Wire Act opinion. As for Delaware, the Diamond State simply took initiative and gambled on the growth of an ascendant industry.

But also for the four states listed on this page, and any others hoping to authorize online gambling in one form or another, achieving an identical breakthrough has shown to be difficult indeed.

With that said, progress is still made with every committee hearing and vote, and surely the set of American states where iGaming is legal will grow ? either this year or next.
먹튀검증


Website: https://www.totoeleven.net