Tag: judi online casino

I wrote about the oft-cited misconception that online gambling legalization is an expansion of gambling after two overly skeptical editorials appeared deriding the legislature’s efforts to pass an online gambling bill. This week a third paper made the same mischaracterization, and it’s common for the state’s newspapers to blast the idea of online gambling. It even went a step further, invoking fears of the long-debunked myth of cannibalization.

What this newspaper says about online gambling The new editorial makes the same mistake as its predecessors, as the Delaware County Daily Times echoes the thoughts of the Philadelphia Daily News and the Lehigh Valley Express Times. The editorial board falsely believing the legalization of online gambling in Pennsylvania would authorize something that doesn’t currently exist, and somehow increase access to a form of gambling everyone in the state already has access to.

The editorial board for the DelCo Times states: Getting it wrong on iGaming again As I noted in my rebuttal from last week, this line of thought just doesn’t pass the smell test. A person living in Pennsylvania can gamble online from the privacy of his or her own home today, with or without the state passing a bill to legalize online gambling. Wherever you currently live in Pennsylvania, you can go online and start gambling. All legalization would do is:

Continue : Awesome Trics To Always Win In Domino Qiu Qiu

Institute much needed consumer protections;
Place the industry in the capable hands of the state’s land-based casinos;
Allow the state to benefit from taxing the industry;
Bring the industry under the regulatory sway of the state’s gaming control board. But wait, there’s ‘cannibalization’ too But the DelCo Times also goes a step further, insisting that online gambling will not only increase access to gambling, but that it will cannibalize the state’s existing casinos: No one ever seems to mention what might happen next, and what kind of effect – and decreased revenue – such a move would have on existing casinos if people no longer have to get off their own sofa to visit a room poker in dewapoker. Many, in particular Harrah’s right here in Chester, are struggling now.

We would imagine the thought of online gaming might not exactly be music to their ears.

Someone should tell the editorial board that this theory has been debunked, and the notion Caesars would be against PA online gambling legalization is absurd. Despite the baseless speculation of the DelCo Times editorial board, the owner of Harrah’s Chester, Caesars Entertainment, is not concerned about cannibalization.

It has stated many times at Pennsylvania hearings how beneficial online gambling has been to their properties in New Jersey. In April of 2015, Michael Cohen, the senior vice president and general counsel of Caesars Interactive, testified in front of the Pennsylvania House Gaming Oversight Committee that the “practical effects that we have seen is it has not cannibalized our business. If anything, it has enhanced our bricks-and-mortar business.” He repeated the company’s line in a Senate hearing. Old and tired arguments about online gambling Maybe if these editorial boards attended some of these hearings (or at least read some transcripts), they would have a better understanding of the impact of online gambling.

Read More : Trics How To Choose a Real Money Online Gambling Site

Instead, they just trot out old arguments that have long since been discredited. And maybe they’d be able to avoid the embarrassment of making s statement such as: “Many, in particular Harrah’s right here in Chester, are struggling now. We would imagine the thought of online gaming might not exactly be music to their ears.” That same property’s parent company is pushing for online gambling legalization because it has helped bolster their business in New Jersey. Message to DelCo Times editorial board: It is music to their ears! Harrah’s Chester wants online gambling. And while Harrah’s may be down, most Pennsylvania casinos doing just fine, with eight straight record months. One does not have to look very hard to see how Caesars feels about online gambling legalization, but why bother looking, or reaching out and asking, when you can just guess? How does the saying go? Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives considered legislation to legalize and regulate online gambling on Tuesday, but after a series of votes, iGaming’s future is still uncertain. What happened in PA on iGaming The effort to move online gambling regulation forward in the state cropped up suddenly this week after reports that it would be considered in June. The old vehicle — HB 649 — was left behind. Lawmakers made an attempt to add the massive omnibus gambling expansion — iGaming included — to HB 1925. At first, an amendment was offered that included a contentious provision that would allow private establishments — outside of casinos — to offer video gaming terminals. That amendment was defeated, 122-66. Next, another amendment — this time with no VGTs — was brought forward by Rep. John Payne. (Payne chairs the House gaming committee and also is the architect of the gambling expansion effort.) After a lengthy debate, that amendment was also defeated, 107-81. That left observers wondering if online gambling had drawn its last breath, at least temporarily. Wait, not so fast on iGaming’s obituary Online gambling isn’t dead yet, however. The House approved motions to reconsider both gaming amendments right after they were defeated. The best guess for what’s happening? It’s a bit of a gamesmanship between lawmakers who want to authorize VGTs and those that do not. The VGT provision has long been thought to be a poison pill for the gambling expansion if it reaches the Senate. What’s next for PA online gambling? The amendments could be considered and voted on again, as soon as Wednesday. Online gaming proponents would like to see the non-VGT amendment get through. The gambling expansion and online gambling are seen as a way to deal with a deficit in the state’s pension system. Previously, online gaming had been a part of budget talks in the state because it could generate tens of millions of dollars in revenue annually. Pennsylvania has long seemed like the front-runner for the next state to authorize online gambling. While it’s difficult to handicap the effort’s chances right now, it’s still not dead.

If the recently concluded C5 Online Gaming Conference in New York City is any indication, the next state to pass online gaming legislation will be Pennsylvania. Speakers at gaming conferences tend to paint the industry in a positive light and offer cheerful outlooks for gaming going forward. C5 was no exception to this rule. However, this positive spin is often generalized and spoken about in abstract terms, as few of the industry’s analysts and consultants are willing to make steadfast declarations on the ever-changing gaming landscape. And the other group of conference attendees – politicians and regulators – are masters at deflecting questions and leaving the door open for all possibilities. There was one exception at C5, and that was Pennsylvania’s chances of passing an online gaming bill in 2015. an issue several panelists seemed willing to discuss and bullish about. No need to parse these comments One panelist, former New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement and New Jersey Casino Control Commission member and current Amaya Gaming Chairman of Compliance, Thomas Auriemma, went so far as to say it is “likely” Pennsylvania will pass a bill in 2015, and that the Pennsylvania bill “will move” this year. Auriemma’s comments should be given a lot of credence, as his previous positions in New Jersey have given him intimate knowledge of the dynamics in Pennsylvania, as well as the principles involved. An online gaming bill would likely be part of the state’s budget, which is due to be passed in June. This leaves precious little time to get the ball rolling in the legislature. However, as Auriemma noted, budgets don’t have to pass on time (nor do they). So we shouldn’t consider June a hard deadline for an online gaming bill in Pennsylvania, although he also indicated that it could be passed by June. Another panelist suggested that with the continued turmoil in California, all eyes should be turned to the Keystone State. Throughout the day, whenever Pennsylvania’s progress was broached by a panel there were many nods of agreement from other panelists and audience members. These sentiments were also espoused in private conversations. Steady online gambling regulation progress in PA Unlike California, where online gaming expansion has been on the table for at least five years with little progress made, Pennsylvania is currently on a trajectory similar to New Jersey in 2012 and 2013. What I refer to as the three year plan:
Year 1: The issue becomes a topic of discussion and a bill may or may not be introduced.
Year 2: Legislation is introduced and hearings are held but the bill dies in the legislature.
Year 3: Legislation is reintroduced, more hearings are held and the measure is passed. Pennsylvania is currently in year three. Momentum is clearly on PA’s side Not only is Pennsylvania in year three of online gaming talks, but several factors have accelerated the online gaming expansion process in Pennsylvania. A new GO Committee Chairman John Payne, a pro-online gambling legislator, took over control of the all-important House Gaming Oversight Committee. His predecessor, Mauree Gingrich, was extremely leery of online gaming expansion, telling local press in 2013 that online gambling was not a priority, nor was it on the legislature’s radar. When Payne was given the Chairmanship of the GO Committee, he outlined his goals thusly: “I view this new responsibility as a chance not only to ensure integrity in the industry, but explore opportunities for expansion and reform that could generate additional revenue for our economy.” Earlier this year I spoke with Chairman Payne and he reiterated his commitment to keep Pennsylvania gaming healthy and competitive, saying, “My mission statement is to keep gaming in general healthy, but in particular to make sure our casinos stay healthy and competitive against our surrounding states.” “The thing I don’t want to see happen is four casinos in Pennsylvania close like happened in Atlantic City. […] “For me, I’d rather have Internet gambling, fantasy sports betting, fix the small games of chance bill [bar machines], than vote to raise income or sales taxes,” Payne said. Bipartisan support Payne also has a willing partner on the opposite side of the aisle, as Democrat Nick Kotik (the Democratic Chair of the GO Committee) has cosponsored Payne’s online gaming bill, HB 649. Hearings, and hearings, and more hearings With Payne at the helm, Pennsylvania has hosted half a dozen (and counting) hearings on online gaming expansion. Aside from Las Vegas Sands representatives, there appears to be a strong appetite among Pennsylvania’s gaming interests and lawmakers, who not only are hosting hearings, but dressed-down Las Vegas Sands rep Andy Abboud and his demagoguery of online gaming. They also passed HR 140, a resolution urging Congress not to pass RAWA. May I have this dance? Finally, several of Pennsylvania’s brick and mortar casinos have entered into partnerships with online operators. This is a particularly strong indicator that positive steps are being made, as the same situation occurred in New Jersey prior to the bill being passed, here and here.

With the sale of PokerStars to Amaya Gaming, online poker expansion in California could be breathing its last harried gasps of 2014. The main point of contention all along has been the inclusion of PokerStars in the market, especially after it partnered with several entities, and this point of contention seems to only be growing more volatile since the announcement of the sale. There are also several other smaller, but still significant issues, from revenue sharing to the role (if any) the California horse racing industry will play. I’m not saying it’s over in California, but there are only a couple chapters left in the book and there doesn’t seem to be enough time for a new plot twist to emerge. In other words, if California online poker was a vampire it would be high noon, Dr. Van Helsing would be prying open the coffin lid with Jonathan Harker standing at the ready with a wooden stake in hand. How did we arrive at this point The most amazing part of this entire saga is that California would seem to be the perfect candidate for online poker expansion. The state is massive, with a population of 38 million, and capable of supporting a robust online poker industry on its own, without joining interstate compacts or sharing liquidity. The state is one of the most liberal when it comes to gaming, having allowed certain forms of poker to be played legally since the state was incorporated, and more recently allowing tribal resort casinos to be built. That being said, the numerous and seemingly always at odds California gaming interests have struggled to come to any type of consensus on how to adopt online gambling, despite trying for the past five years. 2014 initially seemed like the stars were finally aligned, but an announced partnership between PokerStars, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Bicycle Casino, the Commerce Casino, and the Hawaiian Gardens Casino derailed any chance of a complete consensus being reached. The partnership did bring many tribes and card rooms together, but rather than several different warring factions with some disagreement and some overlap, we now have two powerhouse factions at complete odds with one another. With PokerStars being allied with certain interests the remainder of the state’s power players lined up on the other side, calling for a sweeping bad actor clause to be added to the bill, a measure that PokerStars and its consortium called a deal-breaker and vowed to fight to the bitter end, even if it meant going to the courts. PokerStars has even enlisted the help of a constitutional law professor from Harvard University to tear apart the bad actor arguments. Why the sale to Amaya makes things worse in California The sale to Amaya makes the exclusion of PokerStars far more difficult down the road, as labeling the current version of PokerStars a “Bad Actor” would also require attaching that same label to Amaya Gaming. Furthermore, it’s simply harder for PokerStars detractors to make a reasonable case for why the company should be barred. They can cite whatever reasons they want but all anyone is hearing is that they don’t want to compete against PokerStars. By purchasing PokerStars, Amaya Gaming has effectively made it impossible for the coalition of 13 tribes to back off their support for a “Bad Actor” clause (not that it seemed like they were going to anyway) since regulators would almost certainly find PokerStars suitable for a license, just as they are likely to do in New Jersey. Light at the end of the tunnel The good news is it already appeared 2014 was slipping through California’s so the sale may be the straw that broke the camel’s back but it’s far from the main reason. What the sale does do is give PokerStars a second chance in New Jersey, and once the company is licensed (found suitable) in one locale other locales will find it much harder to keep the company out, especially when their new parent company is licensed in several jurisdictions and supplies B2C games (both online and brick & mortar) to virtually every operator in the country. So what we have is the sale hurting California’s chances in the short-term, but perhaps helping California’s chances in 2015 by removing the key obstacle which is whether or not PokerStars should be licensed. Previous Post Next Post amaya|bike|commerce|hawaiian gardens|morongo|pokerstars About Steve Ruddock Steve Ruddock is a longtime member of the online gambling industry. He covers the regulated US online casino and poker industries for variety of publications, including OnlinePokerReport.com, PlayNJ.com, USPoker.com, and USA Today.

Online gambling in Pennsylvania is starting to look like the real deal. In an op-ed that appeared in PennLive.com on Wednesday, Representative John Payne and Representative Nick Kotik made a strong case for legalizing online gambling in Pennsylvania. The two are the sponsors of HB 649, a bill that would legalize and regulate online poker and online casino games in Pennsylvania. Payne and Kotik are the Chairman and Democratic Chair of the House Gaming Oversight Committee, respectively. Making the case for PA online gambling The op-ed begins with Payne and Kotik making the following arguments for legalization:
Pennsylvanians are already gambling online and instead of Pennsylvania receiving millions of dollars in tax revenue, the money is going overseas.
These overseas sites are often loosely regulated or unregulated, posing a safety concern for players. “It makes no sense to leave online gaming unregulated, and sit idly while the state loses out on this income and players are unprotected,” Payne and Kotik noted. “Enacting this legislation would regulate an industry that is operating without any type of protections right now. It will provide funding for the state and make Pennsylvania casinos more competitive.” As if these statements weren’t powerful enough, the op-ed concludes with the simple yet poignant sentence, “Simply put, regulating online gaming is a win/win for Pennsylvanians and the state.” Public support for legalization Citing a recent poll commissioned by Caesars Entertainment in which 58% of respondents believed online gambling should be strictly regulated, Payne and Kotik remarked, “Pennsylvanians support what we’re trying to accomplish with our bill.” The duo went on to detail some of the other positive results of the poll, including:
65% of respondents felt online gaming revenue should be taxed and the proceeds used for vital state programs.
80% of respondents believed the state should make online sites use new technologies to assure that minors do not have access to online gaming.
52% of respondents said online gaming operators should be required to use technology that limits losses, deposits and the amount of time an individual can play. These results were a direct contradiction to the results of a widely-criticized Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling poll just weeks prior. HB 649 would deal with these issues Payne and Kotik also explain how their bill would bring about the consumer protections Pennsylvanians supported in the poll results. “Our bill offers the types of strict regulations needed to make online gaming work as it should in our state,” Payne and Kotik state. The safeguards that would be created by HB 649 are many and include:
Setting deposit and loss limits.
Employing geolocation technology capable of prohibiting out of state players from participating.
Utilizing player verification checks in order to prohibit minors from gaining access.
Enacting new criminal penalties to curtail illegal, unlicensed sites. The economic implications are also persuasive The op-ed finishes by detailing some of the revenue projections that have been submitted. According to Payne and Kotik, the industry could bring in as much as $120 million in its first year (this figure is likely a combination of tax revenue and licensing fees), and as much as $113 million annually. A more cautious estimate was proffered by Robert DellaFave at OnlinePokerReport.com. Upshot Payne and Kotik’s sustained and vocal support for online gambling is a positive sign for iGaming expansion in Pennsylvania, and hearkens back to Senator Raymond Lesniak’s vociferous crusade to bring online gambling to New Jersey. This is something that, as Chris Grove has noted, has been absent in California, and a key reason Pennsylvania has jumped ahead of California as the most likely state to pass an online gaming bill in the opinion of many industry experts.

This week I paid a visit to my old stomping grounds, Foxwoods Resort and Casino, with the intention of playing poker for the first time in a long time. While I always check out the poker room whenever I go, my recent visits to Foxwoods (and to Mohegan Sun for that matter) had me going there for dinner or to see a show with the missus, but this time was going to be different. This trip we would be spending an evening together and then going our separate ways the following day – her to the spa and me to the poker room. If you didn’t know (and why would you), I was an avid poker player before Chris Moneymaker’s 2003 World Series of poker victory ushered in the “Poker Boom” so I’ve seen both sides of the proverbial curtain. I’ve seen Foxwoods before the Boom (in fact I’ve seen it before Internet poker was anything but Planet Poker) and I’ve seen the buildup, the apex, and of course the regression of poker following UIGEA and later Black Friday. This column is specifically about Foxwoods, but I have little doubt the same dynamics can be found in poker rooms across the US, especially in California. Tuesday night in the Foxwoods Poker Room While I wouldn’t call it dead, there were plenty of open tables, plenty of short-handed tables, and very few waiting lists. It resembled the Foxwoods I remember from 2002 and not the Foxwoods of 2005, or even the Foxwoods of 2010 – which had already started to slink back into the abyss, where I had already noticed the stakes had dwindled and the room wasn’t as vibrant. I didn’t stay long Tuesday night, but what I saw was somewhat depressing – which could also be attributed to the poker room having been moved downstairs in what is a dark, low ceiling basement like room, far away from the sounds of the casino. There is no chance for the random passerby to stumble upon the poker room, a matter made all the more troubling when you see the old poker room location upstairs taken up by empty tournament tables, it’s a literal dead man’s zone with no activity. So my first bit of advice to Foxwoods: Flip the tournament and cash game rooms! Wednesday morning in the Foxwoods Poker Room I arrived for my actual session at about 8:30 AM, and was even more shocked than the night before at the lack of games going. I literally thought I had time-travelled back to 2001, as a few big Stud Games (and the handful of usual small ones were still going) as were the low limit holdem games. If Tuesday night’s crowd was disheartening, Wednesday morning was downright scary. The room did pick up by noon time, but it was still basically all low limit games with lots of moving pieces; also known as games going from full to short-handed with open-seating and back to full again. All in all, my visit to Foxwoods did not leave me with an optimistic appraisal of poker if things continue on their current path. The most troubling aspect Setting aside the lack of activity, the level of depression in that room was astounding. People would rant and rave over losses of a few hundred dollars. My feeling has always been if you can’t lose the money in front of you with a smile on your face than you are playing for more than you should. Play poker in  online you needs to be fun, and nobody in that room was having fun. You could tell these were players who got caught up in the Poker Boom and thought it would be rainbows and puppies forever. But now they are finding that the stakes they were crushing just a few years ago during the Boom no longer run on the regular, and the small stakes games are tougher and practically unbeatable due to the increased sophistication of casual players and of course the rake. As I explained to my wife, you see dejection on the casino floor all the time, even the occasional guy mumbling to himself as he pulls out a cigarette and looks for the exit, but in the poker room the emotion is more than this; it’s an unhealthy combination of anger and entitlement. You see people tearing up cards over $400 pots, and leaving the table screaming “nice call buddy.” It’s pervasive and other players are walking on egg shells, not even capable of consoling someone who took a bad beat with a “tough loss” as the person is already tilted. This has even trickled down to the floor and the dealers in some respects. Basically, the atmosphere in the Foxwoods poker room is not good, and is not conducive to bringing new people to the tables – assuming they could find the poker room to begin with, in its tucked away location. How online poker could help What I saw on this trip was definitely a bit disheartening, and only strengthened my feeling that brick & mortar poker needs online poker to survive. The two work together and this really is no longer a debatable point. I blame the lack of players and even the atmosphere on the lack of new players and money in the game. During the Boom years there was never a shortage of people who had no idea what they were doing. Whether they heard about poker at work, saw it on TV, or participated in play money games online there was always a constant stream of new money into the poker room. This dynamic was almost completely absent from the players in the room. For the most part the games were tight (lots of chopping) and the soft seats were basically people who played a few too many hands and/or couldn’t gauge their aggression properly. So what I witnessed was regulars just passing money around while the rake ate them all up. They knew it was going on; they understand their hourly rate has been cut so deeply that grinding out a living playing poker is almost impossible. But they do it anyway, apparently thinking things will change and waiting for the second “Poker Boom” we have been promised. What could help is the return of online poker. Online poker could bring those new players, and their money, back into live card rooms, and provide these new players with the incentive to seek out the Foxwoods poker room – have I mentioned its terrible location yet? This infusion of new cash and energetic players (who are just ecstatic to be playing real live poker and not so much interested in the results) would also boost the bankrolls of the grinders, and could lead to a domino effect of sorts, where the poker room is bustling, and smiling faces can be found within the sea of humanity. If brick & mortar poker is going to be kept from regressing even further we need the return of online poker. Previous Post Next Post About Steve Ruddock Steve Ruddock is a longtime member of the online gambling industry. He covers the regulated US online casino and poker industries for variety of publications, including OnlinePokerReport.com, PlayNJ.com, USPoker.com, and USA Today.

Thirteen of California’s most powerful tribes find themselves locked in a power struggle over the language of the state’s proposed iPoker legislation. Their influence is arguably the single biggest driving factor behind which gaming operators will be included if/when the industry goes live, who will be left out in the cold and how those lucky enough to be accepted must conduct their affairs. Hard to believe that only 27 years ago these same tribes would have had absolutely no say whatsoever. But as CalvinAyre.com recently reminded us via an infographic (found below), times have changed, and today Indian gaming is as much a part of American culture as baseball and apple pie. A brief history lesson From the mid-19th century until the 1970’s most Indian Reservations were stricken with high poverty rates, little economic opportunity and government dependency – largely due to the placement of most reservations in undesirable areas. It wouldn’t be until the 70’s that tribes in California and Florida decided to do something to facilitate the growth of their stagnating economies. The plan: open a few bingo parlors. Little did they know what would happen next. Tribes in other states soon caught wind of the happenings in CA and Florida and would soon introduce bingo parlors of their own. In fact, the industry grew so fast that commercial casino operators began complaining that the tribes were siphoning patrons, and subsequently revenues, away from their commercial casinos. In the 1980s, state governments began fighting for the right to tax Indian operated bingo parlors, also arguing that the industry needed to be regulated by government. Naturally, some tribes saw government intervention as a threat to their sovereignty. Tensions rose. By 1988, the Federal Government would feel compelled to step in, ultimately resulting in the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IRGA) in 1988. To summarize, the IGRA segmented gambling into three classes and authorized the establishment of the National Indian Gaming Commission. As a provision, in order to run Class III gaming operations – which included slot machines, and banked games – the tribe must negotiate a compact with the state. Furthermore, the Federal Government would recognize Indian self-sufficiency and only step in when criminal activities or unfair treatment towards players are suspected. It is also the job of government to ensure that tribal gaming revenues are used towards the betterment of the tribe. Since the IGRA’s establishment, Indian gaming has expanded at an unprecedented pace, ballooning from a $100 million niche in 1988 to a nearly $28 billion a year industry by 2012. But in the three states that have legalized Internet poker, Indian tribes are either not present or have little influence over operations. With Pennsylvania and California set to enter the mix, that’s about to change. Highlights of Calvin Ayre infographic

Indian gaming accounted for 43 percent of all gaming revenue in the United States in 2012, only 4 percent less than commercial casinos. That equates to $27.9 billion out of the $66.3 billion generated by the nation’s gambling facilities .
Tribal gaming is prevalent in 30 states, and of the 20 of where it is not, 16 of those do not inhabit federally recognized tribes. Only Utah, Missouri, Massachusetts and Rhode Island prohibit Native American gaming.
240 out of the 566 federally recognized tribes operate one or more gaming venues. There are currently 460 Native American owned and operated casinos, bingo parlors and other gambling halls in the US.
Indian casinos generate $91 billion in non-gaming related activities, or nearly 3.3 times that what they do from gaming alone.
In 2012, Indian tribes forwent $12.3 billion of their revenue to federal, state and local governments.
Tribal gaming accounted for 679,000 jobs and $30 billion in paid wages. This Infographic is brought to you by CalvinAyre.com Predicting the impact of regulated online poker on CA’s tribal gaming industry There is no denying the influence of tribal factions in California. Card rooms are limited to spreading player-banked games, effectively ruling out slot machines, craps, roulette and traditional forms of blackjack and other table games. Conversely, tribal casinos in the state can host just about any gambling game they please. But with regards to online poker, the tribes ability to feature more game variants may prove to be a detriment. To elaborate: because cardrooms like the Commerce and the Bicycle are restricted in what games they can host, they’ve based their reputation almost exclusively on the most popular non-house banked game of them all – poker. Take the Commerce for example. At 240 tables, it houses the largest poker room in the world. Not only that, poker players at the Commerce are treated like royalty. And with the construction of the Crowne Suite Hotel in 2001, the one drawback to visiting the Commerce from out-of-town has all but been eradicated. So I ask you this, should the Morongo Band of Mission Indians get its way, and PokerStars is permitted reentry into the US, who benefits from the cross-promotional opportunities afforded by a partnership more: The Commerce, which already hosts one of the most popular stops on the WPT and is the second home of a myriad of recognizable pros, or the Morongo, who’s only casino touts a generally half-filled 22 table poker room? The answer seems clear. Granted, tribes like the Pechanga boast formidable live poker arenas, but in the end, it’s the cardrooms that likely benefit the most from online poker, not the tribes. Then again, PokerStars could always just build a new branded poker room at the Morongo like they plan to do at Resorts in New Jersey, and my theory flies right out the window. In either case, the mere fact that tribal factions in California are essentially in control of the state’s iGaming fate speaks volumes to how far they’ve come since their days of impoverishment and economic hardship. Previous Post Next Post bike|commerce|morongo|pechanga|pokerstars About Robert DellaFave Robert DellaFave writes for a variety of online gaming sites and is also working on programming a poker simulation creative enough to beat the best. Follow Robert on Twitter @DivergentGames and on Google+