There has been a lot of talk recently state-side about the recent amendment to US spending laws, and more specifically the proposal of the ‘tagged on’ inclusion of a bill relating to the legalisation and regulation of online poker within the United States. The bill has been put forward by Nevada Senator Harry Reid, clearly with an eye on providing a crafty leg-up for the giant casino companies within his constituency, and an eye on revenue generation for the government at large. The PPA (Poker Players Alliance) - a non-profit organisation set-up to represent and get a good deal for poker players have seemingly backed this surprise bill amendment. The bill is being passed through what is called a 'lame duck' session of Congress, due to end on Dec 17th.
Right now, it is touch and go whether it gets included or not, however I wanted to analyse this in a bit more detail. Partly because the bill MAY get in now, and if it doesn't, then it may form the basis of future amendments.
Wait! Don’t go anywhere! I won’t bore you with reams of US legislative legalese. For a start there is plenty of coverage of this subject online already, and secondly I won’t pretend to understand the detail behind US government legislature. The reason I am writing about this, and why I have a bee in my bonnet on the subject is that this seemingly innocuous bill could potentially affect all of us here in the UK, as well as everywhere else in the world.
From my limited understanding, the key points in the bill are :
- From January, there would be a 15 months blackout on all online poker within the US
- After this blackout period (designed to allow new sites to be developed), regulated sites would be allowed to trade. The difference being, they would be owned by brick and mortar casinos rather than the dedicated poker sites that currently exist. Any casinos looking to go down this path would have to have been established for five years, which rules out any of the large sites buying a casino property to get around the law.
- The new sites would (initially at least) serve only US players, and states could elect to ‘opt out’ if they chose - both from the new US-based sites or from online poker altogether.
But what does all this mean to UK micro/mid-stakes players? Well the first thing that springs to mind would be smaller prize pools due to the vastly reduced player base. No longer will there be that chance of sitting down with $10 and turning it into life-changing money within a few hours. Satellites are the next thing that spring to mind - the smaller player pool would mean fewer satellite seats, less chance of mixing it with the best in the world and for the number of players who are up for the challenge - there will be less chance of going 'pro'.
On a wider scale, a complete blackout for US players would be devastating for many players who earn their money from grinding online. The oft-stated benefit of having a new pool of recreational fish when the blackout lifts - eager to play on a legal, regulated site - seems to be pie in the sky to me. After all, I can’t imagine there are many players who want to play online now but refuse to on the basis that the main sites are in the Isle of Man or the Caribbean and are not regulated by their state government.
Once the ban lifts, many could still find their state opts-out leaving them completely high and dry for the foreseeable future. Large international marquee events such as the WSOP rely heavily on people satt-ing into seats. The lack of online satellites for US players coupled with the reduced number of representatives from outside the US will likely lead to significantly smaller fields at the WSOP, especially the main event.
Having many small-stake players taking an extended hiatus from the game may reduce the overall desire for people to be immersed in the game, reducing exposure on TV as poker becomes 'recreational' again. As for other staples of the game, such as online training sites, massive forums and publishers like 2+2 working to a comparatively tiny customer base will change the landscape further.
Everything will depend upon a second ‘boom’ two years down the line, and there is no guarantee of that. Indeed, there is a significant chance that the US political landscape may change during this time, delaying the blackout further.
Which brings me to the annoyingly single-issue driven PPA. They have backed the current plan, despite the huge impact this will have on US players (like many US organisations, the concept of anyone outside the US being important seems to be overlooked). This is an organisation that has no ‘world view’ at all. A true alliance of poker players would be campaigning for the inclusion of everyone...they would have representation campaigning in France and Italy (two countries who have opted out of an international field already) as well as Washington DC.
Even if the PPA remained US-focused, they should be challenging any law-change that would be to the detriment of the players they represent, which this bill clearly is. Yes, the US Government want revenue money from poker; Yes, it should be easier for US players to withdraw money; Yes, there should be a degree of regulation to prevent sites ripping anyone off (although the current ‘big two’ sites do a fine job at self regulation anyway). I don’t think anyone disputes any of this, but in order to achieve these goals, it seems the PPA have jumped at the first opportunity without really taking the long term impact on the global game into consideration.
It seems a shame that - at first glance at least - the one organisation purporting to represent a large section of players, looks about to sell their members out.
Poker is unique, in being a truly global game where a beginner can find himself playing a world champion regardless of where they live in the world. The regional legislation in France and Italy were big enough setbacks to the game, but taking the US out of the online poker world would be relatively speaking, catastrophic.
As I said at the top - I’m no expert on US law, and within this article I have limited my knowledge to the various items of news information and forum/podcast discussions I have followed. I may be wide-of-the-mark, but from everything I have heard, it seems we are potentially heading for a car-crash and the vast majority of players won’t see it coming.
Our big hope at the moment is that the bill doesn't get included, however if it doesn't get in this session, it seems to only be a matter of time. And I don't think many will be viewing the PPA as the knight in shining armour coming to the players rescue after events over the last few weeks.
And should the worst happen and it does go before the law-makers, I have heard that the chance of this bill making law is a coin-flip, and as a poker player that doesn't make me feel much better because we all know how those usually end up...
No comments:
Post a Comment