An article on IowaPolitics.com written by Lynn Campbell points out the two sides of the argument between members of the General Assembly, which could be just the first salvos in the battle. State senator Jeff Danielson (D-Cedar Falls) says to IowaPolitics.com that he will be introducing a bill later this month that would legalize online poker inside the state. This move comes after the December 23 statement from the U. S. Department of Justice that the Wire Act of 1961, which previously had been used to prevent states from operating online gaming sites, was deemed as only applicable to sports betting.

When the Department of Justice changed its stance, “that took a significant hurdle away from the ability to play poker online,” Danielson stated to IowaPolitics.com. “We believe by the end of this year you will see a handful of states continue to authorize it. Because of the DoJ’s opinion, we believe you’ll see very quickly multi-state compacts.”

Currently, the state of Nevada and the District of Columbia are the only two locations that have passed legislation regarding online poker, but the District of Columbia proposition is coming under fire from the City Council. Other states, such as California, Florida, Connecticut and New Jersey, have or are considering moving on the online poker question.

Although Danielson sees the need for the state of Iowa to step into the online poker arena, other state politicians are not quite as eager. State representative Jeff Kaufmann (R-Wilton) said to IowaPolitics.com that he is ready to fight against the proposal, remarking, “I have a problem any time we’re talking about an expansion of gambling.”

Kaufmann’s opposition, despite evidence that says Iowans are already gambling online, is that it would bring gambling into homes and increase the numbers of people who are gambling. “I see so many people spend so much money they don’t have,” Kaufmann states to Campbell. “I see so many families that are affected negatively by gambling.”

The two politicians also differ on the reasons for opening up online poker inside the borders of Iowa. While a study by the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission estimated that an online poker operation could make between $13 and $60 million in a year – and the state would take down $3 to $13 million in taxation revenues – Danielson says that the money isn’t the reason for looking at passing legislation for online poker.

“I don’t give two hoots about the revenue for the state,” Danielson is quoted by Campbell as saying. “We’re in the black (the state budget). We have a surplus…I don’t think that’s the reason to do this.”

Kaufmann, meanwhile, believes that is the exact reason for the drive to regulate online poker in Iowa. “I think it’s about dollars coming into the state coffers,” he said. “I think it’s about dollars going into the pockets of people that own these casinos. A lot of those owners are in Nevada, on the West Coast, and they’re not here in this state.”

The debate over the plan in Iowa to legalize and regulate online poker certainly will continue to be active, especially if and/or when a bill is put in front of the General Assembly for consideration. Poker News Daily will continue to monitor the situation regarding online poker’s potential for regulation – not only on a state by state basis but also on the national level – and provide information when it is available.

The article, written by New York Times writer Michael Cooper, examines the profits that states that are considering legalizing and taxing internet gaming might be able to pull in. Cooper starts by detailing out how the lotteries of different states – and especially the multi-state lotteries such as PowerBall and the Mega Millions – now draw in around $18 billion per year four decades after their launch. The money that the states would make from online gaming and poker, however, would be much less, Cooper observes.

Cooper looks at the latest study by the state of Iowa, which found that the taxation of online gaming and poker would not make a significant mark in budget considerations. The Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission study suggested that a licensed online gaming operation in the state of Iowa could pull in somewhere between $13 and $60 million annually from regulated online gaming inside the state. With the state tax rate in Iowa of 22%, that would result in somewhere between $3 million and $13 million into the state coffers.

When it comes to the state of California, the most populous state in the United States, the profits of online gaming might be larger, but would not even impact the significant budget shortfall that the state faces. Supporters of the legalization, regulation and taxation of online gaming in the Golden State say that it would bring in between $100 million and $250 million per year. Those profits, however, pale in comparison to the state budget shortfall, which is expected to reach $9.2 billion this year.

Still, the impact of online gaming and poker regulation in California would help, according to Cooper. He quotes California State Senator Lou Correa as saying, “$250 million will buy you a lot of teachers. Half a billion buys you even more teachers. The budget deficit is tremendous, but you take $500 million here, $500 million there, and pretty soon you’re talking (some) serious money.”

What may be significant in the discussion regarding the legislation of online gaming and poker could be the proposals to follow what happened with the lotteries. While an individual state may not have a sizeable enough population to make online gaming profitable, if they were able to enter into multi-state operations – as many in the legislatures and legal committee believe may be allowed – then the profits could be maximized, much like the lottery system that has grown over the past forty years.

The thing that may thwart the individual states is the potential for legislation from the federal government. Although there is only one bill from Texas Representative Joe Barton even being discussed in the House of Representatives (where it has not come for a vote), Senator Harry Reid made noise over the past weekend in stating that discussion in the Senate is “making progress” and that the issue of regulation of online gaming should be left to the federal government, rather than the states.

“We cannot have a series of laws around the country related to gaming,” Senator Reid stated to Gambling Compliance on Sunday following an appearance on the political talk show “Meet The Press.” “I know a lot about gaming (and as) a former chairman of the Nevada (Gaming) Commission, I think it’s very important that we have a national law.”

Senator Reid has joined with Senator Jon Kyl, the outgoing senator from Arizona who has long been against online gaming, in pushing the discussion of regulating the online gaming market in the United States, but it is unknown how close they actually are to any proposed legislation.

Although Nevada has regulations in place for a legalized online poker market, licenses have yet to be issued. No state has, as of yet, moved forward with any plan regarding online gaming. So who will get there first – the states or the federal government – in solving the online gaming question?

State Senator Jeff Danielson (D-Cedar Falls) told the Des Moines Register Tuesday that he has plans to introduce a new online poker bill to state legislature soon and expects it to be considered during the current session.  A catalyst for the bill seems to be the DoJ’s December clarification of the Wire Act of 1961 in which it confirmed that the law only makes sports betting over the internet illegal, rather than all gambling.  Even though the Fifth District Court ruled that it only applied to sports betting in 2002, the DoJ had always asserted that the Wire Act applied to gambling of all kinds.  The DoJ’s clarification appears to have changed the attitudes of state legislators around the country, allowing new opinions to be formed about not just intrastate online poker, but interstate online poker, as well.

“We believe that because of the Department of Justice ruling, we can now have a multi-state compact,” Danielson told the Register.  One major concern proponents of online poker have with regards to states legalizing the game within their own borders is that the player pool will be extremely fragmented and only a handful of states, such as California, would have a large enough poker playing population to adequately fill the virtual tables.  If states collaborate on a multi-state player pool like we have seen in the lottery with games such as Powerball and Mega Millions, both the player pool and resulting revenue should be much more significant.

In December, the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission published a study on the prospects of intrastate online poker in Iowa which estimated that it would bring in anywhere from $3 million to $13 million in tax revenue.  State Senator William Dotzler (D – Waterloo), a supporter of the bill, would welcome the cash flow. “I think the evidence is pretty clear that Iowans are already gambling online. We are losing a lot of revenue [to offshore gambling sites] here in the state of Iowa,” he told the Register.

Interestingly, Danielson, who is also chairman of the Iowa Senate State Government Committee, was quoted in a New York Times article from Tuesday saying that he was not overly concerned with the financial impact of legalized online poker.  “We are not doing this to expand our state budget,” he said. “Our purpose is to make sure every Iowan who wants to play poker has a fair game, has protections, and, if they win, is able to retain those earning [sic] in a fair and safe way.”

Danielson introduced an online poker bill early last year and it appeared that it had potential after passing through his Senate State Government Committee by a 9 to 6 vote.  The bill stalled, though, once it reached the State Senate, when the usual concerns were brought up by the opposition.  In the meantime, it was amended to request the aforementioned report from the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission.  “I just think people need a clearer picture of the evidence and I don’t think they’re ready in this session to legalize it. So we want to give them the best information possible as we go into next year,” Danielson said at the time.

The plaintiffs in the case are, in alphabetical order, Daniel “Ashman” Ashman, Brad “Yukon” Booth, Thomas “tommyboy83” Koral, Greg “Captain Zeebo” Laverly, Dave Lizmi, Daniel “King Dan” Smith, Joseph Sanders, and Dustin “Neverwin” Woolf.  In the description of the Third Cause of Action in the 42-page complaint, the eight men list the dollar amounts of their damage claims: Ashman – $154,863.50; Booth – $500,000; Koral – $20,000; Lavery – $140,000; Lizmi – $500,000; Sanders – $100,000; Smith – $20,000; and Woolf – $300,000.

The complaint spends most of its pages detailing the cheating scandal, in which Excapsa/UltimateBet insiders used a software exploit to see players’ hole cards and play “perfect” poker, allowing them to win millions of dollars.  Eight Causes of Action are listed in the suit:

First Cause of Action – violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
Second Cause of Action – Conspiracy to Violate the RICO Act.
Third Cause of Action – Conversion (essentially, the civil brother to the criminal act of theft).
Fourth Cause of Action – Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (the cheating caused the poker players to lose money and move down in stakes because of dwindling bankrolls, causing them to lose out on more potential winnings).
Fifth Cause of Action – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Sixth Cause of Action – Unfair Business Practices
Seventh Cause of Action – Fraud (Excapsa promised “fair and honest” poker games, while intentionally cheating the players).
Eight Cause of Action – Negligence (Excapsa promised “fair and honest” poker games, but failed to properly protect its players).

What the plaintiffs are seeking falls into two categories, monetary relief and equitable relief.  The monetary relief is broken down into five parts: compensatory damages, triple damages (because it’s a RICO case), full restitution, punitive damages of not less than $10 million, and attorney fees.  With equitable relief, the court orders the defendant to do or to not do something.  In this case, the plaintiffs are requesting “an accounting of all benefits, consideration, and profits received, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, the imposition of constructive trusts with tracing” as well as “any restrictions that may be appropriate on the future conduct or activities of any person or organization as justice may require.”

At the heart of the lawsuit is the plaintiffs’ desire to regain money lost, though they likely know that even should they win, the odds of receiving much of anything is slim.  In the complaint, they state another reasons for the suit, essentially wishing for the entire truth to simply be revealed:

“Plaintiff’s [sic] bring this action, among other things, to vindicate their right to discover how they were cheated and by whom, and to receive compensation for their injuries.”

The complaint added, “…plaintiffs have been forced to bring this action so that an impartial tribunal – not the perpetrators of the fraud – can determine the facts as well as the damage plaintiffs suffered.”

Rubin admitted to working with online poker rooms PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker as a payment processor.  He said he made sure cashouts from the online poker rooms were “disguised as payments from nonexistent online merchants,” so that U.S. banks would not be able to detect their true origins and therefore not be able to block the transactions.  This activity went on from 2006 through March 2011, the month prior to the Black Friday indictments.

In June 2011, the 53-year old Rubin had requested $300,000 bond and to be permitted to live with his parents in Florida, but Judge James Colt denied Rubin bail, citing “unlimited reasons,” including flight risk.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Arlo Devlin-Brown said that Rubin chartered a plane from Costa Rica to Guatemala on April 15th, the very day of the indictments, with Thailand as the eventual destination.  Rubin was arrested upon arrival in Guatemala.  His attorney denied any nefarious scheme, claiming that the trip to Guatemala had been planned before Black Friday, but Devlin-Brown also cited a conversation Rubin had with a fellow inmate in which he said he wanted to acquire a fake passport once in Guatemala.

Rubin was charged with nine counts in the Black Friday indictment: three counts of violation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), conspiracy to violate the UIGEA, conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and three counts of operation of an illegal gambling business.  According to an Associated Press article, he faces up to 80 years in prison if convicted of each charge, but his plea agreement with the prosecution stipulates that the recommended sentence be between 18 and 24 months.  Because Rubin has been in jail since his arrest, he is not likely to serve much more time, at least relative to what he could have served.

Ira Rubin’s problems with the law date back to before Black Friday.  In 2006, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against his company, Global Marketing Group, for committing telemarketing fraud by assisting at least nine Canadian telemarketing firms in selling fake unsecured credit cards to customers.  The victims were required to pay an advance fee for the cards, but these cards often never appeared in their mailboxes.  In December of that year, a temporary restraining order was issued and the following month, a preliminary injunction prohibited Rubin from engaging in telemarketing and payment processing.  Rubin violated both the restraining order and injunction and in January 2008, a judge ordered him to appear in court to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt for the violation.  He did not show, an arrest warrant was issued, and Rubin fled the country.

Ira Rubin’s guilty plea comes a month after Absolute Poker co-founder Brent Beckley pleaded guilty to a single charge of conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud.

On NorthJersey.com, writer John Brennan’s “Meadowlands Matters” blog reported Wednesday afternoon that the discussions regarding the regulation of online gaming are ramping up, although a bill that was on the fast track to Governor Christie’s desk will not be heard in front of a committee today nor will be voted on next week. The author of that bill, State Senator Ray Lesniak, believes, however, that the bill will be approved “soon,” according to Brennan.

Mr. Brennan provides a statement from Governor Christie regarding the ongoing efforts to regulate internet gaming in New Jersey. “We’re working hard with Senator Lesniak to try to get it right,” Governor Christie is reported to have said. “Here’s my view on it. I think New Jersey should be in that business. I think we should be an epicenter for that business, but I want to do it right. I do not want to rush and get legislation that either doesn’t pass state constitutional muster or creates other problems for us.”

“Folks should know I favor it, I want to do it,” Christie says in the statement, seemingly defending himself. “I vetoed the last bill because I felt that it would open up the opportunity for there to be internet gambling houses all over the State of New Jersey. I don’t think that’s what anybody wants. But, I think being able to have this be an Atlantic City centric thing is something that makes sense to me. And given the Justice Department’s go ahead for people to be able to do it, I think we should go ahead and move on it. But, we have to do it in a responsible way and it should be Atlantic City centric.”

Mr. Brennan also provides a statement from Senator Lesniak regarding his efforts. “Speaking with Governor Christie, I’ve agreed to reintroduce Internet gaming in the next legislative session (which begins next week), and I expect that we can get it through the Legislature and signed by the Governor within the first few weeks of the new session,” Senator Lesniak states.

“I believe that Internet gaming has transformational potential for New Jersey’s gaming industries,” he continues. “While I remain hopeful that New Jersey can take the lead on this exciting new direction for wagering – which would result in new revenues, new jobs, and new economic activity in the Garden State – I recognize that the complex issues surrounding Internet wagering will take more time to iron out than we are afforded in the waning days of the current Legislative session.

“This isn’t a question of ‘if’ New Jersey gets Internet wagering, but ‘when.’ My money’s on soon.” Senator Lesniak concludes.

As reported here on Poker News Daily, the online gaming bill that Senator Lesniak is pursuing is much like the bill that Governor Christie vetoed last summer. There have been some changes to the bill, providing penalties for anyone operating an illegal online betting operation outside of Atlantic City and designating that those Atlantic City casinos in operation will be the only companies eligible to apply for licenses.

This would mean that such companies as Caesars Entertainment and Boyd Gaming (the owners of The Borgata) would be eligible to apply for licenses. Previously, however, Caesars Entertainment has been against any legislation in New Jersey to provide for internet gaming regulation, preferring instead to have federal legislation of online gaming.

A similar attempt was made by Senator Lesniak during the first quarter of last year, but Christie vetoed the bill in early March, citing, in part, his doubts that it would withstand a constitutional test.  “In my view,” he said, “the creation of a legal fiction deeming all wagers to have ‘originated’ in Atlantic City cannot overcome the clear and unambiguous language of the State Constitution.”

But with the surprise clarification of the Wire Act by the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) just before Christmas, people feel Gov. Christie’s tune might change.  For years, the DoJ claimed that the Wire Act of 1961 prohibited all internet gambling, despite a ruling by the Fifth District Court in 2002 which said that it only applied to sports betting.  Last month, the DoJ clarified its stance on the Wire Act, confirming that it does, in fact, apply only to sports betting.  With that pronouncement, there is the feeling that government officials such as Gov. Christie may soften on internet gambling, knowing that it is not looked upon as illegal by the Department of Justice.

Senator Lesniak’s 2011 bill flew through the state legislature before finally being vetoed by Gov. Christie, passing through the Senate by a 34-2 vote and the Assembly in a 63-11 landslide.

Interestingly, both the Poker Players Alliance and Caesars Entertainment, owner of the World Series of Poker, were against Lesniak’s original bill, feeling it would contribute to the fragmentation of the U.S. online gambling market.  Instead, they believed, the focus should be on working towards legalization and regulation on the federal level.

The bill Lesniak is trying to move was actually introduced last summer and included changes to try to appease the Governor.  One of Christie’s concerns was that a multitude of illegal betting parlors would crop up all over New Jersey, Lesniak included a clause which would impose a $1,000 fine per player per day on anyone running an illegal online betting operation, as well as a $10,000 fine for advertising these businesses.

Not just anyone would be allowed to offer online gambling if this bill passes.  Only Atlantic City casinos would be eligible for online gambling licenses.  This follows current state law, which requires that any gambling in the state occur in Atlantic City; to stay faithful to the law, any online gaming servers would have to be located there.

Additionally, to appease horse race tracks, which have been known to oppose competition for the public’s gambling dollar, Lesniak’s bill would earmark $20 million per year for three years for the race tracks, all of which will come from the internet gambling operators.  Until last year, Atlantic City casinos paid race tracks $30 million per year, for which the tracks agreed to not have slot machines in their facilities.

Other details in the bill include $100,000 per year allocated towards problem gambling programs and a 10 percent tax on online gambling revenue.

There is currently no vote scheduled for the bill, but Lesniak is hopeful he will be able to get it done. “We can be the Silicon Valley of Internet gaming,” Lesniak told the Associated Press. “It’s the wave of the future. It’s going to come and we can be in the lead on it.”

The first salvo was fired by noted online gaming attorney I. Nelson Rose, the esteemed Senior Professor at the Whittier Law School and one of the most recognized authorities on online gaming law. Over the past few months, Professor Rose has been particularly harsh on Texas representative Joe Barton, who has the only bill currently in Congress to regulate and firmly legalize online poker in the United States. After the announcement by the DoJ, Professor Rose took to his blog to discuss the issue.

At “Gambling And The Law,” Professor Rose pointed out that, rather than allowing Congress to move forward with federal regulation, the DoJ position change makes it more likely that the states will be first to act. “The reality is that Congressional advocates, like Barney Frank and Joe Barton, have had some of the wind knocked out of their sails,” Professor Rose writes. “Since states are now clearly free to legalize intra-state online poker, and perhaps even interstate, there is not much reason to even bother with a federal law. Only the major operators, like Caesars Entertainment, need a federal law, because they don’t want to be competing with politically connected local gaming companies for a limited number of licenses in 50 states.”

In addition to these comments on his blog, there are accredited quotes from Professor Rose against Rep. Barton that indicate a difference of political opinion. These quotes, which have been heard on several poker podcasts, cast doubt on Rep. Barton’s sincerity in wanting regulated online gaming and his views on the political hot button issue of global warming.

After Professor Rose’s blog posting, the Poker Players Alliance escalated the war of words. They note that a key part of their strategy is to garner support from both Republicans and Democrats for a regulated poker industry in the U. S. and that Rep. Barton has been an advocate in that move. At the end of their statement on the PPA website, the million member strong organization chastises Professor Rose for his attacks on Rep. Barton, stating, “It is the opinion of the Poker Players Alliance that Professor Rose should keep his political attacks on Rep. Barton separate from activities where he is claiming to speak for the poker community.”

The latest continuation in the debate came from Professor Rose’s Facebook page, as he alerted his followers to a recent analysis of the DoJ’s stance by another attorney, K. Preston Oade. That editorial opinion, which appeared on calvinayre.com, took an extensive look at why the DoJ “became literate enough to read (the) words” of the Wire Act in that it only applied to sports betting and how the Barton bill could actually strengthen online poker laws against offshore operators.

Barrister Oade opines that the reversal of the DoJ’s stance on the Wire Act not only relieves the federal government of enforcement of any laws regarding online poker, it also prevents any existing offshore operations from being able to partake of a legalized American online poker industry. “The Barton Bill strengthens the UIGEA with a much broader definition of unlawful online gambling than the Wire Act or the current UIGEA,” Mr. Oade writes. “It defines “internet poker” as a form of “unlawful internet gambling” and would make internet poker illegal without a U.S. license. Unlike the vaguely worded UIGEA, this is fairly clear and enforceable.”

“The Barton Bill requires the government to create and maintain a list of all offshore gambling and poker websites targeted for shutdown,” Mr. Oade continues. “And, given the broader and clearer definition of illegal gambling in the Barton Bill, there would no longer be any significant legal doubt that those offshore sites are illegal under U. S. law.”

Mr. Oade also points out that any currently operating online poker sites, such as PokerStars, would have to commit resources to building a U. S. only operation, much like what exists in France and Italy. Additionally, states have the right to “opt-out” and forbid their residents from playing online poker, which would further reduce a potential player pool. “Because of its recent reversal on the Wire Act, which the UIGEA largely depends on to define what is illegal under federal gambling law, the DOJ needs the Barton Bill,” Mr. Oade finishes. “But poker players no longer need it and should oppose it.”

It is quite likely that the final word in this ongoing debate hasn’t been heard yet. As we enter into a New Year, the potential for online poker’s comeback in the United States is murky, at best.

In the statement, the PPA’s executive director, John Pappas, said, “This is a much needed clarification of an antiquated and often confusing law. For years, legal scholars and even the courts have debated whether the Wire Act applies to non-sporting activity. Today’s announcement validates the fact that Internet poker does not violate this law.  The PPA commends Assistant Attorney General Seitz for recognizing this.”

Pappas continued, reminding everyone that this doesn’t mean that the PPA and poker players are satisfied.  “However,” he said, “this ruling makes it even more important that Congress act now to clarify federal law, and to create a licensing and regulation regime for Internet poker, coupled with clear laws and strong enforcement against other forms of gambling deemed to be illegal.”

The PPA reiterated the importance of regulation on the federal level, not only because of the protections it would offer players, but also because the player base, and in turn the games and resulting revenues, would be much better with online poker rooms open to players across the entire nation, rather than just in individual states.

“State by state licensing and regulation could result in a balkanized online poker world where players across the nation would be limited in their choices of where and against whom they could play,” said PPA Chairman and former United States Senator Alfonse D’Amato.  “This could potentially reduce the number of total players, reducing revenues state lawmakers project from this activity. At the same time, it would deter entrepreneurs from entering the online poker market, as there would essentially be 50 different sets of laws and rules to which they would have to adhere.”

The state of Nevada has already gotten the ball rolling on intrastate online poker, as it officially approved regulations last Thursday.  Several gaming companies, including Caesars Entertainment Corporation, which operates casinos under the Harrah’s, Horseshoe and Caesars brand names and owns the World Series of Poker, have already applied for online poker licenses in Nevada.  They and other companies who are already licensed for brick and mortar gaming will need to prove that they have the technology in place to meet strict requirements, such as preventing underage gambling, but overall, their path to acquiring a license should be rather painless.  Potential operators who are not already licensed in the state will have to go through the full, much more rigorous licensing procedure.

As it stands now, any operator who obtains an online poker license will be restricted to offering games to customers within Nevada state borders.  Make no mistake, though: this is a move with eyes towards the future of nationwide online gaming.  In all but the most populous states, intrastate online poker is not viewed as something that will be a revenue windfall, as it will be extremely difficult for the poker rooms to build up a large enough customer base.  But should online poker, and other online gaming for that matter, become fully legalized and regulated on the federal level, Nevada could be setting itself up for a payday down the road.  The state hopes to use its resources in brick and mortar gaming to establish itself as the nation’s leader in online poker licensing, so that when and if the entire U.S. market is opened up, online poker operators will establish roots in Nevada.

While nothing is on the immediate horizon in regards to federally regulated online poker, there has been a recent ray of hope, as the U.S. Department of Justice just announced a revised stance on the Wire Act of 1961, saying that it only applies to sports betting, not online poker or other gambling.

A number of companies, including International Game Technology, Bally Technologies, Cantor Gaming, Caesars Entertainment Corp., and Boyd Gaming Corp. have already applied for Nevada online poker licenses.  Operators who are already licensed for brick and mortar gaming Nevada should have a fairly easy time getting licensed for online poker, as they have already met the bulk of the requirements.  They will still have to show that their technology is up to snuff, however, and demonstrate capabilities such as the ability to keep children and those from other states off their sites.

“We’ve taken our brick-and-mortar operational standards to a new level,” Gaming Control Board Chairman Mark Lipparelli said at the U.S. Online Gaming Law conference last month. “We’re going to continue to be flexible, but we think we’ve set the bar high for licensing and suitability.”

Some of the highlights of the regulations include:

•    Legal online gambling age will be 21.
•    Licensees will be required to maintain a revolving fund of $20,000 to pay for compliance investigations.
•    Players may only have one account at a given operator and may not use fake names.
•    Credit cards are allowed as a means to deposit player funds.
•    Inter-account transfers between players are not permitted.
•    Hand histories must be kept by the operator for five years.
•    Operators must take proactive steps to prevent bot use.

In a report on the online poker market, Union Gaming Research analyst Bill Lerner wrote that while the commercial prospects for intrastate online poker in Nevada are fairly minimal, “structurally it will become an important model for other states to follow.”