Post by Admin on Jun 17, 2014 11:32:00 GMT -8
Most of you have heard by now that Pokersars' parent company has been sold to Amaya Gaming. This news has brought with it much speculation about Pokerstars' entrance into the US market being eased with the sale.
So called 'bad actors clauses' in pending legislation, which arguably are designed solely to keep the online poker giant from crushing the competition in nascent markets, may have lost their strength with this move. Because the actors themselves will no longer be a part of the operation, the only hope left of using this as a barrier is a weak effort to taint the assets of the poker giant.
A distinction in Washington is the fact that Pokerstars did knowingly violate state law betweeen 2006 and 2011. While the law was being challenged, it was still in effect. And with the challenge failing, Pokerstars quickly departed Washington State, which pretty much acknowledges the law prohibited them. So regardless of the merits of using UIGEA as a red line for bad actors, SB 6613 was not at all ambiguous.
But the real fear of allowing Pokerstars in the market is not about that at all. In truth, it is fear of them dominating the market, and preventing in-state interests from getting their share. That very real and justified fear does not go away with the sale, and our native interests are still likely to oppose internet poker entirely as long as it looms.
Our proposal does not contain 'bad actors' language. We don't feel it is necessary under the business model we have put forth. So long as Pokerstars makes their platform available, as a network platform, to all potential licensees, competition is assured among the platforms, all the licensees will be on an even footing, no single licensee will have an advantage by being the only one to offer the dominant platform, and the players will benefit by having access to the best product.
But we must assure that if they are to be allowed in the market, they must play the vendor role, and give all of our in-state interests an equal opportunity.
So called 'bad actors clauses' in pending legislation, which arguably are designed solely to keep the online poker giant from crushing the competition in nascent markets, may have lost their strength with this move. Because the actors themselves will no longer be a part of the operation, the only hope left of using this as a barrier is a weak effort to taint the assets of the poker giant.
A distinction in Washington is the fact that Pokerstars did knowingly violate state law betweeen 2006 and 2011. While the law was being challenged, it was still in effect. And with the challenge failing, Pokerstars quickly departed Washington State, which pretty much acknowledges the law prohibited them. So regardless of the merits of using UIGEA as a red line for bad actors, SB 6613 was not at all ambiguous.
But the real fear of allowing Pokerstars in the market is not about that at all. In truth, it is fear of them dominating the market, and preventing in-state interests from getting their share. That very real and justified fear does not go away with the sale, and our native interests are still likely to oppose internet poker entirely as long as it looms.
Our proposal does not contain 'bad actors' language. We don't feel it is necessary under the business model we have put forth. So long as Pokerstars makes their platform available, as a network platform, to all potential licensees, competition is assured among the platforms, all the licensees will be on an even footing, no single licensee will have an advantage by being the only one to offer the dominant platform, and the players will benefit by having access to the best product.
But we must assure that if they are to be allowed in the market, they must play the vendor role, and give all of our in-state interests an equal opportunity.