California Politician Explains Provision That Calls For In-Person Online Poker DepositsDoes California Online Poker Bill Create Roadblock? |
|
Aside from the fact that major players in California’s gaming industry don’t support the newest online poker bill to hit the Golden State due to the “bad actor” issue, there has been some serious concern about how the bill requires in-person registration and initial deposits.
The argument against such a rule is that it creates an extra step for customers wishing to play online poker. It is not industry standard to require players to show up at a physical location to sign up and get their online poker funds. New Jersey, which has the largest regulated online poker market in the United States, doesn’t have this requirement. Actually, Garden State players having a hard time depositing due to bank and credit card restrictions is arguably the main reason why that online poker market is less than $2 million a month, far short of previous expectations.
California state lawmaker Mike Gatto penned an op-ed for utsandiego.com that explains his bill, specifically with regards to how he thinks it can supplement brick-and-mortar businesses. One person Tweeted in response to Gatto: “Making people sign up in person would doom online poker to failure. People won’t bother.” Another said the current proposal might end up “killing initial sign-ups.”
Here’s how Gatto thinks it will work:
Somewhat paradoxically, the best practices for the innovative world of online poker would involve brick-and-mortar businesses and borrow from established business practices. Just like opening a bank account, the only way to open an online-poker account in California would be to present yourself in person at a “branch” and be “validated” by showing two forms of identification. Under this proposal, qualified existing gaming establishments, even those which don’t operate a poker website, could serve as initial validators, as long as they meet stringent security criteria. Initial deposits would occur in person, although subsequent ones could be made online. A similar rule would apply for cash-outs above a certain amount or frequency.
One of the concerns about online gaming (from the anti-online gaming camp) is that minors might be able to access the sites. Gatto thinks his way of doing it would prevent that better than what current online identity verification can accomplish.
This system would elegantly solve the concerns opponents raise. It would greatly reduce the likelihood of a minor being accepted into the system. It would also weed out potential money-launderers, like those who walk in with suitcases of $100 dollar bills. And, it would allow local brick-and-mortar establishments, most which are too small to operate an online-poker site, to nevertheless profit from online poker, and would guarantee them some foot traffic. But most significantly, it will also greatly discourage cheating and other illegal schemes. If a gambler had just completed an elaborate cheat, would he want to show up in person and present himself to a security professional to collect his winnings?
It is worth noting that there hasn’t been any documented case of an underage gambler accessing online poker sites in Nevada, New Jersey or Delaware—the three states with state-regulated web poker industries. Depositing in person is typically an option, not a requirement.
California’s online poker bill will be discussed heavily in 2015. It remains to be seen what language in the current version will remain as the measure gets vetted by the industry and other politicians.
Copyright © 2001-2024
CardPlayer.com. All rights reserved.
