One of the strangest points of Assemblyman Mike Gatto’s California online poker bill, AB 9, is that he expects players to make initial deposits at land-based casinos and card rooms. The obvious drawback here is that it hampers the convenience of iPoker and would turn off some recreational players. Furthermore, it’s tradition that players have always been able to make direct deposits straight from their computer/mobile device – so why change this now?
According to Gatto, including the in-person deposits has to do with satisfying opponents of California online poker. Specifically, he addresses four concerns by opponents in a recent U-T San Diego column:
1) Gaming bankrolls are finite, and iPoker takes away from brick-and-mortar business.
2) Small and mid-sized operators can’t compete in an iPoker market.
3) Online poker sites would open the door for money laundering and cheating.
4) Minors can gamble using the anonymity of the internet.
How would Mike Gatto solve online poker deposit problems?
In order to bridge the “innovative world of online poker” and brick-and-mortar casinos, Gatto suggests that California borrow ideas from the banking world. He believes this should be just like opening a bank account, where players show up to a branch (casino/card room) and be “validated” by showing two forms of ID. Gatto explains that only the first deposit would need to be made in person, while subsequent deposits could be made online. He adds that cashouts over a certain amount would require players to show up to a casino or card room and collect their winnings.
It’s obvious where the in-person deposits would stop minors from gambling – even though the iPoker industry is already adept enough at this. Forcing players to show up in person to accept large withdrawals might also discourage money laundering and cheating. Finally, Gatto’s proposal would bring more foot traffic into casinos and card rooms and help their business.
Is AB 9 feasible?
It’s nice that Gatto explained why he included the bit about players having to make their initial deposit and large withdrawals in casinos. When this point was first brought up, it sounded like a crazy notion that would just turn many players off. Now, it makes sense that he added the in-person deposit rule to satisfy the staunchest political opponents of California iPoker.
Even still, some potential players won’t make the effort to visit a casino or card room to deposit. The markets are largely different, and the sole reason why certain recreational players enjoy online poker is because it’s hassle-free and convenient. So in a state that already seems largely accepting to iPoker, you have to wonder if a bill could pass without in-person deposits/cashouts.
But the larger issue here is one that we haven’t discussed yet, which is who does and doesn’t get included in California’s online poker market. Namely, the PokerStars coalition wants any mention of the “bad actor” clause removed from bill AB 9. Although the bad-actor language has been modified in AB 9, it still presents the chance that PokerStars could be shut out of the state. And since the PokerStars coalition includes California’s three card rooms and two tribal groups, they wield significant influence in any potential iPoker legislation.