CEO says Paddy Power Betfair is primed for US

The highlight of the second quarter for Paddy Power Betfair was the completion of the deal to acquire US daily fantasy sports operator FanDuel

“Fantasy sports will continue to be an important feature in the US market, especially in states where it could take a while for sports betting to be regulated,” said CEO Peter Jackson.

Jackson added that he envisages a “different market construct” in the US in terms of the balance between free-to-play games and sports betting, given the strength of the DFS market.

“Having 100,000 customers in New Jersey is a good starting point,” he said.

“Our US strategy is to go after the B2C market under the FanDuel brand. We have secured market access agreements covering 15 states and 36% of the US population, including markets where regulation is expected by the end of 2019.

“It’s worth remembering that our US business is not a start-up. We have established brands, with FanDuel in sports and TVG in racing, an extensive product suite, operational expertise and we already operate in 45 states, including real-money wagering in 33.


Are the Feds Going to Regulate Daily Fantasy Sports on a Nationwide Basis…?

“States have traditionally handled regulation of gambling, supported by federal law in situations where an interstate of foreign element might otherwise frustrate the enforcement of state law,” posited the CRS report. “With respect to federal law, DFS may implicate at least four gambling-related statutes.”

See, espn Chalk Talk report by Ryan Rodenberg



Susan Nolan
NCLGS National Office


Troy, New York, March 26, 2015—Reiterating its long-standing belief that states are the most appropriate regulators of Internet and other forms of gaming, NCLGS yesterday wrote U.S. House and Senate Judiciary Committee leadership to urge against any legislation that includes The Restoration of America’s Wire Act.

NCLGS President Rep. Helene Keeley (DE) asserted in the letter that:

Any legislation proposing to amend the Wire Act to prohibit transmission of wagering information for all types of gambling activities, including Internet gambling, would effectively preempt the states’ historical ability to properly regulate gaming. It is NCLGS’ strong conviction as legislators who chair and are members of the legislative committees that work diligently to develop sound public gaming policy, that states are the most appropriate entity to decide upon, and oversee, what kind of gaming should exist and what should not within their borders.

Rep. Keeley noted that Congress is already on record as favoring of state authority. The Interstate Horse Racing Act, Rep. Keeley asserted, says that “the States should have the primary responsibility for determining what forms of gambling may legally take place within their borders,” not only terrestrially, but via “electronic media.”

Rep. Keeley said in the letter that technological advances in gaming—Internet or otherwise—present “multiple social and economic policy issues to be considered.” She said that NCLGS recently finalized its Policy Framework for Regulation of Internet Gambling to safeguard states that want Internet gaming—and those that do not. Nine (9) states, she said, have passed bills to expand, legalize, or prohibit Internet gaming, and others are considering measures.

NCLGS addressed its March 24 letter to Senators Chuck Grassley (IA) and Patrick Leahy (VT), Chair and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary; and to Representatives Bob Goodlatte (VA) and John Conyers (MI), Chair and Ranking Member, respectively, of the House Committee on the Judiciary. NCLGS also sent the letter to all House and Senate Judiciary Committee members and to House and Senate leadership.

NCLGS has opposed Restoration of America’s Wire Act provisions in the past. In April 2014, the organization urged Judiciary Committee leadership to defeat H.R. 4301/S. 2159.

NCLGS is the only non-partisan organization of state lawmakers that meets on a regular basis to discuss issues in regard to gaming. NCLGS does not support or oppose gaming, but supports effective regulation and believes that decisions related to gaming should be made by the citizens of the individual states and their elected officials. More information is available at

# # #

Is the Lytle Gaming Scandal an indictment of the Wild Wild West approach to Cardrooms?

PokerGame www 1

A detailed OpEd penned by long-time gaming industry observer and veteran journalist Dave Palermo underscores California’s politically bifurcated system of regulating approximately 80 card rooms and of providing oversight for 59 tribal casinos and points out that such a system is highly dysfunctional, incapable of regulating what gambling is already legal in the state, let alone Internet poker. [Read more here:

That being said, Palermo’s piece additionally points out that Federal law gives tribal governments primacy to regulate their casinos, including those in California which many gaming experts have called the “best regulated casinos on the planet.” For example, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in San Bernardino County has more regulators than the California Bureau, which has some 150 employees and a $28 million budget.

But at the same time, and given the bifurcated nature of gaming control and enforcement in California, Card rooms — which have evolved from poker-only to high-stakes versions of blackjack, pai gow and baccarat requiring the use of banking firms, are another matter entirely. Some gaming industry experts contend that California’s card clubs lack internal operating controls as well as adequate surveillance.

“It’s the wild, wild west,” said independent card-cheating consultant George Joseph said.

“Internal controls are nil,” agrees Vic Taucer, an independent table games consultant.

In commenting upon the 4-member Gambling Control Commission appointed by California Governor Jerry Brown (which Mr. Palermo notes is largely inexperienced in gambling matters and struggles in particular with regulating card rooms), Commissioner Richard Schuetz  said that it was the “worse regulated segment” of the nation’s gambling industry.

While lack of resources are always an issue for cash-strapped governments, the bureaucratic culture and separation of gambling controls into separate dysfunctional State agencies exacerbates the disconnection between regulatory bodies which do not routinely or systemically communicate or coordinate with each other.

But is that more an indictment of the divergent approach to CA gaming regulation and enforcement activity for different gaming industries?  Or does it really mean only certain gaming market sectors are more prone to issues than others?

And what impact might this all have on California’s efforts to regulate online poker?  [See, e.g., Dave Palermo’s Blog at —
Additionally, the investigation by AG Kamala Harris  in the Lytle matter raises further questions about who may opine and rule upon the allegations made by the AG in her administrative complaint:  namely, is the fox watchting the hen house?

On that score, Palermo has augmented his investigative reporting to point out in another blog piece that the California gambling regulatory officials who will rule on the licensing of a former casino enforcement chief accused of jeopardizing a $119 million card room skimming investigation may themselves be faced with conflicts of interests, industry legal experts said.

Both Richard Lopes, chairman of the California Gambling Control Commission, and Tina Littleton, the commission’s executive director, have personal and professional relationships with persons connected to a licensing investigation by Attorney General Kamala Harris.  [See, Palermo Blog at —–+Victor+Rocha%26%2338%3B%2339%3Bs+Daily+News+Digest%5D

This story sounds more like one authored by John Grisham about the fictional law firm of Lytle, Lopes & Littleton as the details about the alleged conflicts of interest raised by AG Kamala Harris unfold.
www poker 2
Stay tuned…!

AGA iGaming Strategy May Shift Away from US Regulation to State-by-State.

Rumors are swirling in the DC-Beltway that power meetings amongst major gaming stakeholders and prominent politicians have not gone so well of late.

Some of the major gaming industry players included the following protagonists:  Patti Hart of IGT; Gary Loveman of Caesars Entertainment; Jim Murren of MGM; Deutsche Bank managing director Drew Goldman; Jamie Odell of Aristocrat; and Tim Wilmott of Penn National.  The meetings apparently included face-to-face conversations with Valerie Jarrett, one of President Obama’s closest advisors in the White House; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell; House Speaker John Boehner and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, among others.

The AGA’s new chief, Geoff Freeman, frustrated by a lack of any real movement on the federal legislative level recently commented that “there will come a time, if Washington does not act, that the AGA will be driven to change its approach.  I hope we don’t get there. But if we are not successful in Washington in getting legislation passed, our position is certain to evolve” he said.

It’s unclear what new strategy the AGA would adopt on the emerging iGaming and iPoker market sectors within certain States inside the US; but one would expect it to be an approach embracing State-by-State regulatory regimes augmented by potential State compacts amongst those States already licensing and taxing iGaming and/or iPoker operations within their respective States.

Ideally, the AGA and its brick and mortar focused members — and particularly Ceasars which has seen the growth of iPoker vis-a-vis its World Series of Poker brand — would have preferred that federal legislation would have passed by now, thereby fending off the various competing States, many with much larger populations than Nevada, from regulating the online gaming markets in the US.

Despite strident efforts by politicians supported by the AGA in the Lame Duck session of Congress in 2010, federal gaming legislation efforts failed during the last week of the session due largely to macro politics which killed a potpourri of attachments being latched onto Lame Duck session Bills that were thought to be “must-pass” legislation at that time.  Then, federal efforts got really nowhere in 2012 as the Nevada-centric efforts helmed by Senator Reid (and long-time gaming opponent Senator Kyl) were so disliked by non-AGA gaming stakeholders that a Bill was not even introduced in 2012 despite smoke and mirror efforts of AGA members who supported Reid being uncovered and not being so stealth after all as other gaming stakeholder opponents behind the scenes lobbied hard and fast to expose what a draconian Reid-Kyl iGaming prohibition and iPoker carve out Bill would most likely look like despite the commentary of some to the contrary.

Several years ago, preventing States like New Jersey, Delaware, and Nevada from enabling iGaming regulatory structures, and in the case of Nevada, poker-only schemes would have been far more lucrative for the AGA members because ongoing federal legislative attempts thus far have still favored Nevada gaming corporations (many of whom are AGA members) and either minimized — or in some cases even excluded — many other gaming stakeholders, including, but not limited to, State Lotteries, Tribal gaming interests, Cardrooms, Racetracks, and the like.

But alas for the AGA members, that has not come to fruition yet and may die on the vine again this year.  Meanwhile, many larger States like California are now on the cusp of legislating iPoker within its borders with many other States looking at doing likewise or even more in licensing online gaming for house-banked casino style games, bingo, lottery, and other games.

But don’t count out the AGA power brokers just yet on the US federal legislative front.

By labeling regulatory efforts as an iGaming “prohibition” instead of enabling online activity, certain interested stakeholders who are not sold on iGaming just yet — and may not be in the foreseeable future (and, who like AGA members have similar competitive business reasons for proscribing online gaming by others in this huge eCommerce market sector) — would seek to stop online gaming rather than expand it.  Of course, those opposed to gambling generally will be in favor of any efforts to proscribe US citizens from doing whatever they like with their own money regardless of the iGaming Wars among the gaming interests and who wins and loses them depending on State and Federal regulatory scenarios.  As a logical result, there may well be fighting chance for the AGA members to unite with such like-minded “prohibitionist” stakeholders (and traditional puritanical prohibitionists) to get an iGaming prohibition they mistakenly all thought they had (or wish they had) with the federal Wire Act which never was intended to cover anything but sports betting in the first place.  But logic and politics don’t necessarily translate to anything in the District.

As the AGA members begrudgingly know, the US Dept. of Justice itself finally admitted as much a couple years ago when formally reversing its policy stance that the Wire Act supposedly covered more than sports betting. So, the new federal prohibition notion would be this:  have a new and crystal clear iGaming prohibition throughout the US in order to achieve, legally speaking, what state of affairs AGA members and other gaming folks thought they had before the DOJ adopted the same legal position as the US Federal Courts had already done many years ago.  Getting back to that perceived “default setting” works for many gaming interests.

Then, bolted onto such a federal iGaming prohibition could be a carve-out for iPoker, which really isn’t gambling but is skill-based gaming in the eyes of most knowledgeable legal minds and poker players today. That’d be wonderful in the eyes of iPoker players in the US who had the rug pulled out from underneath them in April of 2011, but probably not so great for any other iGaming activity not also carved-out in some fashion either now, or perhaps down the road with further iGaming carve-outs.

However, there’s an even better reason from the AGA member perspective for such a carve-out for poker having nothing to do with making US iPoker players happy:  unlike larger States such as California that have enough residents and visitors to support an intra-State market for peer-to-peer iPoker (as compared and contrasted with house-banked casino games which do not require player liquidity), Nevada and New Jersey based AGA members would greatly benefit from a so-called “poker carve-out” that AGA members would largely control and endeavor to exclude California, Illinois, Florida, New York, Texas and any other States who may seek to regulate, tax, and license iPoker by virtue of the gaming licensing bodies qualifications and other clever provisions that establish certain parameters within the federal laws intended to favor the AGA members — just as those efforts in 2010 and 2012 attempted to accomplish.

Failing all of that, the AGA members will be forced to look at the State-by-State approach.

So, is the AGA’s new chief trying to downplay US federal efforts on the iGaming and iPoker front — perhaps to lull various competing stakeholders, States, and Tribes into a false-sense of security?  Or is it a tacit admission by the AGA chief that Washington politicians will indeed be pulling a rabbit out the hat to get anything done on the federal level before even more States enable some forms of iGaming, iPoker, Lottery games, etc?  All of the above?  Neither?

It’s hard to say and forecast what moves the AGA and its key members will next make in these iGaming Wars amongst the various stakeholders.   But this much is certain, the AGA will never give up looking out for its members.  After all, isn’t that what trade associations are supposed to do anyway?

Stay tuned … these internecine wars amongst a wide variety of stakeholders and competing gaming interests are not over by a long-shot on any of these battle fronts!