DC plans on being the first US jurisdiction to open an online casino

[Remember Remember]

Originally Posted by shadroch

New Jersey was set to have intra-state gambling on line, but Gov. Christie vetoed the bill.

I think he's trying to protect AC's business, but utterly failing. First he doesn't allow card rooms up state now this. AC's dying if not already dead imo. NJ needs to wake up to reality and start looking at alternatives like card rooms or small casinos in the Newark/NYC-area.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by alwayssplitaces

Sure, in the beginning it'll be a fishfest but once the novelty wears out and the fish lose their money, it'll be regulars grinding against each other. DC is small enough that a regular casino would be easily accessible to the whole population.

I wonder if visitors will be able to play if they're connected to one of those wireless hotspots. If so, it might be worth it for me to go to DC the first day it opens and play online poker all day. It would be soft like the PartyPoker days. I can imagine the +EV it would be to multitable 1/2 NL for a day that's as soft as live 1/2 NL.

They'll never have a regular casino in DC. Far too much opposition to it. But if they open an online casino, all they need is just a few hundred people playing and they'll be making lots of money. I for one would be quite happy to eat tons of fish when it first opens I doubt it'll be 2005 all over again but surely it should be fun for a while.

[alwayssplitaces]

On Day 1 people would willingly play. It would have a lot of media coverage reinforcing that it is completely legal, so people will not have any worries depositing via their credit cards. The plan to open a play money online casino first to test the software is good since the poker players would play "bingo" like they do on Facebook poker. Then when real money is accepted, those same players would play badly with real money. But I don't think a play money casino based in DC would get much traffic since there are so many play money casinos online.

[Nynefingers]

Originally Posted by alwayssplitaces

I wonder if visitors will be able to play if they're connected to one of those wireless hotspots. If so, it might be worth it for me to go to DC the first day it opens and play online poker all day. It would be soft like the PartyPoker days. I can imagine the +EV it would be to multitable 1/2 NL for a day that's as soft as live 1/2 NL.

It wasn't clear to me whether multitabling will even be allowed. If so, it almost certainly will be limited to a small number of tables.

"An Intralot official said that payouts in the District would be competitive but that the target market is recreational players, not high-stakes professionals who play many hands at once."

Originally Posted by shadroch

Federal law prohibits inter-state gambling. It does not prohibit intra-state gambling, and says nothing about the District of Columbia. New Jersey was set to have intra-state gambling on line, but Gov. Christie vetoed the bill.
A Maryland resident can bet only within the state of Maryland, or he is violating Federal law.

Can you provide a reference for this? The only thing I've ever seen used as an argument against online poker has been the Wire Act, which does not apply. Is this a new law against interstate gambling?

[Caesar]

"It wasn't clear to me whether multitabling will even be allowed. If so, it almost certainly will be limited to a small number of tables."

I see some of you remember the 2005 days. One thing--not the only--that led to demise of soft online poker is multitabling. Give an expert player the chance to clean out dozens of fish at the same time and game quality goes south in a hurry.

Why not limit players to one table? After all, it is still much, much faster than one table brick-and-mortar poker.

I'm a winning online poker player (I don't play now.) and I'm perfectly content to play one table at a time.

[alwayssplitaces]

Originally Posted by Caesar

"It wasn't clear to me whether multitabling will even be allowed. If so, it almost certainly will be limited to a small number of tables."

I see some of you remember the 2005 days. One thing--not the only--that led to demise of soft online poker is multitabling. Give an expert player the chance to clean out dozens of fish at the same time and game quality goes south in a hurry.

Why not limit players to one table? After all, it is still much, much faster than one table brick-and-mortar poker.

I'm a winning online poker player (I don't play now.) and I'm perfectly content to play one table at a time.

Thing is, with this site promoted as legal, there will be a lot more fish that will play and feed the pros. But the population of DC is small.
As someone who used to multitable Rush Poker on Full Tilt, playing one table seems slow. I made my money with rakeback. Rush Poker was full of rocks, but there were the occasional loose players who did make it worthwhile to play.