The Online Gaming talks are continuing in Pennsylvania with both sides presenting bills and testimony before the PA Gaming Oversight Committee in Harrisburg. The bills before the committee
There is another bill that is Poker only. The two that are mentioned have the best chance of moving forward with bi partisan support.
The opponents of any online gaming legislation are lead by Sands Bethlehem Casino and Vice President of Government Relations, Andy Abboud, stated the position that online gaming would not protect underage children from gaming. He also cited that gaming online would not support the brick and mortar operations. Mr. Abboud was questioned by Rep Davis about mobile apps that are currently used by Sands in Nevada and how that differentiate from what would be considered in Pennsylvania. There was no definitive answer given. She also ask Mr. Abboud about a fine Sands received in Las Vegas for a substantial amount of money. Mr. Abboud was not able to recall the fine and averted the question.
The proponents of the online gaming legislation included Caesars Vice President Michael D. Cohen and
Penn Gaming Vice President of I Gaming Chris Sheffield. Cohen cited the success of Caesars Interactive in Nevada and New Jersey while Chris spoke of the integrity and safety nets of the international online gaming community. Sheffield also highlighted the employment opportunities online gaming would add to the state. Cohen and Sheffield jointly agree that the perspective of their testimony would transmit to a proposed online gaming environment in Pennsylvania.
 |
| Entertainment at its best |
The technical side of the process was provided by GLI Vice President of Government Relations, Kevin Mullaly and GeoComply Operations Manager Lindsay Slader. Each gave either a demonstration or explanation of how technology works in other jurisdictions with gaming online. The consensus was that this is something that can be done and regulated with the controls that the Commonwealth would feel are appropriate.
My take is that all businesses that are successful must have an online presence. If it is minimize, then the amount of revenue is dramatically reduced. If I have a competitor in a neighboring state that can provide a service that I can't, I am at a competitive disadvantage. Will that disadvantage be limited to geographic boundaries? No! If I want to play in New Jersey, I can still drive there. So if the promotions of playing online entice me to do so, I would play less in my home state. If the same promotion was available where I live, I would play there. Note the staggering decline in gaming revenue in Atlantic City was parallel to the increase of money spent wagering in Pennsylvania once tables and slots were approved. There was a direct correlation.
If this online gaming initiative continues thru May and gains traction in the PA State Senate, things could get very interesting. Stay Tuned!
You can follow me on Twitter at
https://twitter.com/GamingguyM and Facebook
at
https://www.facebook.com/gaming.guym
