Richard N. Velotta
Those witnessing last week’s Nevada Gaming Commission meeting got a sense that they saw history being made when the board unanimously approved the nation’s first regulations for online poker.
How significant that approval was in the big picture of Internet gambling regulation remains to be seen, especially since the public’s confidence level has to be at a new low after the political fiasco preceding the extension of payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits.
Given that federal lawmakers fought so bitterly on something important like that, how can they possibly be expected to take up something as simple as consenting adults playing poker online for money? Never mind that the federal government’s piece of the action — the taxes that would be generated upon approval of online gambling — could help the nation’s budget deficit.
As things stand now, companies can apply for licenses to conduct online poker games within Nevada’s borders. Whether there’s a big enough market in Nevada to make that a lucrative venture is another question, but let’s assume that it will and operators and regulators will get some great experience at home before online poker play goes national someday.
Everybody seems convinced that federal approval eventually will happen, although it might take a political shift of epic proportions to occur.
Lee Amaitis is optimistic. He is president and CEO of Cantor Gaming, which has capitalized on its technological expertise to build a growing mobile gaming business in Nevada.
“If there are 1.7 million people in the state who are old enough to play legally, that represents a pretty good market to pursue,” he said after regulators unanimously approved the new online poker rules.
So what else can the industry do to take Internet poker play to the next level?
One answer could lie in suggestions offered by an organization many would presume to be an opponent of online gaming — the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling.
Carol O’Hare, executive director of the council, was at last week’s commission meeting after writing a letter encouraging the commission to tweak its regulations with some additional detail on how compulsive gamblers could seek help.
Regulations approved by the commission require licensees that develop poker websites to provide active links to house rules adopted by the operator, information on how player disputes are resolved, the Gaming Control Board’s site, a self-exclusion site and “a problem gambling website that is designed to offer information pertaining to responsible gaming.”
O’Hare wanted more specifics for players.
“We certainly agree this is a valuable component of the regulation, but are concerned that the current language in (that) section does not provide clear direction to operators regarding the type of website and content that is appropriate to satisfy this intent,” O’Hare said in her letter to Commission Chairman Peter Bernhard.
Her proposed tweak would require an active link to “a nongaming website that provides information on the nature and symptoms of problem gambling and referral to problem gambling treatment and support resources, including the number of the 24-hour Problem Gamblers Helpline (800-522-4700). For this purpose, the website of the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling is presumed to be adequate for compliance.”
O’Hare also praised the commission for including a self-exclusion option for players, but she also suggested adding a section in the regulation on setting personal limits for play.
Her suggestion: “An operator shall ensure that an authorized player has the ability, through their interactive gaming account, to select responsible gambling options that include a wager limit, loss limit, time-based loss limits, deposit limit, session time limit and time-based exclusion from gambling.”
Over the years, regulators have walked a tightrope over how much it should address problem gambling.
Provide too little information, and they’ll be criticized for not doing enough to curb addictive behavior. Provide too much, and the public wonders why we’re offering more gambling options in the first place.
I think regulators should err on the side of doing more to educate the public about problem gambling.
Nevada is the acknowledged leader in the gaming industry and shouldn’t fear losing customers by promoting responsible play.
It will still be the player’s decision to click through to a problem gambling site or sign up for self-exclusion.
Including O’Hare’s suggestions into the regulations would raise the nation’s perception of Nevada as a place that knows how to have fun while reminding the public that too much fun is an excess that some can’t afford.