{"id":6180,"date":"2022-03-28T09:13:48","date_gmt":"2022-03-28T16:13:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wagers.com\/staging\/4285\/?p=6180"},"modified":"2022-03-28T09:18:51","modified_gmt":"2022-03-28T16:18:51","slug":"analysis-michigans-impact-on-multi-state-online-poker","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wagers.com\/staging\/4285\/news\/analysis-michigans-impact-on-multi-state-online-poker\/","title":{"rendered":"Analysis: Michigan\u2019s impact on multi-state online poker"},"content":{"rendered":"

A significant development for U.S. online poker came to light last week, as the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) issued operator guidance<\/a> for interstate online poker pooling. The MGCB guidance points to the Wolverine State closing in on an official announcement that it has entered into an interstate online poker agreement with one or more states.<\/p>\n

It appears Michigan is trying to join the Multi-State Interstate Gaming Agreement (MSIGA), currently comprising Nevada, Delaware, and New Jersey.<\/p>\n

According to PokerFuse<\/a>, Rebecca Satterfield, iGaming Manager for the Delaware State Lottery and the current Manager for\u00a0MSIGA, confirmed Michigan has requested to join the compact and submitted suggested amendments, but the addition of Michigan is still under review.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cUpon MGCB\u2019s review of the current agreement, suggested amendments were drafted to streamline the process for future states to join the association,\u201d Satterfield told PokerFuse.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What Does 40 Million Get You?<\/h2>\n

The addition of Michigan would boost the current population total from 13 million to 23 million.<\/p>\n

More importantly, Michigan\u2019s entry could be the push three other online poker states, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and West Virginia, need to follow suit. West Virginia and Connecticut operators haven\u2019t even launched online poker sites, and several operators are holding back in Pennsylvania and Michigan.<\/p>\n

Pennsylvania would boost the total population to 36 million, with Connecticut and West Virginia pushing the tally past 40 million \u2013 an all-important number.<\/p>\n

I have long believed the number of residents needed to sustain a U.S. online poker market is around 40 million. That market would support 3-5 operators, with average cash-game traffic in the 4,000-5,000-player range. A pool of 40 million-plus provides enough liquidity for a handful of sites to compete with offshore operators and run decently sized guaranteed tournaments and promotional offers.<\/p>\n

As the former head of commercial developments for 888 Holdings, Yaniv Sherman, once told me<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cCountries that have between 30 or 40 million people in Europe have trouble maintaining that critical mass. In the U.S., I think it\u2019s different. A smaller population can maintain critical mass.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The reason? According to Sherman, \u201cPoker is much more embedded in the culture, and you don\u2019t need to explain the game or go through the education process. Everybody plays poker here. It\u2019s part of their everyday life.\u201d<\/p>\n

What the Guidance Says<\/h2>\n

The MGCB guidance is pretty straightforward.<\/p>\n

Importantly, it only covers interstate poker agreements in the U.S. It does not cover international pooling, nor does it extend to games other than poker. And while it doesn\u2019t expressly mention it, it\u2019s safe to assume \u201cpoker\u201d is limited to peer-to-peer games, not house-banked casino poker games, as the definition from the Michigan Lawful Internet Gaming Act<\/a> reads:<\/p>\n

\u201c(ee) \u201cPoker\u201d means the traditional game of poker, and any derivative of the game of poker as approved by the board, in which 2 or more authorized participants play against each other and wager on the value of the cards in the authorized participants\u2019 hands.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The MGCB lays out several paths an operator can take now or in the future, should it sign an agreement with another state(s) to share online poker liquidity.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. An operator that does not currently offer poker in Michigan may decide to launch multistate poker\u2026 via a partnership with a new platform provider, via a new platform provided by an operator\u2019s existing platform provider, or as a new game or remote gaming system (RGS) added to an existing platform.<\/li>\n
  2. An operator or platform provider that currently offers poker may introduce a new platform in Michigan to support multistate poker or may migrate its entire poker operation to a platform located in another state (e.g., New Jersey).<\/li>\n
  3. An operator or platform provider may continue to utilize its current platform while connecting to poker platforms in other states via a remote gaming system (located in Michigan or another state).<\/li>\n
  4. As it relates to games, an operator or platform provider may submit new game software or may conduct multistate poker using game software that is already approved by the board.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    If an agreement is in place, operators must meet the above MGCB requirements and receive approval from the regulatory body.<\/p>\n

    Time to Launch<\/h2>\n

    When Michigan would link up with other states is unknown. As New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement Director David Rebuck often says, \u201cit\u2019s just not a matter of flipping a switch and saying, we\u2019re going to turn on the Internet today.\u201d<\/p>\n

    There are inter-state regulatory hurdles to overcome, as different states have different rules and requirements. There is also testing that needs to occur, particularly with operators that aren\u2019t already sharing liquidity in multiple states.<\/p>\n

    Previous timelines took 13 months and seven months, respectively, from an announcement to actual pooling.<\/p>\n