The NBA Finals are finally here, and fans are getting the matchup that most predicted from the beginning of the season—the third straight Golden State Warriors v. Cleveland Cavaliers series. Oddsmakers have the Golden State Warriors clinching the series at odds ranging from -240 to -265. Bettors have access to NBA Finals betting lines and wagering types through legally licensed and regulated offshore sportsbook providers.

Golden State and Cleveland have been looking like the strongest teams in their respective conferences throughout the Playoffs. Golden State has managed to not lose a single game in the postseason and will want to continue their dominant streak going into the Finals series. With three consecutive sweeps, the Warriors have had ample time to rest throughout the Playoffs.

Warriors fans are confident going into the series knowing their star trio of Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson and Kevin Durant have been performing throughout the season. Curry averaged just under 30 points and 50% shooting accuracy. Durant, the Warriors’ major offseason pickup from the Oklahoma City Thunder, averaged 25 points a game at 55% shooting accuracy. Thompson has been the quietest out of the three with 14 points a game and 38% accuracy, but fans know what he brings to the table. Other notable players Draymond Green and Andre Iguodala have made their presence known in the Playoffs and are guaranteed to be on the Cavs’ radar.

The Cleveland Cavaliers also have a few weapons of their own, including the now all-time Playoff scorer LeBron James. Starting PG Kyrie Irving is considered one of the best dribblers in the league and Kevin Love rounds out their big three offense. The Cavs were on track to also being undefeated in the Playoffs, but lost to the Boston Celtics in the Eastern Conference Finals. While many see this loss as a sign of weakness in their overall performance, the Cavs still feel very confident in their play despite being labeled as the underdogs.

Last year’s matchup of these two NBA forces saw Golden State blow a 3-1 series lead over the Cavs. That loss has been in the minds of each Warrior player since and is evidenced by their play. The Warriors won the first matchup against the Cavs two years ago to claim their first NBA title. This is the rematch that fans have been wanting since the beginning of the season. These two teams make up the modern-day Lakers v. Celtics rivalry. While most of the games these two teams have played have been blowouts, this Finals series is expected to be highly competitive. Durant adds an x-factor to the Warriors that they did not have in the last season, so his impact will be a deciding factor in the series. For James and the rest of the Cavs, defending their title is their main priority. Both teams have the opponents they wanted, so it should be an epic series of historical proportions.

The populous state of California has for some time been predicted as the next entrant into the United States Internet gambling industry. By virtue of the largest population of any US state, California would instantly be the national leader in the new online gambling market. The Golden State has had a gambling-friendly attitude for just about as long as it has been in existence. Physical card rooms and casinos can be found in California, with those casinos run by tribal Indian groups. A baker’s dozen of California Indian tribes has reached an agreement on an Internet poker proposal for the state, and there are currently two bills sitting before the state legislature awaiting votes which would also legalize online poker.

13 California Indian Tribes Agree on Internet Poker Proposal

The agreement between the 13 influential California Indian tribes comes after 5 long years of dispute. Casino operators run by other tribes disagreed with the Internet gambling proposals set forth by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians could not agree with the San Manuel Band and others, but now those two powerful California tribal groups anchor a conglomerate that proposes a consensus for Internet poker. They recently sent a letter to California state Senator Lou Correa and state Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer outlining their proposed piece of legislation.

AB 2291 and SB 1366 Online Poker Bills Awaiting Votes

The California tribal proposal was addressed to those two specific California lawmakers because each has offered his own bill that would legalize Internet poker in California as well. AB 2291 is a bill drawn up by Jones-Sawyer, with SB 1366 anchored by Correa. Both of those propositions call for legalized Internet poker as early as late 2014 or early 2015, with language allowing for a possible inclusion of online gambling and other forms in the future. Including the Indian tribal proposal, that makes three significant pieces of legislation which are driving to legalize online poker in the great state of California. Pennsylvania and roughly a dozen other states are pursuing legalizing forms of online gambling, but the current efforts in California make it the front-runner to become the fourth state to join the US online gambling marketplace.

Morongo Indian Tribe and PokerStars Ready to Deliver Cyber Poker

The only possible problem could arise from the inabilities of one group or another to make concessions which would allow for easy passage of an Internet poker piece of legislation. On a positive note, an agreement was reached earlier this year between three of California’s popular card rooms, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and Internet poker provider PokerStars. That agreement was reached so that the newly formed partnership could provide Internet poker to California citizens and travelers when and if some type of online gambling legislation legalizes cyber wagering in the state. PokerStars was recently purchased by the Amaya Gaming Group, creating the world’s largest gambling company.

Amaya is a well respected gambling industry power, giving the tarnished PokerStars image a much-needed boost. Amaya has years of experience developing physical gambling hardware and software, and could instantly deliver an online poker product as soon as Internet poker is legalized in California. With at least one state Senator, one assemblyman and 13 tribes, 14 counting Morongo, proposing legal Internet poker for Golden State residents, the ability to shuffle up and deal in a virtual poker setting looks to be a California reality in the very near future.

After months of planning, a California Indian tribe has followed through on its promise to deliver real money gambling to the state of California. Citing specific Indian gambling legislation created in 1988, a band of Diegueno Mission Indians on the Santa Ysabel Reservation has launched a real money bingo site for Golden State residents and visitors. DesertRoseBingo.com does not offer California online poker betting like the tribe originally promised, but could very well lead the way for a virtual poker operation in the future. A cyber poker launch from the tribe depends on the success of the bingo site launched just this week.

Bingo is seen as a socially acceptable game of chance. Churches, civic and fraternal organizations and charities often host weekly bingo games to raise funds. This has happened in the state of California and across the United States for decades. So delivering a real money bingo option for California citizens may be a smart move for several reasons. California legislators may simply turn a blind eye on the operation. And public support could bolster the possibility and success of an eventual Internet poker product. Chris Wrieden is the Director of Marketing for the Santa Ysabel Interactive operation, and he justified his tribe’s bingo launch in a recent interview.

He pointed to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act signed in 1988 as legal justification for the real money online bingo operation. IGRA was a piece of legislation signed into law by California state legislators giving Indian tribes recognized by the government the ability to regulate and launch their own gambling operations, with some limitations. Class II games such as poker and bingo are allowed by IGRA as long as tribal leaders regulate the game, and it takes place on recognized Indian tribal lands. In 1988, there was no Internet. So whether California lawmakers agree with the tribe as to a virtual interpretation of IGRA is going to be the basis of the bingo site’s survival.

California for the last couple of years has been named on the short list of states to join New Jersey, Delaware and Nevada in the US online gambling industry. And several efforts have been made to offer legislation which would legalize online poker in the Golden State. But thus far, nothing has stuck. With 2 different online gambling proposals already waiting on state lawmakers to cast their votes one way or the other, this brash defiance of California law by the San Diego Indian tribe is simply one more reason to believe that California will have an online gambling presence sooner than later. The PPA has been very supportive of the state’s efforts to move forward with online poker legislation, and is also very supportive of a coordinating a California online casino initiative as well.

The Santa Ysabel Reservation is located in Northeastern San Diego County, and is recognized as an Indian group with tribal rites at both the state and federal levels. And there currently exists no state law which specifically outlines online bingo as an illegal pastime, where real money gambling is concerned. When Chris Wrieden was questioned as to why online poker has not become a reality, as the tribe promised, he pointed out that the technical realities of delivering a cyber poker operation were more complex than its bingo counterpart. He also reiterated that online poker would be the next step, barring any legal reprimand or shutdown of the bingo site.

California is widely regarded as one of the next states to join the young US online gambling industry. In a working towards that goal, California legislators have included a “bad actor” clause that would directly affect who can and can not be involved in any state regulated and sanctioned Internet gambling offerings in the future. Basically, if a company is deemed by California gaming authorities as having relationships with other parties which have previously been indicted for online gambling offenses, they will not be allowed to participate in the California interactive Internet gaming marketplace.

Harvard Law School Professor Finds Bad Actor Clause Unconstitutional

While this sounds like it is a great move by California to protect its residents, it appears that it could be in direct violation of the United States Constitution. A globally respected professor at Harvard University Law School is also a leader in constitutional law. Laurence H. Tribe has been a significant contributor to helping other countries found their constitutional law, and has even penned a piece on American Constitutional Law. And it is his opinion that the only bad actor involved in this particular piece of restrictive legislation is the state of California itself in their efforts to establish a state regulated online poker platform for California residents and visitors.

Certainly, California’s legislators and gaming authorities did not intentionally set about to create a piece of law that directly flies in the face of the United States Constitution. But Tribe says that the bad actor clause which currently would restrict PokerStars from the California online gambling picture is in violation of the rights of that company, and any others which would be affected negatively by it. He also analyzed another bill which is sitting before the California state legislator, and found it to be in violation of PokerStars’ rights as well.

AB 2291 was put forth by California Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer. State Senator Lou Correa is the driving force behind SB 1366. Both of those bills include specific “bad actor” language that, according to Tribe, “legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial trial.” In the United States, every individual is guaranteed a right to a fair trial, as well as a trial before presumption of guilt or sentencing of any kind can be invoked. Tribe claims that both of these California Internet gambling bills are in violation of those rights.

2006 UIGEA Not Proved Legal In Court Yet

In 2006 the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was developed to safeguard the rights of American citizens gambling online. And PokerStars was one company that, in 2011, was charged with illegal activities as outlined by UIGEA legislation. But the legality or illegality of continuing to run a US online gambling enterprise after UIGEA was passed still has not been proven in a court of law. PokerStars did not flaunt its defiance of the US Department of without doing its homework. The attorneys PokerStars employed told the company it was totally within its constitutional rights to continue to do business. It appears that legal counsel was correct, if Laurence Tribe’s opinion is to be believed. This could make for a 2015 entry into the California online poker industry for PokerStars.

California has struggled to get an online poker bill of any kind moving forward over the last year due to challenges in reaching a consensus among all the Indian tribes who are involved. It looks like California Assemblyman Adam Gray has finally achieved this on AB 431. The bill is essentially a ‘shell bill’ that does not include any details regarding the actual regulation of an online poker platform within the state. Though it is considered vague, it is the first step in creating the framework by which the state will begin to work out the structure of the potential new gambling platform. Gray made some minor changes to the bill’s wording that seemed to appease all parties involved.

One of the main sources for contention among the Indian tribes stems from the fact that some of the tribes want a bad actor clause, while one of the highly influential tribes does not. Gray added language to the bill that limits licensing of online poker sites to ‘qualified entities.” Some feel that this change satisfied those who are seeking the bad actor clause inclusion while remaining vague enough to not upset those who do not want that restriction in place because it would nullify existing partnerships they have established within the online poker industry. This language change is thought to be the primary influence that unified the committee to pass the bill.

There were a few other minor changes to the language of the bill, none of which really altered the content or intent of it, but combined were able to get the bill moved through the committee. Some feel the additional changes made the bill even more vague. For example, originally the bill indicated specific agencies that would be responsible for establishing regulation of online poker in California. Changes modified that language to simply say that “the state” would regulate California online poker.

Despite the fact that we cannot see much point to some of the language changes since most of them did not alter the basic message, we’re pretty sure that it was important to one of the parties involved or they wouldn’t have been made in the first place. These small amendments were successful in allowing California to take the first steps towards authorizing online poker for their residents.

Members of the committee express confidence that the details of legalizing online poker in California would be successfully hammered out through a meaningful process that benefits all parties involved as well as the residents of the state. Should they achieve a law that permits state based legal California online gambling, they would be the fourth state to do so, following New Jersey, Nevada and Delaware.

For decades, Indian reservations have been the site of all sorts of California casino betting and gaming-related facilities, bringing in mountains of cash to their respective owners. All of that cash has been legal because the activities have taken place on reservation land. A California ballot measure set for November 4 is asking voters to either ratify or overturn an agreement between the state and the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians. That compact would allow the tribe to build a 2,000-slot machine casino on land they recently acquired near Madera, California—38 miles away from its reservation.

Those voting “Yes” want the casino to be built, while those in the “No” camp are against the deal. Another compact involves the Wiyot tribe, with that agreement tied into the bid for the off-reservation casino. While that deal prohibits a casino on Wiyot land, it guarantees the tribe roughly three percent of the slot-machine revenues from the proposed North Fork casino.

The main conflict that has brought about such heated debate stems from the fact that the property in question is on non-reservation land, which might ordinarily disqualify the use of it for any gaming. However, the Tribe had requested in 2005 that the Department of the Interior approve its use in that manner, since it would benefit the tribe, had the support of the state’s governor (Jerry Brown) and was considered not detrimental to the area surrounding it. In 2011, the Interior gave its approval, and Brown signed the compact (Assembly Bill 277) the following year. Brown’s support of Proposition 48 is based on the expected creation of thousands of jobs in one of the state’s most poverty-stricken areas, which has also brought labor organizations on board.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s office, the casino would be estimated to make a one-time payment to both Madera County and the city of Madera from $16 to $35 million. Tribes that already own areas in the state’s Central Valley have led the fight against the measure, with California Sen. Diane Feinstein also expressing her support. The “No” vote supporters have funneled $7.8 million into fighting the measure, in contrast to the relatively-scant $418,000 by those supporting it, almost all of that coming from Station Casinos., which would operate the casino in exchange for 30 percent of the profits.

The main reason for the strong opposition is the $7 billion in revenue that the 59 different casinos in the state bring in. In addition, Las Vegas is within driving distance. In addition, the concept of the slippery slope with regard to circumventing what had been the accepted law is a concern of the measure’s opponents. Increasing the practice of “reservation shopping” has also been mentioned as a reason to oppose it, which references the claim that tribes would go all across the state to open up casinos, regardless of where they are located.

$500 million, 38 million residents and 2 influential California Indian tribes. Those are some of the numbers which are involved with an important piece of legislation that is allegedly going to be delivered to California lawmakers the first week of June. With a very long history of supporting physical poker rooms, the Golden State would become the fourth state in the US to legally offer some type of state-sanctioned legal online poker. Delaware, New Jersey and Nevada all currently deliver Internet wagering legally to their residents and visitors, and a band of Pechanga Indians agree with some of their San Manuel counterparts that California needs to be online as well. State regulated California online poker would represent the largest stateside player base for virtual gambling thus far.

While cyber gambling has not produced massive financial numbers in the three states which currently offer it, those jurisdictions boast only a total population of 13 million. California by itself lays claim to more than 38 million residents. With nearly 3 times the population of the entire US Internet gambling industry, California would enter the marketplace as the predominant player. Recent revenue numbers in New Jersey and Delaware, coupled with the populous presence of potential poker players in California, have led industry analysts to believe that an estimate of 500 million first-year tax and revenue dollars for the state would not be an overly aggressive guess.

In a state that has battled bankruptcy, those types of numbers are almost too big to ignore. The leaders from the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and the San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians recently had their final meeting concerning a proposal which they say would deliver legal online gambling in the form of Internet poker to California. Those are two of the largest and most influential Indian tribes in that state. And if they can appease the Morongo tribe which recently announced a partnership with PokerStars and three of the largest California poker rooms, legislators viewing the proposal next week may meet with statewide Indian support to help push the bill through.

You may recall that PokerStars was indicted on money-laundering and other charges by the US DOJ in 2011. Though they have since reached a “white knight” status in the poker community by making good on frozen player pools and appeasing the DOJ, they do have that black mark against them. In some cases, a “bad actor” clause is included in contracts. The idea is to exclude any previously indicted firms from benefiting if Internet poker is legalized in California. It is not known at this point whether the Pechanga/San Manuel Internet gaming proposal will appear favorable to Morongo and PokerStars, but we do know that the proposal is rumored to be delivered to California lawmakers sometime from June 2 through June 6.

Jerome Encinas is a tribal lobbyist close to the proposal, and he recently mentioned in an interview that the last meeting between the two powerful tribes “went well.” He also pointed out that discussions are 99.9% finished on the proposed wording of the online poker bill. This would mean merely getting it in front of the right legislative parties before the 2014 legal session in California closes this August. With such a rich card room and poker playing history, California Internet poker legalized and run by state certified parties is more a matter of when than if. Let’s hope that the proposed legislation makes for a 2014 legal Internet poker presence in California.

One of the primary hurdles in the California online poker discussions has been opposition from the state’s Indian tribes. Much of the existing brick and mortar California gambling industry is owned and operated by Tribal business; hence they were naturally concerned about how the online gambling initiative would affect them. One of the biggest recent news headlines concerning CA online poker was that a consensus has been reached by key California Tribes on the online poker issue.

One measure of progress came with the deal that each online poker license would be limited to two websites. This allows smaller tribal interests to effectively compete with the larger corporations, providing protection for them and therefore making the initiative more attractive to them. A great deal of time and effort has gone into attempts to bring the major Tribal coalitions into agreement on the matter, and it looks like this has finally been achieved.

The waters are not clear sailing yet however. In anticipation of online poker reaching legal status in the Golden State, several prominent tribes, including the Morongo Tribe, among others had already entered into a partnership with PokerStars concerning access to online poker services for California players. The existing California legislation that is being considered includes a ‘bad actor’ clause, which is designed to prevent offshore online gambling brands from participating in the state regulated online poker industry if they have been found to violate the UIGEA bill in the past. PokerStars falls into this category and according to the language on the bill, would be eliminated from participation in the online poker market in California.

Nevada has enacted Bad Actor language in their online gambling laws, and while New Jersey considered it, they ended up removing it prior to passage of the bill. PokerStars takes specific offense to the AGA’s attempt to eliminate them from the market. They recently shared that several prominent US based gambling entities, including Caesar’s Entertainment, offered to sell specific casinos to the Rational Group (owners of PokerStars). The AGA claims PokerStars is a criminal enterprise, yet its members want to sell their interests to the Rational Group, who was quick to point out that they felt this to be a very hypocritical position.

There have been multiple suggestions on how this can be handled. For states that actually do enact ‘bad actor’ stipulations, most are expecting a time penalty and possibly a fee as well before they can participate in a state’s regulated online poker options. Illinois is considering a 10 year penalty, while others are suggesting 5 years. Because this industry really is all about money, the fee is expected to be hefty if applied. A compromise is expected to be reached in time for the online poker bill in California to be passed this session. Whether or not this will happen is anyone’s guess, but there is a lot of motivation to get the show on the road, which might make opposing parties a little more willing to compromise on this issue. As the story unfolds we will continue to report on its progress here.