Nevada has a gambling blacklist, known to most as the Black Book because it was, at one time, an actual book. The book had multiple purposes, primary among them to let gambling establishments know of scammers and mafia bosses in the 1960s and 1970s. Those who clearly tried (and possibly succeeded) at taking advantage of casinos were blacklisted, never to be allowed in most casinos again.
Today, it is a list published online and shared amongst casinos in Nevada and beyond. It is not a long list, somewhat surprisingly, as it contains names of people banned for life from every gambling property. The Nevada Gaming Control Board currently lists 35 names, including only one woman.
There are smaller and unofficial blacklists, of course. Each casino operator keeps a list of people banned from one casino or a group of properties. The reason that it is so difficult to add a name to the notorious Black Book is because there could be legal ramifications, specifically charges of defamation. It is a different world today than decades ago.
Thus, the idea of creating an online poker blacklist in Nevada was somewhat baffling. Ultimately, the bill failed to pass through the Nevada legislature, but its journey poses interesting questions.
Holding iGaming Accountable
It is a given that land-based gambling is easier to police than online gambling. Especially in a world of increasingly complicated technology, the anonymity of online gambling can be very difficult to overcome. But it seems to be that exact anonymity and ability to hide from the masses that inspired a bill in the Nevada legislature that called for a public blacklist of all players who are caught cheating and banned from igaming platforms.
Nevada Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager introduced the bill – AB380 – into the Nevada State Assembly on March 22, 2023. The goal was simple: to provide for the establishment by the Nevada Gaming Commission of a list of persons whose interactive gaming accounts have been suspended or banned for cheating.”
Yeager worked with Sara Ralston on the legislation. She claims to be a professional poker player, and she is the former executive director of the Nevada Patient Protection Committee. She told the Nevada Independent that her goal was to protect poker players. “A lot of these online players hide behind a screen name,” she said. “We have no idea who they are. The idea is to provide more information to the player.”
https://twitter.com/howardstutz/status/1638695908161511428?s=20
Two Versions of AB380
The original bill, as noted above, was designed to hold cheaters accountable and let other gaming entities known who had been banned from igaming for such activities.
As discussions ensued amongst legislators, however, the language of the bill changed. The revised AB380 removed the specification that persons blacklisted must have cheated, opening it to all persons who have been banned from igaming for any reason.
Caesars, which operates WSOP-dot-com, the only state-licensed poker site open to Nevadans opposed the initial bill and even more vehemently the amendment. Not only would it put Caesars to walk a legal fine line and have undeniable proof of cheating – which is difficult in online poker – it would be a complicated matter because of interstate poker site sharing. WSOP shares its Nevada poker site with its sites in Delaware and New Jersey. It will eventually do the same with Pennsylvania and Michigan.
https://twitter.com/howardstutz/status/1643650829931655168?s=20
Other poker operators, specifically BetMGM, considering launching poker online in Nevada, would face the same dilemma.
Simply put, if a poker site blacklists a poker player for cheating online in Nevada, regulators in other states would be obligated, if even only by industry courtesy, to blacklist the same players. Would New Jersey’s gaming regulator be willing to do this?
The pure nature of the fragmented US online poker industry that is still figuring itself out is a can of worms. Put a blacklist in place, and it opens that can.
In the end, the bill died in the Nevada Assembly Judiciary Committee. It never made it to the floor for a vote or further discussion.
https://twitter.com/BonusUpdate/status/1649056048865746946?s=20
Wins and Losses
The bill and its eventual death spurred a mixed discussion in the poker community.
Many poker players want to see accountability. Lawmakers would like it, too, if only to shine light on a somewhat mysterious industry that operates almost solely online. Players would like to know the identity of cheaters so they can avoid them on other sites or in live poker. More so, they would like to see proof of the cheating to be convinced that the correct decision was made and to know what actions the cheaters took that were deemed illegal and sufficient for banning.
Online poker operators, for the reasons mentioned above, do not want a blacklist, much less a public one.
Perhaps, however, the benefit of AB380 this year was that it instigated a discussion about such matters. The issue will come up again, and, perhaps, the industry may be better equipped to deal with it then.
