A few weeks ago, our own Becky Liggero asked Joe Brennan how will each state define ‘bad actors’ and he expressed his concern about how the industry, as a whole, is placing too much focus on how to define a ‘bad actor’. Which is why in our last weekly poll, we asked our readers what they thought of the Bad Actors Clause.
50% of the voters said that the Bad Actors Clause is protectionist politics. Majority of the voters believe that politicians put in place the Bad Actors Clause to protect land based casinos and their constituencies.
28% of the voters answered ‘to keep the good operators out’. These people believe that the Bad Actors Clause aims to keep out operators who offer good service in favor of land based casinos. Neveda for example has a 10-year lock out period so companies like Pokerstars of Full Tilt Poker will have to play the waiting-game for 10 years before they can apply for a license.
23% said that the Bad Actors Clause is needed to protect the players. An article we published back in April about Lock Poker cancelling withdrawals from players should be a good example for this.
The decision to place a bad actor clause in any bill is up to each individual state, their motivation for doing so might vary but based on our poll numbers we know how CalvinAyre.com readers feel.
In this week’s weekly poll, we asked our readers this: “Did Zynga make the right move dropping their gambling ambitions?” Lets us know if you think it’s a ‘YES – They couldn’t compete’ or ‘NO – They missed a gold mine’.