PokerStars Hiring for Head of Poker, 20+ Other Positions

Online poker giant PokerStars is expanding their team, with nearly 30 positions – including several new listings – open for application on the company’s website.Company seeking “Head of Poker”While a number of the available positions sound interesting, the marquee position among the bunch has got to be “Head of Poker.” As described by PokerStars, the Head of Poker …Read more here.PokerStars is also seeking a “Head of Product,” tasked with being “the unifying force behind the PokerStars product strategy and execution.” Both positions report directly to the CEO of PokerStars.Additional positions run the gamutThe remainder of the current job listings span nearly every aspect of PokerStars’ operations, from legal to payment services to software development. View the complete list of available positions.

PokerStars Hiring for Head of Poker, 20+ Other Positions

NV Licensee Profile: Boyd Gaming

This is one of a series of profiles covering companies that hold a license to participate in Nevada’s online gambling market.Contents
1 Details and Timeline of Boyd Gaming’s Nevada License
1.1 Partnerships and role in Nevada market
2 Company Overview
2.1 Boyd Gaming Power Players
3 Potential in other US markets
4 LinksBoyd Gaming is one of the largest casino developers and operators in the world. Boyd can boast some 22 casinos under the company’s umbrella (15 of which are wholly owned by Boyd Gaming), including well-known Las Vegas properties like California Hotel, Freemont Hotel, Main Street Station, El Dorado, Gold Coast, Sun Coast, and the Orleans.Additionally, Boyd Gaming holds full and partial stakes in multiple casinos across the US, the best known of these being the Borgata in Atlantic City, New Jersey, widely considered the best casino on the AC Boardwalk.Details and Timeline of Boyd Gaming’s Nevada License
In February of 2012 Boyd Gaming was among the first companies to apply for an online poker license in Nevada. With the addition of Boyd Gaming the number of early applicants grew to a dozen, but with only a handful of companies seeking an operator’s license; the rest submitted applications for a service provider license.
On October 2, 2012 Boyd Gaming went before the Nevada Gaming Control Board in a preliminary licensing hearing. After a unanimous vote the NGCB recommended Boyd Gaming for an operator license. Two weeks later the Nevada Gaming Commission would put the final stamp on Boyd’s iGaming license in Nevada.
On October 18, 2012 Boyd Gaming received their online poker operator license from the Nevada Gaming Commission. Boyd gaming became just the third company to procure an operator license, following in the footsteps of Monarch Casino and ACEP.Boyd’s operator license allows the company to offer online poker games to residents of Nevada and visitors within the state’s borders.Partnerships and role in Nevada marketBoyd gaming is expected to partner with the online giant bwin.party (as will the MGM), and use Party Poker’s software for their online poker games. This would be the first time Party Poker’s software will be seen since they left the US market after UIGEA passed in late 2006. Party Poker was the #1 online poker room in the world prior to this, so it will be interesting to see if Party can reconnect with the US population, or if sites like Full Tilt and PokerStars have solidified themselves.Company OverviewBoyd Gaming was the brainchild of Sam Boyd the patriarch of the Boyd family, and his son William who was a practicing attorney at the timed the family started their gaming empire. Willaim Boyd ascended to the role of CEO of Boyd Gaming after his father’s passing in 1993, and remained CEO until his retirement in 2008, turning the reins over to the first non-Boyd CEO of the company, Keith Smith.Sam Boyd’s story is altogether amazing, but not unheard of in the early Las Vegas tales. Sam brought his family to the newly created oasis in the early 1940’s, working as everything from a dealer to a pit boss, to shift manager in the burgeoning gaming industry, all the while saving a nest egg which he eventually used to buy into the Sahara Hotel and Casino. By the mid-1970’s Sam, along with his son William had been in the casino business for going over three decades when the pair decided to get into the casino development game, which was the catalyst for the formation of Boyd Gaming on January 1, 1975.In Las Vegas, Boyd Gaming is known for its honest dealings and open books –which led the NGC to turn to Boyd Gaming when other casinos were being investigated during the mob-days of the 1980’s, which later led to the Boyd’s assuming control of the Stardust Casino’s gaming operations.Now the company is looking to start down a new path, as they have received approval to operated an online poker room in the state of Nevada.Boyd Gaming Power Players
Executive Chairman of Boyd Gaming: William S. Boyd -William S. Boyd, along with his father Sam Boyd, founded Boyd Gaming in 1974. The former attorney turned gaming mogul has developed and operated Boyd Gaming properties since 1975, opening properties in a number of US states beginning in Nevada but also in New Jersey, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana and Mississippi.
Vice President of Boyd Gaming: William R. Boyd – The next Boyd that entered the now-family-business was William R. Boyd. William R. serves as Boyd Gaming’s Vice President and oversees many of the company’s day-to-day functions. William R. started his tenure with Boyd Gaming in 1977, and worked his way up the corporate ladder to his current role in 1991. He also serves on the Boyd Gaming Board of Directors.
President and CEO of Boyd Gaming: Keith E. Smith – One man not in the Boyd family who plays a major role at Boyd Gaming is the company’s CEO Keith Smith. Smith has been with Boyd Gaming since 1990, and has worked in the gaming industry since the early 1980’s. Smith was promoted to Executive Vice President of Operations in 1998 and to Chief Operating Officer in 2001. In 2005,he ascended to the role of President and in 2008 took on the mantle of CEO of Boyd Gaming.Potential in other US marketsLike most Las Vegas casino operators, Boyd Gaming will likely find the goings tough in other markets where they have no presence. But with federal lawmakers introducing bills, and Nevada’s governor signing a law that would permit inter-state online poker, who knows what the future will bring for US online poker and Boyd Gaming.Links
Boyd Gaming Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/company/boyd-gaming
Boyd Gaming Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BoydGaming
Boyd Gaming Twitter: https://twitter.com/boydgaming
Boyd Gaming Corporate page: www.boydgaming.com
*Resources: www.wikipedia.org, www.boydgaming.com

NV Licensee Profile: Boyd Gaming

PokerStars Deal for New Jersey Casino “Dead” or Dead?

UPDATE 5/2/13: PokerStars spokesperson Eric Hollreiser has released a formal statement via Twitter. This statement – combined with yesterday’s oddly short statement from the ACC – suggests there’s possibly more to this situation than meets the eye.Note especially Hollreiser’s use of “purported” below.With that in mind, consider this excellent point from Dave Behr:Weird indeed.Original story follows:After reports yesterday that PokerStars missed a key conditional deadline in its pending deal to purchase the Atlantic Club Casino, word today from the ACC indicates the deal is dead – at least for now.The story was first reported by John Brennan:Excerpt from a statement by Atlantic Club Casino COO Michael Frawley:Timeline of PokerStars’ attempt to purchase the ACCThe timeline of PokerStars’ (apparently failed) attempt to purchase the ACC is a strange one:
Dec 2012 – Reports emerge that PokerStars is in negotiations to purchase the ACC.
Jan 2013 – PokerStars confirms they have reached a conditional agreement to purchase the ACC.
Jan 2013 – Reports from several sources indicate that PokerStars filed their application for an Interim Casino Authorization license with NJ state officials at the end of December. The filing of the application would trigger a 90-day review window.
March 2013 – AGA files a brief opposing PokerStars’ interim application. PokerStars files a brief in response.
March 2013 – PokerStars asserts that Caesars had offered to sell them the Rio and the WSOP.
March 2013 – Reports reveal that PokerStars’ Interim Authorization application – thought to be already filed – is actually not complete.
April 2013 – PokerStars actually completes the Interim Authorization application. No word on what caused the delay.
April 2013 – The WSJ reports that PokerStars’ deal for the ACC has “expired without a new contract in place, according to people familiar with the matter”. The expiration was due to a condition in the contract that required PokerStars to have secured the Interim Authorization by April 24th.
April 2013 – The ACC announces the contract to purchase has been terminated.Deal “really” dead? PokerStars done in NJ?While certainly not a positive development for those who wish to see PokerStars operating in New Jersey, the news is hardly a death knell for the site’s chances to be a part of regulated online gambling in the state.For example, this news could simply be part of a negotiating ploy on the part of the Atlantic Club Casino. It’s also possible that PokerStars could participate in the state as a software provider in partnership with a licensed operator, a role that does not require ownership of a land-based casino. Finally, PokerStars could always seek to purchase another NJ property, although the list of bargain-priced gambling halls looks pretty thin after the ACC.Not everyone is certain that the deal has completely fallen through. Howard Stutz of the LVRJ tweeted these responses to the news:… and in a story on NJ.com that preceded Brennan’s, online gambling proponent State Sen. Raymond Lesniack said:Again, note that Lesniack’s comments were in response to the WSJ story about the missed deadline, not Brennan’s report that the deal is dead.I will update this story as events warrant.

PokerStars Deal for New Jersey Casino “Dead” or Dead?

Three Takeaways From PokerStars’ Plan to Buy A New Jersey Casino

DiamondFlush was first to report that PokerStars is in talks to purchase the Atlantic Club Casino, a property located in Atlantic City, New Jersey.It’s far from a done deal, but NJ state regulators are reportedly involved in the discussions. This news, combined with reports that New Jersey is likely to consider online gambling legislation before the end of 2012, suggests the potential for a rapid reshuffling of the American regulated online poker landscape.There’s no shortage of takeaways from this news; here are three things that jumped out at me after reading the initial reports.PokerStars Is Not Surrendering The American MarketIt was tempting to think that after Black Friday, PokerStars might be content to simply dominate the other 75% of the global online poker market. The U.S. market would be too uncertain, potentially hyper-fragmented and crowded with powerful competitors who would exploit PokerStars’ past activity in America to shut out the poker giant at every opportunity.PokerStars surveyed that landscape and said “let’s buy a struggling New Jersey casino.” That sounds like a company not just merely interested, but potentially hellbent, on returning to America.Neither is New JerseyNevada has a pretty solid (albeit early) lead in the American online poker race. They’re about to issue their 12th online poker operator license, which is roughly 12 more than any other state in the U.S.. The Reid/Kyl bill, while considered a long shot by many, would essentially crown Nevada the king of regulated online poker in America.Stars buying a NJ casino throws a wrench into those works. As I put it on Twitter:The Future of Online Poker is Live PokerAnd vice versa.This isn’t PokerStars’ first foray into the world of land-based gambling. It was only a few weeks ago that the company announced the purchase of a stake in London’s Hippodrome Casino.In 2013, I expect a rash of partnerships, purchases and mergers between the heavyweights of the online poker industry and their land-based counterparts as each begins to fully appreciate the value of the other.This isn’t a shocking conclusion – after all, Caesar’s has had a relationship with 888 for years – but what will be surprising is the sheer amount and scope of the deals that will come together.…..There’s a ways to go before you’ll be able to belly up to the buffet at the PokerStars Casino. But with just the whiff of a scheme to officially set up shop in the United States, PokerStars is already doing what it does best – disrupting the plans of its competitors.

Three Takeaways From PokerStars’ Plan to Buy A New Jersey Casino

Analysis of PokerStars’ Application for Interlocutory Appeal

Contents
1 PokerStars responds with application for interlocutory appeal
2 Analyzing PokerStars’ position
2.1 1. The Court should allow for interlocutory appeal
2.2 2. There were problems with trial court’s TRO decision
2.3 3. The trial court arbitrarily reversed itself on the TRO
2.4 4. Collection of misc. complaints
3 The next step for PokerStars & the Atlantic Club Casino
4 Read moreThe saga of PokerStars’ attempt to break into the regulated United States gaming market took another twist this week as PokerStars continued to pursue its attempt to purchase the financially troubled Atlantic Club Casino.That deal had appeared doomed following a recent New Jersey state trial court ruling denying PokerStars’ request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the Atlantic Club from terminating the parties’ Purchase Agreement and pursuing other potential buyers.PokerStars responds with application for interlocutory appealThursday, PokerStars filed a motion for leave to appeal the trial court’s ruling denying the TRO. Because the trial court’s ruling was only preliminary, PokerStars does not have any right to appeal at this point in the proceedings.Instead, PokerStars has requested permission to file what is known as an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court has broad discretion to grant or deny leave to file an interlocutory appeal.Generally, appellate courts will only grant leave to file an interlocutory appeal where a party can demonstrate substantial prejudice will result if they are forced to wait to appeal until after the underlying lawsuit reaches a final disposition. Much like the grant of a TRO itself, interlocutory appeals are an extraordinary remedy permitted only in unusual situations.Analyzing PokerStars’ positionAlong with its motion for leave to appeal, PokerStars filed a supporting brief which sets out in detail the legal reasons why the appellate court should permit interlocutory appeal. Although the brief addresses the merits of the arguments for entry of a TRO, the purpose of the brief is to persuade the appellate court that the trial court’s TRO ruling should be reviewed immediately.PokerStars raises four main points in its brief:1. The Court should allow for interlocutory appealFirst, PokerStars argues that interlocutory appeal should be permitted because:This argument falls flat, however, because PokerStars is requesting a TRO to prevent the sale of the Atlantic Club to another purchaser, one which would presumably also fund the casino’s operations and pensions. If the Atlantic Club were truly facing a choice between selling to PokerStars and bankruptcy, presumably they would sell to PokerStars.Similarly, the mere fact a case is high-profile or connected to a major industry is seldom sufficient basis for permitting a party to bypass the usual requirement of proceeding to a final disposition prior to seeking appellate review.2. There were problems with trial court’s TRO decisionPokerStars’ second point is that the trial court improperly interpreted New Jersey gaming laws and deprived the Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE) of its statutorily-mandated 121-day review period for interim casino authority (ICA) applications. This argument is essentially a rehash of PokerStars’ trial court argument that the Atlantic Club could not terminate the Purchase Agreement pursuant to an “Outside Date” clause when that Outside Date was less than 121 days after the DGE deemed PokerStars’ ICA application complete. Previously, PokerStars argued that the Outside Date is either the contractual “Closing Date” or is “inextricably linked” to the Closing Date; neither of these arguments were persuasive to the trial court.In an interesting rhetorical move, however, PokerStars has subtly reformulated its Outside Date argument. In its latest brief, PokerStars now asserts that the Outside Date as interpreted by the Atlantic Club and the trial court “operates as a closing date” and thereby improperly interferes with the DGE’s ability to investigate PokerStars’ ICA application.In particular, PokerStars asserts that the DGE is prejudiced by the Outside Date provision because the DGE has invested significant time and resources into investigating PokerStars’ ICA application, resources which are now wasted if the Purchase Agreement has been terminated.PokerStars’ belated concern for the DGE is somewhat perplexing considering PokerStars agreed to the Outside Date provision. Further, the DGE resource argument is overblown considering New Jersey gaming regulations (N.J. Admin. Code § 13:69A-9.4) already assess all costs of investigating ICA applications—including DGE personnel expenses—to the applicant.3. The trial court arbitrarily reversed itself on the TROPokerStars’ third point is that “the trial court arbitrarily reversed itself and disturbed the status quo.” Here, PokerStars complains that the trial court initially granted a TRO based on a finding of irreparable harm to PokerStars if the Atlantic Club were to sell to another buyer, but then later lifted the TRO exposing PokerStars to that very harm.Although PokerStars cites to the trial court’s comments from an initial hearing the day after the TRO was put in place, PokerStars fails to note that the trial court also stated that he had put the TRO in place solely based on his “initial sense” of the legal arguments based on PokerStars’ filings, and without benefit of the Atlantic Club’s filings. The trial court explicitly stated he wanted to wait for the main hearing on the TRO to reach a final determination as to whether to keep the TRO in place. After that full hearing, the trial court concluded PokerStars was unlikely to prevail on the merits of its argument, so a TRO was inappropriate regardless of whether PokerStars might be harmed by a sale of the Atlantic Club to another buyer.4. Collection of misc. complaintsPokerStars’ final point is a hodgepodge of miscellaneous complaints about the evidence relied upon by the trial court at the hearing on the TRO. PokerStars primarily attacks three affidavits from former NJ gaming commissioners as being improper evidence, including attacking one of the affidavits because the commissioner was also a retired judge who PokerStars asserts is ethically barred from serving as an expert witness.PokerStars also complains that one of the Atlantic Club’s attorneys improperly gave factual testimony during the course of the hearing. These types of attacks are collateral to the merits of the underlying legal arguments which turn solely on the Purchase Agreement and the New Jersey gaming statute. Appellate court judges generally take a dim view of these types of complaints; at best, they only serve to distract the appellate court from the real legal issues.The next step for PokerStars & the Atlantic Club CasinoAt this point, the Atlantic Club will likely file a resistance to PokerStars’ application for interlocutory appeal. The appellate court may deny PokerStars’ application without waiting for a resistance, though doing so is uncommon.Even if the application is granted, the parties would then file additional briefs on the merits of the arguments for and against a TRO. Briefing usually takes several weeks to complete, even on an expedited schedule (and appellate courts rarely move quickly).A decision on appeal might well not be issued until after the August 9, 2013 deadline for the DGE to rule on PokerStars’ ICA application; if PokerStars does not get an ICA, then the appeal (and the underlying lawsuit) would be moot. PokerStars could request the appellate court to enter its own TRO pending resolution of the appeal, but such relief is rather unlikely where the trial court has already determined PokerStars is unlikely to prevail.With late June deadlines looming for the initial round of New Jersey online gaming permits, PokerStars’ decision to pursue an interlocutory appeal seems to indicate that salvaging the Atlantic Club deal is PokerStars’ best, and possibly only, option for breaking into the New Jersey online gaming market. We should know in a few weeks whether PokerStars still has a shot at buying the Atlantic Club.Read more
Copy of the Purchase Agreement.
Coverage of the PokerStars / ACC deal from OPR.
More analysis and background from Grange here and here.

Analysis of PokerStars’ Application for Interlocutory Appeal

Early Signs From DiCristina Hearing Positive for Poker

Contents
1 Early signs point to a positive outcome for poker
2 Issue of poker as a skill game not directly in play
3 Would an upholding of Weinstein’s ruling make online poker legal in the US?A significant legal test for poker in America appears to have gone well for proponents of the game.Today, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in U.S. vs DiCristina, with the US appealing an earlier ruling that found the IGBA does not apply to poker.Not familiar with the DiCristina case? Here’s an excellent (and concise) summary.Early signs point to a positive outcome for pokerWhile a decision has yet to be issued by the court, people close to the case saw much to like about today’s proceedings:Live reporting was not allowed from within the courtroom.To re-emphasize, these are impressions of those close to the case and do not represent a guarantee of any particular outcome.Issue of poker as a skill game not directly in playMuch of what excited poker players about the original ruling by Judge Weinstein was his emphasis on poker as a game of skill – more like chess than craps.But the amount of skill involved in poker was not directly in play during today’s hearing, as the DoJ elected to not contest the ruling on that issue. Instead, the DoJ argued that Judge Weinstein had misinterpreted the IGBA, renedering the issue of skill vs chance moot.So what is the impact of the DoJ ignoring the skill issue? A poster on TwoPlusTwo clarified the implications of the DoJ’s decision:Again, this is all pre-decision speculation.Would an upholding of Weinstein’s ruling make online poker legal in the US?No, although it would be a general step in that direction. Online gambling would still be subject to state laws and possibly to other federal laws.

Early Signs From DiCristina Hearing Positive for Poker