If you've been following California iPoker developments closely, you know that the primary unresolved issue is the bad actor language in AB 2863.

As things presently stand lawmakers are trying to present suitability language that will bring the state's most powerful Indian tribes on board and finally regulate the activity.

However, a question that hasn't been asked is what happens if the tribes come on board but PokerStars balks at the potential compromise.

According to recent reports, PokerStars is against multiple potential compromises proposed to end the standoff. If PokerStars says no to the suitability language in the bill, what will that mean for California iPoker?

New Compromise Would Result in Nevada-Like Penalty

According to recent reports, there are negotiations to change the suitability language in AB 2863 to officially block PokerStars from participating in California iPoker for a period of five years after it launches.

This is similar to the ban enacted by Nevada regulators. The current version of suitability language calls for a five-year ban for bad actors or they can skip the ban in lieu of a $20 million upfront payment.

Under the new proposed amendment, PokerStars would merely have to wait out the five-year ban.

PokerStars and their California partners are opposed to this new amendment and want to keep the current one in place. However, it appears that the Pechanga Coalition may be on board with the 5-year ban.

They had originally called for a 10-year ban and a $60 million payment before bad actors could come into California. It appears they are willing to cut it in half, provided there's no escape clause like the current amendment.

Will PokerStars Now Become Obstructionist?

The question now is what happens if the new bill is added and the Pechanga come on board? Will PokerStars stick to their guns and fight the bill rather than finally allow online poker to become regulated?

While some might infer this to be the case, we find it hard to believe that PokerStars would take such a hardcore stance considering the amount of time it has taken to get to this point.

If one were to look at this logically, PokerStars would be better suited to take the ban and wait.

We say this because if PokerStars were to choose to try and block the bill from moving forward, this likely would result in guaranteed failure in 2016 and there's little chance it would move in 2017.

If PokerStars blocks this move, we could be looking at another two to three years before iPoker is regulated, if it happens then. In other words, resistance might buy them a year or two. Maybe.

Why not allow the tribes to have their little pound of flesh and let the market start out with the knowledge that PokerStars is just five years away?

At that point, they can focus their attention to other states such as Pennsylvania and New York.

Who knows? After five years, PokerStars may have a network of five or six states that could add California to the mix.

If such an event occurred you know that California players would flock to the site once it opens due to the sheer massive player pool in comparison with the rest of California iPoker.

In other words PokerStars is going to win whether they come into the state this year or five years from now so they might as well do what they can to get this bill passed.