Useless predictions [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Nate tha\\\' Great

10-01-2006, 02:06 AM

Party Poker will operate as much as possible in business-as-usual, "buyer beware" mode, perhaps taking some smaller steps like preventing US players from playing their casino games or closing off certain funding routes like IGMPay.

PokerStars will be the most proactive site in pursuing legal strategies against the legislation, and will offer deposit and cashout options to US players in accordance with the opinion of their lawyers.

888.com will stop accepting US players and will do so relatively soon.

Full Tilt will develop some funky new payment mechanism which might or might not be legal.

Paradise Poker will differentiate based on the state of residence of the US player.

Ultimate Bet will go bankrupt or become an acqusition target for a larger site.

Bodog will do something incredibly brash and stupid, get the pants sued off of them, and ruin it for everyone else.

Poker_Hoar

10-01-2006, 02:24 AM

Nate, you have posted great analysis on this site. I think business will not go on as usual for PartyGaming. They will withdraw 'emphasis' on the USA by not promoting and not advertising there. Since they are the 'Category Leader' their advertising was beneficial to all sites. So although we may see little/no difference in our play experience the effect will be dramatic non-the-less.

Zele

10-01-2006, 02:26 AM

I agree at least 71% (I don't know Full Tilt, and I haven't kept up with Paradise since 2003 or so), and I think

[ QUOTE ]
Bodog will do something incredibly brash and stupid, get the pants sued off of them, and ruin it for everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

is brilliant, except perhaps change "sued" to "extradited".

Bilgefisher

10-01-2006, 02:30 AM

Since were on the topic of useless predictions. Is it possible for big US casinos to start pushing for their own online legislation. Basically so they can corner the US market?

flair1239

10-01-2006, 02:30 AM

I somehow think the effect of this bill is going to be pretty understated. I also think that the enforcement could get watered down in the actual writing of the code.

Also there will udoubtedly be legal challenges and delays.

JoseGonzlez

10-01-2006, 02:33 AM

Nate, do you think the fact that Party Gaming is publicly traded in London will have any effect on their decisions. I guess my question is would the British authorities make them stop taking US customers.

Some good points i think PokerStars can be the leader in this since they generally are the best run company and have a few other things going for them

Zele

10-01-2006, 02:34 AM

Those of us with a conspiratorial bent believe this was behind the B&M's "wait until the 11th hour, then waffle" strategy. Those with a more direct familiarity with incompetence feel there is a simpler explanation.

Edit: Surely, the US B&M's would love fully legal i-gaming, and would really, really love legalized i-gaming protected from foreign competition. In the short-term, it looks like an uphill battle from here, even for such a deep-pocketed industry.

coachkf

10-01-2006, 02:39 AM

LOL at Bodog. ;]

I think you hit on another point though. I believe our fate is wrapped up for the most part in how the poker sites react.

If they decide to thumb their nose at the USA and continue to accept US players, they'll develop new ways to deposit that are just as simple as current methods (if neteller/firepay etc. are blocked). Business will carry on as usual with a speed bump here and there.

If on the other hand, the poker sites decide to comply, then we're screwed.

I don't think the USA can really choke the flow of money to online gambing sites effectively, simply because for every e-wallet they block, 2 will rise in its place. It's already happened in the past with Paypal and credit cards being blocked, hence the rise of Neteller, Firepay and Moneybookers (and more!). It's not that the banks won't try to enforce this... I just don't think they'll be able to do it effectively.

I also don't see the US actively trying to prosecute online gambling CEO's, as long as those CEO's don't step foot on US soil.

Just my thoughts and attempt at logic. Could be wrong...

genuinejon

10-01-2006, 02:42 AM

Party Poker will operate exacly the same.

PokerStars will wait it out.

888.com will start advertising with reckless abandon (Gold).

All sites will develop some funky new payment mechanism which might or might not be legal, but still works well enough for the semi-smart player.

Ultimate Bet will go bankrupt cuz they suxxor.

Bodog will do something incredibly brash and stupid, get the pants sued off of them, and, unlike WSEX before them, finally make it ok it for everyone else.

Edit to add: If it is not clear, I love the WSEX guys. Like PokerBob love.

Nate tha\\\' Great

10-01-2006, 02:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Nate, do you think the fact that Party Gaming is publicly traded in London will have any effect on their decisions. I guess my question is would the British authorities make them stop taking US customers.

[/ QUOTE ]

PartyPoker is the Walmart of the poker industry: they're all about volume, volume, volume. And an unusually high percentage of that volume is concentrated in the United States; if they cut out the United States, they're no longer the market leader. Thus, I think they'll figure "we're the captain of this ship and we're going down with it".

I do think publicly traded status is something that might encourage companies to be more careful, all else being equal, which is why I listed 888.com as the most likely to prohibit US players. They're publicly traded, BUT their player base is more heavily European, and there may be some "first-mover" advantage to the company that first abandons the US. But PartyPoker has too much to lose to do that IMO. Just my gut-feel.

StellarWind

10-01-2006, 03:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Paradise Poker will differentiate based on the state of residence of the US player.

[/ QUOTE ]
No way IMO. Paradise is all-in and will stay until the bitter end.

They are very dependent on American business and cannot afford to give up this market. As for a state-by-state approach, that doesn't do anything when your major line of business is a sportsbook that violates the Wire Act. Legally they are beyond redemption at the Federal level anyway so why care about state law?

Poker_Hoar

10-01-2006, 04:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nate, do you think the fact that Party Gaming is publicly traded in London will have any effect on their decisions. I guess my question is would the British authorities make them stop taking US customers.

[/ QUOTE ]

PartyPoker is the Walmart of the poker industry: they're all about volume, volume, volume. And an unusually high percentage of that volume is concentrated in the United States; if they cut out the United States, they're no longer the market leader. Thus, I think they'll figure "we're the captain of this ship and we're going down with it".

I do think publicly traded status is something that might encourage companies to be more careful, all else being equal, which is why I listed 888.com as the most likely to prohibit US players. They're publicly traded, BUT their player base is more heavily European, and there may be some "first-mover" advantage to the company that first abandons the US. But PartyPoker has too much to lose to do that IMO. Just my gut-feel.

[/ QUOTE ]

The analogy between Wal Mart and PartyPoker is true for size business compared to the rest. But the analogy ends there.

Wal Mart's philosophy is completely 'Every Day Low Prices.' Wal Mart looks at consumer promotions as 'gimmicks.' Party Poker is very focused on spending money behind promotions and advertising.

It is unlikely that Party will change it's strategy. Instead it will shift spending from the USA to other markets. Unless the liquidity generated by spending in these 'new' markets is equal to the USA the overall impact will be a contraction of the business.

advilandy

10-01-2006, 05:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Legally they are beyond redemption at the Federal level anyway so why care about state law?

[/ QUOTE ]

The bill states that it doesn't supercede state law that explicity states otherwise.

AndyH69

10-01-2006, 06:21 AM

Paradise has a lot of European players too.

Looking at the parent company's (i.e. Sportingbet) Q3 figures, revenue across the whole business (including sports betting) is split as follows (all in £):
US - 276.1m
Europe - 149.7m
Australia - 81.5m

Figure are taken from this page: http://www.sportingbetplc.com/pages/101/Results.stm

So, Sportingbet stands to lose around half of its business, assuming the 54% split in the above Q3 figures is representative of the year's revenue.

When considered alongside PartyGaming, I would imagine that Sportingbet's loss won't look bad at all... Certainly, the business will survive, whereas PartyGaming perhaps will not.

Canard

10-01-2006, 06:27 AM

Mason Malmuth's lawyer to release a two line statement on Monday confirming that he doesn't believe any legislation will be passed before the elections.

CountingMyOuts

10-01-2006, 07:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Paradise has a lot of European players too.

Looking at the parent company's (i.e. Sportingbet) Q3 figures, revenue across the whole business (including sports betting) is split as follows (all in £):
US - 276.1m
Europe - 149.7m
Australia - 81.5m

Figure are taken from this page: http://www.sportingbetplc.com/pages/101/Results.stm

So, Sportingbet stands to lose around half of its business, assuming the 54% split in the above Q3 figures is representative of the year's revenue.

When considered alongside PartyGaming, I would imagine that Sportingbet's loss won't look bad at all... Certainly, the business will survive, whereas PartyGaming perhaps will not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, my shareholders would be content and happy to see 54% of revenue disappear. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

AndyH69

10-01-2006, 08:30 AM

True /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

But my point is that Party's business is more skewed towards the US.

Here are PartyGaming's revenue figures for the six months to 30 June 06 (all in $)
US - 512.1
Europe - 90.6
Canada - 43.5
Rest of the world - 15.7

You can see that the US business accounts for 77% /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

(By the way, note that PartyGaming's figures are for 6 months, whereas Sportingbet's in the previous post are for 3 months.)

Soulman

10-01-2006, 08:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Mason Malmuth's lawyer to release a two line statement on Monday confirming that he doesn't believe any legislation will be passed before the elections.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice.

CountingMyOuts

10-01-2006, 09:00 AM

Sure, I know what you saying. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

54% of revenues from US players is more than enough to compel Paradise to stay in until the bitter end, though, IMO.

Richas

10-01-2006, 09:32 AM

Party to announce shift in tax and regulation to UK to demonstrate there still is a legal business to be had, to do a press conference contrasting UK attitude and Tax revenues to US no tax revenues, deliberate breach of WTO regulations and infringement of individual freedoms.

They have to bat now (and show the shareholders they have left that there is a plan to get back into the US).

JuntMonkey

10-01-2006, 10:10 AM

The thing I'm afraid of is - is a guy like Lee Jones really going to give up forever his United States visiting rights?

malo

10-01-2006, 10:22 AM

Nate, thnx for you observations. Have no idea if you are right--at this point we are all making educated guesses---but your comment about Paradise stopped me in my tracks.

I live in a state (not Washington BTW) where online gambling is expressly illegal. Since I can't move right now, a close friend's address in another state is now on my account.

In fact, I may do this on all my accounts as a precaution.

JOHNY CA$H

10-01-2006, 07:06 PM

I predict the Cubs will win the World Series next fall, after Elvis and Tupac return from hiding and join the team before the trade deadline.

Oh, and that maybe a shift in the balance of power online isn't that bad a thing...?

Freakin

10-01-2006, 08:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]

888.com will stop accepting US players and will do so relatively soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spot on. thread here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=7500210&an=0&page=0#Post 7500210)

JPFisher55

10-01-2006, 08:48 PM

My useless predictions:

Lots of US litigation especially from US professional poker players. More specifically, a California federal district court judge will enjoin enforcement of this law before Thanksgiving, maybe Halloween. The Ninth "Circus" Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal court in the world, will affirm this injunction.

The WTO will issue rather severe sanctions for the US non-compliance with its rulings in this matter. US will react by agreeing to suspend enforcement and regulations until US litigation is resolved by US Supreme Court. In exchange WTO sanctions will be suspended until that time.

No major Internet Gambling Website will stop servicing US players only small ones like the ones that have so far.

Lots of more interesting and entertaining posts on whole subject through Christmas.

smellmuth

10-01-2006, 08:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My useless predictions:

Lots of US litigation especially from US professional poker players. More specifically, a California federal district court judge will enjoin enforcement of this law before Thanksgiving, maybe Halloween. The Ninth "Circus" Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal court in the world, will affirm this injunction.

The WTO will issue rather severe sanctions for the US non-compliance with its rulings in this matter. US will react by agreeing to suspend enforcement and regulations until US litigation is resolved by US Supreme Court. In exchange WTO sanctions will be suspended until that time.

No major Internet Gambling Website will stop servicing US players only small ones like the ones that have so far.

Lots of more interesting and entertaining posts on whole subject through Christmas.

[/ QUOTE ]

read the post above yours. 888.com is more than a minor player.

PrayingMantis

10-01-2006, 08:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No major Internet Gambling Website will stop servicing US players only small ones like the ones that have so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol at 888 being a small gambling website.

JPFisher55

10-01-2006, 08:52 PM

I don't believe this article from the London Times. Read the articles on Gambling911.com.

celiboy

10-01-2006, 08:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe this article from the London Times. Read the articles on Gambling911.com.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, an obscure gambling site for degenerates is much more reliable than the London Times.......

JPFisher55

10-01-2006, 09:06 PM

The London Times is part of the left wing media like the NY Times. I trust the smaller, obscure media sources, Fox News, Drudge Report etc. much more than a mainstream media source. Too many mainstream sources have been caught making up facts and stories.
Also, I'll believe that these poker websites are going to voluntarily abandon 50-75% of their business. Doing so ruins their market value, leaves their business future and profitability in doubt and may leave their top executives subject to litigation. I think that they will ignore or fight this law.

spatne

10-01-2006, 09:36 PM

suzzer99

10-01-2006, 11:44 PM

As by far the simplest solution--major US banks will pre-emptively will ban all transactions with Neteller, Firepay, and any others they deem to be "obviously deriving the majority of their cash flow from online gambling sites" or some such verbiage.

This will happen sooner rather than later. And then the cat and mouse game will be on. Here's hoping the poker sites immediately pull out a quick, effective workaround like they did with the .net/.com thing.

JPFisher55

10-01-2006, 11:47 PM

"As by far the simplest solution--major US banks will pre-emptively will ban EFT payments to Neteller, Firepay, and any others they deem to be "obviously deriving the majority of their cash flow from online gambling sites" or some such verbiage."
But the EFT is not with Neteller or Firepay but with their foreign bank. EFT's from foreign banks cannot be banned just because they do business with these two companies. Also, what about the rights of those persons using Neteller or Firepay to buy books.

suzzer99

10-01-2006, 11:51 PM

Well if there's really no way to tell a transaction came through Neteller, that's a very very good thing. I am not an expert in this area.

But as far as the rights of people buying books, banks have a right to do business the way they want and refuse service to anyone. AFAIK there's nothing in the bill or rights regarding the right to use any financial instition you want to transfer funds to and from your primary financial institution.

Poker_Hoar

10-01-2006, 11:52 PM

Nate,
100% Party Makes a move to restrict, block, US customers TODAY.

cowboy.up

10-02-2006, 02:08 AM

I apologize if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but I think that the US government is pulling a one over on the IG industry:

This legislation will most likely tank (at least temporarily) most of the publicly traded gaming venues stock. In turn the Vegas based casinos will initiate a hostile takeover of PartyGaming, 888 etc. Once aquired at a cheap price, and before the US enacts any legislation to scare off the fish, the US will promptly repeal the IGaming bill. Now Vegas based casinos will own and operate some of the largest online gaming sites in the world and give the appropriate shares to the government, making them happy. I will not be happy since gambling income will now be taxed at a rate of 110%.

And who said Frist was a nazi?

schroedy

10-02-2006, 02:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And who said Frist was a nazi?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't but I wish I had.

registrar

10-02-2006, 06:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The London Times is part of the left wing media like the NY Times. I trust the smaller, obscure media sources, Fox News, Drudge Report etc. much more than a mainstream media source. Too many mainstream sources have been caught making up facts and stories.
Also, I'll believe that these poker websites are going to voluntarily abandon 50-75% of their business. Doing so ruins their market value, leaves their business future and profitability in doubt and may leave their top executives subject to litigation. I think that they will ignore or fight this law.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. The Times is a right wing paper, owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also runs the Fox media empire. The Financial Times is different and, I would suggest, entirely reliable in matters of business.

advilandy

10-02-2006, 06:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
While in medical school, Frist obtained cats from animal shelters, under pretense of adoption as pets, for school research experiments in which he killed the animals. In a 1989 autobiography, Frist described how he "spent days and nights on end in the lab, taking the hearts out of cats, dissecting each heart." After some time, Frist said "[i] lost my supply of cats," so he chose to deceive animal shelters, an act which he described as "heinous and dishonest." He attributed his behavior to the pressures of school. The incident sparked controversy after a 2002 Boston Globe story repeated the account.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's from wikipedia...I guess he's an all around classy guy. Also, I have been looking everywhere for any casino investments he might have that could explain this whole hostile takeover theory, but I haven't found any yet.

cakewalk

10-02-2006, 01:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Those of us with a conspiratorial bent believe this was behind the B&M's "wait until the 11th hour, then waffle" strategy. Those with a more direct familiarity with incompetence feel there is a simpler explanation.

Edit: Surely, the US B&M's would love fully legal i-gaming, and would really, really love legalized i-gaming protected from foreign competition. In the short-term, it looks like an uphill battle from here, even for such a deep-pocketed industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you really think that B&M casinos haven't benefited exponentially due to the recent boom in online poker ?