Any hope for party returning?

[jvans]

After the new regulations for online gaming are announced is there any chance party will return to US customers?

[bigslowy]

No

[Red Lion]

That is a poor question all things considered. Party will re-enter the market if and only if the US govt will allow it.

[questions]

Um, why wouldn't they? They want to make money. If they have the opportunity, pretty sure they'll take advantage. Wouldn't be the Party of before, though.

[Legislurker]

Party hasn't been Party since they FUBARed the rake at the $50
tables and closed down the skins.

[Sean Fraley]

Party will take which ever course of action they believe will have the best return on their stock price over the next quarter. If the situation changes in such a fashion that not being in the U.S. market is perceived to hurt the value of their stock more than staying out of it, they will return. This would pretty much require a situation where they do not have to worry about their stockholders and possible purchasers of their stock believing them to be at any significant legal risk for allowing U.S. customers to play on their site.

[demon102]

if poker online poker is regulated and all that party and all other sites will come back, its just a matter of laws being passed

[Bilgefisher]

[ QUOTE ]
if poker online poker is regulated and all that party and all other sites will come back, its just a matter of laws being passed

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. It may come back somewhat, but I see many Americans gravitating toward American run online casinos if it is regulated. No doubt poker stars will remain a heavy contender, but big money casinos (mgm, harrah's etc) will become major players very quickly.

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if poker online poker is regulated and all that party and all other sites will come back, its just a matter of laws being passed

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. It may come back somewhat, but I see many Americans gravitating toward American run online casinos if it is regulated. No doubt poker stars will remain a heavy contender, but big money casinos (mgm, harrah's etc) will become major players very quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would tend to agree somewhat. Tourney wise, they would have much to offer, trips to tourneys at the B&M site and other benifits and they could tie the onsite points to promos online as well.

obg

[Grasshopp3r]

I think that Party is more likely to be bought and rebranded than it is to come back.

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that Party is more likely to be bought and rebranded than it is to come back.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also highly possible that Party could partner with a US B&M casino in a sort of "skin" arrangement. I would be highly surprised if neither Party nor the US B&M casinos have not considered this idea as of yet. The US casino companies have the player base, and Party has the infrastructure.

[Legislurker]

I think the deal would have to be sweet, party has put a LOT of capital in keeping its player levels up in Europe and wherever they find them. Sooner or later they need to realize a return on the investment. I would think they owe it to the shareholders, but then again EU shareholders are pussies. I know its counterintuitive to imagine poker online in the USA legally without them, but it could happen.

[Gregatron]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that Party is more likely to be bought and rebranded than it is to come back.

[/ QUOTE ]
Major online players would probably be best served to do something like this. They could supplement brand names, using both for max impact: MGM Party Poker, Harrah's Pokerstars, etc. That would seem wise from a marketing standpoint, as well as using the already existing expertise of the already established online poker sites.

[Hansfutz]

I think you make a good point. If US companies are allowed to profitably engage in online gaming, the existing big players will easily capture a large part of the US customer base because they have an established physical presence in the US and dollars to back them up.

[NeBlis]

If and when we get legal US poker sites. The new sites by Harrahs, MGM, etc will make Party look like the ugl,y poorly coded, nitemare craphole that it was. We just need the fishpond of Party not actual party poker to return

[DrewOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
If and when we get legal US poker sites. The new sites by Harrahs, MGM, etc will make Party look like the ugl,y poorly coded, nitemare craphole that it was. We just need the fishpond of Party not actual party poker to return

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding? A NIGHTMARE? I hardly think so. Party did a great job of marketing their product, and they got the fish pond and player base as a result. Unfortunately they did a piss poor job of protecting that player base.

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If and when we get legal US poker sites. The new sites by Harrahs, MGM, etc will make Party look like the ugl,y poorly coded, nitemare craphole that it was. We just need the fishpond of Party not actual party poker to return

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding? A NIGHTMARE? I hardly think so. Party did a great job of marketing their product, and they got the fish pond and player base as a result. Unfortunately they did a piss poor job of protecting that player base.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party also as great name recognition and dominate the international market...The US does not have all the fish..

[Legislurker]

I can't see Party selling for less than 500 mill. I think it would take a VAST amount of debt financing to buy it, and I garuntee if Harrah's bought it, they would F it in its A so bad Truepoker would be bigger in 6 months. They would probably run the servers from a tent in the desert beside a wind farm.

[Petomane]

The UIGEA is blatant protectionism. The UIGEA was paid for by American corporations precisely to stamp out Party etc.

There will be internet gaming in America, but "licensed" and "regulated" meaning only open to certain entities.

American corporations couldn't compete fairly, therefore they used underhanded means to eliminate the competition. That's all the UIGEA ever was.

It's also an attempt to "own" the Internet, which is why more than gamblers should become interested in this.

What is to stop Walmart from introducing an unlawful internet commerce enforcement act and shutting down E-bay? Then operating a Wal-bay themselves?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The UIGEA is blatant protectionism. The UIGEA was paid for by American corporations precisely to stamp out Party etc.

There will be internet gaming in America, but "licensed" and "regulated" meaning only open to certain entities.

American corporations couldn't compete fairly, therefore they used underhanded means to eliminate the competition. That's all the UIGEA ever was.

It's also an attempt to "own" the Internet, which is why more than gamblers should become interested in this.

What is to stop Walmart from introducing an unlawful internet commerce enforcement act and shutting down E-bay? Then operating a Wal-bay themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any proof?

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If and when we get legal US poker sites. The new sites by Harrahs, MGM, etc will make Party look like the ugl,y poorly coded, nitemare craphole that it was. We just need the fishpond of Party not actual party poker to return

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding? A NIGHTMARE? I hardly think so. Party did a great job of marketing their product, and they got the fish pond and player base as a result. Unfortunately they did a piss poor job of protecting that player base.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party had alot of players. But I could take the base code and in one week have a site that didn't look and feel like complete ass.
I am saying that the new sites .. when they finaly come will make Party look like a joke.

[ICMoney]

Party lost most of its fish, there is no rakeback, the support is awful and they jumped ship.

Hope they don't come back.

/rant

[wims]

[ QUOTE ]
Party lost most of its fish, there is no rakeback, the support is awful and they jumped ship.

Hope they don't come back.

/rant

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about, party is crammed full of fish

[gettinpoorer]

Bring on regulated online poker! I'll pay the taxes if it means insta-deposits/cashouts. It's hard enough to deposit now that only the players who THINK they are good make the effort. If it's totally legalized and marketed like B&M casinos currently are, the online poker rooms will fill up with even more people who THINK they are good and scads of folks who KNOW they aren't good. I can't see a downside to this...

[Punker]

[ QUOTE ]
big money casinos (mgm, harrah's etc) will become major players very quickly

[/ QUOTE ]

More likely places like Google and Yahoo would dominate.

[Legislurker]

I think you are really extrapolating things too far. Yes, Yahoo and google are good comapnies with a big net presence. But, unless you are GE run by Jack Welch, it is hard to run a lot of things well. Departments compete for resources, argue with bosses, become territorial, and don't always put out a good product when they aren't part of the core business. I think you underestimate how much these companies have learned running online poker rooms. Party, Stars, Paradise, bwin, et al who had good brands and products will still be formidable and leaders in a more crowded field. To be a good virtual cardroom, you have to have it be your focus. In a larger business, you have to justify speding(bonuses, programmers, support, etc) with profits, usually now. So I don't see Yahoo or Google, or even Harrah's coming in with the attitude Party came in with to unseat Paradise. And basic economics always gives a first mover an advantage. Don't write off the leaders we have, and don't expect them to sell out without a HUGE markup.