Guys, the study bill is what we need to push.....

[hollaballa]

After speaking with someone with a direct line to the most powerful executives in vegas, the only bill that has a true chance is the study bill.

There's virtually no chance Frank's bill will go through.

Congress is going to want to see some evidence supporting online gaming. That's going to have to be done with a 12-24 month study.

The casino's in Vegas want the study bill so they can have time to prepare to enter the market.

I am 100% positive that other than Las Vegas Sands contracting Cantor Gaming to run a UK site, there is pretty much ZERO going on at the major casino's regarding online gaming.

That's because they don't think it's happening anytime soon.

I'm not saying don't support Frank's bill, but let's push for the study bill at the same time.

Once the study bill goes through, it would be 2-3 years before online gaming would be live. The sooner we get the study bill passed, the better.

[BluffTHIS!]

Either:

1) Frank's/Wexler's/other bill passes (only does does by being attached in conference committee to must pass legislation)

or

2) They don't


In the first case we don't need the study bill. But someone does lose? Who is that? The domestic casino corps who now have to compete with entrenched foreign competition.

In the second case we can still always push the study bill since it is mid-term anyway and a few months won't matter. And who gains here? That's right, domestic gaming interests who have had a couple years of no foreign competition in the US market and get to start clean in the competitive field without facing market dominators.

So saying we need to push this *right now* only benefits those domestic gaming interests who sat on their hands and watched the UIGEA get passed.

We shouldn't allow our cause to be dictated by the business models of any market player, whether existing foreign ones, or potential domestic ones. There are a lot of conflicting interests here, and while we win in some measure no matter what passes (even if just intra-state online *as long as* they can pool with other states like the lottos do), we don't need to provide extra help to any certain specific market player, especially the ones who abandoned us (party by claiming the UIGEA outlaws online poker just because they don't won't to take the risks) or let the UIGEA happen without a fight (domestic gaming interests).

[hollaballa]

I don't disagree with any of what you're saying, I'm just saying the big boys in vegas aren't supporting anything other than a study.

I think an $8bil company in the US gaming business have a pretty big influence on what will happen.

And, I also agree with the thought that there is very little chance congress is going to do anything to facilitate online gaming without out a study that provides evidence that can evaluate.

[smoking blunt]

I thought there was an article not too long ago with Harrah's announcing they could have an online poker site up within 6 months of getting a green light from the Govt?

[BluffTHIS!]

Although I don't care how we get what we want, the study bill is all just a charade anyway. Gambling and associated issues like problem and underage gambling have been studied to death. There is no reason not to enact legislation right now with known safeguards *except* the desire of domestic interests in first gutting foreign competition.

[hollaballa]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought there was an article not too long ago with Harrah's announcing they could have an online poker site up within 6 months of getting a green light from the Govt?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say they probably could. I haven't seen that article. If there really is such thing, someone please link.

[MiltonFriedman]

"I am 100% positive that other than Las Vegas Sands contracting Cantor Gaming to run a UK site, there is pretty much ZERO going on at the major casino's regarding online gaming."

You are 100% wrong. I have personal knowledge that Harrahs, the MGM and the Venetian are ALL working on the area.

Applications are being made to push 'server-based" gaming at the appropriate State or tribal level. Once that is safely established in a regulatory framework, then "remote server-based" gaming is a small step.

[hollaballa]

[ QUOTE ]
"I am 100% positive that other than Las Vegas Sands contracting Cantor Gaming to run a UK site, there is pretty much ZERO going on at the major casino's regarding online gaming."

You are 100% wrong. I have personal knowledge that Harrahs, the MGM and the Venetian are ALL working on the area.


[/ QUOTE ]

You know the Sands owns the Venetian, right?

Anyway, we'll just agree to disagree on this part. I'm not asking for opinions on what's they think is going on.

[oldbookguy]

Not only are the major vegas casinos gearing up, Yahoo UK has launched a poker site, easily converted to allow U S players and AOL UK just stated a sports betting feature within AOl.

Yes, U S companies are gearing up.

The question, do they know something we don't?

As to Harrah's, I cannot find the story but I recall before their sale, right after UIGEA, that group bought several online sites real cheap.

obg

[MiltonFriedman]

Huh, yes, I know who owns the Venetian. My point is that they are actively seeking to operate online in the US, not just the UK. The others mentioned are similarly looking for US opportunities. It simply is 100% wrong to think that "pretty much ZERO' is going on with respect to the US market, even if you do capitalize it.

You can be both 100% positive AND 100% wrong, by the way as to "what's they think is going on".

I have no idea where your pipeline runs or to what "top execs" you talk to on it.