Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

Inspired by woodguy & Ron Burgundy in this thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1

Anyway, this is the argument.
1. Harrah's Entertainment was the 13th largest contributer to Frist's 2000 Senate campaign.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...amp;cycle=2000
2. It approaches the senator with a deal that seems to be a win-win-win situation. Frist wins, the casinos win, and the U.S. wins.
2a. Frist wins by displaying his morality for future presidential campaigns to the U.S. public by banning online "gambling". After a period of "consideration" another senator that in cahoots with the casino decides to try to legalize, but place tight control on online poker. Frist "opposes" the bill on the surface, but doesn't put up much of a fight. It passes.
2b. Casinos start up their own versions of online poker. American casinos quickly gobble up the U.S. market.
2c. The U.S. government gets hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue.
Win-win-win.

Discuss.

( The U.S. gambling industry in general donates a large chunk of change to politicians...
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=N07 )

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

Tin is old, use Aluminum.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

Even if this were true, I don't have the money, or the patience to wait for that to actualy happen.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
2b. Casinos start up their own versions of online poker. American casinos quickly gobble up the U.S. market.
2c. The U.S. government gets hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would think most online poker players (especially now) would be happy to see the above take place.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

You know maybe this is why Party has made the "nonsensical" move to stop their US business and concentrate on Europe. Perhaps they are anticipating that they will have no chance to compete when the US casinos take over the whole operation.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

lol @ this

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
You know maybe this is why Party has made the "nonsensical" move to stop their US business and concentrate on Europe. Perhaps they are anticipating that they will have no chance to compete when the US casinos take over the whole operation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or they want to maintain good relations with the US in the event re-entry into this market becomes a possibility.

Nice theory. I don't think it is very far-fetched, actually.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

I have to admit that idea has crossed my mind. From the government standpoint, they stand to reap in billions in tax revenue. What has happened today sucks, there is no doubt about it. My point of view is that this will turn out like prohibition did, it will be overturned, and when it does, I would rather play on a site regulated by the U.S. then a foreign site. I compare it to playing at an Indian Casino and a regular casino. I prefer the regular casinos because I know they are paying taxes to the government whereas the Indians are not. (I'm not tryin to stir up a debate on how Indians earned the right b/c of years of abuse) and that is why I would prefer to play at a U.S. regulated site that I know will pay taxes to the U.S. I wish it wouldn't come at the cost of a temporary ban like it appears to be, but once the smoke clears, I do beleive U.S. based online casinos will emerge.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

B&M casinos would never purposely pull something like this. The continuous growth of the online poker industry has brought a ton of new business to the B&M casinos. People play online, polish up, think theyre hot [censored], and figure I'll go give the casino a try. There is no reason why the casinos would risk losing that continuous flow of new players to fight each other over something that might not even end up working out (because some online sites will not be backing out and will have a greater chance at the market than startup B&M online rooms). Good try though.

/theory

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

There is no doubt that US casinos made substantial contributions to Frist and this is the payback. I haven't the slightest idea what their long-term strategy is.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
B&M casinos would never purposely pull something like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

When in doubt, follow the money. Who stands the gain the most by the IG ban?

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have to admit that idea has crossed my mind. From the government standpoint, they stand to reap in billions in tax revenue. What has happened today sucks, there is no doubt about it. My point of view is that this will turn out like prohibition did, it will be overturned, and when it does, I would rather play on a site regulated by the U.S. then a foreign site. I compare it to playing at an Indian Casino and a regular casino. I prefer the regular casinos because I know they are paying taxes to the government whereas the Indians are not. (I'm not tryin to stir up a debate on how Indians earned the right b/c of years of abuse) and that is why I would prefer to play at a U.S. regulated site that I know will pay taxes to the U.S. I wish it wouldn't come at the cost of a temporary ban like it appears to be, but once the smoke clears, I do beleive U.S. based online casinos will emerge.

[/ QUOTE ]


lets not overstate things. Party's net income before taxes is less than 500 million, and they are the biggest. You arent coming close to a billion in tax revenues for the total us market, even if us companies captured all of it

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

At the very least, I would deduce the sumbitch Frist is a hypocrite for using gambling money to help finance his campaign.

And I don't really trust Harrah's (did they ever figure out where all those extra chips came from in the ME?), so nothing they might try would really surprise me.....

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

NOT THE B&M's. Get it through your heads that a drastic decrease in online poker GREATLY HURTS b&m casinos. It doesn't help them like so many of you 2post nimwits seem to think.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
B&M casinos would never purposely pull something like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

When in doubt, follow the money. Who stands the gain the most by the IG ban?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not B&M casinos.

If you watched CSPAN, guess where the two representatives that spoke out against the ban were from... Las Vegas.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

you left out the last "win"...we do.

youve got a better case that it was Abramhoff and his indian casino friends that got this done than Harrahs.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have to admit that idea has crossed my mind. From the government standpoint, they stand to reap in billions in tax revenue. What has happened today sucks, there is no doubt about it. My point of view is that this will turn out like prohibition did, it will be overturned, and when it does, I would rather play on a site regulated by the U.S. then a foreign site. I compare it to playing at an Indian Casino and a regular casino. I prefer the regular casinos because I know they are paying taxes to the government whereas the Indians are not. (I'm not tryin to stir up a debate on how Indians earned the right b/c of years of abuse) and that is why I would prefer to play at a U.S. regulated site that I know will pay taxes to the U.S. I wish it wouldn't come at the cost of a temporary ban like it appears to be, but once the smoke clears, I do beleive U.S. based online casinos will emerge.

[/ QUOTE ]


lets not overstate things. Party's net income before taxes is less than 500 million, and they are the biggest. You arent coming close to a billion in tax revenues for the total us market, even if us companies captured all of it

[/ QUOTE ]

But how many more people would become involved in IG if they could trust the site they were sending their money to? For someone new to the IG world, I would think they would be far more apt to sign-up with Harrahs.com before they even looked at Party.com or 888.com.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

yes it was those red mothaffuckas

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
B&M casinos would never purposely pull something like this. The continuous growth of the online poker industry has brought a ton of new business to the B&M casinos. People play online, polish up, think theyre hot [censored], and figure I'll go give the casino a try. There is no reason why the casinos would risk losing that continuous flow of new players to fight each other over something that might not even end up working out (because some online sites will not be backing out and will have a greater chance at the market than startup B&M online rooms). Good try though.

/theory

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense. Players might think, hey, I can't play online now...I guess I might as well go to Vegas/Atlantic City/Indian casino. Even if that's NOT the case, the long-term benefits of dominating the U.S. online poker market would outweigh the short-term losses for casinos.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
B&M casinos would never purposely pull something like this. The continuous growth of the online poker industry has brought a ton of new business to the B&M casinos. People play online, polish up, think theyre hot [censored], and figure I'll go give the casino a try. There is no reason why the casinos would risk losing that continuous flow of new players to fight each other over something that might not even end up working out (because some online sites will not be backing out and will have a greater chance at the market than startup B&M online rooms). Good try though.

/theory

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense. Players might think, hey, I can't play online now...I guess I might as well go to Vegas/Atlantic City/Indian casino. Even if that's NOT the case, the long-term benefits of dominating the U.S. online poker market would outweigh the short-term losses for casinos.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, if you watched CSPAN, guess where the two representatives that spoke out against the ban were from... Las Vegas. You really think they'd speak out against it if it went against casino wishes?

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it is very far-fetched, actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do.

I'd love for this conspiracy to be true, but it seems like the conspirators went to an awful lot of trouble to achieve something they could have accomplished with much less effort and gotten done much sooner. If Harrah's or some other American gaming corp wants online gaming legalized, why not just go through the typical lobbying channels? If Harrah's, Caesars Ent., MGM et al want Frist or some other Senators do something for them, they typically just cut a bigger check and send it directly to their campaign coffers, or threaten to fund their opponents -- not engage in long, drawn-out legislative shenanigans that would invariably cost them lots of money if this was their 'real' motive.

Party made something like $850 million dollars in revenue last year. I suspect a legitimate American company with huge brand awareness and endless resources like Harrah's or MGM could make two or three times that if given the opportunity. You think they're going to spend a year or two orchestrating this kind of conspiracy when they could be making all that revenue right now? If the answer is "but they want to gain market share" -- that seems pretty silly. Party/Stars/888.com couldn't hope to compete with the B&M behemoths and their aura of legitimacy/infinite advertising resources/huge brand awareness.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
B&M casinos would never purposely pull something like this. The continuous growth of the online poker industry has brought a ton of new business to the B&M casinos. People play online, polish up, think theyre hot [censored], and figure I'll go give the casino a try. There is no reason why the casinos would risk losing that continuous flow of new players to fight each other over something that might not even end up working out (because some online sites will not be backing out and will have a greater chance at the market than startup B&M online rooms). Good try though.

/theory

[/ QUOTE ]

Your theory makes no sense. If online poker is banned people will be forced to play in casinos. On top of that, just like poker players, casinos think in terms of long term profit. This move would be much better for their bottom line than letting all the business go to companies like Party, Stars, FTP, etc... I really don't understand how online poker helps B&M casinos, online poker is what keeps me at home instead of in a B&M casino.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

I didn't mean to immply billions a year, but billions over the long run. I do also agree that this will hurt the B&M's with less people deciding to play live. I played live poker long before the internet poker and WPT boom occurred, and the influx of new players coming in to play live in undeniable. Internet Poker and the WPT were the best thing that ever happened to the B&M's.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your theory makes no sense. If online poker is banned people will be forced to play in casinos. On top of that, just like poker players, casinos think in terms of long term profit. This move would be much better for their bottom line than letting all the business go to companies like Party, Stars, FTP, etc... I really don't understand how online poker helps B&M casinos, online poker is what keeps me at home instead of in a B&M casino.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 2002 main event had 600+ entries. The 2006 main event had 8800+ entries. Online sites have sent hundreds of thousands of entrants to tournaments around the world. Casino cash games are far more plentiful than they were in the recent past. B&M casinos realized that it is in their best interest for people to continue to be able to gamble online.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]

This makes perfect sense. Even if the players DID figure, why not go to Vegas now that online poker is gone, it would be a very SHORT TERM boost in B&M revenue. Over the long term, it would cause a very negative impact to the popularity of the game and the number of players frequenting the b&m cardrooms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
B&M casinos realized that it is in their best interest for people to continue to be able to gamble online under the B&M casino's own terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
B&M casinos would never purposely pull something like this. The continuous growth of the online poker industry has brought a ton of new business to the B&M casinos. People play online, polish up, think theyre hot [censored], and figure I'll go give the casino a try. There is no reason why the casinos would risk losing that continuous flow of new players to fight each other over something that might not even end up working out (because some online sites will not be backing out and will have a greater chance at the market than startup B&M online rooms). Good try though.

/theory

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, well glad you know everything.

I think it is extremely possible.

If the US casinos were to open online tomorrow and have to compete fully with already established internationally based online casinos, the US casinos would be on a level playing field, and who wants that?

Under the theory above, this puts US casinos in a perfect position. Wait 2-3 years until people largely forget about the current sites. Then legalize/regulate/tax and US casinos get a jump start on the market. They could corner it in this scenario.

If you want to disagree, fine. But go stick smug little [ QUOTE ]
/theory

[/ QUOTE ] comments you know where. Did you ever even visit this forum (legislation) before Friday?

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
B&M casinos would never purposely pull something like this. The continuous growth of the online poker industry has brought a ton of new business to the B&M casinos. People play online, polish up, think theyre hot [censored], and figure I'll go give the casino a try. There is no reason why the casinos would risk losing that continuous flow of new players to fight each other over something that might not even end up working out (because some online sites will not be backing out and will have a greater chance at the market than startup B&M online rooms). Good try though.

/theory

[/ QUOTE ]

Your theory makes no sense. If online poker is banned people will be forced to play in casinos. On top of that, just like poker players, casinos think in terms of long term profit. This move would be much better for their bottom line than letting all the business go to companies like Party, Stars, FTP, etc... I really don't understand how online poker helps B&M casinos, online poker is what keeps me at home instead of in a B&M casino.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever been to Vegas? Do you know how many cardrooms have opened or expanded thanks to online poker? Do you know how much those players spend at other games, in restaurants, on rooms?

Online poker has made a freaking fortune for the B&Ms

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This makes perfect sense. Even if the players DID figure, why not go to Vegas now that online poker is gone, it would be a very SHORT TERM boost in B&M revenue. Over the long term, it would cause a very negative impact to the popularity of the game and the number of players frequenting the b&m cardrooms.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You still aren't looking at the big picture. You are talking about online poker and I am talking about online gambling.

Do you think if you could gamble on the site bellagio.com they wouldn't offer online craps, slots, blackjack, horseracing, sportsbetting, and everything else. They would make infinite on house games.

Online poker is peanuts compared to all this.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the US casinos were to open online tomorrow and have to compete fully with already established internationally based online casinos, the US casinos would be on a level playing field, and who wants that?

[/ QUOTE ]

MGM opens bellagio.com tomorrow, or Harrah's opens "WSOP.com" just for online poker, or Caesars opens "Luxor.com" -- and they're on a 'level playing field' with 888, PartyGaming and Mansion.com?

The existing sites would be dwarfed by the legitimate and known B&M sites, almost instantly.

Half of my buddies, who know I make money playing on line and have won satellites to varios B&M events -- many of them continue to believe Party et al 'juices' the flops, uses prop players and rigs the deck for them, etc. Think of the inherent advantage the legitimate gaming corporations would have if the state sponsored and regulated their online casinos and poker rooms. I'm surprised it's even up for debate -- if online gaming were legalized in the US, the B&M mega corps would instantly dominate the US market.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
B&M casinos would never purposely pull something like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

When in doubt, follow the money. Who stands the gain the most by the IG ban?

[/ QUOTE ]

My ex-wife is a poker room manager. 5 years ago they had 4 tables and yearly revenue around $300k. Last year they were up to 8 tables and revenue over $1.2m.
The clientele has changed from middle aged men and weekend tourists to the 20 something ballcap & sunglasses crowd.
The upper-management in casinos knows this all came about through the internet and tv coverage, and I can't see how they would want it to slow down.

Yes, you could make the argument that US based casinos are trying to corner the market, but they would have probably gone about this through regulation, not banning.

The only possible angle shooting I can see here came from Frist's statement about knowing they can't completely stop it. He could turn around in a year or so and say "look, we tried to stop it but couldn't, so lets at least regulate it."

But I do have to say that the way this all went down is bizarre.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

You folks know that the mob is still in control of Vegas. Did you really think that they weren't going to grab the online market too?

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

MGM and Harrahs reps have stated that their ultimate goal is to get online gambling regulated and get sites opened up.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

Here's an article from the Financial Times that brings up the possibility of B+M companies swooping in on the online sites. Also worth noting was MGM did attempt to run an online casino.

It may be a while before Harrah's could launch the "WSOP.com" site, since they're suing the person who owns that domain now.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
MGM and Harrahs reps have stated that their ultimate goal is to get online gambling regulated and get sites opened up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay? Who disagrees with that?

If they're trying to go about that by the conspiracy put forward by the OP, their strategy is completely and utterly insane. The only argument I've heard so far to make the conspiracy hold any water is "but they want to crush their competitors first", as if the eventual victory of the B&Ms would ever be in doubt if they were allowed into the market.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

what everyone here seems to miss is this:

the sites that would benefit the most from online poker legalization in the US would NOT be Harrahs, MGM, Bellagio, et al.

the best positioned companies would be google, myspace and AOL - sites that already get billions of traffic hits that they could easily translate into their new rooms.

Traffic leads to downloads, which leads to players, which leads to critical mass.

Harrahs et al could spend untold millions and still not get the traffic that the other sites already get - and these sites would not have to pay ANYTHING for this traffic.

money is not the problem in creating a room (see Mansion) - it is website traffic.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
You folks know that the mob is still in control of Vegas. Did you really think that they weren't going to grab the online market too?

[/ QUOTE ]A mob of suit and tie big corporation people yes

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's an article from the Financial Times that brings up the possibility of B+M companies swooping in on the online sites. Also worth noting was MGM did attempt to run an online casino.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so this article doesn't get misinterpreted:

"Mr Garber said: "I wouldn't be surprised if they [MGM and Harrah's] didn't have an interest in winning non US-facing companies as a means of tipping their toes in the internet world."

The B&M companies are positioning themselves in the global market outside of the US.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
MGM and Harrahs reps have stated that their ultimate goal is to get online gambling regulated and get sites opened up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay? Who disagrees with that?

If they're trying to go about that by the conspiracy put forward by the OP, their strategy is completely and utterly insane. The only argument I've heard so far to make the conspiracy hold any water is "but they want to crush their competitors first", as if the eventual victory of the B&Ms would ever be in doubt if they were allowed into the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well since I saw the interview with a rep on 20/20 or 60 minutes or some kind of show like that it would be hard to disagree. I doubt I am the only one that saw this. It ran 2-3 months ago. I didn't just make it up and it is no real secret.

Re: Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats
 

[ QUOTE ]
what everyone here seems to miss is this:

the sites that would benefit the most from online poker legalization in the US would NOT be Harrahs, MGM, Bellagio, et al.

the best positioned companies would be google, myspace and AOL - sites that already get billions of traffic hits that they could easily translate into their new rooms.

Traffic leads to downloads, which leads to players, which leads to critical mass.

Harrahs et al could spend untold millions and still not get the traffic that the other sites already get - and these sites would not have to pay ANYTHING for this traffic.

money is not the problem in creating a room (see Mansion) - it is website traffic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless, of course, having an online casino is dependent on having a license for a land-based casino. Assuming for a moment the conspiracy presented by the OP is true, this is certainly a provision that will have been accounted for.