Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats

[DING-DONG YO]

[ 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.

[viper930]

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

[cmattos]

[ 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?

[viper930]

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.

[Jeremy517]

[ 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.

[John21]

[ 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.

[Gugel]

[ 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.

[Jeremy517]

[ 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?

[mattnxtc]

I actually am expecting this...u get rid of the foreign competition and then allow US casinos to take over...i kinda expect to see this in a year or 2

[viper930]

[ 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 ]