Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats - Page 2

cmattos · #11 10-02-2006, 09:42 PM

[ 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?

Copernicus · #12 10-02-2006, 09:42 PM

[ 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

malo · #13 10-02-2006, 09:42 PM

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.....

viper930 · #14 10-02-2006, 09:43 PM

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 · #15 10-02-2006, 09:44 PM

[ 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.

Copernicus · #16 10-02-2006, 09:44 PM

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.

cmattos · #17 10-02-2006, 09:45 PM

[ 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.

viper930 · #18 10-02-2006, 09:45 PM

yes it was those red mothaffuckas

Gugel · #19 10-02-2006, 09:47 PM

[ 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 · #20 10-02-2006, 09:48 PM

[ 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?