industry giants say, "Not so fast" - Page 4

Little_Luck · #31 10-01-2006, 12:14 AM

The 1000's of dollars I've made neteller are possibly going to good use.

Copernicus · #32 10-01-2006, 12:38 AM

"This article reeks. I don't see how any of those 'industry giants' can't see how stupid it is to be 'releasing' statements after the bill has already been passed. The time for action was before it went through. I mean, what do these bums really think they are going to accomplish? "

It makes perfect sense to address the problem in public AFTER the law passes. IG bills have been voted on for the last 6 or 7 years and failed every time. As late as 24 hours before it passed the consensus was that there wasnt time left on the agenda to pass it.

To raise the profile of the issue with that kind of prognosis for passage could well have been counter-productive.

Given the Antigua precedent I am sure that sites have formulated a strategy to respond. Whether the law was tightly written enough to block any response remains to be seen.

Lets see how thorough the responses and not be so quick to judge execs competent enough to build mutli-billion dollar businesses. There isnt a chance in hell they buried their heads in the sand over this.

And the above contention that the statements are intended to prop up stock values is ludicrous. If there are no teeth in the statement that make sense, the stock is going down.

jah7_fsu1 · #33 10-01-2006, 12:42 AM

Actually the internet sites did not have enough profits to fight this because of the rake we got back through affiliates. Party and Pokerstars are just barely scraping by.

Copernicus · #34 10-01-2006, 12:44 AM

yeah youre right, thats why their stock valuations make them penny stocks. [/sarcasm]

jah7_fsu1 · #35 10-01-2006, 02:08 AM

Exactly, they have no money...just like the oil companies now that gas went down a bit.

aramfingal · #36 10-01-2006, 02:34 AM

i don't like this picture.

Python49 · #37 10-01-2006, 02:49 AM

First of all a few things don't make sense. I've seen people make reference to online sports betting and other crap like that not getting banned... is this true?
Because if it is whose to say the money im transferring to bodog or a sports book like mansion is going to be bet on a sport instead of poker?
And if all those gamblnig transactions are banned well ok, what about if I want to buy something online using a neteller account or firepay, are these institutions all going completely out of business?

For them to stop people from depositing online they'd have to completely block out any use of these types of internet wallets since they'd have no idea where the money is going. I can't see how banks will like this too much.

Also it doesn't really seem logical to me that a multi billion dollar industry is just going to somehow disappear just like that in the blink of an eye, this industry is bigger than the alcohol one that turned into a black market many years ago. It just does't seem likely to me that it's going to disappear. I think the sites will either find a way around this by maybe offering a new deposit method on their site that is disguised completely and maybe shows up differently each time its dispatched to withdraw from someones bank account.

If not that, theres too much money to be made from this market and I think something will happen in the USA where somebody who wants to get rich is going to take advantage and start some online website and get a law or something passed to make it possible.

Doesn't seem possible to me for the entire industry to disappear in the blink of an eye.

Also another thing about all the fishes not going through the effort to deposit, the thing is.... alot of the "fish" online do not even realize or think they are fish. Theres plenty of fish even right here at 2+2 that would be very willing to go out of their way to deposit and access the online sites. Many regulars i've played with do understand how to play correctly but do not have the discipline. I'd say that very few players are playing online knowingly giving their money away, they are trying to win because they think they can.

When I first got into online poker as a clear fish, neteller did not work in my state (maryland) but this did not stop me from finding SOME way to get money on there. The main problem back then for me was that I was trying to oplay at eurobet for rakeback but they didn't have IGM pay or firepay and I didn't have neteller. So I just had my affiliate transfer me some money in and I paid him on paypal, then when it was time to cash out I used moneybookers. Believe it or not, many fish would be very willing to find a way to deposit if they know one exists.

coachkf · #38 10-01-2006, 03:37 AM

"The time to oppose this bill was before it passed. It is going to be much, much more difficult to do anything about it now that it has passed."

What exactly were they supposed to do before the bill was passed? From what I understand, offline companies can't hire lobbying groups or donate to politicians.

That means the only thing they "could" have done was send out mass emails to members (some of them did). I suspect most did not want to scare their membership over something that almost everyone agreed had little or no chance to pass.

Now that an actual law has passed, they have something they can fight. Before, it was just a bill moving through the US congress, and they being companies based in another country had no legitimate way to weigh in, correct?

I'm not an expert on these things by any means, but I'm pretty sure that online poker sites were handicapped by the fact that they're not based in the USA and therefore can't take part in our mucked up lawmaking.

That being said, I'm thoroughly disgusted with poker industry leaders here in the USA like 2p2 who sat on their hands when they could have at least matched what several online poker sites did and email their members that there was a threat.

DrewOnTilt · #39 10-01-2006, 03:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There isnt a chance in hell they buried their heads in the sand over this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have yet to see one single bit of action on the part of the online casinos that would make me believe this. I hope that you are right, but am afraid that you are wrong.

whangarei · #40 10-01-2006, 04:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Any thought as to why Harrah's and MGM did absolutley nothing to stop this legislation?

Could they have wanted it, so they can come in and start their own US based sites. Once, they mobilize their huge Lobby's, is it possible they can get Online Poker regulated?

Seriously, Harry Reid could have put a hold on this bill but chose not to. Whose to say that after they initially outlaw online poker, the US based companies fund studies. Those studies say the Gov't could make an assload if it was properly regulated, obviously this would be a given. Then Harrah's, MGM etc. get it regulated. Finally, with their deep pockets they can go ahead an eventually buy up Party or Poker Stars. Then we are basically where we are today, sans prohibition ............. anyway just an out of the box thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

This wouldn't surprise me in the least. It's the next 3-5 years that will suck though.