Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats - Page 4

John21 · #31 10-02-2006, 09:59 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 ]

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.

jimmytrick · #32 10-02-2006, 09:59 PM

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?

LucidDream · #33 10-02-2006, 10:00 PM

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

Kevmath · #34 10-02-2006, 10:03 PM

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.

DVaut1 · #35 10-02-2006, 10:03 PM

[ 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.

Kneel B4 Zod · #36 10-02-2006, 10:04 PM

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.

5thStreetHog · #37 10-02-2006, 10:06 PM

[ 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

DVaut1 · #38 10-02-2006, 10:06 PM

[ 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.

LucidDream · #39 10-02-2006, 10:06 PM

[ 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.

cmattos · #40 10-02-2006, 10:07 PM

[ 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.