Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats

[LucidDream]

Thats LOL if anyone actually believes that Harrahs contributed only 20k to Frist. That is just what's on the books.

[woodguy]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

That is incorrect.

Just because you are a giant player in one segment does not automatically mean you can also dominate another segment.

Many businesses that are very successfull in one part of the market often struggle in others (whether the market being segmented by cost, geography, etc. isn't really important)

This is especially true in businesses with a low barrier to entry.

The land based casino's would have instant credibility and traffic, but not enough to come close to the online giants immediately. That would take time and lots of $$$.

Regards,
Woodguy

[Jeremy517]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats LOL if anyone actually believes that Harrahs contributed only 20k to Frist. That is just what's on the books.

[/ QUOTE ]

That donation was in 2000. In 2000, B&M casions WERE against online gambling. Then the boom happened. Now they are no longer against online gambling.

Look at the two Representatives who spoke out against the ban. They were both from Vegas. Think they'd speak out against it if it went against the casinos wishes? It would be career suicide.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

That doesn't make sense either, that is what advertising is for. Just because you are a popular company in certain businesses does not mean you try to take over every business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Google, AOL, and Myspace are exactly in the business of translating clicks into $$$$. They already have all the traffic they would need and wouldn't need to spend the advertising dollars - that's the point.

MGM et all could spend a TON and still not get the traffic these sites get

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, makes no sense. They get plenty of traffic from all over the world to the middle of the [censored] desert. If you think they won't get traffic to their websites when people don't even have to leave their houses then you are dense.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you're saying that b/c these sites MIGHT be able to get the same amount of traffic, they would have an advantage over Google?

I don't understand why anyone would think that Harrahs has what it takes to run an online poker room...it is quite different than the B&M world, and portals like google are much more naturall suited to it

[blueodum]

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

All US-based non-poker leisure industries.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Do not underestimate the cost of starting a new online gambling venture and actually get past the break-even point.

Not many would gamble at "Harrah's Online Casino", just because it was Harrah's.....so what?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is the case. Harrah's/MGM/Caesars/Wynn have huge brand awareness, and I don't think the costs of startup are all that prohibitive to these billion dollar mega corps. "Mirage", "Bellagio" and "Mandalay Bay" are known commodities to US consumers. "WSOP.com" or some variant from Harrah's could monopolize the market on WSOP satellites. The other American B&M companies could monopolize the online satellite market to their big B&M events.

The various internet gaming companies, IMO, are distrusted by a vast majority of Americans. How many of your personal friends, despite the fact they know how much money you make, continue to believe Party juices the flops or rigs the game in favor of their own bots? Federal sponsorship (in the form of legalization and regulation) would go a long way toward percieved legitimacy, but the American B&M companies have an enormous and inherent advantage here.

[ QUOTE ]
What if you could essentially cut off 80% of your future competitors income, while at the same time become of one of very few servicing the industry (US)?

[/ QUOTE ]

A great plan. How does what the OP proposed get them there? Conceivably, the conspirators could just arrange it so that legalization and regulation via the federal government would only involve the established American B&M companies while prohibiting access to the established online gaming corporations like 888, Party, and Mansion.

Put differently: if Harrah's et al are going to influence Frist to do all this legislative maneuvering with the expectation online gaming will eventually be legalized and regulated (quite possibly years from now), why not just skip all that [censored] (and the months/years it may take to for that strategy to eventually materialize into a regulated market that they dominate), and why don't they just use their influence peddling to guarantee the federal government only grants them (and they alone) licenses right now? Since the conspiracy implies the American B&M gaming corps. have this kind of influence, why wait two or three years and go through all of this? They're passing up lots and lots of potential revenue right now by doing so, for something they can ostensibly only achieve years from now. How could they explain, if they have the kind of influence the OP implies -- how could they explain all these machinations to stockholders? Certainly the promise of increased revenue (in the distant future) is nice, but it pales in comparison to the promise of increased revenue in the current fiscal year. It defies reason as to why the gaming corps. would orchestrate such an outlandish conspiracy while refusing to take much easier action to accomplish the same ends.

[LucidDream]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thats LOL if anyone actually believes that Harrahs contributed only 20k to Frist. That is just what's on the books.

[/ QUOTE ]

That donation was in 2000. In 2000, B&M casions WERE against online gambling. Then the boom happened. Now they are no longer against online gambling.

Look at the two Representatives who spoke out against the ban. They were both from Vegas. Think they'd speak out against it if it went against the casinos wishes? It would be career suicide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if they know it is going to pass anyway. Their first stance on the subject was that they were against it. What changed their minds?

[Copernicus]

[ 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 ]

I dont buy it. The tie ins to their B&M casinos would be huge. FPP for rooms/suites. "HarrahsPoker.com, the exclusvie site to win WSOP seats" etc.

And the B&Ms have a big head start..programmings done, execs who know the game etc.

[LucidDream]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, makes no sense. They get plenty of traffic from all over the world to the middle of the [censored] desert. If you think they won't get traffic to their websites when people don't even have to leave their houses then you are dense.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you're saying that b/c these sites MIGHT be able to get the same amount of traffic, they would have an advantage over Google?

I don't understand why anyone would think that Harrahs has what it takes to run an online poker room...it is quite different than the B&M world, and portals like google are much more naturall suited to it

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, you are OBV dense

[Jeremy517]

[ QUOTE ]
What changed their minds?

[/ 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. None of the boom would have happened without online poker.