Conspiracy Theory: Put on Your Tin Foil Hats

[Gugel]

Inspired by woodguy & Ron Burgundy in this thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1

Anyway, this is the argument.
1. Harrah's Entertainment was the 13th largest contributer to Frist's 2000 Senate campaign.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...amp;cycle=2000
2. It approaches the senator with a deal that seems to be a win-win-win situation. Frist wins, the casinos win, and the U.S. wins.
2a. Frist wins by displaying his morality for future presidential campaigns to the U.S. public by banning online "gambling". After a period of "consideration" another senator that in cahoots with the casino decides to try to legalize, but place tight control on online poker. Frist "opposes" the bill on the surface, but doesn't put up much of a fight. It passes.
2b. Casinos start up their own versions of online poker. American casinos quickly gobble up the U.S. market.
2c. The U.S. government gets hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue.
Win-win-win.

Discuss.

( The U.S. gambling industry in general donates a large chunk of change to politicians...
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=N07 )

[Vern]

Tin is old, use Aluminum.

[Klompy]

Even if this were true, I don't have the money, or the patience to wait for that to actualy happen.

[cmattos]

[ QUOTE ]
2b. Casinos start up their own versions of online poker. American casinos quickly gobble up the U.S. market.
2c. The U.S. government gets hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would think most online poker players (especially now) would be happy to see the above take place.

[Semtex]

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.

[viper930]

lol @ this

[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.

[kb09pkt]

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.

[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

[NSolo]

There is no doubt that US casinos made substantial contributions to Frist and this is the payback. I haven't the slightest idea what their long-term strategy is.