Important - We will never be in the clear...

[Gringo777]

I have seen this mentioned before... i do not mind pitching in at all and making calls to senators, but why are we not seeing millions spent in advertising campaigns by the poker sites?

[ASD99]

[ QUOTE ]
I have seen this mentioned before... i do not mind pitching in at all and making calls to senators, but why are we not seeing millions spent in advertising campaigns by the poker sites?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah this is bothersome to me also...i have not been very happy with what i have been seeing from the online sites...what i am hoping for is that behind closed doors they are working very hard.

[MikeyPatriot]

What about the WSOP/WPT? Don't they stand to lose a lot if players can't qualify through online sats?

[eviljeff]

the fastest and cheapest way to secure the future of online poker:

1) launch fake/easily foiled internet attack aimed at bringing down online poker
2) blame terrorists

[cowboy.up]

[ QUOTE ]
What about the WSOP/WPT? Don't they stand to lose a lot if players can't qualify through online sats?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it does - the numbers would certainly drop back to about where they were in the "Moneymaker" days of the tourny. There'd still be a small growth due to the popularity poker has gained in the US and worldwide...but I don't see more than 3-4000 entered if it was "banned."

[swarm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about the WSOP/WPT? Don't they stand to lose a lot if players can't qualify through online sats?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it does - the numbers would certainly drop back to about where they were in the "Moneymaker" days of the tourny. There'd still be a small growth due to the popularity poker has gained in the US and worldwide...but I don't see more than 3-4000 entered if it was "banned."

[/ QUOTE ]

Bull... you don't know how the new law will affect online gambeling. It's not like people are going to stop palying online poker in the US as it won't be any more illegal than than it is now unless they unexpectedly update the wire act. There will be ways for fish and the like to fund their accounts. Could there be a slight or moderate decrease sure but this max-exodus people are claiming is laughable. Reminds me of the Y2K scare.

[antneye]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about the WSOP/WPT? Don't they stand to lose a lot if players can't qualify through online sats?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it does - the numbers would certainly drop back to about where they were in the "Moneymaker" days of the tourny. There'd still be a small growth due to the popularity poker has gained in the US and worldwide...but I don't see more than 3-4000 entered if it was "banned."

[/ QUOTE ]

Bull... you don't know how the new law will affect online gambeling. It's not like people are going to stop palying online poker in the US as it won't be any more illegal than than it is now unless they unexpectedly update the wire act. There will be ways for fish and the like to fund their accounts. Could there be a slight or moderate decrease sure but this max-exodus people are claiming is laughable. Reminds me of the Y2K scare.

[/ QUOTE ]

And lets not discount the fact that Poker is growing all across the globe. Fish will be in steady supply. I don't think there is anyway to shut down a 12 billion a year industry with the stroke of a pen.

With that said, I am taking this legislation very seriously and am fighting it every way I can.

[JuntMonkey]

I believe it was the thread in OOT ("what will you do...??") where people were panicking, and then one guy says "still play but make slightly less money?"

The way I see it is this. We're going to have nearly a year before the laws are implemented (a little less if one of the bills actually passes this week instead of in the lame duck session). Then, assuming Stars and Party can't come up with any brilliant funding plans, many players will leave - and more bad players than good players.

However, as antneye says, poker still hasn't penetrated many markets, including the big one - Asia. So maybe there will be a year of poor games, but then there will be an influx. And that's assuming they don't look into regulating it before then.

[Guthrie]

[ QUOTE ]
States don't like forms of gambling where their house edge is under 50 percent.

[/ QUOTE ]

[NapoleonDolemite]

[ QUOTE ]
I have seen this mentioned before... i do not mind pitching in at all and making calls to senators, but why are we not seeing millions spent in advertising campaigns by the poker sites?

[/ QUOTE ]

This should be encouraging. It means they probably aren't that concerned.