|
|
#31
09-30-2006, 03:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Like Berlusconi
Berlusconi made his first tv national channel getting licenses at every province at Italy, because a national one was prohibited.
Here it may be the same, a poker operator who has licenses at most US states. Every customer places bets with a state operator. So they are placing bets in their state, although they play with persons from other states. Maybe, this bill is creating the possibility for a HUGE business. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] regards, dardo 
|
|
#32
09-30-2006, 03:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Like Berlusconi
Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to. I've noticed an oddity in the states that already have anti-Internet gambling legislation in place includes states with significant B and M gambling infrastructure. Nevada for instance, and a few of the states with legislation have Harrah's casinos.
I'm thinking regulation is the way to go, at least for long-term viability. It's not like poker isn't a growth industry. Sites that focus on poker instead of other gaming might have an easier road in lobbying for regulation, considering the growth in media exposure.
|
|
#33
09-30-2006, 03:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Like Berlusconi
[ QUOTE ]
although they play with persons from other states. [/ QUOTE ] interstate commerce. unfortunately there is NO way around that. i also am not 100% sure, but i think once intra-state businesses start dealing with businesses/persons from other countries, they become subject to federal regulation/legislation. but im only "pretty sure" this is the case.
|
|
#34
09-30-2006, 03:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: is there wiggle room to allow individual states to operate online
[ QUOTE ]
It's not just that these states get to consolidate their existing poker traffic, but also that they get to build a lot of new traffic. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I think even Rhode Island would have a big online cardroom. Population: 1,048,319. I bet practically all cities in California w/ population 1 million have at least one decent sized BM cardroom. B.
|
|
#35
09-30-2006, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: is there wiggle room to allow individual states to operate online
how about capoker.com a site licensed and run by the state of california. how much money could the state of california make for itself? they run a lottery and take the proceeds and advertise in all forms of media. how popular would this site be? there is a pretty decent player pool. this site might even generate more money for the state than the lottery -- who knows.
|
|
#37
09-30-2006, 05:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: is there wiggle room to allow individual states to operate online
Could the B&M Casinos operate an online casino and only take deposits and cashouts at their casino. That would seem to be a way around the financial institutions.
|
|
#38
09-30-2006, 05:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: is there wiggle room to allow individual states to operate online
[ QUOTE ]
Could the B&M Casinos operate an online casino and only take deposits and cashouts at their casino. That would seem to be a way around the financial institutions. [/ QUOTE ] not if out of state players are allowed..the way i read it the money is tainted if its used for wagering at any point
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
