Should poker players boycott next year's WSOP?

[autobet]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say [censored] yes...Harrah's -- who owns the brand -- was one of Bill Frist's largest donors...Guess whose stocks went way up in the wake of recent legislation

[/ QUOTE ]

Harrah's stock shot up because of rumors they were being aquired by Texas Pacific Group for $15.5 billion.

The brick and mortar casinos fall into four camps:
1. Those who look at the online casinos as taking money out of their pockets.
2. Those who look at the online casinos as a training/practice ground for gamblers (especially poker players) who will at least occassionally play in B&M casinos.
3. Those who are deciding if the new customers brought into gambling by online sites outwiegh the gambling dollars going overseas, or vica versa.
4. Those who want to be in both businesses so they can have the best of both worlds.

Obviously Harrah's wants to be in both businesses. Perhaps they are happy to see their competition wiped out before introducing their "trusted brand" to the online gambling world.

They also have a lot to lose if it turns out the gambling dollar is not limited and that online gambling adds to the success ($$$) of casinos around the world. Certainly this has been true for card rooms. Originally card room owners thought the Internet would hurt their business or even put them out of business. It turns out the opposite is true. Their businesses are booming and card rooms are being added to most casinos across our country. Harrah's has a huge stake in these card rooms and their WSOP brand including television revenues.

It is certainly possible they wanted this legislation passed . But we should keep in mind a contribution to a powerful Senator could simply be for favorable consideration for their brick and mortar operations.

[autobet]

Are there any numbers available on how many/what percentages of U.S. players have stopped playing?

Are these new laws on tranferring money expected to be enforced before the end of the 270 days?

I know some people think it is illegal or impossible to play, but I would assume those people are in the minority.

[f 380-420]

would be near impossible to boycott (effectively) such an event imho

[PairTheBoard]

Harrah's was also one of the largest contributors to the Lady Senator from Nevada who spoke out most loudly against the UIGEA on the Senate floor. If anyone was in the pocket of the Nevada Casinos it was her, not Frist.

PairTheBoard

[WhatDoesCallMean]

[ QUOTE ]
if there was a huge reduction in WSOP entries in 2007

[/ QUOTE ]

are there any numbers available as to the make-up of the 2006 field between americans and other nationalities?

maybe its just me but from what ive seen so far of WSOP 2006, it seems that every second player was either a vietnamese or joe hachem [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[pavement]

A PE firm made an offer to buy out Harrah's. That's the reason for the run-up.

[athought]

IMO I agree that boycotting again helps Bill Frist. If you believe the path is to alienate domestic B&M casinos, you would need to boycott the WSOP in support of a competing event located somewhere not domestic - Taking more money that would have been spent domestically somewhere else.

But I think most of these domestic casinos realize that online play is free promotion for B&M's. Not only does it promote, but it facilitates trips there by consolidating assets of smaller players.

At the end of the day if domestic B&M's were truly the conspirators behind this as you suggest, I would think they are still our biggest advocate to get it reinstated once they position themselves in the market. Sucks as it is, I think you have to support them and then once legal again you can jump ship and boycott all you want.