rumor: party and paradise coming back? - Page 4

pete fabrizio · #31 12-01-2006, 04:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think "looking good" is going to matter. If the ban is lifted, then you have someone like MGM buying pokerstars and no one will give a rip what pokerstars did during the prohibition years.

[/ QUOTE ]

This ban will never ever be lifted, congress just doesn't work that way. Perhaps there could be a poker exception carved out in litigation, but with chevron deference, there would probably have to be some favorable language in an administrative interpretation, but good luck on that one with republicans in power. Even if the U.S. loses in the WTO suit, I doubt the administration will back down. The best we can hope for, I think, is non-enforcement.

blackjack777 · #32 12-01-2006, 05:02 PM

Seriously, on the Troy Smith to win the Heisman bet, I told my wife if he wins, I will take her on a cruise.

So the first half of the season, my wife was rooting for OSU every week, ect...

Anyways, she still wants the cruise, but I didn't get paid on my bet, so I am screwed.

I like the prorated pay angle at least, but all I got was the money I put in. Not a penny more.

MagCFO · #33 12-01-2006, 05:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think "looking good" is going to matter. If the ban is lifted, then you have someone like MGM buying pokerstars and no one will give a rip what pokerstars did during the prohibition years.

[/ QUOTE ]

This ban will never ever be lifted, congress just doesn't work that way. Perhaps there could be a poker exception carved out in litigation, but with chevron deference, there would probably have to be some favorable language in an administrative interpretation, but good luck on that one with republicans in power. Even if the U.S. loses in the WTO suit, I doubt the administration will back down. The best we can hope for, I think, is non-enforcement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? What do you mean congress doesn't work that way? Laws have been passed and repealed in the past? You also realize republicans aren't in power, right?

I think the carve out is a long shot. I think the best chance in for a study bill to go through sometime in 2007. It will probably be a 2 year study bill. after the study bill, it will probably take another year or so to come up with the actually regs. That's the fastest things could happen in my opinion.

In the mean time, yes, light enforcement is the best thing. And if you get a study bill passed, I think that reduces the enforcement as well. It would be harder to put someone away for something that might not be illegal in a couple years.

ICallHimGamblor · #34 12-01-2006, 06:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You also realize republicans aren't in power, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

People have been reflexively blaming everything from hurricanes to gas prices on Republicans for six years now. I seriously had a girl blame panda reproduction problems on Republicans last week. Seriously. You can't expect people to suddenly stop now. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

MicroBob · #35 12-01-2006, 06:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I booted up their site recently, and it said there were like 5000 active players over like 400 tables, which is an impossibility. I wonder whether they're faking the active player number to make their site more appealing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that 'logged-on' = 'active'.

siwicki · #36 12-01-2006, 08:25 PM

ok nice rumour idiot

cardsharkk04 · #37 12-01-2006, 08:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Party only site that I can win at

[/ QUOTE ]

Same here. [censored] stars

bigshowmack · #38 12-01-2006, 09:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Either way, I made my LIVING off Paradise, and since they shut down, my profits have gone down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you made your living writing at a 4th grade level for a no-name podunk weekly newspaper in Oregon?

gonebroke · #39 12-01-2006, 09:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Paradise poker is coming back, it will be called Players Lounge I believe.

Party isn't coming back unless they change their corporate structure. No way they can serve US players as a public company, thus the reason many of this guys (Calvin at Bodog, P-stars, etc) never wanted to go public in the first place.

It's not really about being delisted, but more about the risk just being too high for shareholder suits for many reseasons, not just being delisted. Who's going to stay invested in a company operating illegally in one country and execs could be arrested at any time? How many lawsuits would there be the first time some negative story comes out and the stock tanks?

I agree with Greg that it's not worth giving up 80% of their business, but they have to go private before they can do anything.

I've spoken to several people in the business that feel like Party is just trying to "look good" to the US incase the ban is ever lifted.

I don't think "looking good" is going to matter. If the ban is lifted, then you have someone like MGM buying pokerstars and no one will give a rip what pokerstars did during the prohibition years.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong about PokerStars. The Israeli family that owns a majority interest in the company wanted to go public so they could cash out over a billion USD. They delayed the IPO because PartyGaming said the growth of the industry was slowing. At the time it was not favorable for them to go public.

Just because pokerstars is privately owned does not mean they are operating legally. That is why I doubt MGM or any other American based company will buy any of these privately owned sites. They are operatting illegally from the viewpoint of the Dept of Justice. And if the climate does change, pokerstars might as well close up shop. The US Govt will offer licenses to sites deemed safe to play at and you can be damn sure pokerstars will be on the bottom of that list of getting such a license...MGM and Harrahs being on the top.

pete fabrizio · #40 12-01-2006, 10:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think "looking good" is going to matter. If the ban is lifted, then you have someone like MGM buying pokerstars and no one will give a rip what pokerstars did during the prohibition years.

[/ QUOTE ]

This ban will never ever be lifted, congress just doesn't work that way. Perhaps there could be a poker exception carved out in litigation, but with chevron deference, there would probably have to be some favorable language in an administrative interpretation, but good luck on that one with republicans in power. Even if the U.S. loses in the WTO suit, I doubt the administration will back down. The best we can hope for, I think, is non-enforcement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? What do you mean congress doesn't work that way? Laws have been passed and repealed in the past? You also realize republicans aren't in power, right?

I think the carve out is a long shot. I think the best chance in for a study bill to go through sometime in 2007. It will probably be a 2 year study bill. after the study bill, it will probably take another year or so to come up with the actually regs. That's the fastest things could happen in my opinion.

In the mean time, yes, light enforcement is the best thing. And if you get a study bill passed, I think that reduces the enforcement as well. It would be harder to put someone away for something that might not be illegal in a couple years.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no demand for internet gambling on either side of the aisle. Congress passes/repeals very few laws and lets most of them sit forever. There is no way a bill to create a study supporting intertet gambling is going to be passed within the next 20 years, unless perhaps something is forced by litigation, etc, in which case the purpose of the study will probably be to build a record to defend the provision already passed.