TruePoker will continue to welcome U.S players

[chrisptp]

Party and Pacific both have casino concerns to protect. They know, just like every B/m has known for 6 decades, that slots are king - regardless of how much poker might be generating the short term.

I guarantee you that the long term biz plans of Party and 888 do not count Poker as their primary growth engine. Their casino concerns, however, have to be protected at all costs, and to continue to develop those areas, they have to shut investors up asap.

I think that is one alternative explanation to why True has one position and Party has another, and both can be viewed as correct.

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
I like it and it seems more than reasonable. Let the legal wrangling begin. Would it be possible to comment on WTO agreements that are in place that might have a bearing on this? But I understand that your statement makes it clear that your position is that the U.S. law does not apply to you due to the nature of your business.

[/ QUOTE ]

the USA pisses on the WTO. 'we' and I use 'we' loosely, care not what the WTO thinks or does.

-Scott

[Kneel B4 Zod]

WRT to poker vs casino: you are 100% wrong. growth for online poker is MUCH bigger than in online casino games, and Party already has 88% of revenue coming from poker. in 3 years time, this was only going to be bigger as their market share increased. online casinos are by comparison an old, mature market - the growth prospects don't come close to poker, so your idea that Party is concerned about the growth of their online casino biz - well that must be far from the case.

your B&M comparison is flawed

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Have your lawyers reached the same conclusion? Because I doubt very strongly the Dept. of Justice will agree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but clearly one angle of attack for the poker sites is to take the stance that poker is not covered under this act, then let the US courts figure *that* issue out. It's a shot. I really hope PS has the balls to sign on to the fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. A Test Case would at least give a Poker Carve Out via the Courts a chance. There certainly is substance to the argument. Just look at all the Poker Rooms in California.

PairTheBoard

[chrisptp]

Not at all. I understand what the numbers are in the short term for Party and 888, but overall, online wagering on 'table games' crushes poker revenue.

It's a bigger pie, and it's what 888 and Party are shooting for. I don't think that's even a debatable issue.

The BM comparison, IMHO, is fine. BM's have have torn down and rebuilt their poker rooms a few times in the last couple of decades as poker got hot and cooled off, but slots have always stayed. Don't see any reason why this would be different online.

[MicroBob]

TPCEO - Kudos to your continued participation on these forums and to your timely announcement.


TPCEO has been involved in quite a few threads about this issue while a lot of the other sites didn't participate in the discussions at all.

When it started to hit the fan with Party backing out, TPCEO was relatively quick to come right on here and make absolutely clear what his site's position is and will be.

He's also been involved in many discussions previously about completely non-related internet-poker issues (what kind of features, what kind of bonuses, stuff like that).

This is exactly the type of communication we want...but that we just don't get from most other sites.

You can say that they do this because they are a small site and they have nothing to lose anyway.
But there are actually lots of small and medium-sized sites who don't bother to do this. So TPCEO has to be given credit for being in the minority here.


Very very classy.


Now, to get all away from this whole legislation discussion:
TPCEO - As has been mentioned before, some 2+2'ers would be interested in playing there if you offered a 2d feature for your tables.
I still have difficulty following the action there because of the 3d-ness of it. The angles of the cards, somebody placing a bet on the opposite side of the table, etc etc.
Harder to multi-table imo.

I suggest that now is an opportune time to finally MAKE IT HAPPEN and WIN OVER even more of these available players looking for places to play.

I don't even really care if it's P-TRacker compatible or not. and may try to struggle through some of the 3d-ness of the site regardless.
But a 2d-version (at least as an OPTION for anyone who prefers it) might seal the deal for some.

[Bluff1]

Downloading now go true go.

[Instyle007]

Congratulations on having a backbone and not bowing to the pressure.

Told bad Party and 888 aren't following your lead.

[AceCR9]

truepoker- hope your server is ready for a little more work!

[BluffTHIS!]

TruePoker CEO,

Props to you from me as others, for your "cajones" and your interpretation. While obviously your interpretation can be viewed as self-serving, as you correctly note (and you are in fact an attorney if some here don't realize that IIRC), you are only obliged to follow the law as written, and have no obligation to follow any presumed intent. Thus if congress poorly worded the legislation to accomplish what they intended, in the same manner as if an attorney in any court in the land poorly drafted any motion or contract, then they just have to accept the consequences of same.

However I have a question. Is it not reasonable under your interpretation, to say that a sports betting site, which followed the theoretical sports book method of perfect line balancing, could also be in the legal clear here? Because they would thus just be "matching" the opposite bets of sports bettors at a given line, and would refuse a match without another bettor willing to bet opposite, in order that the book itself were not "matching", and thus possibly be "accepting" a bet or wager. Is this thinking of mine reasonable?


Edited to add: your PM box is full so please note thread I started in the zoo (internet gambling) addressed to you on other matters about your site.