Is optimism insane?

[kartinken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I expect at least online poker, and perhaps online gambling as a whole to be legal withint 2 years?

Am I just living in a dream world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any objective evidence to support your wild supposition?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it wild, exactly? No one who counts actually wants it illegal, they just want their piece of the pie. From the day the bill was passed it smelled of backdoor dealings to get their hands in it.

I haven't been worried since day 1 and things only seem to be getting better now.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the next few months will, I think, see a change in the e-funding world where operators look at what has happened, consult with lawyers, and develop new strategies for funding poker sites only, possibly with individual state restrictions. This will put the DOJ to a severe test of its long spread belief that "poker is already illegal." When the DOJ has to back down on that, at least with respect to poker in most states, a new poker boom is likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think there is some importance to this happening. The question remains though, who is willing to take the risk, and will they do it in a way that is similar enough to the Neteller operating model that it doesn't cost customers an arm and a leg...

[Uglyowl]

I think Moneygram offering it's services to fund Pokerstars sends a loud message. Their business model wasn't what Neteller was, but part of their business supplied what was needed and they jumped on it.

[Skallagrim]

I think there is way too much money to be made for someone not to take the risk - even if they only operated in, say, California (a state where playing online poker is almost certainly not against the law) thats still a lot of money moving around.

What the fees will be, now that is a real open question and beyond my expertise. Clearly though, any new company that can work with fees lower than ePASS and MyWebATM would be poised to dominate the market very quickly.

[counthomer]

I work in the industry, so I have a vested interest I guess, but I remain an optimist.

However, my current opinion (which is all it is at the moment) is probably a mix of those which regularly get posted here. To my great disappointment, I have to say that (despite his obvious attempts at sensationalism) our friend gaboonviper is probably correct in that I think that most (if not all) of the sites will get forced out of the US market in the short run. They all have a tolerance limit for risk and hassle, and the regulations could well find it.

However, in the medium term (by which I mean at the latest by mid 2008) I expect to see something extremely novel enter the market. I believe this because I totally agree with skallgrim in that the market is too big to be ignored. In a best case scenario I expect this solution to totally change the landscape and hopefully eliminate the need to 'reverse the gears of congress' as it were..

In the long run I fully expect the legalisation of the market worldwide, so I feel there is very little to worry about in that respect (however the long run could be a VERY long time).

[gaboonviper]

Thank you for agreeing with me count. I have always tried to maintain the voice of reason in all my posts.

[counthomer]

I don't totally agree with you; a lot of your posts are designed to be alarmist and sensationalist in nature, and I think you are unhelpful in that regard. I do think (and it's only a personal opinion) that the general thrust of your posts may turn out correct. I don't want that to happen (I will almose certainly lose my job), but I have the view that the effects of the legislation and regulations will not be defined by the specific wording of the items.

[JOHNY CA$H]

"Even the politicains didn't want this as a long term law, they just wanted to stifle the market so they could move it all to the US."

I agree with this, I always felt a hostile takeover was in the works.

I'm sorry, Harrah's bought Party? Is that TRUE???!!!

[kartinken]

[ QUOTE ]
"Even the politicains didn't want this as a long term law, they just wanted to stifle the market so they could move it all to the US."

I agree with this, I always felt a hostile takeover was in the works.

I'm sorry, Harrah's bought Party? Is that TRUE???!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I was told this by a friend, and I assumed it was true, but I haven't been able to verify it, sorry about that.

I know harrah's HAS developed online poker software, and they wouldn't be doing that if they thought the US was going to keep its current stance.

Large corporations like Harrah's are well aware of most of the true nature of our public policy. If they have software, it'll be legal sooner rather than later.

I was told the software is already being used in-house, on an intranet, don't know if this is true.

[Poker CPA]

No one's buying Party. They have nothing of value, except a cash flow, and now that's gone.