Is optimism insane?

[kartinken]

I'm going around and I am very surprised to see so many people thinking the outlook of online poker in the US is bad.

I frankly think a 2nd pokerboom is coming. 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? The climate seems to constantly be changing for the better.

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.

Scummy, sure, but to think there won't be gambling, especially poker, seems to be pessimistic for the sake of being pessimistic.

Harrah's bought Party. Am I the only one not blind as a bat?

KK

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Harrah's bought Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

What???

[Poker CPA]

And just what does Party have that Harrah needs. Party's software is obsolete, their customers will leave for the right bonuses and the US will make it appealing to US taxpayers to play at Harrahs. No way they pay a nickle for Party Gaming.

[kartinken]

my point was just that internet gambling is very close to coming back legally to the US, as I see it.

[gaboonviper]

I for one have tried to maintain an overall optimistic, glass half full point of view in all my posts. I have tried to be the voice of reason and rationality and maintaining a level head post UIGEA. I guess the positive, "never panic" attitude conveyed in my posts is acting like a beacon of light and hope for the future of poker.

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
I for one have tried to maintain an overall optimistic, glass half full point of view in all my posts. I have tried to be the voice of reason and rationality and maintaining a level head post UIGEA. I guess the positive, "never panic" attitude conveyed in my posts is acting like a beacon of light and hope for the future of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only way to make sense of THIS post is to redate it to the day before. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Skallagrim]

As for optomisim in general, there are reasons to be optomistic as far as onliine poker is concerned: Frist and Leach are gone; WTO; Barney Frank; and the success fo FTP and Pokerstars.

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.

[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.