Harrah's and MGM's CEOs say Internet poker to explicitly legal soon

[daedalus]

The elephants are lining up. I'm just concerned we are at the end of the legislative session and we have no hope of getting it through this year. So we need to make sure the heat stays on through the spring. We need to find the vehicle to get something shoved through the House to get this rolling. This post is huge BTW. I'm guessing Wexler is getting more traction than Franks here.

[KEW]

Do we have or have we seen any "evidence" of Harrah's and/or MGM doing any "pushing" to make there predictions come true or are they just voicing an "opinion" based on the current "climate" today????

[TheProdigy]

ONE TIME DEALER

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
However, the endeavor helped the company work out problems that will be useful when relaunching, such as how to determine a bettor's age and location and how to protect problem gamblers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I read this earlier and am pleased they see a sooner rather than later time line. A question was asked about any actions by them.
As soon as UIGEA passed, they each bought several poker sites for pennies, literally in prep, this was (and somewhere I posted about it) a sign that all was not really as it seemed with the UIGEA, something was up.

With that said, the biggest stick we have in the article it quoted above.

The PPA via Congress needs to have these guys answer some questions concerning this.

Seems they have it figured out, a very big point and concern can, it seems, be over come.

I read in another post another hearing was coming soon, who ever is scheduling this (I believe John hinted he knows)needs to have them there, if only to ansewer this single question; location & age verification.

obg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Do we have or have we seen any "evidence" of Harrah's and/or MGM doing any "pushing" to make there predictions come true or are they just voicing an "opinion" based on the current "climate" today????

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. I've not personally heard or seen any evidence of either company doing anything. I do think these statements are strong for us, certainly. Our opponents love to talk about how we're trying to give this business to "offshore, unaccountable" companies, so this statement helps us a lot.

[BluffTHIS!]

It bears keeping in mind, that while we might view B&M US casino interests as allies in our fight, that they are in fact also our opponents in many ways. Until the internet fueled poker boom, outside of the largest casinos in major gambling meccas like Vegas & AC, poker, if it was spread, was generally viewed as a nuisance or not worth the space. Slots make the big money, and poker can't ever make as much per square foot. And even now, as seen in the Massachusetts thread, B&M interests conspire to deny us our ability to play online if they can't have their fat fingers in the pie.

While in this battle we have little choice but to have B&M casino interests as our allies, we should not be lulled into thinking we have a total commonality of interest, or that such interests won't screw poker in view of the fact of the greater profitability of -EV games.

We also, via the PPA, need to demand on state levels the ability for businesses to start independent Cali style cardrooms and not have to be part of a regular casino, and to make clear that we as well demand the right to play poker online via pure poker venues. If we are not careful, these B&M interests will seek to screw existing offshore poker only sites by working to have enabling legislation tied to B&M licenses and spreading all gambling games and not just poker.

We need to be sure we don't fall into this trap and we should never be content with just the scraps from the B&M casinos' table.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
It bears keeping in mind, that while we might view B&M US casino interests as allies in our fight, that they are in fact also our opponents in many ways. Until the internet fueled poker boom, outside of the largest casinos in major gambling meccas like Vegas & AC, poker, if it was spread, was generally viewed as a nuisance or not worth the space. Slots make the big money, and poker can't ever make as much per square foot. And even now, as seen in the Massachusetts thread, B&M interests conspire to deny us our ability to play online if they can't have their fat fingers in the pie.

While in this battle we have little choice but to have B&M casino interests as our allies, we should not be lulled into thinking we have a total commonality of interest, or that such interests won't screw poker in view of the fact of the greater profitability of -EV games.

We also, via the PPA, need to demand on state levels the ability for businesses to start independent Cali style cardrooms and not have to be part of a regular casino, and to make clear that we as well demand the right to play poker online via pure poker venues. If we are not careful, these B&M interests will seek to screw existing offshore poker only sites by working to have enabling legislation tied to B&M licenses and spreading all gambling games and not just poker.

We need to be sure we don't fall into this trap and we should never be content with just the scraps from the B&M casinos' table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I believe I know where Bluff is coming from. He has some sort of interest in a poker site, and not one "affiliated" with the ones PPA is working with.

That being said, I agree with everything he says. We want free and unfettered competition amongst sites. There must be no favoritism. This is especially relevant to advertising. Free advertising amongst all poker sites and free competition as to how and what games are offered is paramount to our efforts.


Tuff

[BluffTHIS!]

TF,

I'm just a player like you, although one who plays full time. I have no financial interest in any site of any kind, or any business related to such sites. I want as many playing options as possible, which means I don't want *any* vested interests to either erect artificial barriers to entry, or to try to, by acts of omission, not work on enabling all possible options for us to play.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want *any* vested interests to... ...erect artificial barriers to entry,... ...enabling all possible options for us to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen to that!


D$D

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
TF,

I want as many playing options as possible, which means I don't want *any* vested interests to either erect artificial barriers to entry, or to try to, by acts of omission, not work on enabling all possible options for us to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point, you and I are on the same page.

This is what I want also. I will however, take help from most any source, even one tainted with "special interests".

But..., I believe the PPA is doing a good job for all of us and deserves our full support at this time. We can quibble over the spoils when there are spoils to be quibbled over.

Tuff