Full Tilt, Stars, UB really DO NOT want poker legalized in USA

[gaboonviper]

The more I look at the current legislative/political poker situation it becomes perfectly clear that Tilt, Stars, UB and the other remaining sites DO NOT want poker legalized in the USA. Why? If we were to legalize it then any company wishing to open a poker site to serve the US-- WOULD HAVE TO BE LICENSED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO DO SO. And our government would NEVER issue licenses to companies that they have previously considered to be operating illegally in the USA--this includes Tilt, Stars, UB and all the others. All the licenses would go to the solid, reputable, trusted brands; Harrahs, MGM/Mirage, Wynn, LVS/Venetian and a few others. So it should become clear to you that the sites have nothing to gain if we legalize poker in the USA. Even if by some impossible miracle they did get licensed here, where do you think most players would choose to put their money? They would go with the solid TRUSTED brands: Harrahs, MGM/Mirage, Wynn, etc. There is no way UB or Stars could ever compete with the trusted brands. So the sites will continue to do what they are doing: come up with every possible scheme to allow you to get money to their sites until the UIGEA finishes them.

[Quanah Parker]

While your post contains some issues worth pondering, I think you've over-simplified a/o ignored a lot of issues.

There's no doubt US based gambling companies are interested in expanding to the online realm, and have been prevented from doing so up to this point. I would expect they have been very busy behind the scenes and quite possibly have had minor to major influence in the recent events concerning online poker and gambling.

I believe overseas Poker sites would have a chance at being liscensed by the US, but their applications could be slowed down enough to give the US companies a chance to get in the race. Why couldn't Harrah's buy Poker Stars if the US gov't allowed for online poker?

The idea that online poker sites don't want to be legal in the US is absurd. Businesses exist to make money, both short term AND long term. Stars, FTP, etc. have been way too profitable to be as short sighted as your post suggests.

I am curious to what extent our US gambling interests have had in attacking online poker, if any. I'd say it's a risky tactic for US sites to do so. The online boom has most definitely equaled a surge of business for B&M casinos. But they wouldn't be the first dog in history to bite the hand that feeds.

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]

I believe overseas Poker sites would have a chance at being liscensed by the US, but their applications could be slowed down enough to give the US companies a chance to get in the race. Why couldn't Harrah's buy Poker Stars if the US gov't allowed for online poker?


[/ QUOTE ]

First off, I think you're wrong about the licensing. Do you have any idea what the licensing process is for a Nevada casino? Stars has no US presence, has operated in violation of US laws, and their owners would need to have a microscope put up their butts. MGM already has had that done and has the forms ready for any other regulator who wants to subject them to a licensing process.

Second, why would MGM buy Stars when they can cripple them by lobbying to keep them locked out of the US market and then buying the customer list for cents on the dollar when those licenses don't come through? Do you really, really think that any sort of licensing and regulation scheme is not going to heavily favor companies with a presence in the US? All the schemes, tactics, etc that allows them to claim that they believe they're not breaking the law today are exactly the things that will come back and bite them when they attempt to apply for a proper license to operate in the US.

[Grasshopp3r]

Didn't we just have this discussion? Why can't you just keep posting in the prior thread?

One of the unique aspects of the internet is that it is very difficult to regulate, short of blocking ISP's. Therefore, the existing sites that continue to accept business from the US will be able to do that business until either ISP's are blocked or the money dries up. I predict that neither will occur in the short or long term. Bill or OP, I invite you to show me evidence to the contrary.

For the US casinos to enter the market, they now need explicit legislation, which would be a great thing for online poker. Would every player bail out of the existing sites and flock to the new casino sites? Maybe. It depends on many factors, but as you and I are not operating the sites and are mere players, we will only benefit from a legalised system.

Cliff notes: I don't see anything changing and if it does, I don't care so long as I can play.

[Quanah Parker]

Billman, thank you. I don't know squat about liscensing in Nevada or any other state. I think you've given clear explanations in support of OP's premise. His statements about players going with who they trust struck me as off the mark.

You make good points about the process involved.

I would think US companies would consider buying already operating online casions for their customer base, but if they would face the resistance you suggest, then you're right. I would jump from Stars to Harrah's Online Poker if I was unable to get to Stars, and Harrah's was allowed to operate online in the US. I wouldn't like it, but I'd do it.

To be honest, I'm more interested in the conversation than taking sides. As I said, I don't know about regulated this stuff. I do know money equals power, and both US and non-US gambling companies have lots of both.

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]

I would think US companies would consider buying already operating online casions for their customer base, but if they would face the resistance you suggest, then you're right. I would jump from Stars to Harrah's Online Poker if I was unable to get to Stars, and Harrah's was allowed to operate online in the US. I wouldn't like it, but I'd do it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't you like it? I don't mean that sound like I'm being a jerk but if Harrah's Poker Online was offering you good deals (e.g. bonuses, rakebakc, etc), security of your funds, and good game selection why would you even give a rat's butt about Stars?

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't we just have this discussion? Why can't you just keep posting in the prior thread?


[/ QUOTE ]

One of the few things we will probably agree on in this discussion :-)

[Quanah Parker]

Why wouldn't I like it?
Maybe I have a misplaced sense of loyalty.
I'm suspicious as to the extent that our US gambling companies have had in the current state of affairs. If our US gambling companies have sought to have the online blocked to give themselves a edge, then it doesn't seem fair. If our US gambling companies had visually fought to have online poker opened to all comers then I'd more inclined to see them as friend, not foe. As it is, I'm not so sure.
I realise I'm indulging in wishful thinking. If I owned a US casino I would want every advatage I could get in entering the online poker business. IF things turn out a certain way, the US companies might get exactly what they want.
Which in a round about way is what OP is suggesting, I think.

Oh, and the other thread..my bad, I missed it.
Isn't it the curse of 2plus to endlessly loop the same questions and replies anyway?

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't we just have this discussion? Why can't you just keep posting in the prior thread?

One of the unique aspects of the internet is that it is very difficult to regulate, short of blocking ISP's. Therefore, the existing sites that continue to accept business from the US will be able to do that business until either ISP's are blocked or the money dries up. I predict that neither will occur in the short or long term. Bill or OP, I invite you to show me evidence to the contrary.

For the US casinos to enter the market, they now need explicit legislation, which would be a great thing for online poker. Would every player bail out of the existing sites and flock to the new casino sites? Maybe. It depends on many factors, but as you and I are not operating the sites and are mere players, we will only benefit from a legalised system.

Cliff notes: I don't see anything changing and if it does, I don't care so long as I can play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well amigo, the fact that we've seen a 20% drop in traffic in a previously growing industry in just the month of Jan might indicate that you're wrong. But don't let the facts change your mind. :-)

As someone who has worked in software engineering and has designed payment systems for large eCommerce sites I know a little something about how money goes from point a to point b in any system in which US banks are in any way involved. I was one of the lone people out there back in October saying that ACH was trivial to shut down for sites like Neteller. Why did I say that? Because I freakin' know how the system works. The only thing that "surprised" me was that the ACH networks didn't even wait for the regs to come out. The ability to do it was never a question.

So when you ask how we can shut out the US market you need to trust I'm not just making this up. I do know a little of which I speak. And I've always said that the beauty of the UIGEA was in that it targeted the money. You don't need to block access at the ISP if it's almost impossible to get money on the site. In fact, you don't even need to be 100% successful in cutting off funds if you can damage the game liquidity to the point where it turns the site into a shark pool.

If you can't bring in fish your site is dead. That is how the business works. If you're telling some fish that he has to jump through 50 hoops to get his $50 deposit on a site he gets gobbled up in 10 minutes by the hungry sharks starving for new blood then the site will die.

And that is exactly why a legalized MGM will completely destroy any casino that can't get a license to operate in the US. Fish will sign up in droves because they know the MGM (or Harrah's or whoever) and all of the starving sharks playing on Stars will start looking at the MGM site and asking themselves why the hell they're killing themselves to eek out .5BB/100 when they can go make 3BB/100 at MGM.

I have no clue why anybody is defending Stars as if Stars is anything other than a vehicle to employ their skills. Players go where the fish are. Party was once the king but they left the US market. Now that people are having difficulty getting money onto and off of the US facing sites Canadians and Europeans are flocking back to Party, 888 and other non-US facing sites. While Stars lost 20% of their action this month, Party is up 15%. Players chase liquidity and if you don't think a 100% legal MGM online poker room can't deliver more liquidity than an offshore company operating illegally, you're smoking some pretty good stuff.

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]
If our US gambling companies have sought to have the online blocked to give themselves a edge, then it doesn't seem fair. If our US gambling companies had visually fought to have online poker opened to all comers then I'd more inclined to see them as friend, not foe. As it is, I'm not so sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that somewhat the OP's point (which I think he took off of my blog anyway which is why I'm here defending the argument)? Why isn't Stars dumping tens or hundreds of millions into efforts to legalize online poker? Sadly, IMHO, it's because they have more to gain by it remaining illegal than they do in seeing it made legal.

Could MGM be behind getting the UIGEA act passed so they could drive out competition? Sure. But why does that make them any worse than Stars? Until I start hearing about huge (and I mean HUGE) checks being cut I have to assume that the existing online poker rooms with US operations have more to gain by keeping the status quo than they do from seeing the game legalized.