Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy 
Basically, there is a legal theory that someone who shares in the "take" of a gambling operation (revshare of player losses or rake) is more of a "partner" than someone who just receives a flat referral fee per player. Licensing for operating gambling businesses is pretty strict in the USA, so a legalized climate would be more likely to result in companies making that distinction.
|
If it is legal what would be the need to differentiate the 2? Legal inherently means not illegal. Personally I think all of this analysis is worth nothing. No one has any idea how this will look and everyone's view is colored with the brush they use to paint the canvas of their particular painting.
That said the argument could go in the favor of rev share in the fact that the big outfits will try and conform to state laws while the Full Tilt's and PokerStars would not. That might just mean you wouldn't want to be an affiliate in the US, but Australia might be OK.
Ultimately though 6 months won't happen. That is a pipedream. I do see it happening once Bush is gone but that presupposes that the Dem's won't pull a FUBAR, which isn't a given. Please don't argue Republican or Democrat, I could care less either way. Ron Paul is as acceptable to me as Obama but I am leary of Hillary.
I have said this before and I will say it again, I prefer the known to the unknown. The fact that PokerStars and Full Tilt have their representatives on the hill I think is likely a good thing though. I certainly can't imagine sites going against previous agreements but you might be right that they would change future agreements.
Also let's say regulation happens. Which isn't necessarily what everyone wants, they just want the law overturned. It might be 3-5 years before they can petition enough states to matter.