Online poker legal within the next 6 months... - Page 3

Beanie · #21 10-31-2007, 06:28 PM

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.

PPP · #22 10-31-2007, 06:48 PM

I guess we won't hear bitching about the PPA for a day or two, but the chances Barry's right are absolute zero. It's an absurd, silly thing to say.

There is no chance while Bush is in office, and Frank won't even bring his bill to committee because he says he doesn't have the votes.

I can't imagine why anyone anywhere would oppose legalization. The opportunities (and money) would be five times greater than now. (I guess the exception would be someone whose business is taking a player from one skin to another. More competent corporate bean counters would kill that.)

geoffvro · #23 10-31-2007, 07:08 PM

I think two years would be a realistic goal. Whether its real or not, the justice department still has concerns regarding online gaming and money laundering. I would not expect any relaxation of money transfer regulations, and certainly not any outright legalization, until any proposed regulation of the industry has been enacted. One year until elections, two months of lame duck presidency, and then we'll see what happens.

On the other hand, since they haven't successfully stopped money transfers to gaming sites maybe a relaxation of the UIGEA is seen as a way out of the WTO dispute. All they've done is make it more difficult to access our funds, but we can still do it.

as always, just my two cents

Randy · #24 10-31-2007, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beanie

If it is legal what would be the need to differentiate the 2?

Because even if it's legal you're required to have a license to run a gambling operation. Most affiliates don't have a license, so there is a legal sticking point to having them get paid a share of the revenue.

But as you pointed out, it's all just pointless analysis at this point anyway. Only time will tell.

CasinoMack · #25 10-31-2007, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozim

Maybe someone heard of an investment fund specializing in e-gaming or at least having large part of its portfolio invested in the sector ?

They invest primarily in US gambling companies, but there are Leisure ETF's and mutual funds you can get into. There are also whats called "sinner funds" that invest in tobacco, gaming, and alcohol.

Jeremy · #26 11-01-2007, 10:28 AM

This is a very interesting post and a topic that has been discussed several times before. Personally I am doubtful as well that anything will be legalized in the next 6 months.

Regarding Google, I doubt they would even want to get involved. But if they did, there is no way they are going to skew search results.

Now, for affiliates. Even if Las Vegas got involved, they would be smarter to buy out a site like PartyPoker that already has a player base and a huge network of marketers. In regards to affiliates, I think any consultant would tell them they are idiots if they think they can become an industry leader without leveraging some type of affiliate scheme.

As poker affiliates we are a large a group, but still just a small % of the amount of total affiliates worldwide. Can you imagine the perception in the general affiliate arena if all of the sudden online gaming became legal. If the major affiliate networks like CJ.com started promoting online gaming, the market would become much larger very quickly.

SunPoker.com · #27 11-01-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeremy

As poker affiliates we are a large a group, but still just a small % of the amount of total affiliates worldwide. Can you imagine the perception in the general affiliate arena if all of the sudden online gaming became legal. If the major affiliate networks like CJ.com started promoting online gaming, the market would become much larger very quickly.

Great point Jeremy.

Beanie · #28 11-01-2007, 11:02 AM

I am not against legalization. New opportunity is more often than not good for me.

I think we need to be clear about what everyone wants:

The current rooms want to have the laws repealed so they don't have as many problems with checks and so forth. Any change in the law likely isn't going to favor any of the current rooms.

The buy them out theory-if there is a relaxation of what is legal federally it still needs to get by the states, which won't be an easy task. Even still, if MGM or Harrah's or anybody took the unusual step to go this far they won't need Party Poker. Louisiana and Mississippi are good examples of this. Louisiana taxes like crazy and therefore there is really only one casino in the New Orleans area. Contrast that with Mississippi which has a ton of casino action because of smaller taxes and you can see why casino's aren't overly anxious to get in the state's business. Though some would do it. Realistically though would you rather play Harrah's Indiana Sunday tournament with 500 people or PokerStars with a gazillion people.

The real answer is repealing the law and taxing deposits. I know this was part of Barney's proposal initially and it is the best way to go. The US gets the money and more importantly the money could be a federal tax, leaving the states out of the question.

If a state wanted to open an online casino and pokerroom today there is nothing federally stopping them from doing so.

It is all very murky, that is why repealing the law and taxing deposits makes a ton of sense. Of course, that likely means it won't happen because things that make sense never seem to happen politically.

boarderman23 · #29 11-01-2007, 01:43 PM

Didn't see this article anywhere on here, but it's a little more good news regarding poker. Seems like more people are getting their opinions/support out there.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306596,00.html

geoffvro · #30 11-01-2007, 04:27 PM

Forget about obesity, sex, and education...May God save the children from gambling - Give me a break, I hate it when they pull the "minor" card out of their pockets, and have nothing to back their argument.

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306596,00.html
Supporters of the ban say Internet betting can be addictive and potentially drain people's savings. U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., is a leading proponent of preserving the ban. Without it, "minors are able to gamble from their own homes," Kyl spokesman Ryan Patmintra said.