- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
axl wrote:Because that money is going into their pockets and not to someone in costa rica etc.
Excellent response and if they legalized online gambling
and regulated it AND made the money go into their pockets
the land based casinos would cease to have an almost total
monopoly. Thus the reason for the government saying no
thanks we don’t want your billions in tax dollars. Think !
Since when would a government NOT want to collect more
taxes ?
:dozing:
LasVegasLady wrote:OK .. I have a question and have been trying to figure out which thread to post it in.Since online gamblers are no longer allowed to take money on their VS, MC, AX or whatever to gamble in the online casinos … shouldn’t the land based casinos be forbidden to have ATM’s around every corner ?
Why is it OK for people to take money on their credit card to gamble at these casinos?
(if there is a more appropriate place for this question, please move it)
Not that there is much availability of credit cards for online gambling anyhow, but ultimately the ATM is a cash machine from which cash can be drawn for purposes other than gambling. Any additional functionality (like getting a cash advance) is provided by a third party, as opposed to the casino or the bank or credit card company – thus there is no good reason to prohibit the presence of ATM machines in any particular location.
That being said, it really ought to be the Nevada Gaming Board who dictates that ATMs shall not be allowed within a certain distance of a casino, rather than the federal government – and of course they all know which side of the bread is buttered
Oneguy2nv wrote:They don’t need to worry about them, but that is different than them deciding they’d like to take over the market. With such a large number of gamblers in the US, they’d have a nice opportunity to do that… and it’s better to make that move while the US comprises so much of the market.They would be able to take over the US market regardless of the presence of other online operators – as I said, given a choice of MGM or Golden Palace, where would you choose to play? It matters not how much of the market is comprised of US gamblers – the only number that matters is how much these US gamblers are putting into their coffers. They will have to accept the fact that, while they may have a bit of a stepping stone into markets beyond the US, a prohibition in the US will not realistically increase their opportunities outside the US any more than the status quo would.
If there is a conspiracy theory here (and there certainly may be one), this all could backfire big-time on the land-based casinos, and our inept government. As mentioned by others, Poker’s resurgent popularity was initially fueled by the internet online gaming craze, and has been further promoted by guys (and gals) like us, the media, etc. If this law is as far reaching as it appears it may very well be, this “craze” could easily die. Figure if legalization is happening, it will take several years for that to materialize, and the waning of interest of poker may never be recouped.
Look at how everyone and their neighbor was buying stocks during the .COM boom. This may not be a direct analogy, but to the average Joe (or Mary), it looked like the stock market would never come down again. The media played it up huge – discount brokerages were flourishing – advertising in every media outlet imaginable. Everyone wanted to “be a trader” and make some money. And then the bust happened (I’m equating this to the Internet Gaming bill)……no longer was it fashionable to be a trader – discount brokerages struggled, media advertising came to a screeching halt.
I know, the analogy is not direct here, but the point I’m trying to make is that online gaming (Poker, specifically) could suffer a fatal blow here, and although some people will continue to gamble online, the industry may suffer from a real interest demise.
In come the land casinos in a couple of years, and guess what, the market for their services is no longer what it was today. No one gives a rats ass about Poker any more.
Lose, lose…..nobody wins, except for some politicians who may get re-elected in November, due to their strong interest in “family values”……
I really don’t think this entire plan was well thought out, but then again what do you expect from Public servants, who couldn’t manage themselves out of a paper bag, if their lives depended on it.
Spearmaster wrote:They would be able to take over the US market regardless of the presence of other online operators – as I said, given a choice of MGM or Golden Palace, where would you choose to play?I mean the world market.
If they (the big vegas companies as a whole) let things go as they are, they will be in less of a position to take over the world market because other entities will become entrenched in various countries. Those same entities are now also building their empires with US gamblers.
If US companies want the US market and beyond, they’d like to be the ones using the US gambling market. They can even look out for 3-5 years… they don’t want the competition using all of that income while they are unable to use it.
Do I think laws will be effective toward that end? Not really. Do I think that’s what happened? Not really. Do I think it could make sense as a long term business strategy? Sure. I just don’t think they are capable of making it happen like that. If they could do it like that, then they would have just put themselves in the game. Like you are saying, that’s all it would take.
I could leave a little room open for them to feel like “If we can’t have that market, then we’d like to shut that market down until we can have that market in a few years.” If that were the best they could do right now, I bet they’d do it.
I still don’t have any reason to believe that’s what happened.
aleph wrote:You don’t think that the possibility of one day onlinecasinos buying out land based casinos (only possible if
they treat their affiliates well) is a strong enough motive ?
Sure. I don’t think I addressed that at all.
LasVegasLady wrote:Not only the whales . . they have THOUSANDS of names in their databases!Everyone who has ever been a guest at the hotel ..
whether they were a player or not . . :popcorn:Everyone who ever signed up for the slot players club . . :popcorn:
Everyone who ever filled out a coupon (as they were passing through)
for any sort of casino “freebie” or giveaway . . :popcorn:Everyone who ever played at any table game . . :popcorn:
If there is someone they don’t recognize, one of the floormen just happens to wander over and ask where they are from and have them fill out a card so he can buy them lunch . . :wink-wink . . as if they really care about buying your lunch!!
I will never forget a family with 2 children who had car trouble and were stranded in Las Vegas and were broke. Someone was wiring money for them to get the car fixed and get back home. In the meantime, they asked if the casino could give the children something to eat . . security politely escorted them out (since they obviously had no money to spend in the casino)
I have at least a hundred more stories like this one!!
Party Poker and 888 will lose most of their players to Bodog and others. What makes anyone here think that they will be able to come back at some time in the future and retain their previous status? I believe that this knee jerk reaction will prove to be their last haraw.
If you go back to the Search engine Altavista you’ll understand that the internet does have a very short attention span. Party and 888 have seen their best days and now others will quickly fill the void. imo
HailStorm
Oneguy2nv wrote:I mean the world market.If they (the big vegas companies as a whole) let things go as they are, they will be in less of a position to take over the world market because other entities will become entrenched in various countries. Those same entities are now also building their empires with US gamblers.
If US companies want the US market and beyond, they’d like to be the ones using the US gambling market. They can even look out for 3-5 years… they don’t want the competition using all of that income while they are unable to use it.
As I pointed out earlier, the Vegas casinos have very little branding outside the US, with the exception of Caesar’s Palace, and now the Wynn and Sands and soon the Venetian. Prohibition, or lack thereof, will have close to zero impact OUTSIDE the US.
And again, you’re talking about any online entity (Golden Palace and 888 spring to mind) being able to achieve more visibility than MGM, or Wynn, or Sands?
In the US, that is close to impossible.
Outside the US, the B&M casinos have little visibility to begin with and prohibition doesn’t change that. I can assure you they are not the slightest bit worried that any online operation is going to steal their income OUTSIDE the US.
Spearmaster wrote:And again, you’re talking about any online entity (Golden Palace and 888 spring to mind) being able to achieve more visibility than MGM, or Wynn, or Sands?Not today. Really, you’re missing my point here. Companies don’t tend to want a particular market share. They want 100% market share, or as much as they can get without having anti-trust issues. They try to be profit maximizers. If they can do something to hurt competing companies in the process, then they often will if it will increase their position. If a comapny can get laws passed that help them, then they do.
You’re arguing a conspiracy didn’t happen.
I’m saying that I could see how a company might want laws passed to help their position.
Beyond that, you’re reiterating a bunch of points I don’t dispute.
Oneguy2nv wrote:Not today. Really, you’re missing my point here. Companies don’t tend to want a particular market share. They want 100% market share, or as much as they can get without having anti-trust issues. They try to be profit maximizers. If they can do something to hurt competing companies in the process, then they often will if it will increase their position. If a comapny can get laws passed that help them, then they do.That view would ultimately be too narrow-minded. No company on Earth can dream about 100% market share, or anything even close. And furthermore, there are hundreds of other land-based casinos outside the US – some of them as wealthy or more so than the Las Vegas operators.
The point you are trying to make was clearly understood – all I’m saying is that they could not reasonably consider that as a reason for prohibition.
And, like I said before – these online operators helped make Las Vegas operators richer over the past few years – there is very little sense in cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.
Quote:You’re arguing a conspiracy didn’t happen.I argued that a conspiracy is highly unlikely. None of us have any way of knowing if something DID happen.
Quote:I’m saying that I could see how a company might want laws passed to help their position.And this is what I am trying to point out – the passing of the law would probably HURT their position, not help it!
Maybe this will help clear things up a bit.
Frank Fahrenkopf is president and CEO of the American Gaming Association, arguably the representative of most if not all land-based gaming interests in the USA.
Quote:“The leader (Frist) was very strong in getting this done,” said Frank Fahrenkopf, president of the American Gaming Association. “In the final days of a congressional session, sometimes good public policy is sacrificed in favor of political decisions.”I think it’s pretty clear that the statement “good public policy is sacrificed in favor of political decisions” is indicative of his negative view of the situation.
Later on in the article:
Quote:The prohibition also would be a blow to Nevada’s casino industry, which lobbied hard against the Leach provisions.No question about that in my mind.
Quote:The American Gaming Association, the chief lobbying arm in Washington, D.C., for Nevada casinos, had been pushing for a study of Internet gambling by a federal commission to see whether technology exists that can regulate online wagering.Fahrenkopf said he expects the industry will continue to seek a federal study despite the passage of the Internet gambling restrictions.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Sep-30-Sat-2006/news/9966773.html
edit -> Oh, and get THIS!
Fahrenkopf is a former CHAIRMAN of the REPUBLICAN party!
Maybe he could be a key player in what happens next – or, if he’s upset enough, he could probably reach Bush and get him to reconsider…
