Casino's Who Back Online Poker Ban

[lordofelt 0]

With all of the turmoil in the online poker world recently it's got me to thinking about those who are financially backing the politicians who are driving these bills. It's no secret that Harrah's provided a good deal of financing to many Politicians who backed, supported and ultimately voted for the Safe Port Act and who have been working for stricter bans on online poker for the last several years.What I don't understand is the logic behind this move by the Casino corporations. At first glance I can understand the "online poker and casinos are competition for brick and mortar poker and casinos" theory and that they think they are reducing their competition but I think after a little bit of analysis this proves to be quite false. It's been argued by many many people that the HUGE surge in poker recently is due to 2 main devolopments in poker. The first is the pocket cam that made watching poker on TV wayyy more exciting then before the invention. The second was online poker which allowed millions of people from around the world to learn the game, play for free or microstakes, always have a game, play from home etc. etc. etc. Arguing whether one caused the other is virtually impossible and it seems to me that the two worked together to make poker how big it is today.Online poker has driven millions of people to learn the game, many of these players go on to be at least casual live players and some go on to be monthly, weekly or daily players in live casinos. Without online poker most of these new live players would either not play at all or not play nearly as often. I think brick and mortar card rooms owe online poker a huge thank-you for generating them a ton of new business and while I understand they may lose some of their business to online I think on the whole most live card rooms are much better off since the online poker boom. In the end it seems like those corporations supporting bills restricting online play are biting the hand that feeds them and are costing themselves a great deal of business in doing so.End rantComments?

[Ukosumu 0]

One theory maybe that they are working on some form of agreement with the government where they can open their own sites. Removes the off shore competition and lets the government have a piece of the pie.Just a theory -- no proof.

[chrozzo 19]

Harrahs doesnt want us to gamble remember? Think about those commercials with Gary Loveland or whatever his name was....

[Mrjones_76 0]

One theory maybe that they are working on some form of agreement with the government where they can open their own sites. Removes the off shore competition and lets the government have a piece of the pie.Just a theory -- no proof.

That would end up being better in the end, No?

[lordofelt 0]

Harrahs doesnt want us to gamble remember? Think about those commercials with Gary Loveland or whatever his name was....

LOL we've solved the mystery and according to my commercial memory:Harrah's doesn't want us to gambleAlcohol companies don't want us to drinkTobbacco companies don't want us to smokeand yet they all still manage to stay in business.... AMAZING

[pokerkid 0]

That would end up being better in the end, No?

Not very capatlistic. Very unfair to exisiting poker sites.OP,Even if the casinos don't offer sites, they get more business this way. People who want to play poker are forced to go to the casio...which makes the casino more money.

[SuperJon 175]

B&M Casinos don't make very much money from the poker games they hold.I think...Yeah, pretty sure that's right.

[doox 15]

OP,Even if the casinos don't offer sites, they get more business this way. People who want to play poker are forced to go to the casio...which makes the casino more money.

Which came first - the chicken or the egg? I never would have stepped foot into my first casino to play poker if I hadn't first learned by playing online. I think you're expecting people to spontaneously decide that they want to step foot into a casino and put down money into a game that is totally unfamiliar to them in front of strangers. Sure, it happens, but I doubt that it's the norm today. I see online poker as a "gateway" into playing live poker. There is nothing quite like playing live, and I don't see online poker ever killing that. If anything, it's helped live poker grow. Casinos are going to be hurting a bit once there are fewer and fewer online qualifiers for major tournaments. The missing revenue might not seem like much in the big picture as far as casino profits go, but it'll add up. Think of online poker as a feeder for B&M players. I can't see this as anything but detrimental to live poker profits in the long run.

[lordofelt 0]

Not very capatlistic. Very unfair to exisiting poker sites.OP,Even if the casinos don't offer sites, they get more business this way. People who want to play poker are forced to go to the casio...which makes the casino more money.

I would argue that the opposite is true. Within the US there is a very large number of people who do not have a local brick and mortar (within hour drive) to play at. By removing online play most of these players, especially the casual ones will likely stop playing or greatly reduce the amount they play. Also many potentially new players (namely those just turning 18, 21 etc.) won't be able to start online play which means fewer will become brick and mortar players. While online and live poker have many things in common they are very different products and while they do compete on some levels they also help each other out by increasing the number of poker players in total. Without online poker brick and mortar card rooms will lose more action then they will gain.

[lordofelt 0]

B&M Casinos don't make very much money from the poker games they hold.I think...Yeah, pretty sure that's right.

This is true if you compare how much the poker room makes on its own to how much the casino floor makes its not even close the floor kills. However poker rooms serve a very important purpose in that they draw players into the casino, poker players are more likely then the average person to gamble if the poker room gets them in the door, and past all the slots and table games, then they are far more likely to gamble on the floor then if the poker room didn't exist. Also poker rooms are quite profitable just because the floor is even more profitable doesn't mean poker rooms don't generate a great deal of income for casinos. The poker room and floor work together to maximize the revenue they make off a gambler/poker player.

[SuperJon 175]

This is true if you compare how much the poker room makes on its own to how much the casino floor makes its not even close the floor kills. However poker rooms serve a very important purpose in that they draw players into the casino, poker players are more likely then the average person to gamble if the poker room gets them in the door, and past all the slots and table games, then they are far more likely to gamble on the floor then if the poker room didn't exist. Also poker rooms are quite profitable just because the floor is even more profitable doesn't mean poker rooms don't generate a great deal of income for casinos. The poker room and floor work together to maximize the revenue they make off a gambler/poker player.

Good reply. You get a hug!

[brabz 0]

One theory maybe that they are working on some form of agreement with the government where they can open their own sites. Removes the off shore competition and lets the government have a piece of the pie.Just a theory -- no proof.

Seems to be working alright in England, and I think it's the best we can hope for. I feel that if it's regulated by the government and gaming commissions, it's a step in the right direction. Plus, we can put government and online poker tinfoil hatters together into a united coalition. From a financial perspective, it would seem foolish of the government to pass up on taxing such a lucrative field. Also, I see no reason why B&M casinos should worry since many of them are renovating and running more tournaments to keep up with demand(at least in AC). Online is great and convenient, but given the option to play live poker; with chips, dealer, and the great atmosphere that is a card room, I don't see B&M's starving.

[psujohn 0]

My guess is that the folks a Harrah really don't give a damn about online POKER. If they could get online CASINOS banned while keeping online poker they'd probably be fine with that. Keep in mind that while poker is of major importance to us it's pretty small beans to most casinos. And honestly if you told the B&M casinos that killing online gambling would kill B&M poker they'd probably be fine with that too.

[Orcasgt22 0]

Look at it like this;Newb learns how to play poker online.Newb does well online.Newb goes to casino and doesn't do well. Doesn't go back very much.Newbs online poker is banned.Newb now goes to casino more often.Times this story by 1 million newbs and you can see why casinos want to rid the nation of internet poker.

[psujohn 0]

Look at it like this;Newb learns how to play poker online.Newb does well online.Newb goes to casino and doesn't do well. Doesn't go back very much.Newbs online poker is banned.

Newb gives up the game because he has no easy access to B&M poker. Consider that people who live in Boston, New York City, Philadelphia and Washington DC have no legal poker within an hour of where they live.

[CaneBrain 95]

Question: What are casinos who back the online poker ban thinking?Answer: Casinos like money.Hope that helps.....

[dbrent2 0]

In Texas, we have to go to Oklahoma, Shreveport, or Lake Charles. I am lucky that I live 2 hours from Shreveport and 3 hours from Lake Charles. The casinos would rather have slot machines where the poker tables are now. They have table games becaue they know that while the men or playing the table games, the women will be on the slots.

[Pupsta 0]

yeah...99% of casinos in this town would much rather have slot machines in place of those damn poker tables, where they don't make much money compared to the paying of dealers, floor staff, etc....but for the most part, they do have them in hopes of attracting the whales that will occasionally play poker, but then foray into the high limit baccarat area...online poker hurts them because it gives players an outlet to get the poker out of their system, so they never have to set foot inside their doors and run the risk of losing their money in the pit or at the slots. it is direct competition.

[Dogpatch 2]

One theory maybe that they are working on some form of agreement with the government where they can open their own sites. Removes the off shore competition and lets the government have a piece of the pie.Just a theory -- no proof.

I think this is where it's going. Again no proof, but it just makes sense.

[mtdesmoines 3]

This is true if you compare how much the poker room makes on its own to how much the casino floor makes its not even close the floor kills. However poker rooms serve a very important purpose in that they draw players into the casino, poker players are more likely then the average person to gamble if the poker room gets them in the door, and past all the slots and table games, then they are far more likely to gamble on the floor then if the poker room didn't exist. Also poker rooms are quite profitable just because the floor is even more profitable doesn't mean poker rooms don't generate a great deal of income for casinos. The poker room and floor work together to maximize the revenue they make off a gambler/poker player.

3/4ths the poker players I know have a wife who throws money in the slots.

[delphi12 0]

Newb gives up the game because he has no easy access to B&M poker. Consider that people who live in Boston, New York City, Philadelphia and Washington DC have no legal poker within an hour of where they live.

The casinos dont give a rats arse about these people anyway because they werent paying customers before and they wont be paying customers after. The casinos care about the people who DO have a casino within their locality (ie LA, Vegas, Mississippi, etc). Those are their customers they want and care about.

[Scanner313 0]

That would end up being better in the end, No?

Why?Since when is it the governments job to hijack a complete industry from off-shore companies and hand deliver it to the American casino industry? Because that's exactly what they are in the process of doing.That's not capitalism in any way, shape, or form. Imagine if the US government decided to ban all foreign car sales in the USA. Say they did this back in the early 70's when the Japanese makers were starting to gain momentum. We'd all be driving the same crappy POS cars that the US auto industry churned out back then. There would have been no incentive for the US makers to improve quality, price, etc. Competition is the driving force that makes our country great.So, because it's a fringe market, and most Americans won't squawk about it, Bill Frist and his buddies stopped the bleeding for the American casino industry. And I'll guarantee you that in the next 2 years the American casino lobby will have dumped enough money to the powers that be to get on-line casinos regulated and available nationwide. And then they'll steal away all of the customers that those off-shore sites served in good faith.And one other note to the original poster, yes, the American casino industry does owe a big debt of gratituted to the on-line sites. They definitely saw a boost in patronage as a result of televised poker, and on-line casinos. But that was nothing in comparison to how much money they saw those on-line sites generating, and for that they were willing to pay off the government to crush the competition in the short term.The most amazing thing is that owning a casino is basically like having a money machine. The law even supports the inequity in the system, in ways that no other industry would ever get away with. And yet, the government tries to justify their ban by saying that they did it to protect us from potential fraud by these overseas companies. I just find it very funny when I hear arguments like that.

[Scanner313 0]

I would argue that the opposite is true. Within the US there is a very large number of people who do not have a local brick and mortar (within hour drive) to play at. By removing online play most of these players, especially the casual ones will likely stop playing or greatly reduce the amount they play. Also many potentially new players (namely those just turning 18, 21 etc.) won't be able to start online play which means fewer will become brick and mortar players. While online and live poker have many things in common they are very different products and while they do compete on some levels they also help each other out by increasing the number of poker players in total. Without online poker brick and mortar card rooms will lose more action then they will gain.

Only true in the long term. Short term the casinos will see an increase in players who will travel to locations that have casinos. They will stay in their hotels, eat in their restaurants, make use of their services and gamble in their casinos. It's a win/win/win/win situation for the casinos short term. Long term you're probably right. The less exposure people have to poker the fewer NEW players it will generate. However, on-line poker (and gambling in general) will be legal in the US within 2 years (that's my guess). It will be run by the US casino industry and regulated by the US government. So, where these casinos won't make the money by booking hotel rooms, serving them food, or performing services for on-line players, they will still get their cut from the gambling.The funny thing about all of this is that anyone can establish a home game or find a local B&M underground card room. I play a regular 1/2 NL game a couple of times a week, and the action is better than most casinos I've been to. So what is motivating me to go to Vegas, AC, etc? I don't know, but I still want to go.

[lordofelt 0]

Only true in the long term. Short term the casinos will see an increase in players who will travel to locations that have casinos. They will stay in their hotels, eat in their restaurants, make use of their services and gamble in their casinos. It's a win/win/win/win situation for the casinos short term. Long term you're probably right. The less exposure people have to poker the fewer NEW players it will generate. However, on-line poker (and gambling in general) will be legal in the US within 2 years (that's my guess). It will be run by the US casino industry and regulated by the US government. So, where these casinos won't make the money by booking hotel rooms, serving them food, or performing services for on-line players, they will still get their cut from the gambling.The funny thing about all of this is that anyone can establish a home game or find a local B&M underground card room. I play a regular 1/2 NL game a couple of times a week, and the action is better than most casinos I've been to. So what is motivating me to go to Vegas, AC, etc? I don't know, but I still want to go.

I guess the casinos could be looking at the situation like this but this is extremely short sighted and will only end up costing the casinos money long term. If they are attempting to rid the industry so they can move in then their actions do make sense. However something no one has considered is that the only defense the US government has had up to this point is that online gambling is illegal inside the US. If they then allow US companies to set up online casinos they will have no defense, the government may not care about the WTO but how are they expecting to enforce laws making some gambling online illegal and other sites legal??

[delphi12 0]

Only true in the long term. Short term the casinos will see an increase in players who will travel to locations that have casinos. They will stay in their hotels, eat in their restaurants, make use of their services and gamble in their casinos. It's a win/win/win/win situation for the casinos short term. Long term you're probably right. The less exposure people have to poker the fewer NEW players it will generate. However, on-line poker (and gambling in general) will be legal in the US within 2 years (that's my guess). It will be run by the US casino industry and regulated by the US government. So, where these casinos won't make the money by booking hotel rooms, serving them food, or performing services for on-line players, they will still get their cut from the gambling.The funny thing about all of this is that anyone can establish a home game or find a local B&M underground card room. I play a regular 1/2 NL game a couple of times a week, and the action is better than most casinos I've been to. So what is motivating me to go to Vegas, AC, etc? I don't know, but I still want to go.

I will bet a total of $1000 (10 people @ $100, or 2 @ $500 - whatever) that online poker WILL NOT be legal in the US within 2 years (by your definition - that a US casino/company will run it) - I wont go into whether its specifically legal today or not. Any takers? First come first serve.