Originally Posted by *TT*
This is not breaking news, it is a rehashing of what he has said in the past - and frankly many in the industry agree.
1) Online gaming is unlikely to occur at a federal level, if anything it will most likely occur on a state by state basis. ... ...
2) For the most part B&M casino businesses are interested in online gaming if it can affect their bottom line. Adelson and Wynn are only invested in Las Vegas (soon to be Boston for Wynn), they will not benefit from an expansion of online gaming. Wynn does not believe internet gaming will benefit his business, or be anyway meaningful for Las Vegas financially - you got to admit that is probably true even though its not a position any of us likes. He believes that the future for online gaming is via state lottery boards, which he views as a competitor. Thats exactly what occurred in Delaware, and is happening across Canada right now; there is evidence to show that this may be correct. Attend any online gaming trade show and you will find that many of the delegates are from state lotteries investigating the future of online gaming. Wynn's position is that he does not want to be involved, he is afraid the casino industry will be blamed if anything goes wrong - but he is not spending lobbying money. Adelson on the other hand is spending and trying to get RAWA passed. On the other side you will find MGM and Caesars, both of which support a state by state solution - they have abandoned hope for a federal bill.Both of these companies can benefit from state level exposure, hence it is logical that they support online gaming.
Long story short there is nothing new here, once again this is all old news.
What Mr. Wynn says is, basically, online gambling is not relevant to his resort/entertainment/tourism business, nor that of the successful Nevada casino operators. (I would note only that some other casino operators seem more inclined to embrace the "internets", having seen the benefits of a robust online and social media presence. This is relevant to Nevada's economy and the hotel/gaming/entertainment does need an online and social media presence, whether incorporating "convenience gambling" or not.)
TT, not only is the underlying analysis voiced by Mr. Wynn not news, it is an accurate read of the legislative process, Unfortunately, the majority of "industry" proponents of a "Federal Poker Solution", and their vocal lobbyists on this forum, repeatedly denied it and refused to acknowledge the need for State Lottery support, for whatever reason. Political logrolling is an art, one necessary on the Hill if your legislation does not have the votes outright.
It has always
been the case that no federal poker legislation was going to pass without the cooperation and support of the various State lotteries. The sad truth was that poker's allies had confliicting, non-cooperative agendas, even within the brick and mortar casino industry. Online poker was never the "goal", rathher it was protectionism and grabbing a legislated parochial advantage going forward. Lotteries and tribes had to be "dealt-out" not included as allies. ....
Instead pick of picking fights with Chad Hills, or endless complaining about how much Lottery-backed poker would "suck", poker players, in an alliance or not, might have sought out Lotteries, who could be politically-connected allies in virtually every State, who already have a built in constituency happy to get funding from "gambling".
Whether or not poker players still want to debate ad nauseum about Opt-in v Opt-out or evn about "socialist monopolies", poker WILL need better allies at the State level, even if Lotteries generally are interested in instant games more than poker.