lol

Translation: We used the UIGEA and the DOJ to **** them out of the market, and now we're desperately trying to keep them out because we all know they're the best site in the world hands down.

Some fine capitalism this country displays. You guys are worried about Isai Scheinberg? Have you ever heard of Steve Wynn? Sheldon Adelson? They're all the ****ing same. They just want to make money, PokerStars as a business will be no worse in compliance than any other site.

I have no idea why you quoted me because my post has nothing to do with any of the points made in yours.

Just pray for as much competition as possible. All sites won't do this (I'll buy everyone in this thread a beer if I just jinxed us).

I agree. still watch for push back from Caesars. They are trying to be first online in Vegas and would love to muddy the waters here so they can also be first online.

I think Stars is in pretty good shape here. They are coming to the table with an arguably clean slate and an offer that revitalizes an AC casino. There are not a ton of investors beating down the door to run casinos in AC, and it is hurting pretty badly. I view this as a fight between a company (or group of companies) that is trying to keep out competition and an administration that is trying to stem the bleeding in AC. If someone wants to stop Stars I think they will need to step up and buy the casino Stars wants to buy and commit to making it work.

Edit - Also, Stars offers a lot of potential with regards to getting international tourists. Just imagine if Stars moved the PCA to AC, or had another huge land based tourney in the summer in AC. I wonder if they are stressing things like this in their negotiations with NJ, I would think so but who knows.

The "unfair advantage" argument or a "bad-actors" clause is no different in principle than import duties, commonly imposed by nations across the globe. It is protectionism for in-country businesses against out-of-country businesses that have a market advantage. Should not a federal government use its powers to protect its own business entities, which in a capitalist society also serves to protect its citizens (keeps jobs in-country, etc.)?

Note: This is a theoretical argument. In this case, PokerStars will be investing in US jobs, etc.

There is also speculation (not confirmed) that they are looking into buying adjacent land and building 2 towers. If this is the plan AC may well receive them with open arms.

The Battle For Online Poker Between PokerStars And Caesars Entertainment Goes To New Jersey

Absolutely not. In the end, these deals almost always end up to the benefit of inefficiency businesses, and almost always encourage worse business models to thrive. A foreign company producing goods at a lower costs also helps citizens of this country, it just benefits different citizens. The government isn't a trustworthy, or "smart" enough (nobody is) to direct the economy in the best ways (for efficiency, it's citizens, etc.)

Plus, in this case, Stars couldn't operate in the US (as in, AFAIK, they weren't allowed to be located here.) You can hardly blame them. The "unfair" advantage they have is that the US didn't allow companies to do what they do for a long time. Imagine if the US temporarily banned the manufacturing of cars for a few years. When the market opened back up, would it make sense to ban the import of Toyotas?

Funny how Caesar's had so recently wanted to do business with a company like PokerStars. You know, the one whose business is one built on “deceit, chicanery and the systematic flouting of U.S. law” according to the AGA petition.

It seems like in the name of saving the Atlantic Club we'll let PS into NJ, but maybe slow them down in order to appease the AGA folks. Sounds like a plausible speculation to me anyway.

For a perfect example of this, see the sugar industry. The sugar tax helps a few wealthy landowners at the expense of every other single person in this country.

PokerStars Fires Back at AGA

Which tax resulted in the domination of high fructose corn syrup as the U.S. main sweetener. They didn't get as weathy as they thought they would.

I'm pretty sure HFCS dominates because corn farming is subsidized by US gov't. Or at least that's what I learned on an episode of Bull**** haha.

My original thoughts were that I wanted PS available in NJ but I just thought of something that's changing my stance. Stars already showed us that when they have the largest market then we have zero chance of being able to get rake back. Unless you can play a zillion hours and become supernova. I play up to 8 tables at a time and have trouble getting there because life gets in the way. So for most of us, if we want to make thousands extra a year and still have a nice size player pool to play with, then we better hope there's a good option besides PS.

breaking: PokerStars’ bid to take over Atlantic Club casino may not be decided until mid-summer

More competition = lower rake. We want Stars in the mix AINEC.

Just because they could get market share doesn't mean there will be a gun to your head to grind there...I think it's pretty clear we're going to have at least a handful of choices to play at regardless of PS allowed in or not.

I really think the days of getting rake back on ANY site are over. Especially major sites like stars, party, 888, etc. there's just no incentive for them to do this, they've proven that other player rewards models work well, and they benefit the sites more

The market will determine that.

Stars rewards system was effectively rakeback. If they have table restrictions and maybe alter it some to reflect that change, it would be awesome for the long term stability of the games. (Since Stars system paid everyone, not just those savvy enough to get it, there was a big difference in effective RB between the casual player and the super nova elite; with table restrictions, SNE will be nigh impossible, so they could shift some rewards downward perhaps, which would be good.)

Even prior to the anxieties about domestically-regulated sites, there has always been an enormous, irrational affinity in our community for the specific rake modification called "rakeback". I get it; we're used to it, it's simple, and it feels like "getting paid to play". It, along with all other loyalty programs, is just another way of lowering the net effective rake to play. It was born backwards out of affiliate referral programs, which may or may not exist or be as relevant new regulated markets.

Who cares if a rewards program is of a different shape or name? All that matters is the bottom line: net effective rake. E.g. if there were no 30% rakeback, but rake were 30% lower up front, we should all be rational enough to not have a preference here.

More likely, I'd expect to see slightly progressive rewards programs (higher rewards % for higher-volume players, but likely less progressive than Stars' since 12-tabling is likely not sustainable) and probably a strong skew towards non-cash rewards (hotel rooms, live tourney entries), especially in NJ where cross-marketing with B&M properties will be appealing for operators.

I think why players love RB is because it typically gives more to those with it than their fair share. That is everyone without RB effectively subsidizes RB players. (To illustrate: if a site gives 35% RB to a fraction of their players, they couldn't likely afford to give that much if they were giving it to all their players.). I like models where no one is excluded way more.

Fnord_too, I wish it was the way you described it but it is far from that. 35% RB does not mean you get 35% of the rake from any hand. It means you get back 35% of what you contributed to that rake. Example, if its a 9 handed table you would get 35% of the rake divided by 9.

What fnord said went way over your head, he knows how rakeback works and it is very clear from his post what his point was.