Originally Posted by Skallagrim
We lost one flip. ...
Finally, if it were not for the source it would truly surprise me to see anyone suggest that the US Casino interests might want to derail a deal because it is poker only rather than all casino gaming. The AGA and all the large Casino interests (besides Adelson, who opposes all things online) have pushed "poker-only" for the last few years, explicitly coming out against other casino games going online. These interests realize that online casino gaming is different and is not likely to serve a cross-marketing purpose, not likely to be amenable to interstate businesses at all, and more likely to be controlled or regulated through state lottery interests than through separate regulatory bodies overseeing private enterprise (compare Delaware's law to NV's law, for example).
Rather than wade through the stream-of-consciousness post that follows the underlined portion above, I'll explain something, in short talking points using simple words, Skall.
1. There is a huge difference between
(A) a deal that includes passing poker-enabling legislation and concurrently amending the Wire Act to prohibit even State-licensed online casino gaming from becoming lawful in the US., and
(B) a deal that includes poker enabling legislation yet leaves the Wire Act door open for licensed online casino gaming down the road.
Both iterations provide for bringing a hammer down on "unlicensed" internet gaming, including sports. Iteration B leaves casinos free to seek licensing for online casino games.
If you do not understand the differences between the two provisions, re=read them.
2. The margins available from online casinos dwarf those of online poker. If you really think that US casino interests would not oppose cutting their collective throats legislatively with respect to online casino prospects, then you don't grasp the business potential of online casino gaming.
Poker is the camel's nose into the Internet tent. Study the history of the AGA's evolution on the subject, and the historic divide between Caesars and MGM on this point. The Holy Grail is online casino gaming, make no mistake. If you cannot anticipate that its pursuit may lead some casinos to oppose its outright ban, you miss the real prize .... It is not poker-only.
3. It is possible that US casinos may nevertheless accept a ban on anyone licensing interstate online casino gaming, and go for a poker only federal bill, provided they also get to keep the online intrastate gaming provided for so generously in the IUGEA.
That interstate/intrastate calculation might serve a multi-state licensed operator like Caesars, but is an critical sensitive issue to the tribal gaming interests whose bread and butter is geographic exclusivity for casino gaming.
That something would "truly surprise" you is not unprecedented. After all, you publicly "reasonably assumed" that FTP would pay all its players itself follwoing BF.
4. Intrastate online/telephone sports betting does not violate the Wire Act currently and it is offered in Nevada currently. New Jersey's proposed sports-betting regulations leave the door open for it as well, in the discretion of the NJ Division regulating sports-betting. I don't think casinos will meekly accept outlawing licensed intrastate online casino gaming.
It is better that someone on the PPA Board is educated and prepared for real contingencies, rather than be continually surprised by the turn of future events. Fortunately, that "someone" doesn't HAVE to be you.