Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan C. Lawhon
Worst Case Scenario?
I've been rolling around in my head a few thoughts on how this situation might play out and the possible long term consequences. This has led me to a "worse case" scenario. I'll lay it out and then you can all call me an old fart who doesn't have a clue. OK, here goes.
A few years ago I was on the AGA's (American Gaming Association's) web site where I read their annual report on the state of the brick and mortar casino industry here in the United States. It was interesting to note, in that report, that only 11 percent of the gaming industry's profits came from the poker room. (Unsurprisingly, the bulk of the profits - around 55 percent - came from slot machines. The remaining 34 percent came from other table games, food & drink, entertainment and so forth.) Prior to Chris Moneymaker's big win back in 2003 and the beginning of the "Poker Boom," many casinos around the country were seriously considering closing their card rooms and using the freed up floor space for more slot machines. (Dealers over in Tunica have told me "the bean counters" for one of the top brick & mortar operators tried three times to persuade top management to shut the poker room down prior to 2002 - and they nearly succeeded.) The point here is that from the perspective of top management of these joints, poker is probably their least desirable offering. (I recall playing poker once over in Tunica with a man who I knew was married. So I ask him: "Where's your wife?" and he says "Oh, she's downstairs playing the slots." Another gentleman at the table immediately piped up and said: "That's the only reason they keep the poker room open for us guys ... they're hoping our wives are downstairs playing the slots." Everybody laughed.)
So now we have this imbroglio at Borgata. Depending on how this plays out, Borgata could wind up being hurt bad by this - especially if one of the final 27 sues and wins a HUGE jury award - like say something on the order of a $10 million punitive damages award. (If this were to actually get in front of a jury, it's not hard imagining a really good lawyer convincing a majority of jurors - in a civil case - that they could just as easily have been the person who got screwed by the big rich casino.) If more than one of the 27 successfully sue for damages, who knows how high the Borgata's liability could run? Add on top of this the cost of any enforcement actions likely to be forthcoming from the New Jersey GCB. If you're an owner or shareholder of the Borgata, what you're suddenly looking at here is a lot of uncertainty ...
Given these possibilities (and all the attendant uncertainty) the boardroom conversation among all these B&M casino operators might run something like this: "Poker is no longer worth messing with. There's too much hassle and risk - and not enough profit to make it worthwhile. Let's just shut it down and say to hell with it. We're not making much money off of poker anyway, so why bother? Let's just wash our hands clean and be done with it." That would be the worst case scenario here in the United States - no internet poker and no B&M poker either.
That's what "Men the Master" and all these other cheats would have accomplished. They (and not Sheldon Adelson) would effectively kill poker in the United States. I'm not stating categorically that this is the likely outcome - I'm just pointing out that if the Borgata winds up taking a major bath on this, it could trigger a sobering reassessment among all the operators as to whether poker is worth the cost (and the risk) from a profit/loss perspective.
Broken Back Alan of Huntsville
Good analysis, but I would think rather than shutting down the poker rooms, they would just cut the size/tables and scale it all down to something with much lower overhead (dealers, floor, etc.). But it seems that at least at Borgata and Harrahs Philadelphia, where I play, there is demand for the current sizes.
I checked with my lawyer wife, and the sharks will come out of the water for this. The NJGC might try and use some sort of immunity angle (in terms of legal defense), which they might even have, but not sure about Borgata. It just seems to me that this was avoidable and by using the same chips for tournaments the situation was ripe, even though in this case the criminal minds behind it were morons because this strategy was never going to fly. Unless, of course, the goal was to just cash out, make a little money before it's discovered and blow the place. In the end, this was an impossible crime to pull off, hence the low aptitude of the perpetrators. They should have known that at some point, it would have been obvious that the chip count was way off, and the whole thing would be rendered moot.
Of course, if they thought they could get away with it for any extended period and not be discovered, they would just get in line with the rest of the field and hope to cash out via lawsuit or threat of lawsuit (which means they would have to be among the 27 finalists, who have the the most to lose if the cancellation means minimal cash in their pockets, making them the most likely to hire lawyers).
Just imagine you are one of the 27 and you honestly played your way there (with plenty of the usual luck too). Now, you are facing at best, a 27-way split, and at worst, a refund? And what if it's your first big run in a large tournament, after years of trying without success. Talk about pain and suffering.