Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Huntington
^^^ I think it's just a law that pre dates the internet.
The largest I see is 5/10. I'm on the DE site, what does everyone else see for limit holdem?
Which, is why the politicians messed up by choosing server locations as opposed to IP addresses as the factor in determining the location of a wager. "Messed up" is the wrong term because it implies a mistake. Which, clearly isn't the case here. They consciously chose to do this.
The law isn't the problem. It's the politicians that are the problem. If they chose IP addresses (among other identification verification processes) as the determining factor the law wouldn't even remotely censor players from accessing the ROW site.
The politicians and the regulators in New Jersey are to blame. Among those in Vegas and Delaware who are choosing to go along with this abomination. It sounds like a bunch of Sheldon Adelson groupies in the Adelson Fan Club got together and figured out the best way to destroy the online poker market in the states for Amaya.
I guess they just perceived Amaya as an up and coming competitor in their market and decided to make decisions to hurt them. Sad the rest of us have to suffer so a few Casino owners can make a poor financial decision by screwing over Amaya and removing a perceived "competitor" from the market. Or, at least downsizing them significantly. When, in reality, Pokerstars increases foot traffic in Casinos by providing players with a bankroll to fund it.
I've never been to Vegas, or Atlantic City. With decisions like this, I don't intend on going any time soon. I wonder if Amaya choosing to incorporate Casino games into their Pokerstars business model caused the Casinos to go after them. Amaya just put a target on their back by doing that. Land based Casinos felt Amaya would take away additional customers.
Casino operators in Vegas and Atlantic City are just a bunch of low lifes, basically. Looking for petty little edges in their industry that aren't even conclusive edges. As they very well could decrease their profits by removing Pokerstars as a feeder system to their Casinos. It's one thing if your decision is guaranteed to increase profits. It's another thing if their is a serious possibility that it could decrease profits. A guaranteed profit means your a tough businessman. A slight possibility of an increase in revenue with a serious chance of losing money by chasing away potential customers by making a decision that negatively impacts those people is the decision of a horrible businessman that lacks a sufficient understanding of their market.
You can't hurt the customers with poor decisions and expect them to give you business because your the only business around offering the product. Perceiving Amaya as a colleague as opposed to a competitor would be a more logical and profitable decision.
Last edited by DSL32; 05-01-2018 at 12:41 PM.