Just saw this on Andy Bloch's twitter feed. http://twitter.com/Andy_Bloch

"Steve Wynn keeps coming up as the only major casino owner still against online poker. Consider that when deciding where to gamble in Vegas2:23 PM Jul 21st from Tweetie"

If this is true, Andy is dead right about voting with your dollars in Vegas.

F-Steve Wynn and F-playing at the Wynn Casino.

Can we get confirmation of this?

he owns a casino

well now im glad to know about that million dollar painting he put his arm through right after he sold it

of course he opposes internet poker/ online casinos

Andy Bloch is serious business. Story confirmed.

No Way! That's Great... WE'VE LANDED ON THE MOON!

Read the post. He's the ONLY casino owner to oppose on-line poker.

Harrah's and MGM are fully behind getting some form of legalized on-line poker here in the United States.

And Wynn is the only major casino who isn't near bankruptcy at the moment. So what's your point.

fyp

So what if he opposes it? It's a completely understandable stance. Wynn is a visionairy. Why should he take the lemming approach of agreeing with the other owners just because they are for it? This thread is ridiculous.

If you want to boycott Wynn because of his stance that is your choice. However, know that I will reverse-boycott him because of your stance, and the effect I will have is 100 times greater than that of some internet poker geek.

[ ] online

so you gonna dump millies on the dice table to spite the internet poker geeks.
wp sir

Why does Bloch want poker legalized anyways? Does he realize one of the main reasons why FTP is so profitable is the fact that they stuck with the US market when the UIEGA was passed? More poker sites equals more competition and pressure to lower prices / rake for players. Do they really think the influx of new players is enough to offset that?

Most people feel that the current imbalance of the law cannot stay that way forever. Either poker is going to become enforcably illegal or they're going to fix/repeal UIEGA. If you owned/worked for FTP, which would you want to have happen?

I'm sure he does think that will be enough (ie smaller piece of a much larger pie). Also, as long as it isn't legalized in the US, FTP is at a huge risk of losing it's entire US player base overnight. That's not even mentioning the other potential legal issues that could arrise from a US citizen having an ownership stake in a company that makes money from illegal gaming.

Aside from that, he may just have a love for poker and wants to see the game grow.

fu

A+

Victor i give you on my important rating scale that everyone cares about, 1/2 ITT

There's nothing better than owning a business, getting it well established, then seeing a bunch of legislation that creates tons of barriers to entry.

he shouldn't. but he should probably realize what everyone else has, and that's that online poker has helped the B&M casino industry, and that fully licensed and legalized online poker would help him out even more.

and he should probably realize that it's a potential new revenue stream for him.

eh, if poker was legalized in the US, it would be companies like Party, Betfair, etc who have played nice with the US Govt that would be first in line to get a license. companies like Full Tilt and Stars who have flipped their middle finger at the US would be last in line, and this would be after paying billions in penalties (similar to party)

.

Lisa,

How on Earth is it a bad thing to have new barriers to entry added for a type of business where you are the top dog? That doesn't even make sense.

Wynn is probably taking a sensible business stance. He knows he isn't going have the brand name recognition of a Harrahs (with WSOP as brand name) if poker becomes regulated. Wynn is very much B&M.

You are posting in the same forum as this "internet poker geek."

Does that make you a 'wannabe' internet poker geek?

That's sad imo

it makes sense if you think about it

The US can't justifiably leave full tilt out if its regulated, I mean I won't leave anything past the govt but that would just be ridiculous.

So, the current system has the potential to get even worse for these sites, even though we all love the old status quo, we all hate a trend toward less amateur US players joining online, and less accessibility towards our funds.

The impact for full tilt and stars I think if you made some predictions, completely opinion from me, I would say regulated is > then what we are trending to unregulated in terms of profitability for the sites.

And I also think it would be laughable to assume full tilt wouldn't be able to compete with new legal operations if there were something like a harrahs .com

Again all speculation by me so I could be 100% wrong.