Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicotine Dreams
Good read. Thank you for posting.
Two thoughts
1) US player balances, on this Rini states: They[the major poker sites indicted] don’t need the class action lawsuits, bad press in the markets they can still operate in, and overall headache. They’ll find a way to pay out US players. Sounds good, but if the DOJ succeeds and the sites have to fork over the full amount printed, $3bn, what does that mean regarding the solvency of the companies involved? If the DOJ wins, do US players lose?
Of course there are no guarantees on anything. We're talking likelihood. Both Stars and Tilt are private but if you look at Party's earnings they take in about $350 million per year in revenue right now. Tilt, just the normal .com (now defunct) that most Americans, Europeans, etc have been playing on is nearly 3x the size of Party in terms of cash game players and Stars is roughly 5x the size. Doing the math, I don't think a $1 billion fine (the amount the DOJ has specified for Stars) for Stars puts them out of business. They've been making this kind of money for some time now so I would naturally assume there's some cash in the bank.
Also, Stars has always claimed to keep player accounts segregated from operating capital so, in theory, they would have all player funds in liquid cash. Not sure if Tilt ever moved over to a similar policy but they're making enough that I don't think they need to mix operating capital and player deposits.
Based on these facts, like I said, the likelihood that Stars and Tilt would default on payouts seems rather low.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicotine Dreams
2) Kim Lund is quoted as saying: The void left by this raid is too juicy for the government not to want to taste. Tomorrow. Hopefully some of the ridiculous lobbying is now silenced and things can proceed in the quickest possible manner. From the perspective of a poker player, would playing on a fully regulated poker site be better or or worse than the status quo, pre-Black Friday? Is the lobbying(PPA?) "ridiculous" for protesting against the inevitable? Rini states that by having two giants (Stars and Tilt) have complete dominance over the US, and subsequently the Euro Markets, we would continue to experience no real innovation or continued to be denied properly scaled player benefits due of the lack of competition.
How will life be for poker players post-regulation? And is there a possibility that internet poker will return back to "normal"?
Your first questions assumes the status quo could exist for eternity. I don't think that's a fair assumption. Sooner or later something was going to occur which radically changed the market in some way.
The PPA lobbying is seen as many to be lobbying on behalf of Stars and Tilt. Since Harrah's and MGM and other land based casinos would resist any legislation that let the two of them enter the US with such a commanding market lead some would assume that their lobbying actually delayed legalization since many land based casinos were opposed to their vision of what online poker legislation should look like.
Now, you can agree or disagree with that position but I personally feel that had their not been so much emphasis on making sure there was something there for the existing online poker rooms that they created some of the resistance they encountered from the land based casino industry.
It depends on what you define "normal" as.
Again, in my personal opinion, the industry needs competition. Look at the attitude Party had towards players when they were in the #1 spot. It was terrible. They were so much bigger than the next competitor that they didn't care. Party knew they could deliver fish and players would keep playing there regardless. And affiliates would keep promoting them because the conversions were so high.
The same was beginning to happen with Stars and Tilt. Both have recently made rather drastic changes to their affiliate programs that are completely one-sided. They've paid very little attention to social media. They have missed the boat on a lot of things that would improve the customer experience.
So, if I had my choice, I would rather have 4 or 5 "top" rooms that were more evenly matched. There's enough liquidity to support that many rooms and it also means that none can afford to go deaf to the customers or affiliates.
