i mean i get that you pay $1m per year to listen to experts. regulatory and licensing fees will be peanuts. the companies likely to gain customers and market share initially will be those with name recognition and credibility, i.e. existing large casino companies. then the network effects will be huge. also the number of people playing in a legal environment is unknown but is almost certainly way larger than the number who played before.

now if indeed it is an opt-in, or even an opt-out, that is a serious problem. but so far the only one saying that it will be either is you.

For example, according to this article, Pokerstars made 200 million a year in revenues in 2006. Other estimates, such as in Forbes, pegged them at 500 mil in net revenues each year around 2010.

The Las Vegas Strip last year, seeing a fall in profits, earned 6 BILLION dollars. Now account for all the overhead, fees, taxes, revenues, red tape and all that crap that comes with regulation and do the math. Plus the fact that unlike Stars circa 2010, you won't be able to offer it to 50 states.

You can see how someone can come to the conclusion that online poker might not be the massive profit model people think it could be.

Do I necessarily agree with the above analysis? No, but I wouldn't call someone an idiot for thinking that way.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...1-in-2011.html

http://www.gamblingsites.com/history/poker-stars/

http://www.pokerkingblog.com/2008/01...-make-per-day/

Do you honestly believe that they will just federally regulate online poker that is available to residents of all 50 states? big lol if you do.

Also, opt-in/opt-out has been part of tons of the draft bills floated with Reid and other people's names attached. That is msot definitely not "just me." Some say that without an opt-out provision, it could be unconstitutional. I'd agree with that. There's absolutely no way there isn't some form of opt-in/opt-out. That's just impossible.

you're gonna have to spell this one out for me because I'm not sure you're making the point you think you are

Well I'm trying to play devil's advocate and make the point of someone else that I don't necessarily agree with, so that can be tough. What exactly don't you understand?

if the whole strip is only making 6 billion than a few hundred million/yr from online poker starts looking better, not worse

Except that my entire point is that our hypothetical casino boss thinks it could be significantly less than that, and he might be right. That's established as the ceiling.*

Is the Vegas strip some kind of regulation-free big-business utopia?

Seems like online poker would be similarly regulated with a few added things to deal with CC fraud and money laundering.

Furthermore, if he thinks those past revenues came at the cost of B&M revenues (something he could see in his financial figures), then that makes it even worse. That's the entire point. Why do you think they lobbied so hard in 2006?

Poker != pit gambling

Nationwide regulation != Las Vegas

No way. Far more people will play, likely enough to offset whatever effect of regulations, which themselves might not hurt much since they keep competition down.

What are you basing this on? Pure conjecture?

well obv. but these guys are dumb and out of touch and certainly didnt have the foresight to predict things would turn out like they did. so its quite a leap to think they are able to recognize this.

I don't understand how you can look at those figures and think online poker doesn't look like an appealing business

ya thats why we're criticizing billionaire business men.

I honestly think the truth lies somewhere in between. Poker players like to make posts like "well everyone will come to play, there will be tons of money, the gov't regulations won't be so bad... free money machine for all!" This is obviously based on nothing but their own beliefs about the poker economy, which are a little biased. Short-sighted critics who have relied on B&M revenues for their entire careers are going to be biased the other way. B&M model is safe, it's constant, it's always there. Why threaten it with someone new?

Will it be this huge windfall profit model poker players think it will? Obviously not. Will it cripple B&M business and threaten casino pit game interests? Obviously not. Could it be weighted more towards one side or the other? Yeah. The question is where do we place it.

For sure it will be a very profitable business for anyone who wants to go full bore after it, but not everyone thinks like we do. You only need to look at some of the decisions they've made 2005 and onward to see that. It's printed in the news.

you dont get to say b&m is a loss leader and that casino bosses love the steady profits

Everything after likely is, but I'd like to see the stuff Clark brought up from Europe.

It's pretty basic Econ. If you make it cheaper, more people will participate. If you take into account legal/stigma type costs and it being a PITA to get money online or worries over its security then it will be drastically cheaper even if the rake goes up a small amount.

lol riverman. you don't even attempt to read more than 5 words of a post do you? i obviously would never make a statement that stupid. and i also already said "loss leader" was a bad term and rephrased what i was saying (although what you asserted is not what I was saying before anyways).

What if they could both create a profitable model (after all, something is better than nothing + they'll drive all international competition out) AND establish some sort of barrier that still encourages people to go to BM card rooms? Would you think them insane then?

Think about it... pretty nice deal for them

that was hardly karak's point though

to make ezpz money which is what a company strives to do. like, these guys get credit fo being at the top of their challenging field and are rewarded immensely. so i hold them to a damn high standard and this was a cinch to predict.

Again, that was your Adelson extreme. The other side was your JaredL/Riverman (although it's a lot of online players, not just them) other extreme. I mean to believe that all 50 states will be auto-included in a bill is just insane, especially considering 1 has it on the books as a Class C Felony.

i only read like half of karaks words but im pretty sure he was attempting to outline the thought process of these big wigs that are against online poker. early im fairly sure he expressed that he felt they were incorrect.