I also live in Queens and I totally agree about the NYPost.

yea, I only read the sports. They have very good sports coverage. Giants stunk it uuuup last night : /

Same here. I turned the game off at the half. Disgusting.

all of this. we can't forget that in the past all the big corporation money was working against us, now its working for us...and potentially the biggest opponent of ours is also working for us

i think this is a very optimistic attitude to have and could be misguided.

dont assume that casinos have the same goals or end game in mind that you do. think about why this could be.

Boom.

You don't think they want it regulated ASAP? Why is that?

I agree with this. A lot of stuff is moving way too quickly for something that is just on the back burner.

so is all the 'we need more house subcommittee hearings' stuff the subcommittee members have been throwing out since the hearings a smokescreen to hide the slip this december, or are they just not with it enough to know what's going on behind the scenes in the bigger chamber and actually think they're doing real work?

I'm not sure if I want to express an opinion on them wanting it regulated ASAP or not. I think it's clear Caesar's and others are serious about it, but I don't think it's as urgent or must-have as they might make you believe. We'll have to see how the lobbying $$ #s come out to make a real determination on that. BM casinos don't need online poker; it would be a luxury. There are plenty of concerns they have about implementing online poker (related to their own businesses), and they will proceed cautiously as a result. Don't forget other industry players such as the Indian Tribes and smaller casinos as well.

I also think the end game model of a regulated system that casinos want differs greatly from what players want. And I don't just mean what is practical (opt ins vs opt outs or whatever). I mean if both sides got the chance to get their optimal model (casinos vs. players), we'd see 2 very, very different things.

Most of this is speculation. Some is not.

Committees have hearings for a variety of reasons. Some hearings are legitimately to get statements on the record from witnesses or key players that could prove integral to passage or oversight in the future. Other hearings are "check-the-box" hearings where they just have to get the hearing out of the way, get the appropriate witnesses on the record and clear all the logistical hurdles necessary to pass a bill. So if someone asks, "Have you had a hearing on that in this session?" they can honestly answer "Yes, we have" and not get blocked there. Just cause they had a hearing on it in another session of Congress means nothing.

I recently heard one former US Senator say "any hearing with 10 witnesses isn't a real hearing. They're just checking the box."

thank you.

but what do you think it means that the chairman said she wants more hearings next year, and another member suggesting doj as witness? makes it look like this december's odds are poor, right?

I think this december's odds are extremely poor. They always have been absent a supercommittee miracle, which I think everyone knew wasn't going to come to fruition. The SC failing wasn't a surprise.

Soooooo...you're saying it's guaranteed?!



OK that was sarcastic, but still good news is always encouraging. Now if the FTP deal would just go through already...

it was never going to go standard route through committees and such and be passed by the end of the year. the hope is still the same...attached to a must-pass bill before recess in december

almost happened last year without any support from the big guys, now PS and FTP out of the way...not trying to be overly optimistic but saying theres no chance is stupid

I won't be surprised if no shot at attachment happens this December but I will be shocked if there is not one next December when the session actually ends.

i mean it still will almost certainly be reported out of a committee in a "standard" way as at least a first draft of legislation. what happens after that is unclear.

Ceasar will see a significant drop in wsop entries if something isnt done by March. I dont feel Ceasars wants a 25 percent dropoff.

lol

do you know what a 25% dropoff in WSOP entries (which is likely just a random guess and not remotely accurate) does to Caesar's overall profit on the year as a corporation?

would they even notice if they weren't looking? would they notice if they are looking?

Yea I doubt they want it, but they made almost 200mil in profit last quarter, and I doubt they take more than 30mil on the WSOP. It does affect their revenues in terms of hotel rooms and everything poker players spend money on during their stay, but I doubt it will be a 25% drop to begin with.

If they saw something really significant like 40%, however, it doesn't look as good on ESPN when players went from playing for 9mil the year before to 5mil.

uhm according to their quarterly report they lost 155.5 million in the quarter ending June 30th 2011 and have lost 302.9 million this year.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...F8VHlwZT0z&t=1

from reuters if u don't want to look at the actual report

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7780ZJ20110809

That 25 percent was a conservative estimate. That was their best case scenario it could theoretically be much higher.

WSOP entries for the ME were lower last year than the previous year, but overall, the WSOP events had more entries than the year before. Also, with fewer online satellite winners, more players will play live satellites at the WSOP and at Ceasar's properties throughout the country to win their seats.

Bottom line is that the WSOP probably doesn't need online poker.

I think this is a very short sighted view of everything that’s happening. Can the WSOP brand survive without online poker? Sure. But, can they grow the brand at the same pace as they have over the past 10 years without online poker? Probably not. I think it’s clear the WSOP brand has grown to what it is today because of online poker and with regulated online poker it will be much bigger than it is now. The casinos are starting to see that an online presence is a major business opportunity that can help them thrive in future.

No argument with the bolded part. But, not all casinos are in the same boat as Caesar's; it has more marginal value to Ceasar's than the others.

I think my point is that the WSOP isn't going away, and Ceasar's survival is not based upon an i-poker bill being passed in the extremely short period of time left this year.

their was a dropoff after the uigea safeports act. This time the dropoff will be more substantial due to more americans obeying the bs rules. I dont feel the big casinos truly understand how vital online poker is to the survival and growth of their industry. This will be apparent at this time next year if nothing is done.