Quote:
Originally Posted by spacegod
The combined population of those states is about 4 million, or less than 1/11th the population of Spain. DQ, that's why I don't share the same level of optimism with you about a state solution. Sure, you may argue that more and more states could get tacked on, but how many is it going to take to get real liquidity to realistically support multiple big sites? How long will it take for this to happen, and will the liquidity problem be bad enough to force sites out before this even gets a chance to work? It will it least take a couple states with large populations imo. If states decide to fracture off on these isolated networks, the end result may be a disaster. For instance,
NJ has already said or hinted that they want to be the state that offers regulations to these other states they may pool with. They feel they have the expertise (not sure why because all of their expertise is in land-based gaming), but Nevada surely feels the same. Best case scenario might be two large networks, i.e. east coast (NJ backbone) / west coast (NV backbone, 1994 gangsta rap style.
They will HAVE to pool since their state population is less than 3 million. Pooling with California would be a dream, but I would not be surprised if Cali has a "we run our own show" mentality w.r.t. online gaming. In fact, I think I recall some comments like those already being made.
So to summarize, I guess my biggest concerns are:
1.) What population is required to sustain multiple sites and enough games to even make this a worthwhile venture for us, the players?
2.) How long will it take to include enough states in a compact to reach the required liquidity?
Excellent points ..... especially with repect to the States moving most quickly. There IS a real danger they will face liquidity issues, but the danger is not insurmountable, certainly not technologically an issue. Networks can be built, sliced, diced, fenced without blocking player liquidity, if that needs to be accomodated, especially with respect to tournament pools.
First, 26 States each have a population over 4 million.
Nevada's likely licensees will likely have B&M operations in some 21 States or so, plus likely approved partnerships with international network providers.
While California's COPA seeks to "build a wall around California", to quote one tribal representative, that "revenue wall" would not preclude pooling players with other States' licensees. The key is Revenue, i.e taxes. If a State thinks it can protect its hold on revenue from its residents' action, it likely would be open to getting the benefits of pooling, a la Powerball.
There is also the very real likelihood that pooling with international player pools is more readily available than multi-state pooling for smaller States.
Sweden has a population of about 9.4 million and supports a State-run site. A couple of States could get to that size pretty fast by compact, the 'danger" may be that those fast-acting States' operators may be lotteriy/monopolies, an industry area players have not tapped into for communication of "player interests".
LOL at the East Coast/West Coast gangsta reference. (Keep in mind Tupac got shot near the corner of Flamingo and the Strip.) the truth id that a North/South network, among similar timezones would work best for liquidity, think of a Canada to Argentina player pool tapped by US sites.