Roy Cooke\'s Recent Column in CP: Government and Our Game — the Heat is
 

I thought this was a great article about the recent happening in the poker, gambling and the gaming industry. I good read for everyone.

THE HEAT IS ON

Re: Roy Cooke\'s Recent Column in CP: Government and Our Game — the Heat is
 

great article - thanks for posting.

RB

Re: Roy Cooke\'s Recent Column in CP: Government and Our Game — the Heat is
 

I wonder how much Party spends on lobbying efforts? It can't be as much as the brick and mortar casinos can bring to the table. The highest bidder will win out in this case.

Re: Roy Cooke\'s Recent Column in CP: Government and Our Game — the Heat is
 

Interesting article. I don't know think that the big B&M casinos would go along with separating poker out, because they'd do anything they could to keep online betting illegal or difficult. But the California poker clubs probably would. And some of the online casinos might. The big casinos have all the money, though. Their power dwarfs anyone else's, and they've had politicians in their pockets for half a century.

Re: Roy Cooke\'s Recent Column in CP: Government and Our Game — the Heat is
 

U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, began his fight to ban Internet "gambling" back in 1999.

OK.... maybe im knitpicking here but I cant take a guy serious who makes such god awful errors such as this.

Kyl first introduced legislation way back in 1995 with S1495, the Crime Prevention Act of 1995. Between 1995 and 1999 there were numerous other pieces of legislation introduced suchs as HR2380 Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997, HR4427 Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1998, S474 Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997, and HR4350 Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1998.

Sorry if i sound PMSy... my social science research backround makes it tough to deal with such errors. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

cubs

Re: Roy Cooke\'s Recent Column in CP: Government and Our Game — the Heat is
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if i sound PMSy

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you just pissed that its gonna get cold there soon and were out here in Cali(and Vegas) enjoying the sun?

Re: Roy Cooke\'s Recent Column in CP: Government and Our Game — the Heat is
 

I suspect the B&M casinos would love to make online legal so that they could get a piece of the action.

Re: Roy Cooke\'s Recent Column in CP: Government and Our Game — the Heat is
 

I don't know think that the big B&M casinos would go along with separating poker out, because they'd do anything they could to keep online betting illegal or difficult.

This is big big misconception about the B&M gaming industry. B&M casinos are not anti-internet gambling. In fact, some of the bigger casinos have actually dabbled into the internet arena, albeit with poor results. B&M casinos take the line that it should be up to each individual state to decide the law as far as gaming is concerned. B&M casinos do not see internet casinos as competitors and this is especially true now that they have starting offering other forms entertainment that don’t involve plopping coins into a slot. The anti-internet gambling movement in this country, for the most part, comes from right-wing holy rollers.

Re: Roy Cooke\'s Recent Column in CP: Government and Our Game — the Heat is
 

I don't see B&M casinos as willing to let the market do its thing as you do. Vegas-based casinos have been enormous contributors to efforts to stop the spread of casinos in California. They still love to kick blackjack players out if they suspect them of counting -- every dollar lost is real to companies, and they don't give it up lightly. Going to Vegas is a time-consuming and very expensive way to gamble compared to simply going online. If online gambling became clearly legal and easy to access across the nation, the Vegas casinos would lose many potential customers. Not all customers, because Vegas is still a fun destination, but many gamblers both in and out of Nevada would stay home if they felt it were safe to do so.

Unless the big traditional casinos are running online gambling, which is politically extremely sensitive for them right now, they'll try to stop it. There is no such thing as an acceptable level of competition in business. Especially when places like Party are making hundreds of millions a day. They want those guys out of the gambling profit pipeline.

Re: Roy Cooke\'s Recent Column in CP: Government and Our Game — the Heat is
 

The following are some reasons why B&Ms are not speaking out against online casinos:

1) Many B&M casinos are trying to start-up internet casinos themselves. MGM Grand, Station Association and Sun International are a few of the many B&M establishments who have already jumped into the Internet waters. “Most major US casinos want to leverage the Web just as traditional click-and-motor pioneers did….there are cross-marketing opportunities meant to drive physical visitation to casinos.” (Gareiss and Soat, 2002 link to a very good article)

2) Most experts in the gaming field believe that online casinos will not encroach on B&M casinos. This argument is supported by continued growth in both the land-based and internet sectors of gaming seen over the last 10 years. Additionally, some believe internet casinos will help create more land-based casino patrons. Think about those people with little B&M casino experience; the type of people who would be afraid to sit down at a table game. If these people were exposed to the rules and procedures of games in the privacy of their own home they might be more comfortable taking the plunge and have a seat at a B&M table game. Think about the growth of online poker of the past 3 years. Has this growth helped or hurt B&M poker operations? Survey the patrons in your local poker room next time and you will find that a large portion received their first serious exposure to poker through an online poker room. B&Ms and internet casinos should not be seen as competitors. Their relationship is much more symbiotic then adversarial.

You brought up the point that many vegas casinos opposed California casino expansion. I hope you understand why there would be competition between B&M casinos but not necessarily between B&M and internet casinos.

3) What argument would B&M casinos have against internet casinos that would not damn their own position on gaming? B&M can't speak out against internet gambling on moral grounds like many internet gambling opponents have. The also can't speak out against internet casinos on the grounds that they are unregulated. In the early days B&M casinos were also unregulated. Of course, if B&M casinos decided to play the unregulated card the internet casinos would simply say, “regulate us”.

I hope this explains things a little.

Regards
cubs

Re: Roy Cooke\'s Recent Column in CP: Government and Our Game — the Heat is
 

The Bastards.

Re: Roy Cooke\'s Recent Column in CP: Government and Our Game — the Heat is
 

It's all about competition. The B&Ms will dabble in Internet gaming because they have to...just in case. The Internet scares them. Just liek the fact that Careerbuilder is owned by newspaper companies. The classifieds were their bread & butter and they knew they would lose it eventually so they started their own Internet thing. But the fact is there are barriers to entry for B&Ms. However, there are almost NONE for the Internet and that prospect scares them.

Re: Roy Cooke\'s Recent Column in CP: Government and Our Game — the Heat is
 

[ QUOTE ]
3) What argument would B&M casinos have against internet casinos that would not damn their own position on gaming? B&M can't speak out against internet gambling on moral grounds like many internet gambling opponents have. The also can't speak out against internet casinos on the grounds that they are unregulated. In the early days B&M casinos were also unregulated. Of course, if B&M casinos decided to play the unregulated card the internet casinos would simply say, “regulate us”.


[/ QUOTE ]

Two arguments which are being used against net gaming and are being used are that it can and is being(?) used by international terrorists and criminals, and that identity can't be properly or easily verified, leading to children being exposed to the evils of gambling via the net. One argument can work based on fear and one based on morality -- both of which are often interchangeable and mirrors for each other. A third argument might be made that tax evasion is somehow "characteristic" of online gaming(even though probably next to no people ever declare their winnings and losses in Vegas, either.

As to people in B&M casinos having their first exposure to poker from online gaming, the demographic for casino playing would have to have changed radically in the 7 years or so since I've been to one. Which it may well have, but there would have to be a lot of people dying off. When I habituated the Commerce, the Bicycle Club, and Hollywood Park and Crystal Casinos(now dead) in Los Angeles, I was one of the younger people in a mostly middle-aged and older crowd(and I was over 30), and probably none of the patrons had ever been exposed to online gambling. Nevertheless, the parking lots were full to overflowing time and again. The demographics would have to have been completely flipped on its heads, growth would have had to be incredibly explosive, and old and middle-aged people would have had to die in catastrophic numbers in those seven years for a "large" portion of B&M gamblers where I'm from to have had their first exposure to gambling via online experiences. I don't see how this could be the case, and must respectfully disagree with you on this one.

On the B&M casinos getting into online gaming, to me what is notable is not that some few have done so, but how many have not. Gambling is a business they have years and even decades of experience in, and there is no shortage of B&M companies with either ambition or cash. Yet so few have made the leap into a territory they should naturally have established complete preeminence in quickly. Why the divergence? Apparently involvement online is not at all being treated like a gold rush or, for most of them, a reasonably safe or wise opportunity despite the hundreds of millions(and more) to be made which is now being made by people nobody ever even heard of not long ago. The discrepancy is a dramatic one, and, the proof being in the pudding so to speak, seems to speak to there not being a great desire of B&M casinos to get involved.

I appreciate your comments, but I'm not sure they all really explained away my previous comments at all. I'm interesting in checking out the link you gave, though, and will do so.

Re: Roy Cooke\'s Recent Column in CP: Government and Our Game — the Heat is
 

Two arguments which are being used against net gaming and are being used are that it can and is being(?) used by international terrorists and criminals, and that identity can't be properly or easily verified, leading to children being exposed to the evils of gambling via the net. One argument can work based on fear and one based on morality -- both of which are often interchangeable and mirrors for each other. A third argument might be made that tax evasion is somehow "characteristic" of online gaming(even though probably next to no people ever declare their winnings and losses in Vegas, either.

You and I both know all three of these arguments are weak and they would be moot if the industry was properly regulated instead of the piece-meal prohibition attempts that are going on right now. The fear of legal reprisal has forced credit card companies to cease business with internet gaming sites and now internet gamblers are forced to take their banking business off-shore where there is little to no paper trail and few security checks to insure customers are of legal age. If a problem with money laundering exists it has been created because of federal statue not in spite of it.

The important point is that you will not see any casino putting forth any of the arguments you mentioned because they will draw scrutiny to their own operations. B&M casinos have problems with underage patrons and tax issues just like Internet establishments. Money laundering might be a bigger concern at B&M establishments because there is no paper trail whatsoever. You simply wont see casinos putting forth arguments that could call in question problems that may exist with their own operations.

As to people in B&M casinos having their first exposure to poker from online gaming, the demographic for casino playing would have to have changed radically in the 7 years or so since I've been to one.

The demographics would have to have been completely flipped on its heads, growth would have had to be incredibly explosive,...

Where have you been? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

There have been huge shifts in the demographics of poker players over the past 7 years but lets look at changes in non-poker going patrons during this same time. You contend that casino goers tend to be older and, for the most part, I will agree with you on this. Are these older patrons more or less likely then their younger counterparts to be online? If the casino going population were indeed older like you state, wouldn’t these people be a heck of a lot less likely to have the know-how to be online?

You also have to consider that many people enjoy an evening out at the casino. This is a completely different experience then sitting in your home behind a computer screen. B&M casinos know this and that is why they don’t fear Internet gaming. It’s kind of like how strip clubs don’t fear the growth of the online porn industry.

On the B&M casinos getting into online gaming, to me what is notable is not that some few have done so, but how many have not. Gambling is a business they have years and even decades of experience in, and there is no shortage of B&M companies with either ambition or cash. Yet so few have made the leap into a territory they should naturally have established complete preeminence in quickly. Why the divergence?

Look at the success of British bookmakers (will hill, victor chandlier etc etc) with their online ventures. The reason for their eager entry into the market and their corresponding success has been their ability to market their brand name to those people who know it best. This is a conundrum for US B&M casinos looking to enter the e-gaming industry; at the present time they can’t market their product to those who know and trust it. Because of this, so few US casinos have entered the e-gaming business and even less have succeed. Contrary to what many of us might think, US casino brand names mean next to nothing to the average joe in Europe or Asia. US casinos would be poised and ready to spring into action if e-gaming were allowed in the US.

Re: Roy Cooke\'s Recent Column in CP: Government and Our Game — the Heat is
 

check this out this article i just found http://www.covers.com/includes/artic...tid=43&t=2

i honestly didnt plagerize by using the word 'symbiotic' to describe the relationship between B&M and internet casinos... i was quite shocked when i saw that word used in this article

cubs