Everyone Will Win More! - Fish
Sorry Fish,
You Ask: At what point does the gov't -outlaw online gaming unless it is through their site?
Answer: Well the truth is they haven’t really yet and likely never would. They have made much of the movement of money a pain in the butt but they know they could never drain the ocean with just a cup, which is exactly what they’d have to do to “Outlaw” online gaming. So if you can’t beat them, join them! By offering games easiest for their own players to play, they actually could lighten up on the current restrictions and still, because of the ease in participating and the trust factors, dominate their own markets.
You Ask: Will the pokersites take this laying down? (Party might, but Stars, Tilt, as well as the other networks will most likely fire back, reduced rake, more bonuses etc etc.) Does the gov't poker site compete? or is legislation issued to make things more difficult to deposit/withdrawal from other online gaming sites?
Answer: I likely explained this in the “No Rake” post previous and as well as the first answer in this post. We feel the laws would loosen for numerous reasons, but the governments would not worry for they’d own the “only game in town” so to speak. Seeing as the rest are "offshore". Would the other sites fight back, of course they would. Realistically they would lose tens of millions per year, if not hundreds of millions, so expect a damn huge fight! The best they could do would be to lower their rakes, making current poker players the biggest winners in the end. So competition is a good thing for everyone. As can be seen by the “No Rake Post” in the 19th hour if you carry that through, Poker Stars has 100% of all the player’s money just from Rakes. Lowering it, or feeling they have to lower it to compete, is clearly a great thing for players who play there. Also remember, in that 19th hour, in that example, not one extra penny was taken in our method for we don’t take a rake.
You Ask: At what point after most of the other online gaming sites have gone the way of the dinosaur, assuming you are correct, does the gov't run pokersite raise the rake do 10% up to $10 a pot in even the micro games? If you say the likelihood of this happening is low, then you are kidding only yourself.
Answer: Assuming we are correct and governments throughout the world offer their own games, the smaller, less trusted or shady poker sites would be the first to go. If the top 10 mega sites were left that would be great, for it would keep the governments from getting too greedy and taking a little more then they likely should. At this point the best Rakes would be offered by the biggest poker sites. Everyone left would win for there would be fewer places to play on the “big scale”. To say the governments would not want to take more with less competition, you are right; we’d only be kidding ourselves to think differently. Hopefully they stay realistic to the players, but that is not our call. They ultimately will do it their own way even though we will “Recommend” what we see as the best way.
You Ask: Will the gov't run pokersites ban or limit winning players like they did against winning proline players?
Answer: I am not exactly familiar with the ban you refer too with Pro-line. for those that don't know Pro-line if the lottery run sports betting in Ontario, Canada. BC offers the same thing called Sports Action or Oddset. We know they limit the amount of a payout in Ontario on any ticket for Pro-line to $600,000 and limit the amount you may bet on a single ticket to $100. I don’t see how Pro-line can "Ban" people from playing when you have 5 million people in the GTA, 12,000 lottery terminals across the province, 8 million people in the province
tells me over half of those lottery terminals are in the GTA area. How can they prevent a person from playing? As long as tickets were kept to payouts under $1,000 it seems impossible. I also know of the goofs they made in soccer, allowing bets after the results were final, but these are different things altogether. We do not anticipate anyone limiting how much a player can win.
You Ask: Then when the marketing dies down, the games will become worse and worse and become a replica of wpex.com minus the 75-100% rakeback.
Answer: Can it get any worst than the 5% rakes that are already in place? When the poker sites are the biggest winners at the end of the night, there needs to be another solution. Just so happens that our method ensures that everyone at least has a chance to win.
Thanks for the questions. Keep them coming.
Scott
