Originally Posted by BiliousBetil
As Mr. Dalla points out, this was very common thinking until April 2011! You know what happened then. But, let's assume that the above argument is valid. Online poker, where it is legal is far from booming; so, where is all of this money to grease the wheels going to come from?
As in all things in a republic, fight for your rights or lose them.
I think I may have to concede here.
My initial instinct was, of course, to defend my point of view. Buy as I gathered my thoughts in preparation to respond, I realized that my first response to this thread was based upon my initial reaction to the announcement of the legalization of online poker in New Jersey. My thinking at that time was that once the money started coming in, and other states began to see the revenue that could be generated by legalizing and taxing online poker, they would quickly jump on the bandwagon.
As you point out, however, that hasn't happened. When I think about it now, I don't know what I expected. I mean, I know what I expected. I just don't know why I expected it. When you think about the success of online poker prior to Black Friday, it was based upon the fact that it brought in poker players from all over the world. In fact, the success of the casino industry is also based on the ability to draw in business from other places, maybe not always from all over the world, as in the case of Las Vegas. Other places may not draw in customers from as far and wide, but places, such as Biloxi, with smaller casino industries, don't need to draw them in from as far in order to maintain their profit margins. But they do need to draw them in.
Imagine what would happen to the gambling industry in America if it were only allowed to serve customers from within certain geographic boundaries. What if all of the Las Vegas and Reno casinos were only open to Nevada residents? What if only New Jersey residents were allowed to play in New Jersey casinos? What if you had to live in Mississippi to patronize the casinos in Biloxi, Tunica, or Vicksburg, or if you could gamble at any casino on any reservation that you chose as long as you resided on that reservation? There would be no casinos on Native American reservations. There would be no casino industries in Mississippi or New Jersey. Even the Las Vegas casino industry would eventually dry up and die. The same is true for the online poker industry. Even with the convenience of being able to play from the comfort of your own home, no poker site that is allowed to operate only in a single state is very likely accumulate a big enough player base to be very profitable. It's no wonder online poker isn't exactly thriving in places like New Jersey.
That was going to be the basis for my response to your queries. But like a politician's answer, it might explain or make excuses for the lack of money available to the online poker industry, but it doesn't really answer the question does it? Where the money would, or should we say would have come from is the big three poker sites
. Of course the big three is now the big two, since UB/AP simply vanished after BF. But as long as the casino industry (Sheldon Adelson) continues to be successful at keeping them from reentering the US market that money isn't really going to exist. I could say more about what I think about the majority of sites currently available to US players, but I won't get into that right now. Let's just say that they don't really compare to what was available prior to BF.
My new response to OP is that there may be no need to outlaw online poker in the US. If it remains suppressed the way it currently is, it may simply wither up and die, or at least dry up to the point where it is of no concern to the casino industry.