The New Kitchen Table
CNBC had a discussion between the PPA and an opposing group. What wasn’t said?
Only 10% profit and that is somehow predatory
Actually and according to industry source that too modest. 8% is closer to the truth. Yet, even with the UIGEA, there is a lot of people playing online. Why is that? It is an enjoyable and fairly inexpensive pastime. People don't play for just a profit. It is a recreational activity that is easily managed by those that don't have a gambling problem and that group is a higher percentage than even that 8%.
Online gambling isn't necessary because of the casino growth
For the majority, online play is cheaper than casino gambling. The 8% mentioned above don't have a problem migrating their game to bricks & mortar. For those who aren't as sucessful, online is their only game where the stakes can be reduced to the point they have little at risk. Online provides the same atmosphere and cost as that home game the opponent had no problem with.
The casual player is irrelevant to the business model
This argument is the one above in another form. The players, regardless of level of play, is relevant. They are relevant because the business model is a lowered cost model made possible by computers. This allows the casual player the only venue beside a home game environment where he can spend hours of enjoyment for a limited cost. All but the worst players can spend several hours playing poker for less than the cost of a happy meal.
Poker is unsustainable in online play
He quotes a UBS study that states that online poker is an unsustainable activity dependent on siphoning money from new players. Well, the UIGEA added to the difficulty of online play in the U.S. Every indication since then has been that the number of players has grown and not shrunk. PokerStars and Full Tilt have prospered. They have grown their player base remarkably.
Government is cracking down on fun
This was the title for the interview. It seems the one undisputed fact. The government has tried to crack down on poker and failed. It ignores protecting those with an inclination to play a bit of online poker. It ignores protecting children. It ignores making sure the games are honest. This doesn't affect the majority of players but it does affect those with a problem. While we have example that show some sites ignoring the various problem but the majority are trying to responsibly protect their business by having safeguards that the government completely ignores.
ADDENDUM:
This was an annoying post to put together. The embed just wouldn't work right. It is right now and I hope those using RSS didn't get two copies.
.
No related posts.
Full Tilt and Stars have prospered because they got everyone who couldn’t play at Party and others anymore. That’s not a dig on them either, but it’s a huge number, and a big head start.
But you are right by saying that the majority of players are recreational and are playing for fun. And yes, they are responsible enough to manage their bankrolls.
Because of that, new players will continue to roll in and have fun. “Unsustainable” is a stupid comment on whoever’s part.
If you’ll throw an initially by that ‘have prospered’ I’ll drink to that.
Yes, Party threw out a lot of help to both those sites but they’ve managed to grow from that. Considering the seizures and all, people still are looking for a game.