Wynn partners with PokerStars

[Martini]

Well isn't this interesting? http://blogs.forbes.com/nathanvardi/2011/03/25/billionaire-steve-wynn-makes-big-online-poker-bet-with-pokerstars/

I can easily see MGM/Mirage wanting to jump in with FTP now which would mean even more lobbying power toward legalizing/regulating online poker in the US.

[NotFadeAway]

I'm skeptical about how this will affect us.  I know online poker has to get regulated, and I hope this helps in that regard, but I hope that no one in the U.S. is shut out of playing as a result of eventual regulation.

[Wedge Rock]

While regulated online poker is better than unregulated online poker, I think that online poker will kill the live games, or at least dampen them.

For a period of time, online poker boosted overall interest in the game.  But unless the online experience translates to more live play, the risk becomes that it will become more recognized as an internet game.

I enjoy the human-interaction poker provides, and online play will never supplant that.  Even when I play online with people I know, I often avoid the chat box because its too distracting.  Online poker < live poker.

[Martini]

I can't see anything killing live games ever. They've been around this long and I'd say that's largely due to the social aspect of it. Casino live games may come and go but with the rake doesn't work out for anyone really. Casinos would rather pave over poker rooms with slot machines to make more money from the floor space and 10% rake makes 1/2 games an expensive proposition for players.

I think it's smart for Wynn (and likely others) to jump in and grab a share of the profits from online poker so they have their bases covered.

[William]

I can't see online games killing live games either. Online games have been around for quite a few years now, and the live games are still here. Just because Wynn gets involved with online gaming doesn't mean the poker rooms will close down. There's plenty more casinos besides the Wynn.

[stooks99]

With the exception of high limits, it's pretty rare, I think, to have a live game suffer at the hands of online.  If anything, the number of players "lost" to online poker are more than made up for by the number of prospective new players that will be coming into the live rooms.

Anyone who has been around knows that the stereotypical live game is much different than online.  I've been going to casinos for close to 10 years, and the 1/2 NL games and the 4/8 limit games are just as old as they were back then.  Live poker is still much easier to beat than online, but you can't play 10 tables of live at once.

I think referring to live or online as "better" than the other is like saying that chocolate is better than basketball.  They just can't be parrallely compared.

[pauld22]

I think referring to live or online as "better" than the other is like saying that chocolate is better than basketball.  They just can't be parrallely compared.

Oh, chocolate is WAY better than basketball.  Even little basketball shaped chocolates....

[Detroitdad]

I think referring to live or online as "better" than the other is like saying that chocolate is better than basketball.  They just can't be parrallely compared.

Oh, chocolate is WAY better than basketball.  Even little basketball shaped chocolates....

what about a chocolate basketball?

[Wedge Rock]

I think you guys are making my point.  Online games are available to everyone.  And they're rough, especially at low stakes because of the swings.  Drop a couple hundred at poker stars to some suckouts and horrible calls and you'll swear off poker before you ever hit a live card room.

I think online poker is the gateway drug, both because is so accessible, and because its so cheap (even free).  And while I agree that online poker is nothing like live poker, you don't get that distinction until you sit at a live table.  If your experience is soured by online play and you never make it to the live table, the live game dies...

[holdemholmes]

If your experience is soured by online play and you never make it to the live table, the live game dies...

I fear this as well....but I think it will take a lot of time, maybe even longer than most of us will be around for live to completely die off....
And yes, I think if I started playing on pokerstars rather than live, I probably would have quit a week after I started....

[Detroitdad]

I think you guys are making my point.  Online games are available to everyone.  And they're rough, especially at low stakes because of the swings.  Drop a couple hundred at poker stars to some suckouts and horrible calls and you'll swear off poker before you ever hit a live card room.

I think online poker is the gateway drug, both because is so accessible, and because its so cheap (even free).  And while I agree that online poker is nothing like live poker, you don't get that distinction until you sit at a live table.  If your experience is soured by online play and you never make it to the live table, the live game dies...

Your welcome, glad I could contribute

[NotFadeAway]

I think you guys are making my point.  Online games are available to everyone.  And they're rough, especially at low stakes because of the swings.  Drop a couple hundred at poker stars to some suckouts and horrible calls and you'll swear off poker before you ever hit a live card room.

I think online poker is the gateway drug, both because is so accessible, and because its so cheap (even free).  And while I agree that online poker is nothing like live poker, you don't get that distinction until you sit at a live table.  If your experience is soured by online play and you never make it to the live table, the live game dies...

I disagree on a few points.  First off, I don't think many people are going to swear off poker because of bad beats online.  They'll just say that they lost to the 'donks' or whatever.  If anything they'll gravitate to the live games.  Secondly, games are a lot more 'rough' as you go up in stakes.  I mean, if you can't beat low stakes you have no chance at higher stakes, but a lot of people seem to think that's not true.  I don't know why they think that, and it always confuses me.  Finally, as a rule, everyone thinks they're good at poker.  Therefore they will not quit playing, but will instead make up excuses for why they lose, and some of those will be because online poker is rigged, full of donks, not 'real' poker, etc.  Again, these people won't quit the game.  They'll just go back to playing live poker against people as bad as themselves, and just say that online players are 'donks.'
So, to make my point much shorter:  losing online won't make people stop playing poker.  It might make them stop playing online poker.  But they'll continue to play live, imo.

[Wedge Rock]

So, to make my point much shorter:  losing online won't make people stop playing poker.  It might make them stop playing online poker.  But they'll continue to play live, imo.

We disagree here, then.

If you never enjoy poker (because you're no good, because you lose money, because you can't get donks to fold, whatever), you will quit the game.  If you quit the game because of the horrid play online, you will never get bit by the live game bug.

It might be hard for me to evaluate, because I live within 30 minutes of 4 casinos.  Perhaps without a casino live game, my opinion would be different.

[stooks99]

I think you guys are making my point.  Online games are available to everyone.  And they're rough, especially at low stakes because of the swings.  Drop a couple hundred at poker stars to some suckouts and horrible calls and you'll swear off poker before you ever hit a live card room.

I think online poker is the gateway drug, both because is so accessible, and because its so cheap (even free).  And while I agree that online poker is nothing like live poker, you don't get that distinction until you sit at a live table.  If your experience is soured by online play and you never make it to the live table, the live game dies...

I see the point you're making, but I don't agree with it.  The rare breed of people who hate online poker so much they quit the game are the ones who know just enough about the game to think they are being cheated by a rigged site, because otherwise they'd always win.  This is the player who doesn't really have evidence to back up his claims, just random stories of hands where he had the best hand and sucked out. 

Even with this type of player losing online, he's still going to play live when he gets the chance.  I've never been at a low-stakes live game that didn't have a few brand new players at the table, whose only experience was live. 

Online poker helps live poker.  I honestly can't seen any evidence to the contrary.

[TwoToGo-Grave]

Honestly, I see three major types of people who might quit online poker.

1-Run out of money, but they seem more likely to spend their disposable income on live games that online games, right?

2-They think the site is rigged.  Okay, so I imagine that they really just are making excuses, but they're going to trust live games and that's not going to stop them.

3-They think that the only reason they're not beating crushing online poker is because the 'donks' who play online poker are just too bad, and thus good players may have a hard time beating them.  This is a variation of moving up to where they respect your raises.

I just don't see how online poker is turning anybody off of live poker.  Not only is it much more of an activity/form of entertainment than online play, but it's just such a different experience from online.  So much so that if anybody is starting poker by playing online (honestly, they're likely getting into poker by playing it at a table with family/friends, and will not judge the game solely by online experiences), I assume that they'd not view online and live play as the exact same thing, anway, and thus wouldn't out and out quit playing live as well.  I just don't see any way that online poker will really push people away from live games.

[aa889d]

Not to hijack the thread, but a partnership between a B&M and an online site IS the reason for the DOJ crackdown IMHO.

The only folks who like competition less than our own government has got to be the gaming industry.  The government will let you run a casino, just as long as you don't offer a multi-state lotto on the strip in Vegas.

Well, you have the big 3 of online gaming, all with pretty much 99% of the market share already in full busines, operating off-shore with no regulation and paying uncle sam no taxes.

If I'm a Harrah's or MGM exec and looking to make the transition (along with US government support) to a regulated online poker product to augment my existing B&M offerings, the very FIRST thing you'd want to do is eliminate your competition.

I am not surpized that the DOJ finally shuts down and indicts the big 3 online sites (6 years after UGIEA btw) in the same year that bills sponsored by NEVADA lawmakers are introduced into committee that aim to regulate and legalize online poker (with the NV gaming commision as the model agency to run the regulation).

Hmmm, moving to make it legal in the US.  Sponsored by NV lawmakers.  Undoubtedly with major B&M shareholders waiting to launch their online products.

Folks - this is no different than the US legislating away incandesent light bulbs in favor of compact flouresent ones.

You create the problem (i.e. unregulated, "unsafe" off-shore betting houses that are illegal for US citizens to use, but they do anyways).  Then you create the solution (i.e. lets pass a law to allow regulation and move it stateside)  Then you LOBBY your government to surpress free enterprise in the marketplace under the guise of "protecting" the people from themselves.  It just convienently happens that said government action allows for taxation (i.e. governments rake) while at the same time removing your competition that currently holds 99% of the market share of the industry you want to take over.

Ask yourself this.  WHY did it take DOJ 6+ years AFTER the online gaming law to finally act?  WHY did they wait until there was legislation pending in committee to legalize and tax the businesses and keep them in the US?  WHY?  Because they were waiting for the big B&M's to be in a position to take it over, thats why.

I don't really care from a business perspective.  I luckily didn't have any real $$ online after the first law was passed anyways.  Pisses me off that I can't play high-stakes play $$ multi-table for practice on P* anymore (maybe later if they are ever allowed to exist in the US again).  Pisses me off that my years of playing and working a virtual BR from $1000 to up over 10 million means nothing now.  It was just funny money, but it was an accomplishment of skill over time to get it that high.

Mostly, it pisses me off that a country supposedly founded on the ideals and held up to the rest of the world as the example of free enterprise and capitalism, really isn't what is purports itself to be any longer.  Just as in other industries, our government is in the process of taking over online gaming and deciding who and which companies should be the winners and loosers in that equation.  Its happened in banking, housing, energy, etc.... The government TRIED (but failed) to do it in software (until Bill Gates taught them otherwise - spending big$ of his own to make it happen).  Why not online gaming?

Rule #1 of business, it pays to partner with your government to shut out your competition.

[Wedge Rock]

Not to hijack the thread, but a partnership between a B&M and an online site IS the reason for the DOJ crackdown IMHO.

The only folks who like competition less than our own government has got to be the gaming industry.  The government will let you run a casino, just as long as you don't offer a multi-state lotto on the strip in Vegas.

Well, you have the big 3 of online gaming, all with pretty much 99% of the market share already in full busines, operating off-shore with no regulation and paying uncle sam no taxes.

If I'm a Harrah's or MGM exec and looking to make the transition (along with US government support) to a regulated online poker product to augment my existing B&M offerings, the very FIRST thing you'd want to do is eliminate your competition.

I am not surpized that the DOJ finally shuts down and indicts the big 3 online sites (6 years after UGIEA btw) in the same year that bills sponsored by NEVADA lawmakers are introduced into committee that aim to regulate and legalize online poker (with the NV gaming commision as the model agency to run the regulation).

Hmmm, moving to make it legal in the US.  Sponsored by NV lawmakers.  Undoubtedly with major B&M shareholders waiting to launch their online products.

Folks - this is no different than the US legislating away incandesent light bulbs in favor of compact flouresent ones.

You create the problem (i.e. unregulated, "unsafe" off-shore betting houses that are illegal for US citizens to use, but they do anyways).  Then you create the solution (i.e. lets pass a law to allow regulation and move it stateside)  Then you LOBBY your government to surpress free enterprise in the marketplace under the guise of "protecting" the people from themselves.  It just convienently happens that said government action allows for taxation (i.e. governments rake) while at the same time removing your competition that currently holds 99% of the market share of the industry you want to take over.

Ask yourself this.  WHY did it take DOJ 6+ years AFTER the online gaming law to finally act?  WHY did they wait until there was legislation pending in committee to legalize and tax the businesses and keep them in the US?  WHY?  Because they were waiting for the big B&M's to be in a position to take it over, thats why.

I don't really care from a business perspective.  I luckily didn't have any real $$ online after the first law was passed anyways.  Pisses me off that I can't play high-stakes play $$ multi-table for practice on P* anymore (maybe later if they are ever allowed to exist in the US again).  Pisses me off that my years of playing and working a virtual BR from $1000 to up over 10 million means nothing now.  It was just funny money, but it was an accomplishment of skill over time to get it that high.

Mostly, it pisses me off that a country supposedly founded on the ideals and held up to the rest of the world as the example of free enterprise and capitalism, really isn't what is purports itself to be any longer.  Just as in other industries, our government is in the process of taking over online gaming and deciding who and which companies should be the winners and loosers in that equation.  Its happened in banking, housing, energy, etc.... The government TRIED (but failed) to do it in software (until Bill Gates taught them otherwise - spending big$ of his own to make it happen).  Why not online gaming?

Rule #1 of business, it pays to partner with your government to shut out your competition.

QFT, my man.

[KingRichard]

I don't really care from a business perspective.  I luckily didn't have any real $$ online after the first law was passed anyways.  Pisses me off that I can't play high-stakes play $$ multi-table for practice on P* anymore (maybe later if they are ever allowed to exist in the US again).  Pisses me off that my years of playing and working a virtual BR from $1000 to up over 10 million means nothing now.  It was just funny money, but it was an accomplishment of skill over time to get it that high.

Play money still works for me on P*...

[3ball]

So if Vegas is running online poker in the US, does that mean that we can have hookers while we play?

[holdemholmes]

So if Vegas is running online poker in the US, does that mean that we can have hookers while we play?

I believe you will be able to cash in your points for them....

[Buzzerbeater]

So if Vegas is running online poker in the US, does that mean that we can have hookers while we play?

I believe you will be able to cash in your points for them....

Probably going to need to play higher than $5 SnGs though.  Otherwise they might send Kathy Liebert to your house. 

[K ALL IN 9]

I never got into real money online poker so the shutdown hasn't affected me much. Live poker isn't going anywhere. It's like liquor stores and pubs. Why go to a bar and drink when you can go to the liquor store and buy a bottle and enjoy it at home? The same can be said for poker. Why play at a casino when you can just play at home in your undies?

It's because you don't get the same social aspect and camaraderie between players at the table. I almost always walk away a loser when playing live and that's ok with me because i had fun losing. The players will have a few laughs amongst each other and that's what it's all about. The sound of the chips, the cards, the whole casino atmosphere. Put a $100 bill in my hand and say i can use it to play live or online. I'll choose live 110% of the time.