Friday, May 28, 2010

Trouble for the NAPT and Venetian?

This strikes me as one of the most interesting and important poker-related news stories of the year so far:

By the way (since the federal Department of Justice seems to be involved in this, as well as, obviously, the recent indictments/convictions/seizures/etc. related to online poker), all of you who somehow got the idea that Mr. Obama was going to be the head of an administration that was friendly to online poker--how are you feeling about that impression now?


Missingflops said...

IMO this story has much less to do with whether there will be "legalized" online poker in the US than it has to do with who will reap the rewards of hosting said game. It seems pretty clear that Harrah's is setting itself up to run online poker likely under the WSOP brand and I think the latest hints of a crackdown on the established online providers such as Stars is about weakening them so that when launches as an online poker room that it will have an easier time becoming the big kid on the block. It's pretty simple math. Harrah's is clearly setting themselves up to run online poker. Harrah's has a direct pipeline to Harry Reid. I'd be willing to bet that Harry knows exactly what the government's plans regarding online poker are, so my deduction is that Harrah's isn't going to waste its time getting themselves positioned without knowing it will pay off. So that says to me that the government definitely has a plan in place to get a regulated online poker system established in the near future. Then you look at supposed indictments of FT big wigs, the NAPT story, full implementation of the UIGEA regs and ask your self - why would certain agencies within the government take those actions if poker is going to be legalized. There's only one logical answer I see and it has everything to do with putting money in the pockets of some of Reid's (and surely other politicians) major supporters.

Conan776 said...

Glenn is right, imo: there's a lot of money and backroom dealing going around here. This doesn't effect my opinion of Obama any more than his handling of the British Petroleum oil spill. As far as plugging the spill, he's not Aquaman, and as far as this situation, he's not on hand to oversee every federal decision either.

danm said...

thanks for the link-up, and i'm glad you notice the significance of this, too, grump ...

i'm by no means an obama-hater (in fact on facebook i list my politics as "ron paul-lovin obama fan".) but any who think the administration SUPPORTS online poker legalization is fooling themselves.

it's pretty straight-forward ... his representative on this front is Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder is on the record in several places saying he is anti-online gambling, and supports the UIGEA. He's the big-boss, btw, of the DOJ prosecutors in new york and elsewhere. imho, he knows exactly what's up -- and he is trying to stop it.

btw, my sources in DC say holder is a more regular poker player than obama.