Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="whaler11, post: 2721010, member: 676"] Don't sweat any longer JMick. Whaler is in the house. I have to say I'm fairly impressed this thread wasn't totally butchered. The state is going to have to bring in a William Hill type company to run the operations. They suck in some ways but they have the experience, scale and technology to move quickly. I think the impact is being overstated by a lot of people. 1. The impact to Vegas is zero. 2. The number of new players isn't going to be as big as some seem to think. If you wanted to get bets down the barriers aren't too high. 3. The margins on running a sports book aren't that high. The state needs to make money and WH needs to make money and it's somewhat expensive to administer - are they really going to be able to offer a competitive product? Can they get to -110 lines even? The offshores may still have a more compelling offering. 4. We just saw the DFS sites try something similar. They burned a ton of cash to gain new customers and very quickly people soured on the product. Only 1-2% of people are going to win (and William Hill et al will try to limit them), a lot of people touch the stove learn quickly they are just flushing money down the toilet and give up quickly. That's what you saw at the DFS sites. The average person had no chance of winning. 5. Not offering credit is going to provide local bookmakers that advantage still - and your local doesn't send you 1099s on the rare occasion you win. 6. I don't see how this is going to drive huge TV ratings - are there really that many people who would be compelled to bet on Cincinnati/Cleveland on Thursday night and weren't doing it before? This new population of people is going to drive big incremental ratings? Seems to me the good news for TV is the advertising dollars that are going to flow in just like DFS - but should be bigger and stick around longer. Don't count out Orrin Hatch and co ruining everything too. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach