PGRI Note: Where to begin with this one. I do not know the current status of PokerStars U.S. criminal indictments, but even if those are resolved, shouldn’t these kinds of people be restricted from operating in the U.S. market? Why should a company, and others like it, which deliberately operated in blatant violation of U.S. laws be granted a license to now operate legally? More interesting, though, is the observation that players in the U.S. could be joined by players from foreign jurisdictions. And that would supposedly “create even bigger revenues for the state of New Jersey”. The problem with that Pollyanna notion is that the merging of foreign markets with U.S. markets will not result in everyone embracing the U.S. model of highly-taxed gambling. The opposite is much more likely to happen. As remote i-gaming operators are well aware, in the end, the driver of the bus is neither legislators nor operators. It’s the consumer. As the markets converge, and the control over business models and regulatory structures become less a matter of legislative fiat and more a matter of what is practicable and enforceable, control becomes commandeered by the consumer-driven markets. Which will the consumer choose, a model with a lower prize payout percentage (one that serves the valuable function of funding worthy social causes), or a model that delivers a percentage payout of 96% or more? Players in foreign markets are used to the high-payout and will clearly accept nothing less. What will happen when the markets are globalized and the U.S. players realize they are receiving a much less favourable payout percentage than their peers in other jurisdictions? I would think that we can expect the relentless pressures of the market-place to, over time, cause margins to decline. That’s the way capitalism works in all industries, not just gaming and lottery. We fight it by trying to re-fresh, or hopefully even re-invent, the product to begin a new life-cycle with the higher margins that come with earlier growth stages. We find new ways to reach new consumer groups. BUT, along with those and many other strategies to build in sustainability, we also try to diminish the rate at which the margins of high-profit products are reduced. We do not deliberately smooth a path for the premature destruction of a business profit model that serves the interests of the worthy beneficiaries of lottery proceeds. U.S. state legislators should think carefully about how the dynamics of business competition and consumer markets will evolve and try to discern a strategy that will optimize the economic benefits to their citizens. It’s not rocket science. All that is needed is is legislative leadership that puts the interests of the citizens first.