RE: Looking Back at the Future of Poker

by , Aug 12, 2008 | 5:56 am

A touch more research on the research below reveals that back in 2005, to fully study the waves, impacts, ebbs, and pulses of the poker business, the following companies were considered relevant enough to merit a looksie:

(Notice anyone conspicuously missing?)

– American Gaming Association
– Anheuser-Busch
– Apex Poker Network
– Bellagio Casino
– BetandWin
– Betfair
– Boss Media
– Bravo Network
– Cassava Enterprises
– Challenge TV
– eBay
– Empire Poker
– European Poker Tour
– Eurosport
– Golden Palace
– Harrah´s
– IGlobalMedia/Partygaming
– International Poker Federation
– IntertopsPoker
– KahnawakeGaming Commission
– Ladbrokes Poker
– Merrill Lynch
– Microgaming
– Pacific Poker
– Paradise Poker
– PartyPoker
– Pizza Hut
– Playtech
– Poker Rook
– PokerStars
– PricewaterhouseCoopers
– Random Logic
– Sportingbet
– Sunset & Vine
– Travel Channel
– TribecaTables
– Ultimate Bet
– Victor Chandler
– WagerLogic
– WagerWorks
– World Poker Tour
– World Series of Poker
– Yahoo


10 Comments to “RE: Looking Back at the Future of Poker”

  1. Karridy

    No Bodog

  2. Kevin Mathers

    No mentions of Absolute Poker, FSN or GSN.

  3. DanM

    And … come’om, one of the big boys.

    BTW, Kevin, wasn’t Absolute part of Ultimate Bet in ’05?

  4. DanM

    Oh, and no Neteller. I guess they were just getting relevant right as this thing was coming out?

    Hint on the big-boy reference: Howard Lederer, Phil Ivey, Clonie …

  5. on tilt

    no Pokerati, of course

  6. on tilt

    oh yeah. no FTP either

  7. Kevin Mathers

    Don’t you mean F—T—P—

  8. Kevin Mathers

    Also, FTP was launched June 04, so it might have been too new for them to be considered?

  9. DanM

    Kevin, do I actually have a fact on you? Full Tilt went live in April ’04, I am almost certain. I remember because it was the topic of my very first post on Pokerati:

    (Scroll down to near-the-bottom.)

  10. Kevin Mathers

    Maybe they went live for real money in June? (that’s what I get for using Wikipedia as a source). But their relative newness may have precluded them from being mentioned in that report.