% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Multimedia Games Holding Company Message Board

  • yahoo yahoo May 11, 2005 7:47 PM Flag

    Deleted Message


    Deleted Contents

    This topic is deleted.
    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Per Junior,

      "I look more at the big picture based on all the actual facts that I can find."

      Super! It's great to see you embrace change! When can we expect you to post with this new philosophy of yours? You could start by providing facts to back up the unsupported claims in your last posts and acknowledging the factual errors in same.

      "I'm not doing the shorts a favor by exposing MGAM." Oh, you're too modest Junior. Believe me, you haven't exposed anything on this board about MGAM.

      Finally, it's cool the way you talk about "the shorts" in the third person as Though you aren't one of them - sort of like the Queen of Engalnd you are!

    • LVR. The only difference between your slant and mine is that you base everything on narrow conjecture based on a sort of picture that you draw for yourself in your mind. I look more at the big picture based on all the actual facts that I can find. Most of the time your way works OK but there are a lot of things going on here most private investors could never be expected to know about or understand. Sometimes the market is like a snakepit and you have to know where all the snakes are.

      I'm not doing the shorts a favor by exposing MGAM. The market already knows this stuff anyway. That's why the stock isn't 40. Besides, the shorts probably want it to go higher so they can short more. And they may be wrong, it wont be the first time. I seem to recall that Jim Chanos got killed shorting AOL. Of course he made up for it by shorting Enron at 79.

      I don't like the shorts any more than you do but I respect them.

    • Well. I guess you told me!

      (you sure seemed excited about Tulalip before though)

      But didn't you forget to ask me to explain EVO this time?

    • las_vegas_researcher1999 las_vegas_researcher1999 Jun 20, 2003 3:25 PM Flag


      Not relative to II's, you missed the recent Tulalip opening with your statement, and you have to bring in the names of others and say things they would not agree with, or do you think that management and bobaloo think that III's are as important as II's to MGAM?

      Or III's are more important than II's?

      What about in the same ballpark?

      What about even that III's are half as important as II's to MGAM?

      See, you don't have a clue and if Yahoo! would let me report posters for STUPID then you'd be right behind Vandy.


    • According to management and bobaloo, IIIs DO matter.

    • las_vegas_researcher1999 las_vegas_researcher1999 Jun 20, 2003 2:58 PM Flag


      It started with the Tulalip tribe but I'm surprised you give any opinions on this board not knowing that III's don't matter to MGAM.


    • las_vegas_researcher1999 las_vegas_researcher1999 Jun 20, 2003 2:56 PM Flag



      Again, what professional short firm do you work for -- or do you just lie & twist for fun?


    • Thank you for that unsubstantiated judgement of the situation in OK. It would be interesting to see you substantiate it.

      ie. Tell us how it is a travesty. How is it counter to IGRA? The state has no legal interest in tribal gaming so it is not hurting the state and the tribes are making a bundle. It is helping them. There is tribal governmental control and control by NIGC. If NIGC were, in fact, impotent then tribes would not be removing machines at NIGC's direction or shutting down casinos to placate NIGC. But, the fact is tribes are heeding NIGC's direction.

      How do MGAM's Class II machines stack up next to Washington state-style Class III machines? Those are the only Class III machines on the table so that's the reasonable comparison. I haven't seen any data on how those compare so a claim here that "There will be very little demand for Class II because it cannot compete with Class III." is meaningless.

      If you're going to look at MGAM one or two years down the road you must also give weight to the markets they are developing and the NY tracks. Even if MGAM were to lose all its OK revenues (which is doubtful since MGAM also sells the Class III product some tribes might compact for plus some tribes will keep their Class II rather than pay a share to the state for the priveledge of losing their exclusivity) you need to factor in new markets.

      You repeatedly claim the NIGC will never get a hold of this despite the very recent evidence to the contrary - the OK tribes are doing what the NIGC is requesting. Your premise that NIGC is impotent is false on its face.

      At the end of your post you suddenly vest the NIGC with the power to do away with the state's control over Class III despite your earlier claims that NIGC is impotent. This is your oft-repeated, never substantiated claim that RTB is actually Class III. As Josef Goebbels did in WWII, you keep repeating the "big lie" enough and people will believe it. For anyone to state that RTB is Class II or that RTB is Class III absent any proof is a lie. That's why I tagged you as Vandagoebbels, not because of any fascination with Nazis on my part, but due to your unceasing use of Herr Goebbel's tactic.

    • las_vegas_researcher2006 las_vegas_researcher2006 Jun 20, 2003 2:37 PM Flag

      Thank goodness they have a *few* more ClassII machines placed today then they did 14 months ago.

    • As of April, they had the same number of Class III machines as they did a year ago. When does it start grow?

    • View More Messages