Eadwig
18 Oct 2016
Oh dear! "The share buy-back programme William Hill announced on 26 February 2016 has been suspended since 23 July 2016. We will now recommence the share buy-back programme."Nice of them to mention it was suspended - they didn't at the time that I saw, and you may remember I was following it quite closely.Note the share price performance between the dates above, and that was with much less than half the cash allocated, from memory.If the buyback is equally successful, WMH should be worth around @150-200p by the Spring."The Group has continued to focus on the four priorities set out by Interim CEO Philip Bowcock - online, technology, efficiencies and international"Interesting that they separate online and technology and technology and efficiencies.I wonder exactly how, as online is the key to the business's continued existence, let alone growth, in my opinion.'Technology' in the banking sector, as opposed to online, is code for approx. 90% staff reductions through branch and departmental closures and so-called 'dedicated A.I.' within around 10 years, which, as you might imagine, is a big efficiency (No more sick days, maternity/paternity leave, holidays, pension contributions etc)'Efficiencies' generally equate to closure of costly 'bricks and mortar' sites - or branches in banking-speak.As for 'International', Amaya in the form of Pokerstars would have brought customers from all over the globe, many of which could be serviced entirely in their home currency if they so wished it, right down to Turkish ... erm, lira is it? They will have expertise (albeit flawed in Ketucky, obviously) of gaming laws in dozens of jurisdictions. They also miss out on the natural home for tens of millions of US poker players, if online poker is allowed again across the country.Shame about all that debt, I'm sure that's what killed it before it really got off the ground and caused it to always appear doubtful. Its an awful lot of money.Its a good job the board took the opportunity to underline expectations at the top end of forecasts, or the price would have plummeted below @300p, all the weaker for another opportunity explored and rejected - and possibly passed to the competition if they got the decision wrong.Historic Yield @300p for WMH is just over 4% - ex-div on Thursday, by the way.
pyueck
18 Oct 2016
Re: Voting The management should just get on with running the business, I have never really understood the logic behind all these mergers in the sector? Merging was never going to bring the tax rate or regulatory pressures down.
Punilux
18 Oct 2016
Re: Voting Obviously the WMH board read my postings ! I still don't understand how they hoped to get 50% backing for the merger in the first place.
Punilux
16 Oct 2016
Voting If this merger goes to a vote can any of the following possibly have a say?1) Shares bought back over the last year.2) Shares "created" over the last year.3) Staff purchased shares, which I understand do not give them a vote.4) Shares purchased subsequent to the original announcement.Not that long ago, with a share price close to £5, there was a very close vote regarding Ralph Topping's bonus.
Punilux
16 Oct 2016
Re: Parvus Telegraph report that WMH now up to due diligence stage. Racing Post reports that Lad/Cor selling 359 shops to Done for £55.5M, which is an awful lot less than originally touted, as these are, apparently, profitable branches.Here goes with my maths. I look forward to some corrections.WMH shareholders "own" an asset presently worth £3Bn. If you use the same calculation as the Lad/Cor deal and take into account our present level of debt, that might appear reasonable to some. Most of the present debt was generated buying online business' which were supposed to provide a profit as stand alone companies as well as shoring up WMH's present digital offering. A hefty chunk of the acquisitions are connected to online casinos. joining Amaya , WMH holders will acquire £2.8 Bn debt, so they are effectively halving their ownership of the combined entity. However, a lot of the recently purchased digital companies will not be able to operate within the new entity as you clearly can not have competing systems. Thus, there will have to be a significant write-off of existing assets. Instead of there being a saving there would be a significant discount to the individual companies worth if they were to combined. For arguments sake say the company would be worth £5Bn. with £3Bn. debt.After servicing debt, won't the combined company have to double both of the constituent entity's profits to show the same level as WMH currently provides?As always, happy to be proven wrong!
valeite
14 Oct 2016
Re: Parvus clearly WMH is now FOR SALE .i agree with your sentiments although i wouldn't be surprised if it was take private .all concerned are looking incompetent and a new management team will have to be found .
Punilux
14 Oct 2016
Parvus I'm obviously missing something here.Parvus are the largest shareholders in WMH and they are complaining about the board valuing the company at £3 a share, having already turned down £4 on the basis that it was not enough. Instead of WMH talking to Parvus in the first place, we now have Ralph Topping joining the party saying that any merger will destroy WMH shareholder value. The WMH board respond by saying that their critics are unaware of facts which are in the public domain. This looks like an Omni shambles to me as either the chairman or the main shareholder walks. Neither would enhance WMH's prospects of gaining a real CEO in the near future.Instead of a 5% fall there is suddenly a 5% rise. Are there any Bet365 / GVC rumours floating about or, and this is even more unlikely, is someone planning to take the company private?
Eadwig
13 Oct 2016
Re: Amaya�s debts worry William Hill b... pyueck, " my only point is that it is wrong to say that people who play poker can't have a problem"I only said that poker isn't a natural game of choice for addicted gamblers, and that the game is skilled enough that a bad player will realise quite quickly that they aren't making the final table as often as some people who seem to be there week in week out. Therefore it is more difficult for someone to delude themselves about winning. That's because it is a game of skill, not random chance.You also can't cash in for perhaps 6 or 7 hours after the tournament starts and to do so you have to have either won or agreed a split of prize money between those left (usually three or four). Few *compulsive* gamblers have that sort of patience, if any - especially when sitting a few feet away from a casino floor.Yes, of course addicted gamblers play poker tournaments in casinos. They're easy to spot, they keep standing up telling the dealer they are 'taking three hands' and go play a few spins on the roulette. How often do you think they get to a final table?Does poker turn people into addictive gamblers? Not that I ever saw. It does lure people into casinos, of course. When I started playing the UK law said that every pound that went into a poker tournament from the players had to be paid out in prize money to the players in a prize structure agreed by the players. And it is illegal to tip dealers in UK casinos. So, obviously, the casinos only put on tournaments to increase footfall. They are businesses, after all. I occasionally played blackjack or roulette when waiting for a tournament to start. I know for a fact my friend that I learnt poker with never put one single penny on any casino table game of chance anywhere in the world.You seem to be suggesting that I might have a problem and my own accounts are deluding me. I haven't played for 12 years because my circumstances changed. So I think we can safely say I'm not a poker addict. I will admit to occasionally betting on football. I put £250 into a sky bet account in 2006 (or there abouts) and took my account balance back up above £90 when I won £9 with a 25p double on the correct score of two games (both 1-1 draws) last Saturday. Obviously I'm a long term loser at sports betting, though. To the tune of about £15 quid a year.I almost never bet on correct scores, and will probably never have such a winning bet again. I did get enormous satisfaction from it, though. I call that cheap entertainment. I never said all my friends were making money out of poker, either. Just one that studied with me. However, when you play within a community for years and against the same players mostly over and again, you get to know the winners and the losers and the ones somewhere around break even. I had memorable nicknames assigned to hundreds of players, notes on how they played, with what hand and in what circumstances, and had a good idea of how they thought I played.After doing that for a year or two, you also remember details of what hands someone played at your table if you only ever saw them play a few hands just once previously maybe 2 or 3 years before. You also find yourself analysing what type of player the bloke delivering a parcel to your door is, the bank teller that is serving you, your barber, the butcher or greengrocer when out shopping. It becomes second nature to do it and requires constant practice.So, I'm quite comfortable with my estimate of 5%-10% are profitable players. I know I have the experience to evaluate that, and I can often spot them within minutes at the same table - as they usually can me. Sometimes you revise your view later, some players are very good but have a fatal floor in their tournament game; E.g. 'Small pair Dave'.I termed myself a 'semi-pro' simply because I had income from other sources, you appear sceptical. I made a decision to play poker to earn legal tax free cash on top of my income and to set my
pyueck
13 Oct 2016
Re: Amaya�s debts worry William Hill b... Eadwig you are getting too hung up on the word gambling. The truth is it doesn't matter what you call it. Many people play poker because they think they can be one of the ones who wins money. And in doing so they will more than likely lose money and this will lead many to dispair misery and sometimes suicide.The game has in many ways a particular risk in that it can make people believe that it is a way of displaying their intelligence and skill, and therefore can appeal to those who don't fall for other forms of gambling as they realise with those they have no chance of making money long term. That is why the game is so popular with men at universities and traders.If you make money from it great for you, just be careful seeing yourself as 'semi pro', often such badges are used to legitimise a problem. Remember gambling addiction isn't just about the money, the time that can be wasted playing poker can have serious impacts on ones life and relationships.I have no idea if your records are accurate but I find it hard to believe the all your friends are making money out of it. It just doesn't stack up. As I say every poker player I speak to claims they make money, maybe the Individual does, and if so good for them. However never forget that for many and their families it brings them misery and despair. Also remember a winner is often loud and proud about it a loser not so.I don't really want to get into a discussion on this, my only point is that it is wrong to say that people who play poker can't have a problem, whether you call it gambling or not.
Eadwig
13 Oct 2016
Re: Amaya�s debts worry William Hill b... "a negotiating-style settlement amount put forward by the courts"the prosecutor, that should have said.
Eadwig
13 Oct 2016
Re: Amaya�s debts worry William Hill b... Punilux, "Ms. Coren suggested that you needed to play 000 hands and be aware of the contents of numerous poker bibles before even starting to play properly. "I studied for around 6 months, putting in about the equivalent of a bachelors degree of work, I reckon, including writing papers and having them critiqued by a friend who was doing the same thing, bought every vialble book on poker and had it shipped into England, rejected the vast majority of the text and read and re-read the 'bibles' (I reckon Coren got that term off me) and playing thousands of hands on software.I then sat down for the first time at a poker table in a tournament of 40 people to play my first hand of poker EVER. I played that tournament twice a week for about another 6 months as a live apprenticeship, before moving on. That was £5 entry, rebuy tournament, held twice a week. I also organised a 7 or 8 player friendly tournament at my flat one night a week during that period.I moved into profit on my fifth tournament (splitting the £1200 prize money 3 ways) and was never underwater again.After about 3 months of that tournament, my friend and I had written a paper on a strategy of how to beat that particular tournament. I showed our yearly figures to a professional player about 3 years later and he couldn't believe how much money we took out of such a small tournament between us. It was funny that we did a search on the internet to try and find a tournament for maybe just five pounds entry, if such a thing existed, after about 6 months of off-table study. Not only was such a tournament available in our home city, it was about ten minutes walk away. What a coincidence. There only were two others in the whole of England (at least on the internet at that time, about 1998-99ish).I read one report that said the Kentucky fine is not outstanding, by the way, but is a negotiating-style settlement amount put forward by the courts. I'm not sure if that is right. If someone has played on pokerstars from Kentucky, then they've hacked on illegally and is hardly the sites fault if the state can't police its own internet. That doesn't matter if US courts fine you, of course. The US has a history of fining and jailing people who have broken no US law and who couldn't be prosecuted for doing what they were doing in the USA or if they were a US citizen, but who has nevertheless threatened the profits of big US business in corrupt states like Nevada, Kentucky and Washington DC. The directors of Neteller spring to mind, arrested by the FBI when their flight from Europe to Canada stopped to refuel in USA.
Eadwig
13 Oct 2016
Re: Amaya�s debts worry William Hill b... pyueck, "Eadwig you have no idea about compulsive gambling. You think compulsive gamblers only play games that are fast? What is your evidence for such a statement?"You have no real idea about poker, pyueck, with respect, if you call it gambling, which many people do. I gave you my evidence about compulsive gamblers wanting faster games and using poker sometimes as a way of keeping the buzz going, but spinning out their cash.My observations come from several years of playing poker semi-professionally and spending thousands of hours in casinos both on the poker tables and watching other people gambling on the other tables when waiting for friends to complete tournaments after I had been knocked out. I never had a losing year.I have the accounts to prove it. They list all expenses, not just tournament buy-ins, but petrol, taxis and other travel expenses, food when on the road, accommodation (not often required), the cost of importing poker books for research from America (not easily available in the UK back then) and even exchange rate losses and anything else a business would include in overheads. On the other side of the ledger was nothing but what the casino put in my hand, less tips or very occasionally a percentage of someone elses win (sometimes done on an ad hoc basis when travelling together). I know other people who kept meticulous accounts, and some that weren't so meticulous, who all won over the longer term. Poker is a game of skill, it is not gambling. You can't say any of the above about any casino game such as blackjack, roulette etc etc or any electronic gambling machines that the casinos and bookies employ. I have known people win at horse racing over the long term - by selling tips. I don't know anyone who made a living backing horses or dogs, although it may be possible in theory.I could introduce you to compulsive gamblers who are fantastic poker players and made money playing poker without any shadow of a doubt. One that I often ended up against when just he and I were left in a tournament would always do a deal to split 1st and 2nd place evenly - even when he was well ahead and I would want more when I was ahead - just so he could then take his winnings and blow it on the casino tables before the place shut at 5am. I became very good friends with him and he told me that he couldn't sleep if he went home with money in his pockets, instead he lay awake until the bookies opened and he could get down there for the first race.I have known several other compulsive, addicted gamblers, including a close friend who would often go through his weekly wages on fruit machines within a few hours of collecting them. Compulsive gambling is all about losing when it comes down to it - none of these people ever even pretended that they were hoping to win big someday. Many know the odds and know the more they play the more they will lose.So, with respect, I submit that I know poker, I know it isn't gambling and I know compulsive and addictive gamblers. Even you admit some poker players win over the long term. It is a far greater number than 1%, perhaps 5-10%, but even if it was just 1%, you can't say that about any gambling game. There's your proof.You are also right that when the 10% fee was introduced, it did become harder to be a winner. 51% was no longer required, 61% was, and considerably more to return even a reasonable hourly wage. The fact pokerstars has got away with 10% entry fees from day one tells me it is a massively profitable business, or should be, - because I learnt to play poker primarily to give me something to do while my online business made money with no one working on it. That's why I say I played poker semi-professionally. I always had another income coming in, but I could have lived off poker alone, although just playing the local circuit in the north of England and Midlands would have been pretty frugal - although there are no taxes on poker win
Punilux
13 Oct 2016
Re: Amaya�s debts worry William Hill b... Should be "10,000" rather than 000.
Punilux
13 Oct 2016
Re: Amaya�s debts worry William Hill b... Just read the Racing Post which has severe reservations about WMH's continued interest because:A) There is apparently an US$850M fine outstanding to Pokerstars in Kentucky.B) Much of the legality of Pokerstar's international operations are a "grey area". The Racing Post argued that if PS and WMH merged then 25% of the combined operation would be unlicensed. If you consider how hard WMH has worked for its present licences then this would represent a major policy shift.C) The cost of servicing the debt of the combined company would probably wipe out the savings that could be made.D) Reading between the lines,there could be a problem with nominating the CEO.Thus, the market clearly does not think that the merger will take place rather than it not being excited by the possibility.If I remember correctly Ms. Coren suggested that you needed to play 000 hands and be aware of the contents of numerous poker bibles before even starting to play properly.
pyueck
13 Oct 2016
Re: Amaya�s debts worry William Hill b... Eadwig you have no idea about compulsive gambling. You think compulsive gamblers only play games that are fast? What is your evidence for such a statement?Unfortunately the totally useless Gambling Commission decided to stop doing their gambling prevalence survey in 2010, so at present nobody funds proper research into gambling addiction. Just as the industry likes it!
