Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : ECNC: BETTING, INC. A WAGER ON NEW GAMING TECHNOLOGY -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: blkjk7 who wrote (1764)	4/14/1999 6:41:00 AM
From: Fli-by	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2909

Hey Scoobey, blkjk7 has some good questions that need answering from Tom. I'd be interested to know as we all would. Fli

To: blkjk7 who wrote (1764)	4/14/1999 4:26:00 PM
From: SCOOBEY-DO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2909

Hey blkjk7, Good questions? Tom reads the thread but I e-mailed your post to him anyway. I was wondering about this sentence though. " why wouldn't Tom, etal, want to keep the price from going over $3 by Sep. 99 because if it does then HPOS has the right to exercise 13+million shares at .30?" Tom has no reason to keep the price from going over $3. Tom owns HPOS, so his company would buy the shares at $0.30. When I read that statement I asked Tom about it. Tom indicated that the agreement was changed, due to the acquisitions, but he didn't say how. My thoughts were that, if the agreement was in place, shareholders would sell their shares at $2.875. This would keep the price below $3 until after the agreement was void in September of 99. I couldn't see other companies wanting to merge with BETT if the agreement stood as it was written. It will be interesting to see Tom's reply. Go BETT!! Go Tom!! Scoobey