Why Wellington (and Sheldon) Fear the Internet

Last week’s chump-riddled op-ed by former Denver Mayor and current Adelson flunkey Wellington Webb has been torn apart elsewhere by Dan Cypra and Michelle Minton, but I had a slightly different angle as to why it sucks.  And to explore this, I must ask you to compare iPads and oranges…

Basically, Webb thought those who would gamble on the Internet to be “chumps” because it was so AVAILABLE.  He made some of the worst analogies, saying that "Allowing internet gambling is like having a fast food restaurant in your living room."  He also made the comparison to alcohol (Sheldon took the drug reference at G2E), saying that it was like having an alcoholic live in a bar 24/7.  So the idea is this – having something more accessible, even if it’s the same type of thing available in a slightly different mode or delivery system (and specifically one you don’t own) is a bad, bad thing.

So here’s MY analogy, specifically as it relates to the Internet’s effect on how people deal with money.  Let’s look at the Internet’s impact on books.

Back in the day, books came in lots of sizes, colors, and genres, but they ALL came in print and they ALL came from something called a “bookstore.”  You went to Borders (I used to shop at the original store in Ann Arbor – a favorite childhood haunt), or Barnes & Noble, or the local bookstore (remember those?), or even one of the many used book shops around, and you paid your money and took your book home to read and enjoy.

And then, in 1994, Jeff Bezos created the PokerStars of books – Amazon.

My memory is a little rusty, but I don’t remember any legislation introduced that would ban people from buying books online.  I do remember many in the industry who thought Amazon had a snowballs’ chance in a Vegas summer of making it.  And here we are.

But our question pertains not to Bezos’ billions, but to the general public.  Did having access to the Internet and Amazon (and then bn.com and all the others) mean that suddenly  millions of books flooded homes across the country, and that wigged-out nerds, already processing sci-fi thrillers at a pace of two per week, overindulged to the point of paper-cut exhaustion?

Hardly.  If you know anything at all about the publishing industry, it’s that book sales have been flat for a long, long time.  Yes, more book titles are PUBLISHED today than in years past, but sales volume remains about the same.  And despite the creation of the eBook, the total number of sales (actual number of books, not dollar amounts) is in decline.

So despite increased access, the public’s behavior didn’t really change all that much, and no one had reason to fear online booksellers from creating a well-read citizenry, putting books in everyone’s hands every day.  But there WAS change - with the introduction of the eBook, it did change they METHOD some got their reading fix.  We can’t say, “Adieu, print…it was a good run (of more than 550 years),” just yet, but certainly eBooks are set to take over as the dominant method of reading…and soon.

Check out the graph from the link… 

THIS is what Sheldon fears.  Not that everyone will be gambling 24/7, but that the same level of gambling will go on…and that some of it will go on online.  And given how many other industries have seen paradigm shifts because of the Internet…music, movies, money, marketing, mail, media,..hell, that’s just some of the “m’s”…it’s a no-brainer that online gambling will nibble, then bite, into the billionaire’s share.

We’ve seen it back before Black Friday.  Sheldon saw it, too.  That’s what he’s afraid of, and that’s why he sends out his minions to spread fear-mongering drivel across the land.

Because he’s the one that is scared.

Sheldon Soils Himself

October has three big events for me.  In order of importance, they are my anniversary (Happy 39th, Honey!), today, and my birthday (in a week or so - no presents, please).  I turn 62, which is both good and bad - good, as I can legally collect from Social Security (but I will defer), and bad, as it’s a reminder of just how old I really am.  Sumbitch!  But I;m not as old as Sheldon Adelson.

That's a GOOD thing, for today’s big event is Adelson's keynote address at the Global Gaming Expo.  Yeah, that’s sandwiched between anniversary and birthday, partly because at this writing I have no idea how good or bad I'm gonna get screwed.  When it was first announced, there was much gnashing of teeth, since while Shelly is the biggest thing in gambling (money-wise), he’s also one of the most polar.  Folks either hate him or despise him (I kid…everyone despises him).  He’s controversial to be sure, and some questioned him being the keynote.  But then again, the G2E IS in his home court (Sands Expo and Convention Center), so maybe he offered them a discount so he could get that plum assignment.  Ha!

Anyway, one of the hot topics has been whether or not Adelson would speak on internet gaming.  His views ARE well known, of course, and it’s one reason he’s highly controversial (his dumping of millions of dollars to influence all sorts of legislation and elections across the US might be another).  Many thought he’d shy away from the issue, but here’s my view:  why spend all that money buying Senators, CongressGuys, etc., having a Coalition and a (crappy) website and even getting involved with social media with a Facebook page (equally crappy, and sort of contradictory if you think about it), and then taking the stage for one of the biggest gaming events in the world and NOT speak about igaming, even if it’s the same old (tired and wrong) rhetoric we’ve come to loathe and expect all along?

Well, Sheldon did not disappoint.  In a keynote Q&A (never seen one of those before) moderated by Roger Gros, publisher of Global Gaming Business, Adelson touched on a variety of issues – why he’s so successful in Macau, his “good friend Steve” (Wynn, who is much better buds now that he made several bows to Adelson yesterday and took a stronger anti-online-gaming stance), and other expansionist ideas here in the US (Texas, South Florida, and Tampa, which is no longer located in South Florida).  Oh, and the Meadowlands, maybe.  And then the moment we all were waiting for – Gros asked about his opposition to online gaming.

Even though I was watching in the comfort of my own home (via Livestream on the internet – how ironic), I felt the heat come from the octogenarian.  Man, you would have thought someone was on his lawn.  Despite several attempts by Gros to actually rebut some of Shelly’s more wilder accusations, Adelson put on a tour-de-farce that made him look like an 80-year old man who’s out of touch with today’s technology, not to mention reality.  Some examples:

• Gros said that online gaming was already here, and that stopping it was like trying to put the genie back in the bottle.  Adelson said, “The genie is not out of the bottle.”  Say what?
• Adelson says everyone has a cellphone. I don’t.  Just sayin’.  
• He said that online gaming is not a state's rights issue due to the borderless nature of the Internet.  Because it crosses borders, it should be a Federal issue.  Of course, it crosses the US borders, too…whachagonnado about that, Shelly?
• Adelson says 3 year olds can circumvent identity verification controls on iGaming sites.  They can barely WIPE themselves, and yet they can get around ID controls?
• He added that it’s impossible to know your customer on the internet.  Amazon, eBay, and a thousand banks might think otherwise.
• He said he was worried about online gaming exploiting working middle class families; then suggested that “we” (his company) knows who is high in their casinos, unlike online casinos.  Ironically, this picture came into my Twitter feed at about the same time.  Again, just sayin’.
  
• Finally, Adelson said, "If the federal government would enforce the law," there would be no unregulated online gambling.  How I laughed…

Face it – What we have here is a very, very, very rich man, made rich by bringing gambling to people he perceived wanted it…trying to stop others from bringing gambling to people who want it in a slightly different method.  And he’s prepared to spend “whatever it takes” to see his vision through.  Just like he has in Las Vegas and Macau.

I am a bit worried, and perhaps a bit frightened, but I am NOT STAYING OFF THE LAWN.

Thanks to Chris Grove (@OPReport), Howard Stutz (@howardstutz), Steve Ruddock (@SteveRuddock), The PPA (@ppapoker), and Casino City Vin (‏@casinocityvin) for following Adelson’s keynote via Twitter.

Myths vs. Facts vs. Godzilla, Part Two

So here's the second half of that dreadful "paper" from the folks at the Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling, taken from the December, 2013 hearing on Internet gambling before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade.  They tried to rebut claims made by pro-ipoker activists, but...well, I was so incensed that I had to respond.

And the reason I've done it this way, with the little postscripts after nearly every sentence in their paper, is because nearly every sentence in their paper is erroneous, misleading, or just plain wrong. So we begin with claim #5

1. Then why not actually tell us instead of offering innuendo...or a very old FBI letter? (see next)
2. Once again, CSIG resorts to the five-year old FBI letter we discussed in the last post.  Please note that it makes no distinction between regulated and unregulated sites, sites in Europe or sites elsewhere...and, it's FIVE FRICKIN' YEARS OLD.
3. This might be the stupidest thing the CSIG has ever said, and here are 486 reasons why it's so stupid: http://www.casinoseurope.com/casino-directory/
4. Cute.  Asshats.
5. Y'know, there's a very good document written by the folks at McAfee about Internet Gambling and cybercrime.  Specifically, they say (in their "Addressing the Issue" section): "The work undertaken at Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre is a good example of how strong global collaboration efforts with other agencies and the private sector can help address this growing threat"  Y'know where you can find this document?  ON THE CSIG WEBSITE (second policy paper).  Obviously, they don't read their own papers...or at least, they skip over the good parts.

1. So now we're reduced to highlighting rounding errors?  And, to what purpose?  What difference does it make to your argument if it's $2.6 billion or 2.8 or 3.0?
2. I just can't imagine why.  Did anything happen in 2006 to online poker?  Around, say, December or so? Clowns.

1. If you can't rebut 'em, repeat 'em.  This is a favorite strategy at CSIG.  See discussion on European online gaming above.  Oh, and speaking of repeating, look - it's the THIRD appearance of the FBI letter (one more to go).

1. Yes - many consider the controls for online gaming to be MORE effective.  And nothing ever goes wrong in a land-based casino, right?
2. Because...FIVE YEAR OLD FBI LETTER!
3. Easier, maybe, but that hardly protects consumers - they just go on to other sites.  And how does one "regulate" an "illegal" site, anyway?

1. Again, not disputed, just...bitch, bitch, bitch,  And, if we're to "consider the issue," why not actually look at what's happening rather than making your own "sweeping conclusions" (using 5-year-old info, no less). It's been almost a year now, and all the CSIG can do is highlight how NJ's revenues haven't met "expectations."  Of course, the estimates were highly inflated by policymakers, but no mention of THAT.  And no mention of ineffective regulation, either.
2. Yeah, they were TOO effective, keeping legitimate NJ residents OUT.  No reports on letting outsiders IN.  Dumbasses.

And so this concludes my rant review of this particular paper from Adelson and the CSIG,  But the truth be told, the "policymakers" that his coalition seeks to address aren't interested in this type of paper.  They prefer the greener kind.  This is why we must be diligent and press, press, press our representatives and Senators to NOT ALLOW big money to kill online poker.  Join PPA, contact your CongressPeople, and support poker!

Myth vs. Fact vs. Godzilla - Deconstructing a CSIG "Fact" Sheet

In my roll as Adelson's "Poker Troll" I read and review the various items on his Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling website and Facebook page.  One item that repeatedly pops up on the FB page is the "Myth vs. Fact" paper drawn from the December, 2013 hearing on Internet gambling before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade.  Basically, they've taken 9 claims made by various proponents of online gaming and "rebutted" them (emphasis on the "butt").  In this rebuttal to the rebuttal, I examine in close detail (and a bit of snark) just how weak their arguments are.

I will post their paper with little markers showing where I feel the need to interject facts, corrections, and sarcasm.  And we begin with the title...

1. This is the ONLY place the word "Myth" appears - all of the actual arguments are marked "Claim" (pro-online) versus "Fact" (the CSIG).  Naturally, "Myths vs. Facts" is a very provocative title, designed to grab one's attention.  Problem is, the "myths" (or claims) turn out to be true much of the time, and the "Facts" are usually opinions, not facts.  And it goes downhill from there...

1. This would be smart, since the major booster of CSIG does, in fact, owe his billions to casino gambling.
2. Not true - Americans have gambled online for almost 15 years -  the Restore America's Wire Act (RAWA) ends online gambling (except the carve-outs of horse racing and fantasy sports).  
3. This is true, but RAWA isn't "thoughtful legislation" - it's prohibition on ONE form of delivery of gambling.
4. This is a bad analogy.  Gambling isn't nearly as ubiquitous as cigs and booze.  It's also not true - as many as 23 states offer some type of drive-up alcohol sales. You can also buy cigarettes online.  Jeebus, would someone teach someone at CSIG how to use Google?

1. They never say this isn't true - they just try to "explain it away."  Nice try.
2. I wasn't aware that this was a crime.
3. The "evidence" for this comes from the oft-used-in-this-paper 2009 FBI Letter to Congress. First, two things: One, it's OLD.  Five years is an eternity in the cyber-world.  Second, and most important - the 2009 letter talks about what COULD happen and MIGHT happen, and then concludes that, as far as the FBI knows, it HASN'T happened - see more on this below.
4. It's interesting that they cite a FIVE-YEAR OLD LETTER from the FBI here, instead of a more recent letter from 2013.  Of course, THAT ONE was shredded to pieces - best done here. And of course, the letters only make the case FOR, not AGAINST, online gambling regulation.

1. Not true.  RAWA ENDS online gaming - there is no call for "close consideration."  Besides, how can you study something that isn't there?
2. It appears CSIG dabbles in mind-reading.  More to the point, while Congress might have shirked their duty, the individual states had a chance to consider the issue, and three states (NJ, NV, and DE) went forward.  More states have discussed the matter FULLY, and will follow.  Is anyone surprised that Congress dragged its feet - on this, or anything, for that matter?
3. But sites in NJ, NV, and DE aren't ROGUE sites.  They are legitimate, regulated poker sites that have been shown to draw players FROM the ROGUE sites.  Players in states without a legit site STILL play at Full Flush, Carbon, and many others.  Not so easy, huh?
4. We already pooh-poohed the cigs above.  And isn't it interesting that they toss in the pharms from Canada, which many believe were banned not to "keep us safe from bad drugs," but to keep U.S. Pharmaceutical companies profits high.  In other words, protectionism.  Kinda like RAWA (the Restore Adelson's Wampum Act).

1. Tell the NRA this.
2. It doesn't mean it's NOT OK.  Oh, and can we use this argument in Florida?  Seems there is a casino developer who wants to come into the state and build a casino near DisneyWorld. Think of the children!  Oh, wait...it's the same guy who wants to end online gaming!  I am shocked, shocked...
3. Again, many states considered the serious social and policy ramifications...and moved forward.

Well, that's about half of the so called "myths and claims" - and that's about all I can stomach for now. Watch for Part Two later this week (hopefully before Adelson addresses the multitudes at the Global Gaming Expo).  As always, your comments are welcome.

My New Passion - Trolling Adelson

As my wife and I approach retirement (three years away), we’ve discussed how to spend our not-working-anymore time “for the good.”  Mona has considered the problem of adult illiteracy, and working with groups to combat this problem.  I commend her - the ability to read is the key to everything - learning, understanding, and so much more.  For me, I’ve decided that I will test out being a troll.

Specifically, I hate the idea of big money controlling everything, including our government, and there’s no bigger Public Enemy #1 than Sheldon Adelson.  So I’ve decided to be the thorn in his side, the pain in his buttocks, the troll who monitors his “Coalition to Stop Online Gambling” websites.  It’s the least I can do, and I usually do the least I can do.

I try to check both the original website and their Facebook page. That’s not an easy task - one needs a strong stomach.  Both sites are big on hype and scare tactics, and short on facts.  The Facebook page is especially fun - they tend to take news tidbits and repost the same thing over and over with different headlines, just to make it look like something is happening.

I try to “help” Shelly and his friends by providing the missing pieces…like actual facts.  For example, the StopInternetGambling Facebook page had news about the dip in revenues from New Jersey online gaming…several times.  I couldn’t understand why they’d trumpet this - it’s like the retirees in the old folks’ homes who complain that the food is horrible…and in such small portions!  So when the August numbers were released, showing an uptick, I posted that news on their site.

The Facebook page also has direct appeals to visitors to join them, like, “Tell Congress to restore the federal ban on Internet gambling through our website…” but they forgot to give reasons for doing so.  So I thought I could be of assistance - I found this recent article from Forbes (September 9) about California’s online gaming being on hold, where their fearless leader was cited:

"Among the reasons for optimism has been the presence of a number of lawmakers who support the measure, but roadblocks have been set for a number of reasons, including the presence of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. The politically active Adelson has already contributed north of $300,000 to slow the legalization of online gambling over fears that the industry could harm land-based casino business, where Adelson has a heavy stake." (emphasis mine).

I hope that helps.

I plan to keep at this even if/when they bar me from their Facebook page (they can’t keep me from their website, and there are ways to get the FB info - I can bribe that kid in their ads to steal his Dad’s password so I can override the barring, or something.  It’s pretty cool.).  In the meantime, if I did not invite you to join C4SIG - the Coalition to Counteract the Coalition to Stop Online Gambling - I apologize (it was a rush job just to get the FB site up and going).  Take this opportunity now to go to the site and join, post pro-online-poker items (or anti-Adelson items - same difference).  Yes, we don’t have his money (and truthfully, that’s the big thing to overcome), but we also don’t have his looks, and we all can be thankful for that.

We also have the PPA on our side, as well as millions of poker players, poker-friendly politicians, and one more thing.  We’re right.  Let freedom ring and shuffle up and deal!

“Politics” in the “Sport” of Poker - Two Debates, One Solution?

“If poker is a sport, where are the uniforms?”

Candy Mint or Breath Mint?

That retort came at me during a recent discussion on whether poker is a “sport” (worthy of ESPN coverage, sponsorships, etc.) versus a “game.”  It was made in (partial) jest, but like the Certs debate of years ago, the sport vs. game debate is doomed to go on indefinitely.

A more recent and important debate has surfaced regarding politics in poker.  It began when the two finalists at the European Poker Tour Barcelona Super High Roller event, Olivier Busquet and Daniel Colman, wore pro-Palestinian t-shirts.  CardPlayerLifestyle’s Robbie Strazynski penned a thoughtful column as to why he felt there was no room in poker for politics.  PokerStars, the co-sponsor of the event, eventually made an after-the-fact ruling and declared that allowing the two to wear the shirts was “a mistake,” citing that it would not be allowed in the future.  A few hours later Nolan Dalla penned an equally thoughtful response, castigate PokerStars actions, saying that there was no room for political censorship in poker.  And of course, the debate rages on in forums across the Internet.

Having agreed with both Nolan and Robbie about specific points in the debate, I felt conflicted.  I thought Robbie’s call for a dress code was a good idea, and I noted Nolan’s concerns, even though as a business owner I recognize the need to “have rules.”  So how do I really feel about all this?  I wasn’t sure, and then I went to work.

While at work (ice cream parlor in a tourist town) watching customers, it struck me that LOTS of the people I saw had some sort of “statement” in their clothing.  Sport logos, commercial logos, pithy sayings, funny sayings…hats, t-shirts, sweatshirts…damn near everyone had something that wasn’t BLANK, but said “something.”  Political messages?  Very few.  Messages that some folks might find “objectionable?”

Different answer there - some folks may be a bit cheesed.

A vegetarian might be upset to see a guy wearing a Cabela’s hat.  A liberal might shun a passerby wearing an anti-Obama t-shirt.  Someone wearing a Nike sweatshirt gear could offend someone who knows of their sweatshop past.  A “Go Ducks” shirt will certainly piss off a Beaver fan (substitute USC/UCLA, Michigan/Ohio State, Auburn/Alabama for your area). 

You get my point.  ANY message could conceivably be seen by SOMEONE as offensive, or objectionable, or insulting/hateful/pick your euphemism.  So what’s the answer?  Ban them all?  Give everyone tolerance training?  Set up a committee to determine which messages are offensive and which ones aren’t (good luck with that)?

Then I remembered the quote that started this post, and Robbie’s call for a dress code.

The first time I belonged to something called PPA was back in the seventies, and it was the Professional Putters Association (yes, it exists, and yes, I was pretty good - see #53).  For tournament play, we professionals were expected to wear our Putt-Putt polo shirts, with our name, the Putt-Putt logo, and our home course (in my case, beautiful Ypsilanti, Michigan).  I thought I played better in my Putt-Putt shirt, and had a closet full of them.  Actually wore them to non-Putt-Putt events, too, because they were such high quality (much to chagrin of my fiancée now wife).

Not this

Like this

So why not official shirts - UNIFORMS - for poker players?

The tour could give out logo’d shirts to the final table, or to those who will be on TV.  Heck, give one to everyone and make it part of the buy-in (we had to buy our own shirts for Putt-Putt).  Running events make an official t-shirt part of the package deal, so why not a similar structure for poker tournaments?  Of course, you only get one shirt, despite the number of add-ons or re-buys (or you could make that an offer, too, so some pros could build up their wardrobes a bit).

Uniforms for poker players.  Dealing with both the “sport vs. game” and “politics in poker” debates at once.  It’s two…two…two solutions in one!

A picture is worth 1000 words, eh?

Can't always yell f*** you, I suppose.

Link to the original article here.

Beat downs here, here, here, here.
Worst piece of journalism (if you can call it that) in a long, long, time.