Change is Inevitable

You know that so-called Serenity Prayer, the one that goes…

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

The courage to change the things I can,

And the wisdom to know the difference.

Yeah, that one.  It’s nice, comforting…and a bit misleading.  For while some use this as a guide to bend, adjust, and (sometimes) grow with the bumps and twists of life, others believe that if they have enough courage, they can stop change.

Fools.

Change happens regardless whether you are serene or brave, smart or not.  How you deal with it (and how you deal with everything in life) is subject to further discussion, but not change.  Like shit, it happens.  Regardless.

I was in the grand Union Station in Portland recently, a magnificent building to catch a train (even if it IS Amtrak).  Built in the late 19^th Century, this proud old structure still serves train customers well, yet it’s not the same building as it was.  I saw this as I waited for my train:

 

21st Century phone booths.  Superman would be PO'd

To be fair, there was one pay phone out of sight of this photo.  And maybe they’re doing a retro-fit to equip the booths with Skype.  Then again, I remembered another fixture of old public buildings like Union Station – water fountains.  And next to the phone booths I saw the 21^st Century equivalent:

21st century "water fountain."  At $2 a pop, no less

Change happens.  No shit.

So many famous (and infamous) individuals have spoken on the idea of change being a permanent condition that I will cite two.  One is from British PM Disraeli, who said “Change is inevitable.  Change is constant.”  The other is much older, from the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus.

Actually, he had two good ones:

“There is nothing permanent except change.”

and

“No man ever steps in the same river twice.”

That last one is the one I like best about change, because it illustrates the fact that even though you might reverse a decision and try to go back to “the way it used to be,” you truly can’t make it EXACTLY like it used to be.  For there’s always the history of what was, and all of the OTHER change that has occurred.  Nothing pisses me off more than people calling for a change “to the way it used to be.”  Besides it not being very progressive and forward thinking, it’s wrong, because it can’t be exactly the way it used to be.  Similar, yes, but not the same.

OK, there IS something that pisses me off more, and it also has to do with change.  You know the excuse people give you when you ask them why something is the way it is (because you’re interested in making a change)?  And they shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, it’s always been that way.” Yeah, that pisses me off more, because it’s NEVER ALWAYS been that way.  Because at one point it time, it wasn’t that way at all.

The first time I remember hearing this bellyachexcuse (and the story I always tell to get my point across) was back in my college radio days.  I was the GM of the student station and wanted to implement some programming changes.  One thing I did not understand was the daily “Album Hour” from 5pm-6pm (historical note:  we used to use something called a “turntable” to play “records” aka “LP’s” or “albums” that produced sound without the aid of a CD player or computer).  Why did we still have the album hour, I asked?  “It’s always been that way,” was the standard response from both students and faculty.  Truth was, no one really knew how it got started*. 

So naturally I shit-canned the program, because “It’s always been that way,” is a lame excuse.  Don’t be lame, be ready for change.  Hey, I made up my own famous quote.

Speaking of change, the Wikipidea people need your change.  Spare change.  Or more if you can.  You can be the change by giving $3 (or more) here: DONATE.  Thanks.

* I did find out, eventually.  It started because one DJ, way back when, wanted to skip out and grab dinner in the dorm.  So he popped on an album, ran to the commons, got his chow, ran back, flipped the album over (unlike some CDs, albums have recordings on BOTH sides), got dessert, and then made it back in time to finish the hour.  The truth was lame, too.

I Guess it Depends on the Target

Friday night’s shocking terrorist attack in Paris has sent many in the US reeling.  Folks have shown their support by changing their Facebook avatar, posting pictures of the Eiffel Tower, etc.  Some have called for a step-up in our “War on Terror” while other have (seriously) suggested we wipe out ALL Muslims (one guy even provided a list of 55 countries where we could find them all – how thoughtful).

But a week ago there was a Russian plane downed by (most likely) the same folks responsible for the Paris attacks.  None of my friends posted a pic of the Kremlin on their timelines.  And just the day before Paris, 43 lost their lives in Beruit, again from the same group (again, most likely) that is responsible in France.  But Facebook didn’t offer anyone a chance to change their avatar to the flag of Lebanon, nor activate their “safety check” feature so people could let their loved ones know they were safe in Beirut (they did it for Paris).

No one suggested that Russia “get serious” about terrorism after the plane crash, nor suggested we “bomb the stink out of ISIS” after Beriut.  Only after more than 120 lost their lives in France did we get sympathetic to all things French.

Can we call ‘em French Fries again?  Or are they still Freedom Fries?  I know that’s so 2003, but it’s worth asking.  Because here’s the thing – we no doubt will take this latest attack and step up bombing or droning or even put “boots on the ground” and it’s important to remember that the reason we’re doing so is because of a terrorist attack, but a SPECIFIC one.

It’s important to remember (and I am borrowing a cliché here) that ALL LIVES matter.  French, Russian…even people who might just be Muslim (you know, the same religion as their attackers, which maybe means that this isn’t about religion?).  I look forward to the day when we decide that it’s all equally important, because that will mean we’ve taken a giant leap in fighting terrorism.  Because others not like us don’t terrorize us.

Oh, and there is a movement to make it so you can change your avatar to any flag you want – if you’re so inclined.

Reflection and Rejections: Thoughts on the WSOP and Poker

I realize I’m late to the party, as most everyone else has already weighed in on this year’s Final Table of the WSOP’s Main Event.  I figured if I don’t post this now I might as well wait until next summer…and by then most of the good ideas will be talked about and forgotten and not acted upon, so, without further ado…some random thoughts:

The Final Table went just about as one might expect – the guy with the most chips going into the November Nine won it all (congrats to Joe McKeehen), so there was not a lot of drama.  And the TV broadcast could have used it.  In spades.  Yes, it was interesting to see Aces cracked and hooray for Neil Blumenfield proving that we old guys have what it takes, but otherwise…the show was somewhere between “meh” and “yawn.”  (more on Neil below in the postscript).

Others have suggested that changes are needed to make this a more viewable event, and I concur.  However, I think the days of “network coverage” are numbered, and not just because ESPN has shown little interest in hyping the event.  In the last decade the entire media stream (no pun) has been upended, so it only makes some sense that poker drift from network coverage (where it shines brighter when it can be condensed into bite-size pieces) to poker-specific venues (Poker Channel, Twitch, etc.).

If ESPN or some other network entity is to continue to show poker “live” may I humbly suggest some changes:

• Shot clock.  Steve Ruddock has suggested a variety of options for this, and y’all can take your pick, but TRY ONE, PLEASE, just to see its effect.
• Three nights for coverage was way too many.  Last year (and every year prior) you got it done in two.  Hell, shoot for one if play moves faster.  See above.
• The 3+ month delay from the end of the tournament to the November finale has run its course.  Nothing is to be gained by waiting, so ditch this…you COULD wait a week or so, and THEN do the final table…seems like there might be enough to do in Las Vegas to hold folks there for an extra week or so.
• Finally, how about making the event coverage live?  Really live.  Like, ditch the hole card camera and show us the event LIVE, without a delay.

This last one might be more controversial, but hear me out:  I had friends at the Penn & Teller Theatre to watch the Final Table, where they (obviously) could not see the hole cards, and they didn’t seem to mind – they loved the excitement of being there and watching the event as it unfolded (all three nights, too).  I followed along at the WSOP.com website, where (obviously) I didn’t know what the hole cards were, and I did not mind.  I think that we’ve progressed enough in professional commentary (even Norman Chad) to a point where the audience can ascertain enough about the play to not need to see the hole cards.  And when ESPN shows Days 1-7, much of the action recapped doesn’t involve the camera. 

I know the lipstick cam was a stunning invention and it most likely did wonders for the uninitiated in the audience, but…that’s not who is watching poker on TV.  I don’t think we need it any longer.  Am I right?

For poker to continue to flourish, a strong media presence can’t hurt, and the Final Table has always been a great showcase for poker.  Changes are needed to continue to make it so.

Oh, and of course, another way poker can flourish is to allow all Americans to play online, but you knew that.

Postscript:  Much has been made about the ages of those making the Final Table over the last few years – all “young guns” and few older players.  I was pleased to see fellow sexagenarian Neil Blumenfield make a great run, but really…no one should be surprised at this.  Next time you get a chance, stop by your local retirement village or senior center, and watch the bridge/canasta/mahjongg game.  Them oldies play on and on and on and on and on.  Of COURSE they have the stamina for the grind.

Seeing (Just) Red

By now you’re familiar with the “Starbucks Red Cup” controversy, also known as “Another Salvo by a Mega-Corporation in the War on Christmas.”  Noted “Public Figure” and ex-pastor Joshua Feuerstein (who USES a lot of CAPITALS in his POSTS to show how ANGRY HE is) got the ball rolling, accusing Starbucks of “hating Jesus” because they are offering a plain red cup this year instead of a cup that has the traditional biblical symbols of the season such as snowflakes and reindeer (both are part of the manger scene, I’m pretty sure of it).  Actually, you can see by the pic below that this year’s cup isn’t that much different than last year’s (and the last several years also seem to lack a certain Christian flair – see this wonderful article via VOX).  Winter scenes, yes, but Christmas?  Maybe in a secular (commercial) way only.

 

Left: 2015 Anti-Christ Cup
Right:  2014 Dead Tree for Jesus Cup

As stooped as all of this is (and make no mistake, it is STOOPID), the “solution” suggested by Feuerstein is even worse.  He suggests that when you order your skinny-double-tall-half-caf cappuccino (no foam, please) you state your name as “Merry Christmas” so that they have to write it on the cup and announce it and that way the baby Jesus gains another set of wings.  Or something like that.

Well, having a common name like “Mike” I can tell you that if good Christian people do as Joshua suggests, it will be hell on earth (excuse the jarring hyperbole).  What if TWO people use “Merry Christmas” as their names, and one has a 8 ounce decaf while the other orders a Quad Grande? 

And that’s not the worst of it.  The very fact that Feuerstein hates Starbucks because, in his words, they aren’t “allowed to say Merry Christmas to their customers,” so his genius response is to…give them MORE BUSINESS? 

Seriously?

First, there’s the ton of free publicity your stunt is providing them, Josh.  And then, instead of boycotting the chair, you want your followers to ACTUALLY GO IN AND ORDER SOMETHING SO STARBUCKS CAN PROFIT.

You are seriously stoopid, Joshua.

Here’s a better idea.  OK, several:

1)    Go to Dunkin Donuts – they have shitty coffee, but their cups say “Joy” on them, so that’s a bit more in the holiday spirit (though around the Exinger household I can tell you the most joyous season is when the kids go back to school).

2)    Go to a local coffee shop – they most likely use a plain white cup (like you get at the wholesaler) but you can take the money you save by buying local (usually always cheaper than chains like Starbucks) and put it in the coffers of your local food bank or give it to the homeless guy with the cardboard sign at the corner or the Salvation Army kettle (yes, it’s PLAIN RED like the STARBUCKS cup, but get over it ‘cuz I think they are on Jesus’s side on this one).

3)    Stay home and brew your own coffee and put it in any damn cup you want.

And remember, like the Starbucks cup – ignore the fancy or non-fancy container – it’s what’s INSIDE that counts.

Government Needs Gambling…and Vice Versa

There were TWO recent events that prompted these comments.  The first, obviously, is the recent Daily Fantasy Sports clusterfuck (tossed from Nevada, being investigated in NY and FL, and other shenanigans).  The other was a random post on a poker website where the postee made the standard complaint about the lack of online action, “We don’t need no government to let us play poker!”

Well, actually, we do, and just as much as they need us.  Hear me out.

Government needs gambling now more than ever.  It started a long time ago – 1963 to be exact – when New Hampshire decided to finally try a lottery as a way to increase funding for education (the idea had been debated for a decade).  Taxes is a four-letter word there, as they have property taxes but no sales or income tax.  Anyway, the lottery was a hit, New York got one in 1967, and, as the saying goes, TIDAL WAVE!  Today almost every state in the union has SOME form of legalized gambling, be it lottery, horse racing, casinos, etc. 

The things that ALL of these forms of gambling have in common? 

• Authorization
• Regulation, and most important for the state,
• Part of the action (percent of the amount wagered, or fees from operators, or sometimes both).

As you have read in your history books, the online poker boom of the last decade didn’t have any of these things.  You know what happened soon enough.  And apparently, the folks running FanDuel, DraftKings, and all the other DFS sites missed that lesson.  It’s painfully obvious that in the very near future the DFS industry will undergo an evolution of sorts.  How fast and in what capacity that evolution occurs is up in the air right now.

There are many options – outright ban (as in Nevada), regulation (as in Massachusetts),  or…something else?  It’s clear to me that whatever the outcome, it will be up to the states, not the Feds (unless another version of UIGEA or RAWA or some other Sheldon Adelson-funded-prohibition bill finds its way through Washington’s sewers).

Remember, (state) government needs gambling.  Legislators are loath to raise taxes, and the money has to come from somewhere.  Gambling revenues are here to stay.

And gambling needs government.  It’s a business after all.  Name a business that doesn’t operate without SOME form of government oversight.  Even Mom & Pop stores have to have business licenses, and if they have employees there are taxes and payroll forms and perhaps more. 

In my own industry (food) we have business licensing, restaurant licensing, health inspections, plus the above.  In addition, we’re an S Corporation, so that another level of licensing.  All of this regulation is important – it provides structure and it ensures that we provide a safe and healthy environment in which to serve the public.

There are many in our industry who grumble about “excess regulation.”  The problem, as I see it, is “uneven regulation.”  Businesses cheat because they need to (make a profit) or want to (make a profit).  The problem is that no one operates in a vacuum, and if Bob’s Ice Cream Store finds a way to get around regulations and save some bucks in the process (the usual M.O.), that puts Bob’s competitors (like me) at a disadvantage.  Bob can use the money he saves by skirting the rules to advertise more, or to sell his ice cream at a lower price, or maybe Bob pockets the excess.  Either way, it’s advantage = Bob, disadvantage = me.

In some cases, ironically, it’s because of less government involvement.  In our county we only have 1.5 food inspectors to cover the entire county.  Restaurants are supposed to be inspected twice a year, and I can tell you that the inspectors here are wayyyyy behind – our last inspection was in 2013.  There are several places in our county I refuse to eat at because I know they’re not keeping a clean kitchen (and I’ve known of cases where it seemed customers suffered mild food poisoning from eating there).  Lack of inspections (caused by shortage of staff) allows some to cut corners and we all suffer.  Some (barf) more than others.

The need for regulation is important.  Don’t think so?  Would you really want to eat unregulated meat or dairy products?  Gambling (or gaming) is already one of the most heavily regulated industries in the world (I. Nelson Rose says so).  And given the potential for “problems” in the gaming industry (we’re looking at YOU, UltimateBet), regulation is essential for players and the industry.

In the case of online poker and online gambling, it’s the ONLY way it’s gonna happen.  Suck it up and push for safe, legal, and regulated online gambling.

And DFS?  Well, watch and learn.

DFS Needs a History Lesson

First, let me say that I give few rat’s asses about Fantasy Sports.  Most likely it’s my age showing, but I don’t get the thrill.  No matter, I’ve been all over the recent kerfuffle that DraftKings/FanDuel and the whole DFS industry has been going through the last couple of weeks, and I would offer to them some advice in the form of a history lesson, and that lesson would be in the form of “those who can’t remember history are doomed…etc.”

So travel in time with me to a period of, oh, let’s set our way-back watches for a decade ago.  Here’s a new online industry that’s sweeping the country.  Extremely popular and, although there are several players involved, there are two mega-stars who get the lion’s share of the business.  It’s gambling, of course, but it’s a skill-based game, and folks can’t seem to get enough.  There’s advertising galore and folks seem to enjoying the access and the industry, despite the lack of regulation, is growing by leaps and bounds.

But there are signs of trouble…some players have complained that the playing field isn’t level.  Sure, there are “sharks” and “fish,” but some games seemed rigged.  The industry hasn’t escaped the notice of legislators…some want to ban it, others want to “get their fair share” (as they do with horse racing and lotteries).  It seems as if the industry got too big too fast, and then, just when no one expected it…

UIGEA. 

Now I am not going to argue whether UIGEA and the eventual fallout on the online poker industry was right and fair (hint: no way, José).  I do want to point out that the history lesson is clear – we have a lot of mentally deficient elected officials who can pass legislation at a whim and ruin entire industries with the flick of the President’s pen.

Get my drift here?  The parallels of DFS and online poker are frightfully similar, and we are just now starting to see DFS go through the gauntlet that poker went through ten years ago. 

The outcome?  Well, that’s where I see a different vision.  That’s because there are THREE major differences between DFS and online poker.

1. The history of online poker.  Seems obvious, but the fact that we’ve been down this road before means the potential for someone to sneak in a bill outlawing DFS is very small indeed (despite the fact that the “father of UIGEA” now says the DFS runs on “chutzpah” to operate under that bill’s carveout).
2. Partners.  DFS is being fueled by some heavy hitters.  Major funding for DFS comes from venture capitalists, sports networks like ESPN and Fox Sports, and many of the major leagues themselves.  Poker never had that.
3. Sheldon Adelson.  The less we talk about this blight of near-human garbage the better, but he’ll be part of the debate whether we like it or not (Hint: we don’t).

In my opinion, the idea of Daily Fantasy Sports is akin to poker in the fact that both are “skill-based” games that involve money being pro-offered in exchange for prizes (which usually are also monetary).  I am hopeful that DFS is finally seen for what it really is – online gambling – and as it goes, so goes online poker.

Obviously, although I never play DFS, I hope it lives on and prospers.  And ergo, online poker, too.  And I think it will, eventually.  Here’s why:

1. History.  This time the “legality” of DFS will HAVE to be debated in the open in the federal and state halls of government.  What is it, how does it work, and, most importantly, “can we get a piece of the action?”  Remember, the major carveouts of UIGEA were forms of gambling ALREADY approved by states (and heavily taxed…I mean, regulated).
2. Partners.  The NFL, MLB, NHL, Major League Soccer, and all the rest will not go gentle into that good night.  People want to bet on sports, and sadly, this country isn’t quite ready to join the rest of the world and allow its citizens to put down a fiver on the local franchise’s upcoming match.  DFS allows “sports fans” to get more involved with the action AND make a bet and everyone wins, kind of.
3. Sheldon Adelson.  I admit he’s the wildcard in all of this.  His RAWA bill made no mention of DFS, yet it did initially target the online lotteries.  It’s going nowhere in its current state, but the rumors of RAWA-lite and it’s “moratorium” could also mean that DFS could get nixed at both the state and federal level.  The “study” part of RAWA-lite might be helpful to our cause IF it was done in a fair and balanced process.  Do I think it would be?  Two words:  Jason Chaffetz (he of the unbalanced witness list and misleading charts).  Do not make me laugh.

During the next few weeks and months, we slog through more Presidential primaries and search for a Speaker of the House and vote in November 3 elections.  DFS’s fate might not be decided in that short of time, but eventually something’s gonna happen.  And eventually that SOB Adelson is gonna weigh in.

So be diligent, people.  Be diligent.

I Write Words, and That’s Not Enough

As you can see, the “Wanna Bet?” Blog is back in operation, and the truth is that I really don’t want to write this one.  We finished our ice cream season last week and spent much of this week cleaning up.  While I was cleaning, I was considering what the first blog post would be about. 

So much has transpired since I last wrote…I could write about Sheldon Adelson, of course, my #1 topic.  He’s been kinda quiet on the RAWA front, but the rumor mill has him (and his seven bands of lobbyists) working behind the scenes to deploy a “new and improved” RAWA that purports to stop online gambling and preserve his billions family safety, and of course, it does neither.  I could write about other poker topics like the return of PokerStars to America, or the upcoming “November Nine.”  I could veer off a bit and discuss Kim Davis, the Pope, Donald Trump or the GOP race.  I could even get personal and talk about this year’s crazy ice cream season or how I spent part of yesterday in the hospital because I forgot that I left my hammer on the top of the ladder at work (4 stitches and a big bruise plus a bigger bruised ego is all).

Nope.  Gotta talk a bit about gun violence.  Actually, to be more precise, our reaction(s) to it.

I’ve never written about gun violence before.  Not because I’m not opinionated about the subject – I most certainly am.  But I’ve never written about it before.  Why now?  We’ve had other mass shootings, of course, and even though this occurred in my home state, we’ve had them here before, too.  And folks have been riled up before, calling for change in the wake of Sandy Hook and Columbine and Columbia and all the others.

This feels different.  It’s like the one-too-many dessert that makes you want to go on a diet, or the one-too-many traffic accident that prompts a new road design.

Yeah, we take action when folks die at a not-safe intersection or a dimly lit highway or a corner turnout with poor visibility.  When innocent students are shot and killed in schools…well, I’ll get to that in a moment.

Let me first fully disclose that I have never owned a gun and have no plans to ever do so.  I can’t sight a rifle (birth defect in right eye) and I have no desire to pursue any sports involving guns, archery, etc.  I don’t even fish, and I have been a vegetarian for more than a dozen years.

But let me also disclose I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment (and the 10^th, and the 14^th, and all the others).  I have friends who own guns.  Friends who hunt.  Friends who are members of the NRA even.  No, really, I do…not just Facebook “friends” but real flesh-and-blood buddies.  They own guns.  Plural, usually.  And I find nothing wrong with owning a gun.  I just don’t want to.

And all of that has nothing to do with gun violence.

Gun violence is the act of using a gun to its ultimate purpose.  Weapons are like that.  Weapons.  A knife can also kill as can a screwdriver (or a hammer), but these tools are often used for a different purpose than as weaponry.  Guns are weapons.

Definition: “a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.”

Yup.  That’s what they do.

So when they’re used as intended, and folks get killed, some people get all indignant and call for stricter regulations and more help for the mentally ill and better support for ATF and a bunch of other ideas.  See here, here, here, here. 

And when these folks (and I’m one of them) get all indignant, other folks get even more so and tell us why NONE of that will do ANY good WHATSOEVER.  PERIOD.  Some even say more guns are the answer.  Some say that it’s not a good time to discuss gun violence (though they usually say it’s not a good time to discuss gun control, as if the two are synonymous).

And did you know that we have little way in knowing if we’re right or if they’re right, because there is little in the way of unbiased research on the subject?  Each side can point to studies or anecdotal events to bolster their claims.  Hell, the government can’t even do research on the subject. 

When the CDC began studying gun violence in the early 1990s, the Washington gun lobby launched a serious campaign to persuade Congress to block its funding. In 1996, the effort culminated in an amendment backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that explicitly forbade the agency from research that could be used to “advocate or promote gun control.”  In the years since, CDC funding for firearm injury prevention has fallen 96 percent. (from http://everytownresearch.org/reports/access-denied/)

That’s where we are now.  More than 87,000 gun-related deaths since Sandy Hook, and we can’t research it.  It’s a topic that’s off limits, and we’re not supposed to discuss it.  When we do discuss it, we can’t agree.  And that’s why we react like we do and gun supporters react like they do AND NOTHING CHANGES AND MORE PEOPLE ARE SHOT AND HURT AND KILLED.

Seriously?

We’ve wasted enough ink and digital space talking about it.  I spent two wasted hours liking some posts and arguing against some others, and in that short time there’s been a shooting in Baltimore and a lockdown because of a reported gunman at an El Paso community college.

Seriously.  DO.  SOMETHING.  NOW.