The Future of Online Poker – Four Years Later, Part Two

In my last post, I was talking about the future of online gambling.  I made heavy emphasis to Zynga and all of the other “social gaming” that takes place on laptops and mobile devices worldwide.  It’s a $3-billion-plus industry and growing…but it’s not the be-all and end-all of online gaming here in the US.  At least, I hope not.

I said in Part One that we need to look at England and I hinted at where else to look for something that will finally bring online gaming where it should be in the 21^st Century – legal, available, regulated, and fun.

Why can’t we be like the English?  The link I referenced above (and here for you who are too lazy to scroll up) states that, in a recent survey, almost half of all respondents said they had gambled in some form or fashion in the last month.  More women are gambling than before, and in another survey, younger punters(18-24) showed an increase, too.  The report also cited an uptick in those gambling on a mobile device.  The UK has a very well regulated gaming industry, and that includes the online component.  All gambling is controlled by just ONE national commission, although there’s plenty of different ways to gamble, just like here in the US.

One of the most popular and long-running gambles are the football (soccer) pools.  As Wikipedia states, “The pools are typically cheap to enter, with the potential to win a very large sum of money.”  There are more than 1,000 betting shops in London alone, and the football betting market is estimated to be worth about 650 million pounds (about $800 million US).  Most Englanders love to gamble, and the government makes an effort to provide those who do with a safe and legal gaming environment.  Face it – gambling is accepted and ubiquitous in the UK.  And rightly so.

How so very different than here, where so-called “guardians of morality” protest lotteries as a “tax on the poor” and local casinos are “predatory.”  And we all know who decries online gaming as a scourge – “think of the children, click on a mouse and lose your house.”  That this hypocrite obtains his vast wealth from gambling – the very industry that he chastises in a different form – is repulsive.

Yes, it’s Sheldon Adelson I’m talking about.

Adelson may be the biggest hypocrite about gambling, but he’s certainly not alone, and that’s why the state of online gambling is where it is.  It seems that most who have a say in the matter know there’s an absolute shitpile of money that can be made – but no one wants to do much sharing.  So we putter along in dribs and drabs…a couple of states launch online casinos and poker rooms, and then Sheldon starts his CSIG.  Daily Fantasy Sports suddenly explode on the scene, and then just as suddenly they have their own “Black Friday.”  DFS is making a bit of a comeback, as many states are changing their laws to allow DFS; however, some other states are going in the other direction, prohibiting it just as they do other online gambling.

So is DFS the future of online gaming?  Well, not quite.  I alluded to this in my last post.  I said, “Look at the top left-corner of your PokerStars app.  That’s a clue…”  See it there – Fantasy Sports.  That’s the clue.  But it’s not DFS that will bring the USA in line with the UK and into a modern age where gambling is seen, like in England, as something completely natural, fun, AND legal.

It’s sports betting. 

Actually betting on the game, not some made-up lineup in a make-believe world.  If you’re a fan of Daily Fantasy Sports, well, that’s just great, but face it – DFS is a poor substitute for REAL sports wagering.  Kinda like Zynga is a poor substitute for PokerStars (the way it was, anyway).  DFS took off because it was available – the only thing going – the only game in town.  If you had a choice, would you spend your time and money coming up with fantasy drafts or just root, root, root for the home team…to cover the spread?  I thought so.

Again, look at the UK.  DraftKings and FanDuel are finally up and running as of last summer there, but they are a pale shadow to the amount of $$$ that goes into the traditional pools.  Google “DFS in UK” and you get a furniture store, not gambling.

There is some positive movement that maybe, just maybe, we’ll shuck our Victorian ways on this.  It’s no secret than NBA Commissioner Adam Silver is a proponent of betting on games.  He’s been consistent on this for the last few years.  Just last month MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred said it was it's time for Major League Baseball to give "fresh consideration" to legalized sports betting.  It’s no secret that MLB, the NBA, NFL and NHL are all participating in advertising and sponsorships with Daily Fantasy Sports.  So is betting on games the next logical step?

The American Gaming Association thinks so.  They’ve called it a “perfect storm” and are lobbying Washington to make it happen.  They even think Donald Trump is the man to make it so, and he took a cautious approach to subject when asked about it on his Super Bowl Fox interview.

I’ve long said that once the NFL figures out how to get 3% of the take on sports betting, they’ll give it their stamp of approval.  Hell, if they get 3% of damn near anything they’re likely to say AOK.  It’s always about the money.

So while there’s some excitement in the online poker advocacy world that we might DOUBLE the number of states offering iPoker from three to six with NY, PA, and MI (and that’s only a hope, remember), that only leaves 44 more to go.  And you can play DFS in Utah (does Chaffetz know that?) – so let that be a beacon shining a bit of clarity as to what it’s gonna take to make online gambling a reality here.

This is how it will happen.  I don’t know how soon…it might be in the next four years, maybe not.  At some point, Americans will quit caring how other people spend their time and money and let that which is regulated and controlled be, even if they don’t wish to participate.  Tobacco.  Liquor.  Gambling.  Gay marriage.  Marijuana (getting there…and Utah might NOT be the last holdout).  Hard to fathom that of all of these, gambling is the last thing the Puritans hang on to.  But it’s not about what’s right and what’s not – it’s about the money.

Always has been.

The Future of Online Poker – Four Years Later, Part One

Four years ago I penned a 3-part series about the “State of Poker.”  Because I cross-post to Facebook, one of the articles popped up as a “memory” and I shared it over the weekend, saying

“Consider Zynga and PokerStars, and ask yourself this - of those two, which one has made themselves look more like the other one? Yeah...so I was right four years ago.”

Well, partially right.

The rationale for such a series was that we were starting to see the first state-sanctioned Internet poker rooms approved for Delaware, New Jersey and Nevada.  It had been almost two years since “Black Friday,” and the initial wave of states moving forward with regulated online poker was seen by some, including me, as the “first step” in revitalizing what was a phenomenon of the digital felt.

The three parts – The Future (of Online Poker) Looks (1) Great, (2) Scary, and (3) Predictable described the scene as of four years ago.  No one could be absolutely sure what to expect – whereas in the Golden Age (seven years prior) PokerStars and Full Tilt has tens of thousands of players around the world at thousands of tables at every stakes imaginable, the three states no doubt would start much smaller.  They all had their handicaps, including the fact that every new online casino/poker room had to tie in with an existing casino in NV and NJ, a fact I decried at the time (what online casino needs 200 hotel rooms, anyway?).  But like all decisions political, it all came down to emoheneewhy – MONEY – and states took the richest (for them) path.  At the time, anyway.  Besides, we in the poker community thought thusly – as more states jump online, the poker boom will return, post-haste.

And then there was Sheldon. 

Seeing the return of online competition, Uncle Moneybags and his Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling was launched, with the intent of stopping and reversing the meager progress i-poker had made.   We’ve seen no reversal, but as for progress?

We still have three states online.  That’s all.

Sure, others have written bills and passed bills through one side of their legislatures or the other, but as of now, no other state has what NV, NJ, and DE has.  We might see Pennsylvania, or New York, or Michigan, or maybe one of the dark horse states like Massachusetts (or hell could freeze over and California could pass a bill).  We could also see another sneak attack in Washington and find that Congress has tacked on Sheldon’s RAWA or something like it in the middle of the night to a must-pass bill, or AG Sessions could undermine the DOJ’s 2011 ruling and reverse it, putting online poker in limbo…or worse.

And let me stop and correct myself.  No matter what Congress or Sessions does, online poker will continue.

Just not the consumer-protected, tax-revenued kind. 

Off-shore sites like America’s Cardroom and Full Flush (and others of their ilk) will continue, as will social sites with cashless (free) games like Zynga, WSOP, Governor of Poker, Jackpot Poker, etc.  And it’s Zynga and other social media games that I’d like to focus on here.  Because that’s (sadly) the future of online poker.  To a degree.

You see, people want entertainment.  Poker can be entertaining when you play for real money, and many (self included) believe this.  The idea that a cash game or tournament was a click away brought many basement/country club poker players to the electronic tables to play with (and largely, lose to) the sharks.  Black Friday took care of what remaining fish there were, leaving the sharks and larger fish to fend for themselves in the back-waters of off-shore sites.

But the fish “survived.”  A few took their “new found skills” to live poker rooms, where they experienced a new kind of thrill.  Most went to the cash-less games – some to ad-based sites like NLOP, but many flocked to free games like Zynga, the largest poker room in the world.

What is it about Zynga that attracts players?  It’s certainly not prize money – there isn’t any.  No real prizes, too – just bragging rights for a variety of “challenges” and “leagues” and other tests of skill that mimic other online games they offer like Diner Dash and Farmville.  And simple entertainment, of course.

That’s the key here – what many players in the “online poker boom era” sought was simple entertainment.  It was nothing to pop open the browser and spend a few minutes or a few hours playing poker.  With super-micro buy-ins, one didn’t spend much money, either.   So despite no new states getting on the online poker bandwagon, online poker continues to…exist.  I can’t really say “flourish” except you should know that Zynga made $741 MILLION last year, and makes roughly $28,606 PER DAY.  And it’s FREE.

                                                                                         

Think about that.

Also know that other online freebies like Caesars Slots and MyVegas (MGM and Stations Casinos partner) are also making a buttload of money.  Overall, “social gambling” sites are an almost-THREE-BILLION-DOLLAR business. 

From FREE games.  You see that?  Certainly PokerStars does.

That’s what I meant when I implied that PokerStars looks more like Zynga now rather than the other way ‘round.  Since my original series four years ago, PokerStars has re-branded their free-social gaming site as “Jackpot Poker,” featuring many of the interactive bells and whistles found on Zynga and other play sites, plus gambling-type options like “Beat the Clock” and “Spin-n-Go.”  You can even buy play money from PokerStars, too (and you can now do it from the original application). 

So is THIS the future of gambling?  While states struggle to regulate online poker and other options like lotteries and casino games, millions of Americans spend their time (and money) at social gaming sites, as well as playing other games online like “Words with Friends” and, of course, all the eSports games in all of their genres.

We in the poker advocacy world can’t see why states don’t jump on the bandwagon.  Legislators worry about their revenues, and not wanting to have ANYTHING to do with taxes (like raising them), consider online gaming as a viable option.  And yet, after four years, there’s been no state to jump on that bandwagon.

That’s because it’s not about revenue.  Which is why we play for free – well, most of us do.  Who the hell buys chips, anyway?  OK, you know the answer to that.

So is social gaming the future?  Partly, but it’s not the catalyst that will bring American gaming into the 21^st Century (and I have no idea what will bring Congress and State government leaders into this century, as their continued “gambling is evil” attitude gowns old with me).

The future of online gambling is elsewhere.  Look at England.  Look at the top left-corner of your PokerStars app.  That’s a clue, and I will expand on this in Part Two.

Rewriting America’s Wire Act?

This is not going where you think it is.

Over the past couple of weeks we in the iGaming/iPoker advocacy arena have been transfixed with a lot of activity that has promise or potential.  Bills and hearings in Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, and (yet again) California are moving forward, but very few hold out hope that we’ll see more than the same three states with iGaming (NJ, NV, and DE) by the end of the year.  Not so much because the cause is not just of the fight engaged, but because it’s an election year.  That’s a tough row to hoe.

There’s also new activity on the anti-iGaming front, as Sheldon Adelson’s deadly minion Lindsey “Back-Door” Graham has inserted some trickery into a must-pass Senate Appropriations Bill.  Shades of 2006’s UIGEA (no hearings, no votes, just insert here when no one is looking), this move appears to have about as much chance of occurring as California’s iPoker bill, which is to say not likely (thanks to increased diligence on the part of PPA and poker players everywhere – thank you).

And in DFS-land, Congress held a ho-hum hearing that moved the issue neither here nor there.  This is one online activity the AGA takes an interest in (only to ensure that broader sports-betting issues are included), and, of course, states are taking issue/license (no pun) with DFS as well.  Some are banning it, some are licensing it, and many are in discussion as what to do about it (more states involved with DFS than with traditional iGaming, sadly).

But there was one other bit of new legislation proposed recently that caught my eye favorably, received little attention, and yet…the more I think about it, the more troubling the whole thing became.  In Nevada, the Nevada Gaming Commission might consider changes to their mobile sports betting regulations that would have a PROFOUND (emphasis mine) effect on all of the above – iPoker, iGaming, DFS, and RAWA.

The article in question (here) caught my eye because of the phrase “Bettors in the 49 states outside of Nevada might be able to set up and fund mobile sports betting apps from Las Vegas casinos as early as this year (emphasis from the story).

ALL states?  Even my state (Oregon)?  Even Congressman Jason Chaffetz’s state (Utah)?

Yup.  Sports betting is growing by leaps and bounds in Nevada, and mobile sports betting is a big reason for it.  As I mentioned above, the AGA has shown a desire to push the envelope to start a dialogue to get people talking to

“…review the effectiveness of America’s 25-year-old federal sports betting ban in light of growing public acceptance of gaming in general, the soaring interest in sports betting in particular and the development of new technologies that can aid law enforcement in overseeing betting activities.”

They were referring specifically to PASPA (Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act), not the wire act.  The new Nevada regs would still require (for now) the individual to actually travel (once) to Nevada to set up the account, and all wagering must still be done (for now) in Nevada.  But here’s where it gets interesting…

The new regs are being championed by CGTechnology.  If that name doesn’t ring a bell, I’ll remind you that they are a leading gaming technology company, specializing in sports book mobile sports-betting apps featured at several Nevada casinos. 

Including The Venetian and The Palazzo.  Owned by you-know-who.

What if Little Johnny gets ahold of Dad's tablet?  Oh, right...

Remember, the Wire Act was written way back in the 60’s to deal with sports betting.

Remember, Sheldon Adelson wants to “restore” the wire act so that ALL Internet gaming is prohibited – even that which is regulated by the states.

Remember, even if RAWA became a reality, it would still ALLOW some Internet wagering – horse racing (which last time I looked was still a sport), perhaps DFS, perhaps some lotteries…and maybe mobile sports betting?

Does Sheldon know that the technology for a “phone app for sports betting” and a “phone app for iPoker” use the SAME technology?

Are the new Nevada sports betting regs a “foot in the door” to expand further should Congress get a clue and decide to modify draconian gambling laws like PASPA and UIGEA?

Is this a case of Sheldon trying to have his cake and eat it, too?  To say “If I can’t ban it all I want to get in on it but on my terms because sports betting will be bigger than poker by 10-20 times” (and he’s probably right about that)?

I have to admit the desire to wager on sports from time to time.  There are days when I know the Lions can cover the spread and something I read in one of Nolan Dalla or Earl Burton’s columns makes me want to grab a sawbuck and go for it.  But I can’t, because I don’t live anywhere near Nevada.  An online/mobile sports betting app would be WONDERFUL, though I rather shit my pants in public or slide down a 45-foot razor blade than have an account with The Venetian.  But still…

So I am crazy to see this as something sinister and sneaky?  Or have I just been watching too much political news reporting?

What’s your thought on all of this? 

Hey, it could be worse.

Is Rubio Adelson’s Obi-Won?

Yeah, Rubio is more of a robot, but Wynn's skin color is almost that of C-3PO's, so it works.

A long time ago in a casino far, far away lived a man who more closely resembled Jabba the Hutt than Luke Skywalker in both decorum and deed.  Sheldon Adelson considered himself the Force to be reckoned with when it came to gambling,  It was his contention that gambling was to be done in the flesh, with live dealers and real chips, rather than some pixeled reality where cards and transactions occurred in space.

So to combat the newly-invigorated states’ right to offer poker (and other games of chance) via the Internet, Adelson enlisted a vast crew of former politicians and Presidential wanna-bes, all strident and striding forward to spread the gospel of Sheldon for a chance to be handsomely rewarded from the endless coffers of their lord and master.  He’d spend “whatever it takes,” and many were ready for the taking to being in earnest.

There was George Pataki, and Lindsey Graham, and Mike Huckabee, all three who attempted a run for the highest office in the land, only to crash and burn not for the lack of cash, but rather, public support.  Adelson’s Achilles heel was to be the same, or so it seemed.  Despite the creation of a broad-based Coalition (which only had one broad – Blanche Lincoln), two attempts at a misnamed legislative effort to turn back the clock to outlaw online gaming, and seven lobbying firms, there was little enthusiasm for such a move.

And what enthusiasm there was, was waning.  In Congress, fewer bill co-sponsors in 2015 than in 2014.  Ditto for State Attorneys General “signing on” to a support letter.  Congressional hearings hosted by Jason “Guard Dog” Chaffetz went from bad to worse, so much so that even Jason didn’t stick around to the end to see how it all came out.  The Coalition dutifully made a presence online (again, the irony) every month from its inception in November 2013 until July of last year, and then, only a couple of blurbs since, and nothing at all for the last 90 days.  And in the arena of social media, the Coalition hasn’t posted since January 12.  Even more pathetic:  despite more than 15,000 followers, posts get fewer than a half-dozen likes and the only comments left are from the Counteract group.  Lexi the Samoyed’s Facebook page has a better fan base (and cuter videos, too).

Face it – most of the rest of the world was of an opinion that the Internet was a real thing, catching on, and that most forms of commerce could in fact be conducted safely and efficiently online.  Yes, it was ironic that this same technology embraced by the rest of the thinking world was the very same technology used at Adelson’s own casinos to propagate his sports betting services.  But Adelson’s ignorance of this irony allowed him to set aside the notion that this technology was the exact same thing as that technology just as a water bottle is the same thing as a smart phone.  So there.

Still, his vision was at the same place it had been two years prior.  It’s just that no one else can see it, and put it into place.  But he still has hope.  He’s purchased a Death Star newspaper in his home town of Las Vegas, with the intent of “following the news” rather than making it*.  He’s pal-ing around with NFL folks with the idea of using his untold riches** to build a football stadium to lure the Oakland Raiders to Las Vegas.  He still has his billions.

And there’s one more Jedi-Knight that Adelson can call for help.  Marco Rubio is that last hope, a Jedi-knight-like Senator (in that he can make himself disappear, especially in the Senate when there’s an important vote) that can take Adelson’s warning of online doom and make it a legislative reality.  Despite having made comments earlier that he’d be OK with an online poker carve-out, Adelson’s newspaper gave Rubio their endorsement.  More irony – the poker carve-out was in an interview with a reporter from Sheldon’s newspaper, although it wasn’t his newspaper then.  We think.

To no one’s surprise, less than a week after the endorsement Marco was a good little soldier and addressed the concerns of South Carolina citizens’ concerns by parroting Sheldon’s pathos, stating, “…what I don’t want to see is internet casinos…”  Granted, this wouldn’t be the first time a politician spoke from both sides of his mouth.  It’s obvious Rubio has this science perfected, as he later added that “…he wanted responsible regulation of online gambling instead of what he described as the ‘Wild West’ approach of letting states pass their own laws.”  Apparently he has taken the Adelson perspective that prohibition is somehow regulation.  And up is down.

The Nevada caucuses are about a week away (February 23), just after the South Carolina primary (Adelson doesn’t own a newspaper here).  Rubio is a distant third in Nevada polls and third or fourth in SC (again, distant.  Almost far, far away).  If Adelson can’t get his new Force to Awaken, he might have to deal with the “Orange Menace***” a former casino owner in his own right. 

That would certainly be an attack of the clowns.

* Who am I kidding?  He tried to influence editorial content even before people knew he bought the damned paper. 

** Seriously, who am I kidding?  He wants government money to pay for most of the stadium’s construction. 

*** A cross between the personality of Jar Jar Binks and the hair of Chewbacca.

Word Sense, or Why America Needs to Talk about Gambling

You have to understand that the reason humans converse and make language is to…well…understand.  Supposedly, as the “smartest animal” we create language as an evolutionary advantage, do allow us to perform tasks and get along with fellow humans better than others in the animal kingdom.

Granted, we have some issues.  We have a shitload of languages and translations don’t always work out smoothly.  Times change, and while “high on grass” meant a bad lie on the fairway years ago, it means something different now.  Sometimes meaning is lost when we utilize sarcasm, and bad means good and “Clear Skies Initiative” means something entirely different.

And then there’s gambling, which the gaming industry pronounces “gaming.”

I’ve felt this way for a long time.  The confusion that sets in when one mentions the G-word is frightening.  I’ve told my own story several times, but in short – my father’s side was a gambling family (horses, mostly), an activity frowned upon by my Mom’s side, who spent hours playing cards and later, bingo.  Playing cards was not gambling (even if a penny a point) because it was “for fun.”  The money was just a way of keeping score.  “So why not just use corn kernels or poker chips?” I innocently asked.

“Because it wouldn’t be as much fun,” was the reply.  No wonder I was confused.

And so is FanDuel’s CFO Matt King.  As is many who play Daily Fantasy Sports.  At least, according to the most recent Frontline PBS news program, which looked into the whole sordid DFS situation this week in “Fantasy Sports Gamble.”  We’ll get to King in a moment, but for now I want to stay on the G-word, something many of the “players” (never identifies as bettors) had trouble saying when discussing their involvement with DFS.  Are we gambling?  No, heavens no.  Investing, yes.  It’s a challenge, a skill-based game.  Entertainment.  Yeah, definitely, entertainment. 

And King echoed those comments, and then some.  After saying that he doesn’t consider FanDuel as gambling, he reiterated users’ comments that, “…what comes through loud and clear is the fact that we are an entertainment product.”  Pressed again about how others might consider DFS as gambling, he offered that any contest where (as Frontline considered) “…if you are putting at risk something of value, you can win or you can lose. That would seem to me (Frontline host) the definition of gambling,” King claimed that the same thing could be said about a Spelling Bee (really, he said that).

After that, he was then asked, “Well, it could be poker. Poker is a game of skill, right?

And he replied:  “No, poker is not.”

Say what?  He explained.  Sort of:

There is a lot of academic research on this, what’s the skill versus luck kind of spectrum. The reality is within poker, every time you shuffle the deck, it creates an element of luck that trumps it basically to being much more a chance-dominated game than a skill-dominated game. If you look at our data, the players that are good, are frankly consistently good. It is truly a game of skill. … Just like football or basketball. The more you practice, the better that you get. Many of the forms of regulated gambling are actively constructed so they are games of chance, and that is a very, very different experience than a game of skill, which is what fantasy clearly is.

Believe it or not, he followed that word salad by going back to the Spelling Bee argument (a combination of skill and luck).  But the reason King embraces all this mumbo-jumbo came a bit earlier in the skill/luck/gambling discussion, when he said…

No, because I think one of the best things about the country that we live in is the fact that everybody can express their own opinions. And so people are certainly going to have a range of opinions, and what we always encourage is to say, look, we’re new, right. So as opposed to necessarily having a discussion about are you this or are you that, are you fish or are you fowl, let’s have a discussion about what are the concerns that the fact that our business exists raises and let’s have a discussion about those concerns. Let’s figure out whether those are legitimate concerns or not, and then if there are legitimate concerns, let’s take proactive steps to address those.

Shorter King: Like assholes, everyone has an opinion, and let’s not concern ourselves with

Let me try to explain about assholes...

what we could be called, because money something something yargle bargle blargh.

See, that’s the real problem here.  Instead of being forward and calling DFS “skill-based gambling,” King hides behind other bon mots (itself a bon mot) and look where that got him.   You, like King, can play along with me by answering these queries:

• Can you call slots gambling?
• Can you call blackjack gambling?
• Can you call poker gambling?
• Can you call the stock market gambling?
• Can you call DFS gambling?
• Can you call a turd a rose?

Now, if you’re trying to decide whether the correct answer is four, or five, or maybe just three, let me assure you THE ANSWER IS ALL SIX.  You can CALL anything anything.  You can CALL a cat a moose or a mouse, but it does not MAKE the cat larger or smaller.  It’s still a pussy, and so is Matt King.

But I digress.  As long as we play parlor games and pussyfoot around with what this word means or that word means, it allows those who wish to divide us and destroy us the tools necessary to do so.  Your game is gambling, but mine is entertainment.  You wager, but I invest.  I use my skills and talents, and you…well, let me get back to you about that, but I’m sure luck is involved, or fate, or chance, some other word that means something.  Because we all have opinions.  And assholes.

I’ve been sitting for quite a while now, and my Matt King itches like crazy.

Hold’emX: Does This Game Have My Name On It?

The joke is that back in high school & college my nickname was “The Big X” (because of my last name, silly), so naturally something called “HoldemX” would sound like it would “have my name on it.”  Ha ha.

But, no joke: this new radical version of Hold‘em just might be what I’ve been looking for.

As you may know, I’ve been off the virtual felt since Black Friday.  Well, the cash side, anyway.  I’ve never felt comfortable advocating for a return of legal, regulated online poker in the US while at the same time playing at off-shore sites that accept US players like Bodova, ACR, and the like.  That’s not an argument I want to pursue right now, BTW.

I’ve been filling my time online in other pursuits – I have returned to the track (that was my first love, y’know) and I am happy to report that it “satisfies” as much as it ever did (up and down, but boy, do I love LOVE LOVE the “conditional bet” option – something that you just can’t do in live racing unless, y’know, you’re actually there).  I still play Hold’em poker online (for free, of course), and you already know what that can be like (not the same).  I’ve tried Omaha (thanks to Robert Turner) and there’s some mental stimulation potential there, but again, because I can only play for free, Omaha tends to turn into an all-in shoving frenzy, and PLO hi-lo turns into a all-in shoving frenzy-times-nine.  I can’t believe real cash games play out that way. 

Still, it’s a diversion from Texas Hold‘em, which I always seem to play nowadays whilst I am doing something else.  It just doesn’t seem to hold my interest.

But HoldemX?  It’s like playing Uno, Magic, Poker, and one of those weird-ass wild card games your uncle used to pull out in the late hours on Thanksgiving.  The creators call it “Hold‘em, enhanced” and “"a whole new poker game that tries to build a bridge between poker and eSports." 

Sounds about right.  Some of the kids that work for us at the ice cream parlor are avid gamers, so I’ve sent them all a note asking them to try it to see what they think of it.  As for me, I can see the appeal it might have for both poker junkies and those who might never consider poker as anything other than what old guys do when they’re bored (Yeah, that’s how it was put to me once, damn kids nowadays).

To be honest, I might never have tried it had I not been a bored old guy.  One of the initial write-ups left me feeling “meh” until I read another review which used the Uno reference, and then I read this primer on some of the strategies of the game.  I’ve only played a couple of times, and I can assure you that while they may have had millennials in mind, it’s a game that can appeal to just about anyone who likes strategy gaming.  Yes, there are elements of poker (it IS a poker game, first and foremost), but there are other aspects that enter into it that make it extremely challenging.

The basic version (“normal mode” but they are working on others) is heads-up Hold’em, with these added features:  A “Discovery Deck” with “Bonus X Cards” that act in ways that can give you stronger hands, and a shot-clock.  The Bonus X cards are things like making one of your hole cards like the other (instant pair), adding a 6^th Street, changing a suit on the flop, redealing the river Card, and so on.  Like DFS, you have a budget, so you can’t pick ‘em all, and if you pick an expensive X card, you might not have enough left for other cards you want.  You can also buy cards to block your opponents X cards.

Play is alternated between X card play and normal card play (you can play an X card after the deal and each street).  Betting is as normal (if that’s a word that can be used here).  Yes, more complex than poker, for sure – the rules are here (to be honest, this part needs a lot of work), and there’s a tutorial video you’ll see at the start up of the game.  It’s fairly self-explanatory, even to this nerd.

Me, kicking Hold'emX ass.

The game is in “alpha test” mode right now, but the creators make no secret that they’ve spent a bundle developing the game.  Despite that, they also claim that they see no real rush to create a “cash” version.  I know I railed against “free poker” earlier, but so far the lack of playing for money hasn’t deterred my enjoyment of the game.  It’s a real challenge.

Oh, also, I am undefeated so far.  There’s that, too.

The Silence of the Sheldon

I have to admit, as the unofficial guy who watches Sheldon Adelson’s anti-online-gambling crusade online, I am a bit bored.  I regularly monitor (and troll) his online activities, and recently, there hasn’t been anything happening of note.  Actually, nothing of non-note, too.  Just nothing.

His Coalition to Stop Online Gambling website hasn’t posted anything new since mid-November, when Nevada AG Laxalt came out in support of his ill-fated RAWA bill in the House.  The CSIG Facebook page hasn’t posted anything since January 12, and they were very regular before that.  Granted, much of what they’ve posted since November has been rehashed trash that’s been roundly rejected and proven false.  But even this gets few likes and the only comments to be found are mine and fellow trolls of the Coalition to Counteract the CSIG.

How can we counteract bupkis?

Like a parent with young children, silence tends to make me worry.  In the past, when I didn’t see any signs of life on the sites, and things were this quiet, it was only a matter of time before Sheldon & Company sprang forth with a new co-sponsor, or a new survey, or something that showed that his “whatever it takes” mantra was back on the firing line. 

But now?  Perhaps being 0-for-2 with his insipid RAWA, getting less support each year, means that’s he’s re-thinking the battle.

Or maybe he’s just busy with everything else in his life.  He’s got his eye on Rubio the Republican Primary (another area his batting average is 0-for).  You all know he bought (another) newspaper.  But he’s also…

• Trying to educate/pressure the LVRJ’s Editorial Board to reconsider their stance on medical marijuana in Nevada.
• Flying Republicans not running for President (this year, anyway) to Israel.
• His Bethlehem Sands casino in Pennsylvania got fined (again) for underage gaming, so perhaps he’s “thinking of the children!”
• His newspaper in Israel is busy calling for assassination of Swedish officials.
• His casinos aren’t doing all that well – LVS Corp is off 33% from a year ago, and it’s lost HALF its value since 2014.  Boo-frickin’-hoo.
• And he’s got some legal problems.  Here, here, and here.

So yeah, maybe he’s too busy to worry about the potential for Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, California, and other states to legalize online gaming.  He’s certainly said nothing about Daily Fantasy Sports, an area I thought certain he’d weigh in on just because (a) its potential to take $$$ away from land-based gaming, and (b) DFS’s legality (as a gambling concerned) has been challenged in several states.  Plus (and this is the big one for me), DFS attracts TONS of young-adults aged 12-17 (perhaps 20% of the total in standard Fantasy Leagues) and for someone concerned “about the children” this seems like it should be an area of concern for him and his coalition.  But nothing said.  Just [crickets].

So where is Sheldon, and what’s he up to?

I do have one theory.  Years ago, on vacation in Las Vegas, we stopped by the Venetian (for the gelato) and saw a man doing the “Human Statue” thing.  He stands silent and motionless for quite some time (almost a half-hour), then at the end his assistant comes out to scoop up the tips and they leave, breaking the spell.

Look closely – it kinda looks like Sheldon, and the jester could be Andy Abboud*.  Works for me.  Unless I hear something from him or CSIG soon, I'll have to assume this is how he’s making up for Macau’s revenue drop.

* the jester could also be Marco Rubio, since he’s never in the Senate for votes.

RAWA Hearing Aftermath – Excuse Me, Is This Your Ass? (hands it to Jason)

Today was the day that Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Clueless) got to hold his precious little

Someone is not happy today.  Make that "someones."

hearing  for Sheldon Adelson’s RAWA bill HR707 (aka Restore America’s Wire Act) in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.  The Hearing’s title - “A CASINO IN EVERY SMARTPHONE – LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPLICATIONS” could have been retitled “Why not to invite witnesses who don’t actually know much about the subject at hand.” 

Of course, that would have disqualified Chaffetz, but I digress.  Yesterday I looked at the written statements of two of the four witnesses.  Today I look at the other two statements, and a brief discussion on the actually hearing follow.  Because I only saw about 20 minutes of it live thanks to a broken dishwasher, I am basing my comments on (a) what I saw and (b) mostly what others saw and wrote about.  Kinda like how Chaffetz works, I know.

Joseph Campbell, the Assistant Director, Criminal Investigative Division of the FBI was the first witness today, and frankly, I expected him to be the star witness for the prosecution…I mean, he would be an excellent expert to discuss the finer nuances of online gaming.  His written statement deals harshly with illegal gambling.  Not online gambling exclusively, and not LEGAL online gambling.  Just illegal gambling.  Illegal activity.  Hence, one could conclude that, if one were taking part in a LEGAL activity (like online horse racing or one of the three states who have LEGAL online poker), then the FBI could give a shit.

From what I have gathered from the questions asked of him, Campbell stayed in this capacity when he attempted to answer questions.  Which, from all reports, he failed to do much of.  Provide answers, that is.  He certainly provided little in the way law enforcement regarding the “implications of online gambling“ or anything like what Chaffetz and Adelson were looking for.  Hee hee hee.

The fourth witness (I wrote about the other two here) was Mark Lipparelli, State Senator from Nevada, former Gaming Control Board Chairman to the Nevada Gaming Commission and heavily involved in Nevada’s implementation of online poker.  His written statement is full of stuff the other three were missing…actually facts rather than speculation.  In fact, his best comment was about how it’s time to move on from all that:

“The three existing US markets and several regulated markets in Canada have now applied their knowledge to actual operations and historical speculation has given way to their success and foundation knowledge.” (emphasis mine)

OK, I lied.  This is even better.  Later, he talks about the potential risks involved with starting online poker in Nevada, and “…that you cannot be given complete assurance that legal igaming can be properly governed.”

“However, after spending six years with experts in the field, developers of products, independent test labs and regulators from Alderney, the United Kingdom, Gibraltar, France, Italy, Malta, the Isle of Man, Singapore and many others I can give you confidence that the regulated model does work.”

And BOOM!

The little of the live hearing I was able to see involved Mr. Lipparelli and he was as bright a star answering questions as he was in his lengthy and detailed written statement (it a great read – here).  He was very informative, very humble, and, even when the question was about a “fool-proof method” (to keep kids from getting a cell phone from someone not the parents and going online and losing thousands…yeah, they really were grabbing at straws here), he was direct and complete in his answers.

And let me interject something here – name me ONE thing that’s “Fool Proof,” especially anything our government oversees.  Medicaid fraud, Banking regulations, Social Security scams, Agricultural subsidies…but no, we gotta make getting online and playing poker FOOL PROOF.  Idiots.

Anyway, like I said earlier I only saw a bit of the show live.  Much of the chatter I read seemed to imply that, with the exception of Lipparelli, the inquisitors (members of Congress) seemed to know more about the subject than the witnesses.  Hat tips especially to Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ), and Ted Lieu (CA).

The complete hearing in all of it’s You-Tube glory can be found here, PPA’s official take on the hearing here, and here are excellent recaps by Steve Ruddock (sort of live blogging) and Dan Cypra from PocketFives.  More to come I am sure, and I’ll post ‘em on the Coalition to Counteract the Coalition to Stop Online Gambling Facebook site.

Overall, it was a pretty bad day for Sheldon Adelson.  Well, LVS stock went up 2%, so there’s that, anyway.

RAWA Hearing, Part II - Same Old Shit in a New Box

Tomorrow Sheldon Adelson gets to unwrap an early Christmas present courtesy of Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Grumpy): The second hearing on his RAWA bill HR707 (aka Restore America’s Wire Act, or Restore Adelson’s Wampum Act, depending on your view).  As there’s lots of similarities between this hearing and the one held last Spring.

For one thing, the witnesses scheduled to give testimony once again fail to include anyone remotely connected to the very industry Chaffetz wishes to interrogate investigate.  And it’s slanted toward the “gambling is bad” side.  Another similarity – despite the idea of holding a hearing being a key step in a move to actually get the bill passed, there is NO mention of it on Adeslon’s CSIG’s site.  It’s almost as if they don’t want their own supporters to know about it.  To his credit, Chaffetz’s Facebook page has a mention (he didn’t do that last time).  That’s the only credit Jason gets from me.

The cast of characters this time is a bit different – the March hearing was before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations.  This one is in front of a larger crowd – the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.  The theme is different, too, with the not-so-subtle title of this hearing being “A CASINO IN EVERY SMARTPHONE – LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPLICATIONS.”  And the witnesses are more law-and-order types – from the FBI, an Attorney General (one of the 8 who signed the letter supporting RAWA), a State Senator from Nevada (the one guy who might be on our side), and the attorney from Douglas County, Nebraska.

Let’s examine this last one first.  Donald Kleine has been the Attorney for Douglas County since 2007 (Douglas County is the most populous county in Nebraska – Omaha is the county seat).  He’s a Democrat (but a Midwestern one, so he’s no screaming liberal).  But why is he testifying? 

For one thing, his election campaign website calls him “tough on crime.”  For another thing, he knows the Abbouds.  According to this website, at one time he was part of Abboud Law.  Or did something with them, it’s not clear.  We’re talking Greg and Chris Abboud.  Brothers of Andy.  Andy of “Sheldon Adelson’s right-hand man.”

So there’s THAT connection.

As for his written testimony, he’s been taught well.  He uses a lot of the CSIG buzzwords (“the challenges of local law enforcement in protecting our most vulnerable citizen from the dangers that lurk in the realm of online gambling”) and conflagulates the idea of legal and regulated online gaming with the nefarious off-shore stuff (run by “massive foreign companies”).”  The big stinker (to me) was this: “Finally, online gambling activities are extremely difficult to monitor because users can remain largely anonymous.”  This would come as a shock to anyone who signed up in New Jersey and surrendered their name, address, social security number, etc. etc. etc. 

Anonymous my ass.

Alan Wilson is the Attorney General for South Carolina, one of the strictest states (next to Utah) when it comes to gambling.  Sure, they have a lottery and some charitable bingo, but that’s it.  It wasn’t always that way – for nearly twenty years SC was the largest video poker community in the country (more than 33,000 machines) until operations were shut down in late 1999.  Wilson’s written testimony also has many classic CSIG catchphrases – Founding Fathers, States Rights (no, really), FBI warnings, and so on.  He talks about how “In South Carolina, gambling is largely prohibited and has been throughout the history of our state” (emphasis mine) and one wonders where Wilson was from 1980 to 1999 when there was a video poker machine on every corner.

He gets there, eventually, calling the experience “traumatic.”  He then gets to pull in the anecdotal stories about Mom’s leaving their kids in the car to die while they played video poker, and other fun stuff (addictions, embezzlements, and organized crime).  From there it’s a quick step to the 2011 DOJ ruling and how that opens the door to “…entities, many of which are foreign-national corporations, to operate online casinos in states like Nevada, Delaware, and New Jersey without any assurance that these online casinos are not being accessed in states like South Carolina.”  That’s whopper #1.

Whopper #2 comes next: “…the reality is offices like mine, charged with the responsibilities of enforcing our own gambling laws and protecting the public, cannot  be expected to rely on the good faith of massive foreign owned gambling companies licensed by other states.”  I kinda thought technology was in play rather than “good faith” but what do I know?  And I had no idea that all of the entities in NJ, NV, and DE were “massive foreign-owned gambling companies.”  And he closes with the killer: “As a result of the DOJ opinion…it is almost impossible for parents to protect their children from accessing virtual casino games on their smartphones, tablets and laptops. Now, casinos are almost ubiquitous on every street corner in America as the virtual clouds and mobile devices operate anywhere at every hour of the day.”

Hey, Mr. Wilson!  If it’s that easy to do – access one of these legal gaming sites from your office in South Carolina – PROVE IT.  TRY IT.  And once you’ve failed, STFU.

As for Joseph Campbell, the Assistant Director, Criminal Investigative Division of the FBI – I haven’t found any links to him and online gaming.  I do know he’s done work dealing with “vulnerable children” and “human trafficking” but nothing on poker and clicking your mouse/lose your house activity.

Finally, there is Mark Lipparelli, State Senator from Nevada.  Prior to this position, he was Gaming Control Board Chairman to the Nevada Gaming Commission.  He was part of the process that led to Nevada going online, he’s worked for a firm involved with the customer verification process for online gaming, and he’s been a strong advocate for online poker ALL ACROSS AMERICA.  Finally, someone who ACTUALLY KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT THE THING CHAFFETZ WANTS TO ELIMINATE REGULATE EXAMINE.

I’m sure tomorrow’s hearing will be both fair and balanced.  Hah – I’ll have a follow-up post in a day or two.

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.

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.

Polling Pennsylvanians Poorly

Much has been made of recently released “survey” results by our good friends at CSIG about the attitudes of the citizens of the Keystone state as to online gambling.  And they ain’t pretty.  The results, for us, that is.  The overall take away from the results suggests that Pennsylvanians are unfavorable towards the idea of online gambling, and once presented with selected “messages” are even more inclined to be unfavorable.  This is considered “bad news” for us poker advocates and for more of the legislature as it steamrolls towards becoming the fourth U.S. state to legalize and regulate online poker.

And it would be bad news if in fact the results accurately measured the feelings of the state’s citizens.  Which I do not believe it does.  Many poker advocates have suggested reasons why this survey does not hold water.  I agree, but not for many of the reasons that have been suggested.

First, some background.  Most of you know me as an ice cream entrepreneur, but my previous occupation (of many) was Marketing Research.  For eight years in Idaho I did field work, crafted questionnaires, did analysis, made presentations and reports.  From this perspective I speak, rather than a poker advocate.  Ergo, this kind of thing is in my wheelhouse.

And in short…this survey seems shoddy.

First, let’s discuss the sample of respondents.  It’s been suggested that 513 respondents is inadequate to measure the entire state.  That’s wrong – 513 can be an adequate sample, provided certain precautions are taken (learn all about sample sizes here – but be warned – it’s boring stuff).  While this poll was of “registered voters,” no other information is given as to how they were selected.  I assume it was a “random” sample, and that there were attempts to mirror the population at large, but given that none of this is shown in the results…I am skeptical.  Yes, 500 is enough, but only if it’s done right.  Without any additional information (a shortage that many have rightly criticized), I remain skeptical.

The margin of error shown for the survey was given at +/-4.33%.  This would be about correct for a sample of 513, but only for the ENTIRE survey results.  The individual group breakouts (Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative, age demos) would be much larger.  In looking at ago breakouts in particular is where I get very skeptical.

Take this question about whether online gambling is very different from casino gambling.  Here are the results for the “very different” responses, and the percent of the population each age demo represents:

Overall	18-39	40-54	55-65	66+
68%	57%	63%	74%	72%
% of population	34.6%	33.3%	11.5%	20.5%

Note that the “younger” demos – basically all those 54 and younger – are less likely to think online is very different than the older crowd, yet…overall percentage of 68% is much closer to what the oldies think.  I think this means the respondents skew older (disproportionately) which, of course, biases the results.  Even though Harper Polling said it was conducted on both land line phones and cell phones, it seems off to me.

And on the subject of Harper – they are notorious as both a “robo-caller” and a “push poller” (not really seeking information as much as trying to persuade) for the Republican Party.  This of itself doesn’t discredit them to provide accurate results, but…in reading the report, you see this:

The State lottery has the best gaming image in the eyes on Pennsylvanians, at 84% favorable. Horse racing tracks (60% favorable) and “casinos with Las Vegas style gambling” (59% favorable) are also viewed favorably by most Pennsylvanians. By comparison, online gambling has a remarkably bad reputation with 72% of voters holding an unfavorable opinion of it (21% favorable).

Respondents said they had an "unfavorable" opinion of online gaming. Yet the report writers said "online gambling has a remarkably bad reputation."  Those are not synonymous statements, and any market research company that writes crap like that should NEVER be trusted.

The rest of the objections that others have brought up also make me question the results.  There is no indication as to what, if any, screening questions were asked.  Certainly, self-qualification as a register voter vs. actually using registered voter records is one thing I’d like to know about (many people will say they are registered even if they aren’t because “it’s the right thing to say.”  Seriously.).  But did they exclude anyone else…like anyone who gambled?  We don’t know.  Was there any statements given about gambling or online gambling prior to the questions they show in the survey?  I’d love to see the ENTIRE questionnaire just to be sure.

Finally, it’s clear to me that the purpose of the survey wasn’t so much as to measure respondents’ attitudes but to test messages for a potential battle in the state for the legalization of online gambling.  More specifically, to use as a “threat” to legislators who dare pass pro-online gambling regulation.  We have the report itself as evidence.  It states:

See Table 1 for a breakdown of the message tests against online gambling ranked by effectiveness.  All of the messages were highly effective, making at least 74% of those surveyed less likely to favor legalizing online gambling. The most effective argument was about the potential for children to be exposed, which appeals to a wide range of demographic groups. Even the two messages provided as “pro-online gambling” arguments earn high ‘less likely’ numbers, reflecting the fact that voters are so strongly predisposed to disliking online gambling regardless of what arguments they hear in support of it.

I have to guess the two “pro-online gambling” messages were not shown in Table 1, or I was unaware  that phrases like “Online gambling is a job killer” and “the FBI told Congress last  year, ‘online casinos are vulnerable to a wide array of criminal schemes…” were pro-online gambling.  Who knew?

If this truly was the intent of the poll, and I suspect it was, I could have saved Sheldon thousands of dollars by telling him what he already knew.  I would have said: “Keep telling the same lies to people about children, money laundering, and killing jobs – just be sure you call it “information.”  And remember – all the lies seem to work about the same.”

Asshat.