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.

Don’t Hate Us, but we’re on Temporary Hiatus

But it's only temporary...

Once again it’s Memorial Day weekend, and for us it means “back to the grind.”  It’s kinda funny how things have changed, where summer is now the busy season and the rest of the year isn’t.  When I was a student, fall was the start of it all, and late May/early June meant the end.  Once I got into the real world it was the same thing – my first FT job was with a bank directly across from the University of Michigan campus, so our busiest times always related to the school year.  Then I went back to college myself, then taught (along with my radio duties), so the calendar was always the same thing.  Even once I got into Market Research, it seemed that our slowest time was summer, since it was more difficult to reach people via phone during that time (and the clients would also seem to disappear for weeks at a time in July and August).

Now, for the last 14 years, summer has meant the busy season, or, as they say around here, the “high season” (though with the new marijuana laws going into effect in July they might want to reconsider).  And once again we gird our loins for seven-days-a-week action.  It’s only 8-10 hours a day now, but once school is out, you can bump that up another couple of hours.  Since we make about 70% of our revenue in the next 14 weeks, it’s difficult to gripe about 90-hour work weeks, as that’s when the customer base is here and that’s how we pay the rent (and ourselves).  Still, it was easier to do when I was 52.  That seems like a decade ago now.

What this does mean, however, is the temporary hiatus of the “Wanna Bet” blog.  I know you’re crying now, but cheer up – come September I’ll be back at it, and it’s not like I’m not still here.  I’m just not…here.  I will continue to troll Sheldon and his CSIG minions over at the Coalition to Counteract the Coalition to Stop Online Gambling, and I will follow (and participate in) the advocacy action as we gain a foothold in Pennsylvania and argue once again about California and fight Jason Chaffetz and Lindsey (no-email) Graham in Washington…and it looks like we’ll be fighting Harry (turncoat) Reid, too.  A note about Chaffetz – he might be out of action for a while as he announced that he’s undergoing gallbladder surgery.  I thought this strange as it appears to me that he already had plenty of gall.

See?  Won’t you miss me a little?

Nah.  I’ll still be here, in spirit if not in print.  I actually did four posts last summer – not sure how I found the time, but I certainly had the motivation.  The Newsweak sham piece on online gambling, James Thackston’s decrepit software, and a couple of other anti-Sheldon pieces that almost wrote themselves.  If that clownass acts up again this summer, I’ll do my best.

And in 14 short weeks, it’ll all be over.  Mostly.   Except for taxes.

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.