Lol. Bayes theorem, how does it work?

^^^
LOL. I'm an engineer and was a Six Sigma Black Belt at GE. Asking me that is like asking, "LOL. Stress in a beam, how is it calculated?"

So far, I've stated that we had one event that was a coin flip....the 2010 lame duck session. We have a second coming up and will see how that goes.

I'll take 2-1, with the loser donating the money either to PPA or to PokerPAC.

Let's do it with a base wager of $500, such that I'll donate $500 if legislation does not pass in the 2012 lame duck session and you'll donate $1,000 if it does. Deal?

I don't see anyone has mentioned the "fiscal cliff" - the combination of sequestration and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts - supposedly coming if Congress doesn't act by the end of the year. This should give us a real chance at a vehicle on which we can hitch a ride.

I can't donate to PokerPac, you can PM for details, its a work related restriction. i should be able to donate to the PPA directly, but i have to clear donations going forward with my compliance officer. if not I will get the $$$ to you directly. You dont need to escrow your word is good.

Bet is defined as a bill authorizing federally regulated online poker by the end of this congress 1/13. regulatory power lies with the states but it's still an interstate licensing bill, you win on that too.

I know, that's why I was surprised to see you not understand.

To me it's like the debt ceiling, going to be a real hard slog as it is to get a compromise. Unless it ends up being Obama caving to a full extension of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy and higher defense spending where social conservatives would be hard pressed to kill it...just hard to see this attaching to any compromise that will pass with thin margins.

We need something that needs to get done and that will pass by a huge margin, preferably a Republican priority.

This is what I was getting at earlier. Once the votes are in and the next president is determined, both sides are going to be much more willing to compromise. I just don't see either side sabotaging the economy for 4 more years. The fiscal cliff will be dealt with.

Finding a vehicle won't be a problem. It's getting the bill written that is satisfactory to the key players that is the tough part.

This was the first article that came up on Google, but there was another (somewhere in this forum) that had and even longer list.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyi...ring-lame-duck

If they can come to a grand bargain supported by a large majority, that would be great for us. I think the most likely outcome is Obama with an r house and senate, which will make that tough

It all comes down to how much support(votes) Reid/Kyl can muster for their bill. There's just too many unanswered questions about why,how, and if the federal gov should regulate online gambling. Add to that all the special interests from the states,lotteries,casinos,tribes,horse racing,etc and there's no way reid/kyl can simply sneak in a bill without anyone noticing.

Reid/Kyl wont/can't attach a bill unless they have the numbers to support it and they will not have the numbers without the issue being fully debated and all the issues and interests having a say and compromises being worked out. This isn't the kind of issue that can simply be attached at this point in time, maybe it can be down the road but more work will need to be done before that is a reality.

I wish you'd warned me about that gif. I nearly choked to death on my own saliva. Good LORD. LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Thank you so much, honestly

I like talking about potential vehicles and the political environment a lot more than these silly abstract arguments about what % we had to pass 2 years ago.

There is plenty of constructive things we can be talking about instead of acting like 9 year olds imo.

So...what are the big bills moving forward this holiday season? Are there things I should be communicating to my lawmakers concerning the lame duck specifically?

Per our PMs, we're good to go.

Needless to say, if I lose, the $500 will be least of my concerns both personally and with regard to this fight. After all, I've devoted a lot to this over the past six years. So, let's all do our part to push forward toward victory in 2012.

You can't use Bayes theorem to pretty up an outcome-based critique. You have to stick with the data available at the time of the decision. Otherwise, it's the same underlying unsubstantiated argument with a pseudo analysis affixed to it like a cheap facade.

The problem with political coin flips is the same as literal coin flips; we expect a random result but the coin has a bias towards landing back in it's original position, so in politics saying something is a coinflip actually means the odds are against us - we need to be favorites before getting our hopes up.

^^^

I'm pretty sure most understood I was referring to a toss of a fair coin, which has no bias toward landing on one side or the other.

My point is that there is no such thing as a fair coin toss in politics, much as there is no such thing as a fair toss of a real coin:

http://econophysics.blogspot.com/200...ic-at-mit.html

To expect a change of the existing orientation of law, we need to have better than 50/50 odds.

It is too early to be looking to specific bills for potential attachment. The most likely vehicle is one associated with either the tax cuts or the "automatic" spending reductions from the last debt-ceiling deal. But the specific form of that vehicle is still a long way from taking shape.

A lot will depend on the elections, but I believe that whatever the election outcome there will be some clear issues that will generate bi-partisan support (extending middle class tax cuts maybe, or perhaps restoration of certain defense spending). Once a deal is made on this larger issue, then the work of attaching our little bill begins.

The key, I think, is to have a bill with sufficient bi-partisan support that the minor controversy of online poker/gambling will not be able to jeopardize overall support.

I also think the current "grand compromise" is not likely to generate that much principled opposition and that also is a key to success. The whole point of the work Reid and Kyl have done over the last year is to ensure that all the special interests get something and will support the compromise. That means the only opposition left should be the handful of legislators who morally oppose any gaming and can't stomach a poker exception, or the few who think the Feds should stay out of what is, to them, a state issue.

If the number of principled opponents is not enough to jeopardize passage of the underlying bill (and remember, most Congress critters care very little about the issue and will be happy to follow the lead of Reid or Kyl) then the attachment should succeed and the legitimization of some form of interstate online poker should follow.

There are plenty of "ifs" in the above scenario, but none of the "ifs" are that unlikely to break our way, IMHO, except the first one - there has to be a bill that has such a good level of bi-partisan support that the number of Reps who would vigorously oppose a Reid/Kyl the gaming attachment will not make a real difference to the underlying bill's passage.

We shall see ....

Skallagrim

Which is a rare bird itself nowadays.

Nope, you are missing the point. That's not what Im doing. Im not even saying you are wrong in your assessment. Just that over time it becomes more likely you are overoptimistic.

Anyways, hope Im writing you a check for $1,000 in the next six months. I doubt I will be though.

Well, sequestration was designed to cause pain for both sides. That's its point. For republicans, it is massive defense cuts.

Also, the Bush tax cuts automatically expire if nothing is done. Congressional inaction ends them, not the other way around. This effects republicans two ways: the obvious, republicans don't like tax increases, and it also provides a face-saving way around the Norquist pledge. Republicans can vote for a bill that brings in more money, as long as it brings in less than the end of the Bush tax cuts. They can, therefore, say they lowered taxes, not raised them.

Finally, the fiscal cliff, it is argued by people on both sides, could send us into another recession. That would not be good for anyone in Washington and should help motivate action.

If all the defense cuts were rescinded or all the Bush tax cuts were made permanent, I could see Republicans being unable to stop an online poker attachment. I dont think D's are agreeing to either of these.

The fiscal cliff will motivate action, but I think the solution is likely a scraped together slim majority and we have no chance of attaching online poker to a bill that is going to scrape by.

Is there a link to the "great compromise" bill provisions you cite ?
How does it ensure that "all the special interests get something and will support the compromise" ?

That would be good news favoring passage, if your description is accurate, and not just a "reasonable assumption" that it has been crafted already.

What is in it for the Lotteries ?

What is in it for the State governments, which may prefer to apply State generated revenue themselves, instead of send taxes to DC and hope for some of it coming back ?

What is in it for the small, local casinos ?

What is in it for tribal casinos worried about geopgraphic exclusivity ?

Does it allow for interstate compacts among intrastate licensees ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I thought inquiring minds paid attention to reputable news reports and knowledgeable sources and did not seek their information from "broken clocks" that need to be "educated" and spoken to in "simple terms" so that they are not "continuously surprised."

A true "inquiring mind" would already know that all of the interests involved have been spoken to and listened to and have been considered and re-considered numerous times over the past 12 months.

And even a mediocre "inquiring mind" would know that lobbyists and Congressional staffers do more than merely pass checks and eat lunch.

My sources tell me that there still isnt a final deal FWIW, but 3rd hand obviously