Surely you don't think the AGA doesn't understand lobbying and how things work on Capitol Hill.

I report real numbers and real probabilities of success as I see them. I don't play them up to create optimism and I don't downplay them to keep hopes from getting too high.

If I cared what they thought then yes. But I'm not 12 years old are you?

Sunders, you may not believe it, but reported laughter from "friends" at DOJ has in the past deterred action on similar issues by some folks.

FYP, to better reflect the relationship.

Don't doubt this, but at some point Bayes Theorem suggests you aren't an unbiased estimate.

^^^
Not really. If I had biases, they could be in either direction. I could be unduly pessimistic over the sheer amount of time and effort this has taken, or I could be unduly optimistic because I want this to happen.

I personally don't feel I have biases in either direction. Most seem to believe my analyses have been been logic-based and sound (given the information available at the time).

Unbiased in the statistical sense, not in the sense you are trying consciously to spin things. It's possible we are just running bad, but if we keep losing flips at some point the logical conclusion becomes we aint really flipping.

Edit: yes I'm simplifying some, but it's just basic Bayesian stuff I'm getting at.

We lost one flip. The Reid effort in December 2010 was described by some as a "coin-flip" possibility. It is notoriously difficult to asses mathematical odds to non-mathematical situations, but there was clearly a "fair chance" of passage at that time. I suppose 50/50 is akin enough to "fair chance."

The main reason Reid failed in 2010 was the failure to get all the interests in formal agreement. 1 and 1/2 years have passed since then and a number of things have have happened that improve Reid's chance of success this time around. Some things have happened that hinder the chance, mostly the increasingly partisan nature of Congress and the corresponding lack of truly "must pass" legislation.

I would also add to this discussion that the quaint idea that new laws should have hearings and committee votes and independent floor votes is also irrelevant in this hyper partisan time. Almost everything that is getting done at this point is getting done by back door deals where the votes are lined up almost before the matter is even brought to the public's attention. This is especially true regarding issues that, like online poker, are not part of the general public's agenda.

Finally, if it were not for the source it would truly surprise me to see anyone suggest that the US Casino interests might want to derail a deal because it is poker only rather than all casino gaming. The AGA and all the large Casino interests (besides Adelson, who opposes all things online) have pushed "poker-only" for the last few years, explicitly coming out against other casino games going online. These interests realize that online casino gaming is different and is not likely to serve a cross-marketing purpose, not likely to be amenable to interstate businesses at all, and more likely to be controlled or regulated through state lottery interests than through separate regulatory bodies overseeing private enterprise (compare Delaware's law to NV's law, for example).

Skallagrim

For me this is the biggest reason not to be sold on lame duck passage. I'm still putting this thing <25% because of the horrible political environment we are witnessing. If this was a Congress from even a few sessions ago this thing would be a near lock imo (I mean if this was a more cooperative Congress).


We have to see how it all plays out. See where the elections put things and learn what 2 or 3 bills will actually be mandatory "must pass" legislation. I still think this November/December will be the best chance we will have at a federal bill for months and years. I actually think it has a better chance than Dec. 2010. I don't think that was a 50/50.

Of course it is. Ive never gotten a sniff of action at even money or even 2-1 whenever Ive offered it on this forum. Even TE wont take 2-1.

If you told me after midterms in '10 that we could have a 1 in 20 shot of getting this passed Id have been ecstatic. We're probably a little bit better than that, so a much better sweat than I expected.

I actually think the opposite. The fact that these clowns have been acting the way they have been leaves more must pass options this lame duck. Everything congress has done over the last two years has been about the White House. Once that is determined, congress will act swiftly to complete every bill that they've put off.

First, welcome back.

Second, while I agree with the bolded statement I also think pretty much anything can happen in this November's election and so would include the small chance that the makeup of the next Congress could be significantly more favorable to our cause .... Yes, I admit it is a very small chance, but not hopeless (so keep sending those messages and letting politicians know that their stance on poker influences your vote).

Skallagrim

Rather than wade through the stream-of-consciousness post that follows the underlined portion above, I'll explain something, in short talking points using simple words, Skall.

1. There is a huge difference between

(A) a deal that includes passing poker-enabling legislation and concurrently amending the Wire Act to prohibit even State-licensed online casino gaming from becoming lawful in the US., and

(B) a deal that includes poker enabling legislation yet leaves the Wire Act door open for licensed online casino gaming down the road.

Both iterations provide for bringing a hammer down on "unlicensed" internet gaming, including sports. Iteration B leaves casinos free to seek licensing for online casino games.

If you do not understand the differences between the two provisions, re=read them.

2. The margins available from online casinos dwarf those of online poker. If you really think that US casino interests would not oppose cutting their collective throats legislatively with respect to online casino prospects, then you don't grasp the business potential of online casino gaming.

Poker is the camel's nose into the Internet tent. Study the history of the AGA's evolution on the subject, and the historic divide between Caesars and MGM on this point. The Holy Grail is online casino gaming, make no mistake. If you cannot anticipate that its pursuit may lead some casinos to oppose its outright ban, you miss the real prize .... It is not poker-only.

3. It is possible that US casinos may nevertheless accept a ban on anyone licensing interstate online casino gaming, and go for a poker only federal bill, provided they also get to keep the online intrastate gaming provided for so generously in the IUGEA.

That interstate/intrastate calculation might serve a multi-state licensed operator like Caesars, but is an critical sensitive issue to the tribal gaming interests whose bread and butter is geographic exclusivity for casino gaming.

That something would "truly surprise" you is not unprecedented. After all, you publicly "reasonably assumed" that FTP would pay all its players itself follwoing BF.

4. Intrastate online/telephone sports betting does not violate the Wire Act currently and it is offered in Nevada currently. New Jersey's proposed sports-betting regulations leave the door open for it as well, in the discretion of the NJ Division regulating sports-betting. I don't think casinos will meekly accept outlawing licensed intrastate online casino gaming.

It is better that someone on the PPA Board is educated and prepared for real contingencies, rather than be continually surprised by the turn of future events. Fortunately, that "someone" doesn't HAVE to be you.

Bayes theorem-based analysis ≠ results oriented thinking

Skall has it right here. I said we were a coin flip only once....in the last lame duck session. We have been underdogs for much of this but have made a great deal of headway here. We're now seeing the fruits of our labors.

Even a broken clock is right twice per day.

^^^^^ Inspector Dreyfuss is off his meds again.

Lots of love going around ITT.

Unlike broken records......

And a pathetic misinterpretation of "stream-of-consciousness".

You gave the Frank bill a real chance of passing too when it was
pretty much DOA the whole time. You will give the lame duck session a real chance too, and it will fail.

Hope it passes in '12 and that the PPA makes the clearly correct switch to the states in '13 if it fails. Mostly academic to me
anyways, I'm planning my life as if there is no more online poker and have moved on. Would be nice to have it as a hobby again though.

Edit: thought you'd understand Bayes theorem as a poker player/engineer. Oh well.

^^^
I understand Bayes theorem just fine. My point is that you evaluated the probability not with the information available at the time, but by pointing to outcomes.

Also, not sure when you thought I gave the Frank bill a great chance of passing. I recall telling people here that the content of the bill was largely irrelevant, as its real use for us was to use as a platform to reach out to Congress with advocacy efforts and to get hearings on the Hill.

I didn't see it posted anywhere ITT so Here's the Town Hall Meeting recorded by QuadJacks http://www.quadjacks.tv/ppa-town-hal...-june-30-2012/

Can also watch the video directly on youtube, where there are several comments about the pathetic turnout considering the RIO was jammed with poker players.

PPA Town Hall Meeting QuadJacks Live at the WSOP June 30 2012

Some people lash out at the PPA, but this townhall meeting during the WSOP is video evidence that players have no one to blame but themselves.

^^^
That was just Rodney21a, who used to post here in Legislation whining as well.

PPA emailed the entire membership, went on webcasts promoting it, pushed it on social media, spent two weekends inviting everyone who stopped by the PPA booth to attend (including printed flyers), among other promotional activities.

We had 80 attendees, which was roughly our goal. I was happy with the turnout, which was standing room only. The event itself was excellent, as can be seen in the video.

^^^

There is also this post, which points out as other media types (Pokerati, Casinovin, etc) did the poor demographic representation:


Which again isn't a failing of the PPA, young people vent, but unless it's some hipster cause, they don't participate in politics.