Does a survey result need to be surprising (to those in the know) in order to be informative (to those not in the know)?

I know the chances of this are less than the chances of Angelina Jolie leaving Brad Pitt for me, but what I'd love to see is...

All the casinos in AC get together and have their own skins into what would essentially be the same site. You get comped by whichever site you sign up through but you get the advantage of larger player pools. I actually think this would work, but the only way I can see it happening is if we end up with 4 or 5 different sites that each take an hour to fill up a $20 sit and go and it causes them to give it a shot.

Revel is mentioned zero times in that link. I think you are confusing what innocent until proven guilty means.

For many years, John Gotti was known as the Teflon Don and he was not proven guilty for many years, he also did not confess, - under the high bar you have set, it would have been ok to give him a license to operate a casino because he is 'innocent until proven guilty.' You need to do your own research concerning the Revel fiasco, it is too well known by this audience...

Christie is a huge favorite to win re-election as NJ governor. I think he is a pretty big dog to win any national nomination (he is by far the most liberal republican whose name has been floated out, and I don't think he has a real shot at winning the primary).

I have no idea what the fiasco at the revel is, (I'll ask my boss, I think his sister is in senior management there), but he he has unprecedented approval ratings in NJ right now afaik.

Edit: are you talking about this?
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf...m_to_at_l.html

good article, however it is just the tip of the iceberg, - if you keep digging you will find a hundred more good ones like it, and they add up to a huge scandal, there are links to the best dozen or so in the 2+2 Revel thread...

for example, see http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...s_to_reve.html

I skimmed that and a couple of other articles, and I really don't see anything that is damaging to Christie there. The whole thing looks like an idea that boinked that also had some bad luck along the way. There is really no campaign finance scandal to speak of (there are far worse things that are totally legal than what I saw there, which also looked legal; he gets accused of favoritism? maybe, but really, so what? It's not like people are beating down the gates to invest in AC and that is one of the areas he has put a lot of focus on revitalizing.)

If the Revel goes under, which is possible but not guranteed, it will be a big blow but I don't see how it will hurt Christie. I could easily be missing some big points, but I really don't see what he's done that is wrong here, and I have not heard anything about a scandal (I don't really watch tv and mainly pay attention to world and national news on line, but I do live in NJ and think I would have heard something if there was anything big breaking).

respectfully, you need to read more, a lot more. Not sure where you get the idea Revel going under is not guaranteed. See, Revel Casino To Allow Smoking As Part Of Bankruptcy Filing
March 26, 2013 8:00 PM, http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/03/...ruptcy-filing/

It's coming out of bankruptcy with some major changes to it's premise and management. Bankruptcy != going out of business; this is a chapter 11, which provides protection during a restructuring period (where the creditors and the court have to approve the plans). It will emerge from chapter 11 and will make it or not with the changes they put in place. The creditors have to think they have a better chance of getting their money back with the new operating plan than by liquidating to have approved a plan involving re opening, so it could come back and make it. (I believe the taj has been in and out of bankruptcy three times, and they are still around afaik)

What on earth does Revel have to do with PokerStars?

Sounds to me like you have a vendetta.

I skimmed three of those articles. One was about hedge funds investing NJ pension dollars. Another was about bankruptcy and smoking. The third was about Revel owing money to vendors.

You equate the "crooks" at PokerStars with a casino going through bankruptcy? I don't get the connection/similarity.

the connection has to do with the possible blowback of supporting dubious causes on the boardwalk. Another scandal on the boardwalk is the similarity to be avoided, see,
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/03/...ruptcy-filing/(bankruptcy filing read like a laundry list of mistakes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._v._Scheinberg (bank fraud and money laundering)
and http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...apitalism.html (throwing taxpayers' good money after bad.)

So yes, nothing to do with PokerStars except that you don't like them. There was no admission of wrongdoing in the DOJ settlement although as you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty I guess we can just leave it at that.

'...The amended complaint alleged that Chris Ferguson, Howard Lederer and Rafe Furst "lined their own pockets with funds picked from the pockets of their most loyal customers while blithely lying to both players and the public alike about the safety and security of the money deposited.”[23] [24] A lawyer for Ferguson has denied the allegations, suggesting that the issues may have been the result of mismanagement not malice. [25][26]...'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Ferguson

...Lederer ... settled with the DOJ by agreeing to pay $1.25 million...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Lederer

if you did nothing wrong, would you agree to pay the DOJ $1 million?
Do you want folks with this kind of history of 'mismanagement' running a casino?'

You know that those guys don't have anything to do with PS right?

Ted Kaczynski was a bad guy, therefore dipce shouldn't be allowed to post on 2 + 2.

I do not believe that putting "lipstick on the pig" will disguise the true nature of the product.

Yes, the fact they work for different companies is a mere detail that can be easily overlooked. By only you.

not only me:

'...The American Gaming Association (AGA) has filed a brief opposing PokerStars´ purchase of the Atlantic Casino ... [claiming] that PokerStars´ parent company – the Rational Group – is a "business built on deceit, chicanery and the systematic flouting of US law"...'

http://www.pokernewsreport.com/ameri...kerstars-11911

The AGA is hardly a disinterested bystander.

The AGA's statement should have read "PokerStars has a very good online product in our category, along with a pre-existing user base loyal to the brand. Their entry will take significant market share away from our member organizations. Therefore, they shouldn't be allowed in the US market."

This whole "AGA v.s Poker Stars" is gonna be real funny in a couple of years when Poker Stars is part of the AGA.

PPA didn't conduct the survey to surprise anyone. We conducted it to gauge the NJ membership on the issue.

PPA sent the questionnaire to the New Jersey membership and 998 members responded. Here are the results:

1. Have you played real money poker or play money poker on PokerStars?: 94% yes, 6% no
2. How would you rate your experience on PokerStars? (5 = excellent, 1 = poor): 85% voted positively (4 or 5), 3% were negative (1 or 2), while the rest were either neutral (3) or answered that they had never played on the site.
3. Do you think PokerStars should be allowed to purchase the Atlantic Club Casino? 96% yes, 4% no
4. As a player, would you visit a bricks-and-mortar casino owned and operated by PokerStars? 94% yes, 6% no
5. As a player, would you like to have the option to play on an Internet poker web site operated by PokerStars or supported by PokerStars software? 96% yes, 4% no
6. Do you believe that the New Jersey Casino Control Commission should be the authority that determines who is suitable for a license? 73% yes, 27% no
7. Do you believe PokerStars is a “bad actor” that should not be licensed in New Jersey? 5% yes, 95% no
8. Do you support the AGA effort to block PokerStars from being licensed in New Jersey? 6% yes, 94% no

Haha yes, exactly. Dipce, everyone in the thread is just pointing out that Lederer and Ferguson were part of FT, not PS. The two are quite different...

The two topics in this thread at the moment are making my head hurt.