Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim
I think sba9530 has learned a lot more over the years than a certain Donkey.
I also think that a nationwide system of monopoly poker run by a syndicate of state lotteries is not the online poker future most US players want or envision.
NV and NJ are already existing examples of viable free-ish* market alternatives to the "Jackpot Poker brought to you by your friendly State Lottery" model supported by DQ.
Now, lotteries operating as local affiliates to free-ish market options is an interesting idea, and one that is being explored, especially in smaller states. And letting State Lotteries operate their own sites under a free-ish market has never been opposed.
But State Lottery monopolies? Yeah, that needs more support <hopefully obvious sarcasm>.
Skallagrim
* "free-ish" meaning a regulated system that will have some degree of limitation, maybe large - maybe small, on which sites, suppliers, and operators can participate.
You still do not get something basic ...... I do not
"support" any particular model for the market(s) that may emerge any more than a meteorologist
supports "hot weather in Nevada during the WSOP".
If I handicap the Heat or the Thunder as likely to win the NBA title, that does not mean I
support them a a fan or bettor or in any other sense.
In political terms, Nat Arem's predictions do not "support" candidates. Why can't you understand that the nature of political analysis is NOT supportive of the outcomes, just predictive.
(Conversely, don't feel bad. Even Karl Rove, an otherwise brilliant political analyst, supported political outcomes of his financial backers to the point, he refused to accept the numbers that came in on Fox.)
You personally can "support" Reid 2.0 or casinos or poker only models or whatever else you want to, and sba9630 can support/oppose you or whomever he wants to as a personal matter' but I am just handicapping the political process and posting observations.
If the PPA Board on which you sit wants to argue "poker only" in every message in every political arena until you are blue in the face, fine. If you have some personal stake in their doing so, good for you. But doing so would come at a clear political cost and would marginalize players' input in chance gaming dominated States.
Abandoning your favorite theme of "poker-only can pass, where chance cannot" may be hard for you personally to accept as the right strategy, but try and be objective about various State-level political landscapes the PPA will face.
In poker terms, you might want your personal favorite strategy to win, but poker-only has been priced out of the game by the buy-in in most States .... Perhaps you do not understand the gaming industry enough to realize that the table stakes and revenue targets have changed, even in Nevada.
Last edited by DonkeyQuixote; 05-10-2013 at 09:20 PM.