So, it looks like Greg Abbott went ahead and signed this. What would you say is the best way to voice disapproval of this as a voting resident of Texas. I mean he's going to be running for governor, so is it a good idea to let him know that this action mean he's lost a vote? Granted it was going to take a miracle for me to vote for him anyway and he might figure that out just be noting that I live in Austin, but still it seems like there's gotta be a way to make him regret the decision at least a little.

Your assumptions about SA make no sense. Gaming was like a third of revenue on the las vegas strip this past year. It goes down every year. Being able to play slot machines on the internet isnt going to keep a lot of people away from vegas.

The financial interest argument onlyeven starts to make sense if you assume the V isnt competing in the new market. The V is probably the most innovative casino in terms of its offerings, marketing, and certainly its poker room. SA came into vegas in the 90s as pretty much an outsider (albeit a rich outsider) to break into the casino industry. He has aggressively entered many major markets where gambling becomes legal.

Now suddenly you think hes basing his business plan on a desire to "stick to what he knows". Hes parading through the streets of anatevka singing "tradition" and viscerally terrified of a world where people can gamble on the WWW. Why? Because hes afraid to compete with CET -- a company that the V has beaten out of pretty much every market that theyre both in and thats so incompetent that they own the WSOP and can't even keep their flagship BM poker room running? Because he has some other reason to believe that he won't get a lions share of revenue from this new market should he decide to contend for it? None of this makes sense. Even if we assume SA lacks the competence to make a boatload of money from legalization (and there is no reason to assume this whatsoever), we can't assume that he knows hes that incompetent.

I don't get why you have to be an idiot to believe he is taking a stand on his beliefs rather than the bottom line.. He is necessarily amoral because you don't like him? Because he disagrees with you?

The guy gives millions to the GOP. He gives millions to birthright. He has beliefs and he invests time and money into them.

Certainly, most of his critics on 2p2 and the PPA have a much clearer and more obviously compelling financial interest in their stance than SA does in his. IMO the advocates of online gaming lose a lot of credibility by demonizing SA for his financial stake in the position he takes, but failing to even acknowledge their own.

The concern you attribute to SA, that poker is being used as a wedge for universal online gambling, is completely valid. It speaks to the hypocrisy of 2p2, the PPA, and other online gaming advocates who spent 6 years yelling"skill game!skill game!skill game!skill game!skill game!" and are now yelling "skill game!skill game!skill game!skill game!ANDSLOTMACHINESLOL!"

Its not hypocritical. Though offering online gaming on his properties is, IMO.

Pretty much every professional in the gaming industry would tell you that gambling should be legal in certain venues and prohibited in others. I think pretty much everyone who has an opinion on the issue believes this, unless theyre hardcore libertarian.

It is also not protectionism. Protectionism is protecting a certain company or group of companies in a specific market from competition, allowing them to abuse consumers at will without the fear of having their marketshare stolen by more competent competitors. Legalization of online gaming, as it has been implemented thus far, is textbook protectionism. A tiny oligopoly of online operators, answerable to no one, who have a government enforced lock on the market that allows them to do pretty much anything they want.

Telling a politician you aren't going to vote for him is always a good idea. Getting others to not vote for him, and telling him so, is an even better idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huv0altni7Q

The editor of the journal International Gambling Studies, Sally Gainsbury (@DrSalGainsbury) just tweeted "Seriously? US Coalition to Stop Internet Gambling ad" and linked to this commercial: http://m.nzherald.co.nz/video.cfm?c_...lery_id=140813.

admittedly the language and lol theme music are a bit over the top, but there is nothing in the ad thats outright false.

IMO given the performance thus far of legalised US sites, hypervigilance is a more reasonable reaction than complete obliviousness.

You mean like the part where online casinos are targeting children?

Or allowing people to game online will give criminals a "foothold" in ever American household?

Or maybe you just meant the repeated blatantly false implications and imaginary fabricated scenarios like the references to the infamous Al-Qaida poker network that could be collecting funds for several 911 attacks every few days?


No offense, but if you found that add even remotely in the slightest bit honest, then you are a total ignoramus, a complete idiot, or both.

Ad FTW^

Here is my dig at Adelson, published online via PokerXanadu.

If the Engineer or anyone else wants the data on the UK graphs PM me.

Sorry if some think this is not OK as a post but it is not spam. Fight.

http://pokerxanadu.com/adelson-case/

You do your effort a disservice by calling it a dig.

I wonder if that site is fair and balanced and interested in an opposing opinion.

Actively targeting... probably not. However, there are no age controls that I couldn't have defeated when i was 12.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by a foothold. And what you mean by criminals. Ill ask you this though as a way to foster discussion and debate: How many player social security numbers, bank account numbers, and other personal data do you think UP gave to iovation? Do you think it would be fair to say that criminals have a foothold in households of the players who had their personal data compromised by UP?

Ive laundered a lot of money using poker and gambling sites.... i mean like a lot. total dollar amounts im probably in the top 20 world wide.

Just because you don't understand how its done, doesnt mean it can't be done.

Nevada sites, (i havent been to jersey to look at those sites yet), id say you could probably move around 3K a day without losing more than 25% of it. Thats just if you had regular equipment and not like an office and a commerical operation going....

heh well i guess youre the expert.

I'm not interested in being fair to Adelson. Take the op-ed piece I did and try to deal with what was said, the facts of the matter and the opinion expressed.

If I am wrong take that on - say where don't just attack my neutrality, I am not neutral I want my hobby to be legal.

I suspect this is my last reply to you but you seem to not understand money laundering at all. Paying cash in from a bank account then gambling and then someone else or even you taking that money out to another bank account is not laundering anything, it is a mere banking transaction. At no point was poker of any importance to the transfer from one bak account to another.

Laundering is taking illegal black economy moey and legitimising it. playing online poker is aterrible way to do this as every transaction is recorded. ANY other business transaction is a better method to launder cash.

the fair and balanced thing was (an apparently lame) attempt at humorous allusion to fox news. I was not trying to say your argument is flawed because it is biased, or that an opioion piece ought not to be biased.

Taking illegally earned money and making it appear legitimate is one reason to launder money. Online poker is quite effective for this. Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just haven't thought it through because you're an upstanding person. If you really want a step by step guide i can PM you one but based on the writing in your article, i suspect you could figure out a general idea just by giving it a little thought.

However, there are other reasons to launder money as well. My comments about money laundering were directly related to moving money undetectably across borders to finance illegal activity such as terrorism. I suspect that you could make the semantic argument that moving money in this way isnt technically laundering it, but thats the term people use, semantically correct or not.

Interesting story, bro.

Who launders money at a 25% loss, other than Leo Getz ?

someone who doesnt want to get caught. depending on the particular reason money needs to be laundered, the amount and the time frame, ive seen people pay 60%. If you have $x that you can't touch without going to prison, getting $.4x is kind of like a windfall.

I don't call it money laundering, but ive seen people pay 20% just to move money off stars to epass (man i miss epass)-- an activity thats neither illegal or risky.

So yeah, you basically have no clue. Regardless, the lethal weapon reference was well played.

LOL @ 60%..... you still in the witness protection program, bro ?

"Captain Ed Murphy: I got something special for you boys. A guy by the name of Getz, Leo Getz has been placed in protective custody. And you two guys are gonna babysit him until Washington sends out the feds.
Martin Riggs: How long?
Captain Ed Murphy: Soon as all the red tape is processed. Couple, three days. This guy Getz is gonna testify before a commission of inquiry. Drugs, laundered money, et cetera, et cetera. This is not a **** assignment."

Turyia, why do you have the title of Alleged Scammer under your name?

And, a separate question, why are all of your posts anti online poker, and aside from that, borderline if not completely idiotic in most cases?

Just curious.

he drank a gallon of canola oil on accident and permanetly slowed down his brain function?

Diplomatic pouch, hand-to-hand transfer, fake business fronts and dozens of other much easier ways for terrorist organizations to pass money among themselves*, but nooooooo let's create online poker accounts, fund them somehow, then transfer money via chip dump or some other nefarious means. Then figure out how to get the money off the site "undetectably across borders."

The new season is coming up but some of you really need to stop watching 24.

*Which they've actually done in the past.

Actually, your 20% tale sounds like attempted tax evasion or evasion of currency controls .

Glad you have a sense of humor though.

I don't think the standard should be needing to defeat attempts by all those underaged to play but it should defeat most.

Not sure if I can totally parse the paragraph below about "next week" (is it referring to a possible bill introduction date or simply to when they might meet to discuss an announcement?) but either way, it seems to suggest this is getting closer...

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/on...again-congress

I am heading into a session at iGNA where Andy Abboud (Venetian) and Mitch Garber (Caesars) are going to discuss igaming :

" One advocate will discuss the risks of online gambling and the need for prohibition. Another will weigh in as a proponent of the legalization and regulation of iGaming as a necessary means to proactively address potential concerns. This lively debate will offer a view of the future of the industry in the US, and perspectives of these prominent leaders will allow listeners to hone their own opinions as to how the industry should grow and evolve."

I saw Marco here, so I am sure there WILL be tweets.

If not, stay tuned.

Hope there is a Q&A.