It wasn't just "research", let alone "know your enemy" research.

They should make a game based on Adelson's claims called Looney Birds.

Whatever happened to expecting people to excercise some self discipline? If someone is watching over you, then you aren't going to watch out for yourself.

Whatever happened to individual freedom?

DQ, not really sure what you are saying. I read it as we (the poker community) should perform some type of full-scale opposition research on SA and related businesses. Is that correct?

The young lady that must caress his old balls is difinitely earning her keep.

Australian Study Finds Insufficient Evidence that Online Gambling Increases Gambling Problems

http://pokerfuse.com/news/industry/a...roblems-09-04/

From the report, "In other words the problem starts with a live gambling experience before the player starts to bet online."

The solution, then, is to ban live gambling. A solution I am sure Adelson would be in favor of since he is so worried about people developing gambling problems.

No, sorry .... I was addressing the idea raised that the Adelson camp could claim the Alderney license effort was merely an exercise to research/find out something about online gaming.

The truth is that the emerging Las Vegas branded interest in 2002 -2003 in launching online gaming overseas, lead by MGM (Terry Lanni) (and the Venetian) was real, but got quashed by reactionary opposition both at the State of Nevada and Federal level. Caesars, for its part continued long after that to accept funds from US-facing online operators to add milllions of dollars annually to the WSOP prize pools and entry fees.

Young? I must say, I think Im catching the vapors. Flattery will get you everywhere dear sir.

I think I already asked but nobody replied me, so I ask again my dumb question:

How's the bill process in the US?
When a senator/governator or anyone else submit a bill, what happens? It will be voted on? When?

1. Committee(s) to which bill is referred, in the branch of Congress (House of Representatives or Senate) where the bill was introduce, hold hearing(s) on the bill and proposed amendments.
2. The Committee(s) vote to move bill forward to full debate in that branch of Congress.
3. The Bill is opened for debate and amendments in that branch of Congress.
4. Vote taken on bill.
5. If passing vote, the bill is sent to other branch of Congress for same process, or similar bill progresses through same process in the other branch of Congress at the same time.
6. If passed bills coming out of the two branches have some differences, then a joint committee between the two branches meet to resolve the differences. There then has to be another vote in each branch to approve the reworded bill.
7. The bill goes to the US President for signature or veto.

All the above must be completed within the same Congressional session (each session runs 2 years), or the bill dies and the process has to be restarted from the beginning. Pretty much at any point in the process, the Congressional leaders can block the advancement of the bill through procedural antics (e.g., not placing the bill on the official Calendar for action). Similarly, Committee chairs can do the same while the bill is before their Committee in the early stages.

Chances of this bill advancing in this Congressional session are near zero (imo). Chances that it might advance next session (starting next year) are much higher, if the Republicans gain control of both Congressional branches in the elections later this year.

However, as more states authorize online poker/gambling in the meantime, it gets harder to pass this bill as written.

Many of the federal US bills so far for federal licensing and regulation of online poker would have done the same thing as this bill, but also carved out exceptions for online poker, lotteries and (in some bills) intrastate online gambling as authorized by states. It was always a danger with those bills that if advanced, the exceptions would have been eliminated either somewhere during the advancement process by amendment, or after passage through court challenge (i.e., if successful conceivably might have struck down some portion of the bill effectively blocking the exceptions and leaving only the prohibition).

In other words, every federal bill in the US would be a prohibition bill against all online gambling, with just carveouts for what would be allowed. In effect, this bill is no different. Due to the opposition by, among others, state lotteries and states with authorized online gambling, this bill won't pass unless amended to satisfy enough of the vested interests to garner the necessary votes. The carveouts could be one or more of these:

1. Horse racing and fantasy sports (already a carveout for these in the current bill).
2. State lotteries (for online ticket sales; probably not for online instant-win games).
3. Existing intrastate online gambling (states who have authorized it already get grandfathered in).
4. Interstate online poker (on opt-in basis for each state).
5. New intrastate online gambling (when authorized by individual states).

So far, Congress hasn't been able to pass any such bill, despite the advocacy by the Senate leader (Harry Reid). The question now is, can Adelson, with his virtual limitless wallet, buy a federal prohibition of online gambling? He wasn't able to buy the Presidency last election. He may fare better this time, but then again, keeping the issue in the hot seat by not passing it will keep the money flowing into the politicians' (and lobbyists') coffers.

Ty a lot for explain me those things, I really appreciate that

Another question, if you don't mind, what really the population can do about it?
The 2p2 daily action plan seems only a short term battle...

Each interest has its role in the effort. For instance, some of the casinos (Caesars, MGM) are forwarding the lobbyist counter-effort against Adelson; the States and Lotteries are writing letters to Congress in opposition to the bill; etc. The best thing players can do is to voice their opinions, as voting constituents, to the politicians. This can be done through the DAP and through writing letters to their Congressional representatives. Letters to the Editor of media outlets help as well.

There have been other suggested actions by players, such as a player boycott of Adelson properties. However, such a campaign will have no effect unless it gets widespread media publicity. This can only be accomplished by a coordinated strategy to reach media outlets. For one, it would be necessary for well-known poker pros to get behind such an effort and speak out publicly. So far, there has been almost none of that forthcoming. Sadly, our poker community is not really united enough currently in its political efforts to achieve any sort of success in such efforts. I think the pros are too busy trying to fleece the Chinese businessmen in Macau to get involved. (Or too busy fending off the fallout from various scandals.)

You described well the situation, again ty very much

to summarize

has school house rock updated to add Adelson and other rich guys influence on laws being formed?

Here's an interesting piece from today's Slate:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...mpanies.2.html

Original article with pics/graphics [publicintegrity.org]

From Return on investment for Internet gaming operations in three states no windfall

So now on my Twitter feed there are "promoted" tweets from @StopNetGambling. Guessing this is just another way Adelson is spending his money to get his message seen by millions.

I was going to send another letter to my Representative to point out that he is cosponsoring a bill being pushed by someone who thinks that Angry Birds will lead to gambling and doesn't use the internet or even own a computer personally.

But in May's Bluff there is a great article showing the hypocrisy of Adelson which I am going to cut out and send to my rep instead.

Sheldon Adelson Is Winning His War Against Online Gambling

If Adelson is winning, it is due to hypocritical lies being pushed through the use of money.

I firmly believe we need to continue to expose his hypocrisy and decry his methods.

Anyone on the side of not expanding gaming will always seem to be winning until the momentum tips to many states passing bills. At Fed level there is no ban coming and playing a good defense helps keep it that way. Does that mean pro-gaming is winning? .. I don't think so.

It is very easy to disrupt a change to the current state , but very hard to change that state. In CA, easily the biggest piece in gaming, it sure seems his influence is very small. Hiring out of power lobbyist, that will take the money and talk with there boys but may not change much is not influence. He may be able to help the existing Morongo coalition block a bill, but he sure isn't changing the debate. If "Stars" were not in the game, then a bill would pass this year or next and that would be very big momentum to other states moving. California is very much a when not if state, if that were to change and nothing was done in gaming in 2015, then he is winning.

PA a state where he should have a lot of influence, is still taking steps down the path of internet gaming. It is closing in on the when not if side of the game. At best he can slow down change but stopping gaming ... no way.

Sheldon Adelson Casino Fined Again for Under-aged Gambling