Harrah's and MGM's CEOs say Internet poker to explicitly legal soon

[TheEngineer]

Gaming officials say they're ready to bet on the Web
www.lvrj.com/business/11339181.html (http://www.lvrj.com/business/11339181.html)

By ARNOLD M. KNIGHTLY
REVIEW-JOURNAL

Gaming companies are well-positioned for the eventual spread of legalized Internet gambling to the United States, top executives of the world's two largest casino operators said Wednesday during a panel discussion at the Global Gaming Expo.

Terry Lanni, MGM Mirage's chairman and chief executive officer, said the company's first venture into Internet gaming may have been unsuccessful financially, but it laid the groundwork for the company to return when the time is right.

"We closed the operation down with the thought that we know what we're doing, and we're prepared to do it if and when it becomes legal here," Lanni said.

The company set up an Internet gaming site in 2001 in the Isle of Man but quickly folded the operation. The site lost money because the company elected to undergo a more stringent registration process than its competitors.

However, the endeavor helped the company work out problems that will be useful when relaunching, such as how to determine a bettor's age and location and how to protect problem gamblers.

Lanni and Gary Loveman, Harrah's Entertainment's chairman and CEO, agreed that Internet poker will be legalized ahead of other casino games, partially because of its popularity. Loveman predicted online poker would be legalized in the United States in the next 18 months to two years. Lanni predicted 12 months to 18 months.

Harrah's, which owns the World Series of Poker brand, is already looking at the possibility of establishing branded online sites in jurisdictions that clearly allow online gaming, which includes many Caribbean countries and many members of the European Union.

However, the two executives greatly differed in their opinions about the possibility of legalizing other online casino games.

Loveman, noting that there is little support for online casino games beyond poker, thinks online casinos are eight to 10 years away.

Lanni believes it will happen sooner than that, although he did not give a time.

Lanni also said casino companies will be able to make up for time lost to the many of foreign online sites now in operation because they will be able to bring sense of comfort to users familiar with their brick-and-mortar properties.

"The issue is people want some form of comfort (on the Web)," he said. "If you know it's a Harrah's or a major brand, they can feel more comfortable."

The U.S. Justice Department under the Clinton and Bush administrations has enforced Internet gaming laws under the 1961 Wire Act, which prohibits the use of phones for sports wagering, horse wagering and the transmission of betting odds.

[Orlando Salazar]

Let's just hope they use tiltware type software. I hated party's SW.

[MiltonFriedman]

The timeline described here is in line with what these two companies have been saying privately and what their tech guys have said.

Similarly, the split between them, over "poker only" v. "everything" is longstanding. Clearly, Harrahs wants its brand value in WSOP enhanced ASAP, Lanni does not want to fire off too much political capital for less than "everything".

Thanks for the report.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This is 100x more important than any Hearing or iMega posts

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this is huge for us. I think it's those other posts (and the work behind them) that led to this, as the groundwork was laid.

I hope this means MGM and Harrah's will start putting their weight behind making this happen.

[whangarei]

Sweeeeet!!!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MiltonFriedman]

Hearing and PPA efforts, yes.

iMEGA, definitely No.

Incidently, D'Amato was scheduled to be on the same panel. Any PPA insight into his remarks or from him ?

[JuntMonkey]

This is awesome...

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Hearing and PPA efforts, yes.

iMEGA, definitely No.

Incidently, D'Amato was scheduled to be on the same panel. Any PPA insight into his remarks or from him ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't heard anything. I'll let you know if I do.

[whiteladder81]

Carl Icahn must like Harrah's future...

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-21012305.htm

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
Carl Icahn must like Harrah's future...

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-21012305.htm

[/ QUOTE ]


It does appear all the signs are in place.

[daedalus]

The elephants are lining up. I'm just concerned we are at the end of the legislative session and we have no hope of getting it through this year. So we need to make sure the heat stays on through the spring. We need to find the vehicle to get something shoved through the House to get this rolling. This post is huge BTW. I'm guessing Wexler is getting more traction than Franks here.

[KEW]

Do we have or have we seen any "evidence" of Harrah's and/or MGM doing any "pushing" to make there predictions come true or are they just voicing an "opinion" based on the current "climate" today????

[TheProdigy]

ONE TIME DEALER

[oldbookguy]

[ QUOTE ]
However, the endeavor helped the company work out problems that will be useful when relaunching, such as how to determine a bettor's age and location and how to protect problem gamblers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I read this earlier and am pleased they see a sooner rather than later time line. A question was asked about any actions by them.
As soon as UIGEA passed, they each bought several poker sites for pennies, literally in prep, this was (and somewhere I posted about it) a sign that all was not really as it seemed with the UIGEA, something was up.

With that said, the biggest stick we have in the article it quoted above.

The PPA via Congress needs to have these guys answer some questions concerning this.

Seems they have it figured out, a very big point and concern can, it seems, be over come.

I read in another post another hearing was coming soon, who ever is scheduling this (I believe John hinted he knows)needs to have them there, if only to ansewer this single question; location & age verification.

obg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Do we have or have we seen any "evidence" of Harrah's and/or MGM doing any "pushing" to make there predictions come true or are they just voicing an "opinion" based on the current "climate" today????

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. I've not personally heard or seen any evidence of either company doing anything. I do think these statements are strong for us, certainly. Our opponents love to talk about how we're trying to give this business to "offshore, unaccountable" companies, so this statement helps us a lot.

[BluffTHIS!]

It bears keeping in mind, that while we might view B&M US casino interests as allies in our fight, that they are in fact also our opponents in many ways. Until the internet fueled poker boom, outside of the largest casinos in major gambling meccas like Vegas & AC, poker, if it was spread, was generally viewed as a nuisance or not worth the space. Slots make the big money, and poker can't ever make as much per square foot. And even now, as seen in the Massachusetts thread, B&M interests conspire to deny us our ability to play online if they can't have their fat fingers in the pie.

While in this battle we have little choice but to have B&M casino interests as our allies, we should not be lulled into thinking we have a total commonality of interest, or that such interests won't screw poker in view of the fact of the greater profitability of -EV games.

We also, via the PPA, need to demand on state levels the ability for businesses to start independent Cali style cardrooms and not have to be part of a regular casino, and to make clear that we as well demand the right to play poker online via pure poker venues. If we are not careful, these B&M interests will seek to screw existing offshore poker only sites by working to have enabling legislation tied to B&M licenses and spreading all gambling games and not just poker.

We need to be sure we don't fall into this trap and we should never be content with just the scraps from the B&M casinos' table.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
It bears keeping in mind, that while we might view B&M US casino interests as allies in our fight, that they are in fact also our opponents in many ways. Until the internet fueled poker boom, outside of the largest casinos in major gambling meccas like Vegas & AC, poker, if it was spread, was generally viewed as a nuisance or not worth the space. Slots make the big money, and poker can't ever make as much per square foot. And even now, as seen in the Massachusetts thread, B&M interests conspire to deny us our ability to play online if they can't have their fat fingers in the pie.

While in this battle we have little choice but to have B&M casino interests as our allies, we should not be lulled into thinking we have a total commonality of interest, or that such interests won't screw poker in view of the fact of the greater profitability of -EV games.

We also, via the PPA, need to demand on state levels the ability for businesses to start independent Cali style cardrooms and not have to be part of a regular casino, and to make clear that we as well demand the right to play poker online via pure poker venues. If we are not careful, these B&M interests will seek to screw existing offshore poker only sites by working to have enabling legislation tied to B&M licenses and spreading all gambling games and not just poker.

We need to be sure we don't fall into this trap and we should never be content with just the scraps from the B&M casinos' table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I believe I know where Bluff is coming from. He has some sort of interest in a poker site, and not one "affiliated" with the ones PPA is working with.

That being said, I agree with everything he says. We want free and unfettered competition amongst sites. There must be no favoritism. This is especially relevant to advertising. Free advertising amongst all poker sites and free competition as to how and what games are offered is paramount to our efforts.


Tuff

[BluffTHIS!]

TF,

I'm just a player like you, although one who plays full time. I have no financial interest in any site of any kind, or any business related to such sites. I want as many playing options as possible, which means I don't want *any* vested interests to either erect artificial barriers to entry, or to try to, by acts of omission, not work on enabling all possible options for us to play.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want *any* vested interests to... ...erect artificial barriers to entry,... ...enabling all possible options for us to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen to that!


D$D

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
TF,

I want as many playing options as possible, which means I don't want *any* vested interests to either erect artificial barriers to entry, or to try to, by acts of omission, not work on enabling all possible options for us to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point, you and I are on the same page.

This is what I want also. I will however, take help from most any source, even one tainted with "special interests".

But..., I believe the PPA is doing a good job for all of us and deserves our full support at this time. We can quibble over the spoils when there are spoils to be quibbled over.

Tuff

[BluffTHIS!]

TF,

I'm not going to revisit our previous arguments on the PPA board in detail. But just let me say that if you replaced the affiliate farm interest board members with reps of B&M casinos, I would say the same things, and that perhaps you would then see my point. And although I grant that the harm is more potential that not at this point, by the time any such potentiality became fact if would probably be too late. One thing is clear from all the various legislative battles on the state and federal levels, which is that usually in any decade we only get a limited opportunity to change anything to our liking, after which you have to go through the whole cumbersome process to tweak it.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]


But..., I believe the PPA is doing a good job for all of us and deserves our full support at this time. We can quibble over the spoils when there are spoils to be quibbled over.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Tuff this isn't directed only towards you but arrises from a phone conversation today.

Why is this an either or, black or white issue? You have to toe the party line 110% or you are an enemy?

I've been accused of being a PPA critic in this forum by TE and today somehow in with BluffThis as a leading detractor of the PPA. My call to offer my genuine "well done" was portrayed as a two faced sham. I was spoken to as if I was Catherine Hanaway and Tom McClusky's secret love child spawned specifically to ruin the good works of the PPA through my posting IMO thoughtful suggestions for improvement of the PPA's efforts.

Tuff you know me, we've met and spoken at length in person, what is going on?


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been accused of being a PPA critic in this forum by TE and today somehow in with BluffThis as a leading detractor of the PPA. My call to offer my genuine "well done" was portrayed as a two faced sham. I was spoken to as if I was Catherine Hanaway and Tom McClusky's secret love child spawned specifically to ruin the good works of the PPA through my posting IMO thoughtful suggestions for improvement of the PPA's efforts.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Critic" doesn't mean "one who hates something". I don't know anything about a phone call, but I don't think you hate PPA or are opposed to it, nor was I implying any such thing.

Critic means, "one who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter" (i.e., thoughtful suggestions for improvement). I'll bet if you search your posts here, you may find a word or two you wrote about PPA that meets that definition. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but I don't feel I misused the term. Since you take offense, I'll refrain from using it in the future.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Critic means, "one who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter" (i.e., thoughtful suggestions for improvement). I'll bet if you search your posts here, you may find a word or two you wrote about PPA that meets that definition. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but I don't feel I misused the term. Since you take offense, I'll refrain from using it in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no trouble with being labled much of anything. Critic as you defined it indeed fits. Sometimes I'm even over the top.

My only concern as expressed in the "rejected suggestions" thread is when even my volunteer suggestions and offers are rejected or attached with unintended motives (from my perspective). I'm a big boy most of the time /images/graemlins/smile.gif, I can handle being told no quite well. Heck I've been married to the same woman for over 20 years! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I've tried my best to understand all the various issues and pressures the organization has and IMO will face, even to the point of totally devaluing my opinion of my own ideas. But too often the value later has proven it self out over the course of time.

Perhaps I am not as mindful as I should that this is an open forum read by even non-member of 2+2 I think. John spoke some time ago of having a PPA members only forum for discussions such as these. Perhaps I should have been more patient.


D$D

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Critic means, "one who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter" (i.e., thoughtful suggestions for improvement). I'll bet if you search your posts here, you may find a word or two you wrote about PPA that meets that definition. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but I don't feel I misused the term. Since you take offense, I'll refrain from using it in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no trouble with being labled much of anything. Critic as you defined it indeed fits. Sometimes I'm even over the top.

My only concern as expressed in the "rejected suggestions" thread is when even my volunteer suggestions and offers are rejected or attached with unintended motives (from my perspective). I'm a big boy most of the time /images/graemlins/smile.gif, I can handle being told no quite well. Heck I've been married to the same woman for over 20 years! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I've tried my best to understand all the various issues and pressures the organization has and IMO will face, even to the point of totally devaluing my opinion of my own ideas. But too often the value later has proven it self out over the course of time.

Perhaps I am not as mindful as I should that this is an open forum read by even non-member of 2+2 I think. John spoke some time ago of having a PPA members only forum for discussions such as these. Perhaps I should have been more patient.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

No, No, No. We do not need a private forum. That sends the wrong message and you know within 24hrs half 2p2 will know.
We aren't criminals and we are only seeking justice. That just adds fire to the accusation that the PPA is biased and
slanted to narrow interests. If that occurred I would hope Mason moved his position from neutral to hostile. This isn't a narrow, one-off matter to a lot of us. Transparency, openess, and integrity should be the PPA's concern and you guys will have a lifetime of TV appearances and fat-paying no-show jobs. Start going secret youre going to lose what little goodwill you've gleaned.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
No, No, No. We do not need a private forum. That sends the wrong message and you know within 24hrs half 2p2 will know.
We aren't criminals and we are only seeking justice. That just adds fire to the accusation that the PPA is biased and
slanted to narrow interests. If that occurred I would hope Mason moved his position from neutral to hostile. This isn't a narrow, one-off matter to a lot of us. Transparency, openess, and integrity should be the PPA's concern and you guys will have a lifetime of TV appearances and fat-paying no-show jobs. Start going secret youre going to lose what little goodwill you've gleaned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.

There are no talks at PPA to have any private forums, and I'm not aware there ever were any. If the unlikely event it ever gets mentioned, I'll oppose it.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
No, No, No. We do not need a private forum.

[/ QUOTE ]


There's nothing wrong with the PPA having a private forum to discuss some strategy and tactics that they don't wish our opponents to see openly. And in fact if used properly, it could be a good way to get some advice from knowledgeable political and legal insiders who otherwise wouldn't feel comfortable saying certain things in the open. Of course the same can be accomplished by chain emails or a private maillist server. However I am not talking about a private forum where "just any PPA member" could read and post, but only invited ones (and I don't mean myself). Otherwise some shill for our opponents would just sign up for same. The PPA indeed needs some private advisory panels on various topics.

However for most stuff, this is still the forum where the most poker players can be reached, and they have questions to ask and also provide valuable commentary.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, No, No. We do not need a private forum.

[/ QUOTE ]


There's nothing wrong with the PPA having a private forum to discuss some strategy and tactics that they don't wish our opponents to see openly. And in fact if used properly, it could be a good way to get some advice from knowledgeable political and legal insiders who otherwise wouldn't feel comfortable saying certain things in the open. Of course the same can be accomplished by chain emails or a private maillist server. However I am not talking about a private forum where "just any PPA member" could read and post, but only invited ones (and I don't mean myself). Otherwise some shill for our opponents would just sign up for same. The PPA indeed needs some private advisory panels on various topics.

However for most stuff, this is still the forum where the most poker players can be reached, and they have questions to ask and also provide valuable commentary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like any organization, PPA does have non-public communications of the sorts you mentioned. There is no private forum, though.

As for 2+2. I personally think we gain much more by allowing many interested poker players to read our open discussions here than we lose by allowing FoF access to it. If we try to keep things secret, I think we'll just keep things secret from ourselves.

For example, poker players can read this particular thread and learn a lot about the future of the online game. We'll probably have a few hundred folks read it. Foes of Fun may have one guy read this, but he won't learn a whole lot more than he would have from the initial story, which was in the Las Vegas Sun. And, if they do read us for details, they'll note that there really are a lot of Americans who want to play. As they (grudgingly) accept horse racing and lotteries, they may figure that, between poker and casino gaming, in their mind we're the lesser of two evils. Anyway, my point is that I hope we'll remain an open forum.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
We aren't criminals and we are only seeking justice. That just adds fire to the accusation that the PPA is biased and
slanted to narrow interests. If that occurred I would hope Mason moved his position from neutral to hostile. This isn't a narrow, one-off matter to a lot of us. Transparency, openess, and integrity should be the PPA's concern and you guys will have a lifetime of TV appearances and fat-paying no-show jobs. Start going secret youre going to lose what little goodwill you've gleaned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take my word for it there are no fat-paying no-show jobs in the PPA but plenty in The Federal Government. One Appointee I knew of had to change hobbies because the glue and paint from the models was just too much.

My suport of any member only forum would be for communication of organizational grassroots efforts, a web-based confrence call type deal only. I was once asked but do not know the status of taking a more direct (named) volunteer position in VA.

I can see and feel there would be a benifit of a forum for State Reps. Of course I envision this more of a communication medium for an organization of 435+ as IMO when we can "we" should be organized to the CD level. I have no interest in joining nor being part of some secret society. Having only one rep in CA who has the same duties as a rep in MT just isn't workable IMO. VA IMO needs at least 3 to start.

But since this is the Harrah's and MGM "open tomorrow" and all our troubles are over thread, perhaps it is all a mental exercise.



D$D

[OMFGWTF]

[ QUOTE ]

As soon as UIGEA passed, they each bought several poker sites for pennies, literally in prep, this was (and somewhere I posted about it) a sign that all was not really as it seemed with the UIGEA, something was up.


[/ QUOTE ]


Which sites did they acquire?

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
My only concern as expressed in the "rejected suggestions" thread is when even my volunteer suggestions and offers are rejected or attached with unintended motives (from my perspective).

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to call you out on your "volunteer" stance. I won't quote from it, but we all remember your spooky angle shot to profit from a "volunteer" effort in Kentucky that was posted here.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We aren't criminals and we are only seeking justice. That just adds fire to the accusation that the PPA is biased and
slanted to narrow interests. If that occurred I would hope Mason moved his position from neutral to hostile. This isn't a narrow, one-off matter to a lot of us. Transparency, openess, and integrity should be the PPA's concern and you guys will have a lifetime of TV appearances and fat-paying no-show jobs. Start going secret youre going to lose what little goodwill you've gleaned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take my word for it there are no fat-paying no-show jobs in the PPA but plenty in The Federal Government. One Appointee I knew of had to change hobbies because the glue and paint from the models was just too much.

My suport of any member only forum would be for communication of organizational grassroots efforts, a web-based confrence call type deal only. I was once asked but do not know the status of taking a more direct (named) volunteer position in VA.

I can see and feel there would be a benifit of a forum for State Reps. Of course I envision this more of a communication medium for an organization of 435+ as IMO when we can "we" should be organized to the CD level. I have no interest in joining nor being part of some secret society. Having only one rep in CA who has the same duties as a rep in MT just isn't workable IMO. VA IMO needs at least 3 to start.

But since this is the Harrah's and MGM "open tomorrow" and all our troubles are over thread, perhaps it is all a mental exercise.



D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

If the PPA nurtures the grassroots and opens up to daylight there will be. What do you think the salaries are on the board of NARAL, the NRA, or the beer wholesellers PAC are?
If you call what they do work, youre [censored] in the head. The rewards are big. The need for a poker lobbying group is NOT going away. A big success could be a big payday for the group, and I doubt post UIGEA-repeal work will be near as heavy as now. But Im doubting more and more the PPA wants to be the kind of longterm poker friendly organization people want.

[jlkrusty]

[ QUOTE ]
FOF... Foes of Fun

[/ QUOTE ]

lmao. I'll have to remember that one.

[MiltonFriedman]

There have been ongoing efforts to meet with and educate regulators at the State levels as to "server-based" gaming concepts. This has been going on for a couple of years. The idea is to ensure that the "LegaL model comfortably fits with their projected business models.

As for the legislative side, they have not been ready to push this year. However, you can bet the topic was discussed during the concurrent fundraising visits by Dem. candidates during the concurrent Nevada Dem debate.

If you think that the scheduling of the Nevada primary early in 2008, and the scheduling of the Dem debate concurrent with GGE, were a coincidence, you underestimate the sophistication of casino political operatives on both sides of the Red/Blue line.

(I do not see the casino interests EVER supporting Guliani, but otherwise they could easily go for both a Rep. AND a Dem they think could win... which is pretty much a couple of open choices.)

[Jay Cohen]

How convenient after they have spent years advocating the destruction of the upstart competition.

They did the same thing with Indian gaming. It was all bad, until they discovered they could partner with the Indians and operate the places for them for significant percentages of the revenue. Then it was all ok.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


But..., I believe the PPA is doing a good job for all of us and deserves our full support at this time. We can quibble over the spoils when there are spoils to be quibbled over.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Tuff this isn't directed only towards you but arrises from a phone conversation today.

Why is this an either or, black or white issue? You have to toe the party line 110% or you are an enemy?

I've been accused of being a PPA critic in this forum by TE and today somehow in with BluffThis as a leading detractor of the PPA. My call to offer my genuine "well done" was portrayed as a two faced sham. I was spoken to as if I was Catherine Hanaway and Tom McClusky's secret love child spawned specifically to ruin the good works of the PPA through my posting IMO thoughtful suggestions for improvement of the PPA's efforts.

Tuff you know me, we've met and spoken at length in person, what is going on?


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never doubted your sincerity in wishing the best for the PPA.

There are certainly areas the PPA needs to improve, and the PPA has miles to go before it can be considered in the same breath as the NRA.

But..., they are just about the only game in town in which we can be a partipant and they are making tremendous progress. That is why I get down on those who incessantly carp about the board, and/or what may happen after some sort of victory is achieved.

First, achieve victory.

If I were to learn that the PPA's interests were at odds to a free and open poker market, I would have second thoughts.

But I prefer to think that the PPA realizes that a rising tide lifts all boats. Yes, the folks behind the PPA will benefit from the legitimizing of online poker, but everyone else will benefit too. and very nicely I suspect. Even Bluff, Mason, Legislurker, the danged multitablers, perhaps even Obi Wan 222.

Tuff

(I long for the day I can forget politics, at least as it pertains to poker, and go back to making bad videos and playing worse poker.) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My only concern as expressed in the "rejected suggestions" thread is when even my volunteer suggestions and offers are rejected or attached with unintended motives (from my perspective).

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to call you out on your "volunteer" stance. I won't quote from it, but we all remember your spooky angle shot to profit from a "volunteer" effort in Kentucky that was posted here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for reminding everyone of that truly shining moment for me! I wish I had thought of suggesting another had posted it, before removing all doubt. I started to link it to this reply, if only to remind myself of my shame. Thankfully, I could not find it.

<u>No, please do not dig it up for me!</u> Remember, I have teenagers I do not need any additional daily reminders or added opinions of the nonexistent value of age and experience compared to the occasional "outburst"! In that regard, I am fully served thank you very much.

A few can attest to my extreme difficulties in logging into the site that lead to that post, but even that is a very weak excuse on my part. Even those fully schooled in back channel DC political deals, even those fully channeling Machiavelli himself, would have trouble following my weak assed rational ( /images/graemlins/blush.gif irrationality /images/graemlins/blush.gif)

Truth be told not all of my suggestions for a more robust KY effort hinged on nor required my personal profit. Even my "spooky angle shot" ( /images/graemlins/blush.gif nutball /images/graemlins/blush.gif), post was a genuine attempt to shoulder much if not all of any cost risk, leaving the totally subjective after the fact evaluation of its merit in the hands of others.

I do feel I was very ineffective in sum total, mostly because of various communication difficulties, some of my own making, and my stubbornness in not simply volunteering as I had originally planned. I have experience in the field but this was indeed my first attempt to solicit payment for un-requested or non-referral business in this field. IMO it showed!

Even in previous sales career situations, my best clients were referral based for the most part or some how linked to my reputation. Therefore, I should have been wary, in hindsight, of the potential of possible confusion of the mixed nature of the genuine offer to help as needed, and a desire to "scoop up" any cash already on the table potentially planned or those already advertised in a political "consultancy" situation.

Mixing my passion for the “cause”, my passion for the missionary work for the "religion" of grassroots, and an ever wary and weary over solicited “client” was indeed a recipe for disaster.

"There is never a second chance to make a good first impression."

Live and learn.

Or not……….

Still, in my marriage and family life I have my own "board" to answer to, too often in the past I have volunteered or deeply discounted "my time" and political value even in referral efforts. I have done this often enough that it was impossible, however worthy or potentially personally profitable in the longer term, even for part of the time required IMO for a full on test of enough methods of poker specific grassroots ideas to fully prove out their merit.

So, in attempting to continue (beating an apparently dead horse) to prove my assertion that solid grassroots development if the only result was a State-wide "play book" vs. the relative cost of freeroll sign-ups, I F'ed up my entire ability to be heard as anything but a semi-pro DC scam artist.

I have a few years experience in the fields of grassroots developments and a decent further solid background that complements or grounds it(so I am told by others), but I was only seen as seeking to milk the dry teat of an imaginary over flowing PPA cash cow, after leaving some no-show no-work Federal Appointee position.

So common a practice is this that in this town, it appears, that on the N.W.’s sidewalks and in the hallways you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a dozen or so identically identified practitioners’ of this “trade”.



D$D

[kidpokeher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As soon as UIGEA passed, they each bought several poker sites for pennies, literally in prep, this was (and somewhere I posted about it) a sign that all was not really as it seemed with the UIGEA, something was up.


[/ QUOTE ]


Which sites did they acquire?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to know more about this as well. I had an account at the MGM site while it was still under development. It was put together by Wagerworks and was decent looking. It was used as mainly an advertising vehicle for their properties but I think they were offering prizes of sorts based on play.

Don't know anything about Harrahs online ventures.

[oldbookguy]

I am too lazy to dig through all the old financial news articles from many I read daily, here is a mention though that was in CP about a year ago, this is about the MGM.

Additionally, the second link talks about the Sand entering the online market as well.

Both events followed on the heels of passage of the UIGEA.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/article/7677/is-mgm-looking-at-online-poker-

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/article/7889/las-vegas-sands-launching-online-gaming-site

obg