Proposed internet poker ban in MA

[czyivn]

Casino owners having a part in drafting the bill was what I assumed had happened all along. I seriously doubt that banning internet gambling was a provision that occurred to the governor's staff on their own. If they didn't write the provision themselves, the potential casino owners are certainly the ones who suggested its inclusion.

I think this angle has some potential for helping get the provisions removed or the bill killed entirely. I would rather kill the entire casino bill than have it accepted with the online ban included. After all, I'm not going to play at the new casinos very often anyway, given their high limits and ridiculous rake structure, compared to online. A 20% "entry fee" for a single table tournament is highway robbery, yet Foxwoods has plenty of chumps lining up to pay it.

Some serious pressure needs to be applied to the governor's office. We need to find out WHO exactly had a part in drafting the bill, and who suggested this provision. They will be evasive, so we need a NAME to nail them down with. If anyone has any idea of actual casino lawyers that did help in the drafting of the bill, then this could have some real legs as a news story.

[sobefuddled]

Well....if it's true it could be news I suppose. However, it is not at all unusual for special interest groups to participate in the drafting of new legislation. If it could be proven that the casino lawyers actually drafted the entire bill (which I seriously doubt) then you would have news. Frankly, this bill is so poorly drafted that it actually has the look and feel of a group project with no oversight whatsoever. If you read it closely you could probably identify a number of different special interest groups at work. What troubles me is that it made it to the legislature in such a hodge podge condition. Right now Sal DiMasi is my main man!

[Uglyowl]

At the moment the Governor seems very evasive and secretive so I am getting to the point where I am very close to throwing my support behind the anti-casino organizations. On average I only go to a casino once per year so an extra hour drive to Foxwoods doesn't bother me any.

[Uglyowl]

Couple things:

The AP article quoting Randy has been picked up by Channel 5 and the Nashua newspaper.

Here is another angle that some are opposing casinos in Mass.:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/mag...11/11/bad_bet/

I like to see other pockets of opposition for obvious reasons at this point.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Couple things:

The AP article quoting Randy has been picked up by Channel 5 and the Nashua newspaper.

Here is another angle that some are opposing casinos in Mass.:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/mag...11/11/bad_bet/

I like to see other pockets of opposition for obvious reasons at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well we can advance the economic argument if we want through better education.

First of all on-line despite the numbers of people playing isn't the threat to over all gaming many might think it is:

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1768212007

Secondly the poker industry is the fastest growing segment of gaming even live with the best growth in revenue. The poker events generate tremendous non-gaming revenues: http://www.hotelinteractive.com/hi_i...rticle_id=9224

Right now there is no need for the on-line poker community to oppose live poker or even other forms of gaming. We face enough challenges from these groups and many are quite sure we oppose them. This argument that the new casinos will take from the State lotteries is a political nightmare, as it puts us in opposition with the Teachers Unions. There is a group we just can not take on at this point.

Ultimately we don't have to at all; most studies including the British one show that new gamblers especaily poker players are not lottery players and very seldom are lottery players "converted" to other forms of gaming. Lottery sales are stagnant because the market is mature and fully served.


D$D

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
This argument that the new casinos will take from the State lotteries is a political nightmare, as it puts us in opposition with the Teachers Unions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deval has not promised anything to the teachers union. He says the revenue is too variable to be able to give anything to education.

As far as I know, he has only promised money to fight gambling addiction, deteriorating roads and bridges, and property tax relief. This bill has nothing in it to help with education.

Even the revenue that is projected from casinos only puts a dent in the money needed for our roads and bridges.

On a side note D$D, my wife is a teacher in Mass. and part of the Mass. Teachers Association and Deval promised them the world and the funding has been the worst it has in decades. Saying "Deval overpromised, underdelivered" really wouldn't do the situation justice.

[oldbookguy]

On economics:
1. The casino plan is designed to create jobs, correct.
2. since we all agree, even skill gaming will be outlawed then consider, how many jobs will be lost since World Winner, located in Newton will have to move out of Ma., any idea how many employees there are? I would guess many since they provide games for Disney and many others along with the cash games.

Someone needs to start pushing the Job Losses and the impact on Newton.

Heck, maybe even some letters to the editor in that local paper by some of you all in state, get those people riled up over losing their JOB!

BTW, they will not be able to stay there since they will be accepting wagers in Ma. even if no one in Ma. is allowed to play.

obg


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Couple things:

The AP article quoting Randy has been picked up by Channel 5 and the Nashua newspaper.

Here is another angle that some are opposing casinos in Mass.:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/mag...11/11/bad_bet/

I like to see other pockets of opposition for obvious reasons at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well we can advance the economic argument if we want through better education.

First of all on-line despite the numbers of people playing isn't the threat to over all gaming many might think it is:

]http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1768212007

Secondly the poker industry is the fastest growing segment of gaming even live with the best growth in revenue. The poker events generate tremendous non-gaming revenues: http://www.hotelinteractive.com/hi_i...rticle_id=9224

Right now there is no need for the on-line poker community to oppose live poker or even other forms of gaming. We face enough challenges from these groups and many are quite sure we oppose them. This argument that the new casinos will take from the State lotteries is a political nightmare, as it puts us in opposition with the Teachers Unions. There is a group we just can not take on at this point.

Ultimately we don't have to at all; most studies including the British one show that new gamblers especaily poker players are not lottery players and very seldom are lottery players "converted" to other forms of gaming. Lottery sales are stagnant because the market is mature and fully served.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This argument that the new casinos will take from the State lotteries is a political nightmare, as it puts us in opposition with the Teachers Unions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deval has not promised anything to the teachers union. He says the revenue is too variable to be able to give anything to education.

As far as I know, he has only promised money to fight gambling addiction, deteriorating roads and bridges, and property tax relief. This bill has nothing in it to help with education.

Even the revenue that is projected from casinos only puts a dent in the money needed for our roads and bridges.

On a side note D$D, my wife is a teacher in Mass. and part of the Mass. Teachers Association and Deval promised them the world and the funding has been the worst it has in decades. Saying "Deval overpromised, underdelivered" really wouldn't do the situation justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have little personal knowledge of the specifics of the situation in MA, it is just not nor has it been one of my states.

I was speaking more broadly in political terms.

In general the lotteries were seen by many in the Teachers Unions as their baby, and they protect it fairly much the same way a mother would protect a child.

Politically we need to assure that group and political force that we are not a threat to them in any way. This should be easy as from the numbers we are not. But we have been as part of "expanded gaming" and this notion of a fixed limited pool of total gaming dollars a threat to them.

We need to ensure that "we" understand the issue well enough to avoid fights we don't need and espically don't want.



D$D

[czyivn]

My girlfriend works in the department of health, and she had another suggestion for how that provision got in the bill. She thinks some of the gambling addiction people from the department of health might have had a hand in drafting that part of the bill. Those people are completely against any gambling at all. They were forced to ride along on the casino bill, but they might have squeezed in a provision to ban internet gambling, to try and put forward their own interest. It seemed almost as plausible as the casino lawyers theory. Maybe even more so.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
My girlfriend works in the department of health, and she had another suggestion for how that provision got in the bill. She thinks some of the gambling addiction people from the department of health might have had a hand in drafting that part of the bill. Those people are completely against any gambling at all. They were forced to ride along on the casino bill, but they might have squeezed in a provision to ban internet gambling, to try and put forward their own interest. It seemed almost as plausible as the casino lawyers theory. Maybe even more so.

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually knowing who is behind a bill or section is indeed often important in political strategy.

But IMO given these circumstances unless we were vunerable it really matters very little.

If as you suggest the secion was inserted by the on-line poker is the "crack concaine" of gaming, we win on the past history of legislative efforts in other contries and on the facts.

The facts are there is not one single piece of semi-respected evidence that poker or even on-line gaming leads to 1/10th of the problems often claimed. In additon the prohibition model fails to address the "problem gamblers". Other countries have shown the regulation model is the only way to provide a new revune stream for the problem gamblers advocates.

Strategically we should, as the sucessful efforts in other countries show us, enlist the problem gambling advocates to our side, through education and improved dialouge. This removes the most respected segment of those opposed to us, and leaves them with only an unsicentificly supported "morals" argument. We also remove any value of all the made for TV sob stories like the pastor's son who turned to robbing the neighborhoor to suport his on-line habbit.

If the section was inserted at the behest of the B&M's we actually have a much better opportunity strategically. We can show that on-line is not a threat to B&M revenues, in fact most evidence seems to show that on-line really creates new players. This seems very easily shown at least in the case of poker. Most B&M's operated and make money through much more than the actual gaming, on-line poker generates new players who bring their wives for the spa packages and sells many more hotel rooms for major MTT's than any other form of on-line versons of B&M gaming.

This is a group we do not have to argue emotions with. B&M's are most apporachable on a straight profit apporach. We can additionally develop goodwill with them in suporting this bill even after we get the on-line portion removed thus eliminating some of the political tension between on-line poker and the B&M's.

Properly played politically, this is a very strong hand for us in MA, and much more of an "awesome opportunity" than KY ever had a chance of being.


D$D