The Law of Unintended Consequences

The New York City transit workers' strike has had an unusual effect: it appears to have sent online poker playing through the roof.

DeviatedNorm posts to LiveJournal's WTF, Inc. community a press release from the publicist of online poker site Doyle's Room:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact: Kevin Manning
212-999-5585
kmanning@5wpr.com

MTA TRANSIT STRIKE RESULTS IN RECORD ONLINE POKER NUMBERS

Online Poker Site DoylesRoom.com Sees Record Amount of Players During Early Stages of MTA Transit Strike

December 20, New York – It is only mid-afternoon, but already internet poker site DoylesRoom.com is seeing record numbers online in the New York City metro area. It appears, due to this mornings New York City transit strike, many commuters are staying home from work and playing poker online.

Normal peak hours for online poker are between 8pm EST and 1am EST, but today, many accounts that are active only in the evening hours went live by as early as 10:00am EST in New York City and surrounding areas affected by the strike illustrating the fact that many commuters that opted to “work from home” were instead playing online poker.

“At first we didn’t know what was going on with the flood of players we were getting from New York City,” stated Marty Wallace, COO for DoylesRoom.com. “Then we realized that the transit strike they’ve been threatening since this past Friday finally took place.”

The winter season is the peak time for online poker rooms like DoylesRoom.com because people spend more time indoors away from the cold and log online. With the addition of a transit strike in New York City, those numbers have reached record levels.

###

Doyle’s Room (www.DoylesRoom.com ) is the only online poker site endorsed by poker legend, Doyle Brunson. The site is a leading poker provider for North American players and is an international hub for Texas Hold ’em and other popular poker games. Players at DoylesRoom.com can play for free to learn the game, or engage in real game play against players throughout the World.

Sean Hamel
Account Executive
5W Public Relations (www.5wpr.com )
45 West 45th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 999-5585 x239
Fax: (646) 328-1711
Email: shamel@5wpr.com

Note: I checked both the 5W Public Relations Web site and the site of Doyle's Room and could not, at first attempt, locate an online copy of the press release, so I can't independently confirm its veracity myself. However, the Chicago Tribune has a news story reporting the same basic facts, and also reports that BetOnSports.com's poker room has had a 30-35% spike in users today.

(hat tip to Lynn Kendall)

Partisan Point-Scoring

Sometimes, the people on my side of the aisle are downright embarassing.

Atrios and Dave Sirota are piling onto Trent Lott, big-time tort-reform advocate, for hypocrisy. Lott, the Wall Street Journal reports [subscription required] has just filed suit against the State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. to force the insurance company to pay for Lott's house in Pascagoula, Mississippi, which was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.

Sirota's post includes a bunch of Lott quotes about how suing to solve problems is something Democrats do.

I am no fan of Trent Lott. He's a racist hypocrite. At the same time, Katrina was completely blind to the state of the souls of the people she killed or whose houses she ruined. When I was in Mississippi, I did not hesitate to assist even the racist hypocrites who stood in dire need of assistance.

Sirota omits the real story: That State Farm and other insurance companies are seeking to evade their responsiblities to policy-holders by claiming that much of the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina was flood damage, not hurricane damage, and is therefore not covered by the hurricane riders to homeowners insurance.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood has filed suit against several insurers with policies in Mississippi, including State Farm, to force them to honor their policies for damages resulting from the hurricane.

What's more, insurance adjusters on the scene have been advising policy-holders to sue. I have been told by homeowners in Biloxi that their adjuster said something to the effect of, "It's just a position taken by the insurance company. The legal issues simply have not been resolved. The courts are going to decide this."

Many of the affected homeowners, including many I've spoken with myself, are people of limited financial means. No small number of them are Democrats.

"Justice for All" means exactly that: justice for everyone, whether or not they are on my side of the Great Divide in our political landscape. I would love to see Trent Lott brought to justice for his political misdeeds – and I also want to see him get his due in the hurricane recovery. The story here isn't that Trent Lott is a hypocrite; we've known that for years. The story is that State Farm, in its arrogance, is trying to screw Republican Senator Trent Lott along with everyone else.

An End to No-Limit Hold'em at Lucky Chances

As of Wednesday, December 14, Lucky Chances Casino in Colma, Calif., no nonger spreads no-limit Texas hold'em. Under pressure from the California Department of Justice's Division of Gambling Control, the city of Colma passed an ordinance establishing a $200 maximum bet ceiling, and Lucky Chances managment chose to voluntarily comply.

This means an end to the fabulously juicy baby no-limit hold'em games Lucky Chances began to spread in April, 2004, as well as the much bigger $1000-minimum- buyin game they've spread for much longer.

The issue is the California Gambling Control Act, which took effect on Jan. 1, 1998, four months before Lucky Chances opened. Among other things imposed a moratorium in the expansion of gambling in cities lasting until 2010. Lucky Chances' opening was explicitly exempted by the CGCA. Not long afterwards, the city of Colma, with the express approval of the Division of Gambling Control, removed the city's ordinance that imposed a $200 betting limit, and Lucky Chances introduced no-limit hold'em.

Artichoke Joe's Casino, in nearby San Bruno, lost a lot of business when Lucky Chances opened, and lost more when the Colma bet cap was removed. It seems that customers have a idiosyncratic preference for competent dealers, consistency of decisions by floor personnel, and quality of food. Dennis Sammut, owner of Artichoke Joe's, did what any savvy business owner does when customer service issues result in a drop in business: he complained to the Division of Gambling Control. After five years of legal maneuvering, the DGC reversed itself and sent a letter to the city of Colma informing them that lifting the $200 bet cap violated the moratorium on expansion of gambling in cities. At length, the city, and Lucky Chances, have opted to comply.

The story isn't over yet: According to the San Mateo County Times the Colma City Council voted to lift the betting limit if one of three things happens: state law is changed to allow it; the city wins a court challenge of the DGC's ruling; or if a majority of Colma voters approve the removal of the betting limit.

The San Mateo County Times article will disappear behind a firewall shortly. See more below the fold.

City agrees to casino betting limit

But move could cost city $1.8 million annually
By Julia Scott, STAFF WRITER

COLMA — Faced with the possibility of the city's only casino losing its license for violating state law, the City Council voted Wednesday night to voluntarily impose a state-required betting cap — but they also gave themselves an out.

In July 2005 — six years after the state Division of Gambling Control expressly approved a City Council ordinance removing upper betting limits on all card games at Lucky Chances Casino — the Division sent the town a letter informing it that its unlimited betting violated the California Gambling Control Act. The letter asked the city to reduce its individual betting maximum to $200 on poker and Asian games like Pai Gow.

The law took effect Jan. 1, 1998 — four months before the opening of Lucky Chances. It prohibited "expansion of gambling" in existing casinos, which state officials say includes unlimited betting.

Now, faced with losing 16 percent of their annual budget because of the limit, the City Council is calling the language of the Act confusing and its application arbitrary, since Artichoke Joe's Casino of San Bruno continues to enjoy unlimited betting with state approval. They point out that the state division, part of the Attorney General's office, did not find fault with unlimited gambling when Lucky Chances opened in 1998.

"For seven years, we've had this practice. For seven years, the state never said anything to this town," said City Attorney Roger Peters.

The city stands to lose as much as$1.8 million annually as a result of betting caps. The casino generates about $3.7 million a year for the city — one-third of its total budget.

"The money has become the town's backbone in terms of our ability to provide services," said Assistant City Manager Laura Allen.

Confronted with a number of possible penalties, including loss of the casino's license, the City Council voted unanimouslyto limit betting to $200 on Wednesday. At the same time, however, they voted to revoke those limits if a state bill is passed allowing it; if the town were to win a legal challenge against the state; or if a majority of Colma voters overturned the limits. The town has not yet asked a judge to rule on the matter, but it has hired a lobbyist to meet with legislators in Sacramento.

The council decided to hold a special meeting early next month to authorize a citywide vote on the issue. It was not clear what legal weight a vote would carry, since the Division has said it would violate state law if it were to become effective before the year 2010.

The council also passed an ordinance to consider language proposed by Lucky Chances to skirt the new limits by placing more betting squares on the tables, thereby increasing maximum betting limits. The casino voluntarily introduced $200 betting caps on its poker and Asian games for the first time on Wednesday.

Division of Gambling Control spokesman Nathan Barankin said that his agency first learned of Colma's unlimited betting from their Bay Area competitors. Those competitors were allowed to continue unlimited betting because they had received their licenses before the creation of the Gambling Control Act, whereas Lucky Chances had not.

Posted by abostick at 09:05 AM | Comments (0)

Andy Bloch and the World Poker Tour

Andy Bloch isn't too happy about the release [PDF] players have to sign before playing in a World Poker Tour event.

I'm in Vegas and I want to play poker, but I won't be playing the World Poker Tour at the Bellagio, or any more WPT tournaments, until the WPT changes the player release that they force every player to sign before playing. The current release sets practically no limit to what the WPT can do with a player's name and likeness, and the WPT has shown that it will exploit players' names and likenesses beyond what any of us accept as reasonable. I've tried negotiating with the WPT, but they will not make any significant changes. I'm not the best known player (I'm sure Chris Ferguson's decision not to play will have more of an effect) so not playing the WPT may hurt my career, but I think it's a risk worth taking.

Here is the language to which Bloch objects, with the specific portions to which he objects the most emphasized:

1) Grant of Rights. Player acknowledges that WPT Enterprises, Inc. and its successors, assigns and licensees (collectively, “WPT”) will be recording, filming, photographing and exploiting films and/or television specials or other audio visual works of and/or about the Tour Event (jointly and severally the “Programs”). Player consents to such filming and exploitation of the Programs, and hereby irrevocably grants to WPT the right to film, record, edit, reproduce and otherwise use Player's name, photograph, likeness, signature, biographical information, appearance, actions (including, without limitation, revealing Player's hole cards), conversations (including, without limitation, “behind the scenes” footage and filmed interviews with Player) and/or voice (the “Recordings”) in, and in connection with, the Programs and/or the “World Poker Tour” and in connection with the distribution, advertising, publicizing, exhibition, and exploitation thereof and of other audio-visual works (including, without limitation, “behind the scenes” productions and public service announcements) and any and all derivative, allied, subsidiary and/or ancillary uses related thereto (including, without limitation, merchandising, commercial tie-ins, publications, home entertainment, video games, commodities, etc.), in whole or in part, by any and all means, media, devices, processes and technology now or hereafter known or devised in perpetuity throughout the universe.

Bloch compares this to the equivalent clause in Harrah's WSOP Circuit player release:

In consideration of my being permitted to participate in said promotion, I do hereby accept and irrevocably authorize Showboat Casino Hotel and its successors and assigns (including but not limited to ESPN) to print, publish, televise or otherwise utilize my photograph or any likeness of me for promotional purposes without compensation.

Bloch comments, While the line between permissible "promotional purposes" and impermissible merchandising needs to be defined a little bit, the WSOPC release is a lot better than the WPT's "any and all derivative, allied, subsidiary and/or ancillary uses related thereto (including, without limitation, merchandising, commercial tie-ins, publications, home entertainment, video games, commodities, etc.)".

Bloch has a degree from Harvard Law School and is a member of the bar, but is not at the present time practicing law.

To my own eye, it looks to me like the WPT is treating the players like patsies. Their waiver is, on the face of it, unacceptable. There are things that are reasonable for them to want to use players' likenesses -- video and print advertisments for the show, for example, but there are a whole range of subsidiary rights for which the WPT has no legitimate need. If I play in a WPT event, they get to use my likeness in video games, and I don't get paid for it. Hell, there's nothing in this agreement that would prevent the WPT from licensing fictional print, movie, or TV rights to the players as characters.

The WPT is treating the players like patsies. Andy Bloch is doing the right thing, and I hope that his example gets a lot of attention.

(via Paul Phillips)

International Man of Mystery

Yesterday I was at the Oaks Club. I played some other games for a while, and eventually was called to a seat in the $15-$30 hold'em game.

Apparently I'm the subject of some discussion in the game. As I approached the table, Denny Dahlgren, one of the day-shift prop players, said to me, "We need your help here. Give us a multiple-choice question, with three or five choices, of what it is that you do."

Very interesting! My stock answer to the question of what I do for a living has been for some time "freelance editor," but it's actually been a while since I've had any billable hours to charge. Are some of the regulars trying to get a line on me? I would think they'd already have done so by now. I come to the Oaks to play sometimes during afternoons, sometimes in the evening, and very occasionally stay there overnight for a marathon session trying to recoup losses in a good-seeming game.

I've never heard anyone else asked quite in that manner what they do for a living anywhere, let alone at the Oaks. Evidently I am something of an enigma to some people there. Then again, Denny is the sort of opponent I like to see in the game, tough though he is, because he is skilled at connecting with the other players and making the game enjoyable to play. Perhaps I was just the topic of the moment, with which he was jollying up the other players.

I sat down and posted to get a hand. Naturally someone ahead of me raised, and I had to get out.

A few moments thought provided me with the following: "One: Internet security consultant. Two: Big game hunter. Three: Student. Four: Professional poker player. Five: Accountant."

Denny and a couple of other players all picked "student." Denny said, "That was on my list of guesses when we were talking about it."

"Student" is of course the correct answer right now. The regulars who pay attention know that I'm not a poker pro, for the simple reason that they don't see me logging enough hours at the table to make a living.

But that didn't stop me from making the faux complaint, "So nobody thinks I'm a poker pro, huh? When am I ever going to get any respect from you guys?"

Red Cross Chief Takes Fall for Katrina

Quoth the New York Times:

Red Cross Chief Steps Down; Interim Successor Is Named

By STEPHANIE STROM

The American Red Cross announced today that Marsha J. Evans, its president and chief executive, had resigned. The resignation takes effect at the end of the month.

The Red Cross named John F. McGuire, its executive vice president for biomedical services, as its interim head. Mr. McGuire had overseen the organization's blood operation, its biggest source of income, which has repeatedly been fined by the Food and Drug Administration for problems in the way it handles blood collection and storage.

As recently as June, the F.D.A. fined the Red Cross $3.4 million after the organization reported 135 instances in which it had retrieved unsuitable blood products that it had distributed.

The Red Cross's already tarnished reputation was badly hurt by blistering complaints about its response to Hurricane Katrina, and Ms. Evans may have taken the fall for those recent failures.

Survivors of the hurricane complained that the Red Cross was not present in the worst-hit areas immediately after the storm, that its phone lines were inaccessible, that disabled victims were turned away from shelters, and a variety of other problems.

Yet donors gave it the lion's share of their generosity, funneling more than $1.5 billion to it in the aftermath of the hurricane. Its fund-raising success has sparked anger among smaller nonprofits that had to deal with the crisis without the Red Cross's assistance and that have no hope of raising money to cover their expenses.

The Red Cross's response has been that this disaster was so vast in scope and impact that it could never have adequately prepared to respond, but that explanation has failed to satisfy its critics. ...

In the eyes of people affected by this year's hurricanes, the American Red Cross is second only to FEMA as being part of the disaster rather than part of the response.

Unlike FEMA, a successful agency that was ruined by corruption and patronage of the Bush Administration, the failures of the American Red Cross are structural.

The ARC has a long history of deception and mendacity around using major disasters as fundraising opportunity. Over and over again the story is told of a disaster -- the Loma Prieta earthquake, the Oakland Hills Fire, the Northridge quake, etc. -- for which people, out of the goodness of their hearts, reach into their pockets and donate money to the ARC help those who were affected, and rather than spend it on relief for the disaster for which the donors intended their money, earmarks it instead for ongoing operations. The extreme case of this was last year's tsunami in the Indian Ocean, for which the ARC enthusiastically solicited donations from Americans – at a time when the supposedly non-political organization is withholding funds from the International Committee of the Red Cross over a contemptibly political issue.

Marsha Evans is taking the fall for the ARC failures in the Gulf Coast. She is being replaced by John McGuire, the ARC's head of biomedical services, i.e. its blood drive, which is plagued by scandal unconnected to Katrina. McGuire is unlikely to lead the sort of housecleaning that would be required to set things straight. Nothing is going to change at the American Red Cross any time soon.

Football Hooliganism

Stephen Wells, writing in the Grauniad, takes note of the American fascination with British soccer hooliganism and the simultaneous blindness to the violence and mayhem associated with sports events in the U.S.:

There's not much soul-searching about sports hooliganism within the US - and what little there is tends to focus on the behaviour of African-American basketball players rather than predominantly white football fans. For no matter how many college games end in drunken mob violence (as many do), no matter how many American city centres see running battles between sports fans and riot police, the US sports media continues to present hooliganism as something utterly un-American. (This blinkered provincialism has parallels with the 1996 decision by the US State Department to "red flag" parts of south London as no-go areas for American tourists, claiming that Millwall was as dangerous as Guatemala - which, at the time, was overrun by right-wing death squads.)

When it comes to hooliganism, the US media really is the pot calling the kettle black. Riots at US sports events occur far more frequently than they do in the UK. And yet, in American popular culture, the "hooligan" is almost without exception portrayed as a soccer fan (and nearly always as English).

Wells focuses in particular on the fans of the Philadelphia Eagles, who seem to have a particulary extreme reputation for mayhem. Or perhaps Wells happened to be in a position to observe Eagles fans and took his story from there.

The connection between sports, violence, and the impulse to war is a deep one. It deserves close examination. It is interesting that, rather than examining it, we so conspicuously look the other way.

(via black_pearl_10)

What to Do When (Not If) Someone Calls You on Your Racism

I'm embarassed to say that I missed marking December 1 as Blog Against Racism Day. (Does it count that I Blogged Against Racism on November 10, or that for me, the entire month of October was Work My Ass Off Against Racism Month? Perhaps not.)

I have good company: the redoubtable Ampersand at Alas, a Blog was a day late:

How Not To Be Insane When Accused Of Racism (A Guide For White People)

Prometheus 6 wrote something that has stuck in my head ever since:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but "racist" is the only word that makes white people as crazy as "nigger" makes Black people.

It's true - a lot of white people, hell, most white people turn ten different colors of pissed off and shoot steam out their ears if someone suggests they've said something racist. And if you make a point of talking about race and racism, sooner or later someone will accuse you of being racist, fairly or unfairly.

Frankly, I think we whites - especially, we whites who think of ourselves as against racism - have to get over it. So here it is, in honor of "blog against racism day" (okay, it's now the morning after blog against racism day, so I'm slow):

Amp's Guide to Not Being an Insane-O White Person When Accused of Racism.

1) Breathe. Stay calm. Stay civil. Don't burn bridges. If someone has just said "I think that sounds a bit racist," don't mistake it for them saying "you're Klu Klux Klan racist scum" (which is a mistake an amazing number of white people make). For the first ten or twenty seconds any response you make will probably come from your defensiveness, not from your brain, so probably you shouldn't say whatever first comes to your mind.

2) Take the criticism seriously - do not dismiss it without thinking about it. Especially if the criticism comes from a person of color - people of color in our society tend by necessity to be more aware of racism than most Whites are, and pick up on things most Whites overlook. (On the other hand, don't put the people of color in the room in the position of being your advocate or judge.)

3) Don't make it about you. Usually the thing to do is apologize for what you said and move on. Especially if you're in a meeting or something, resist your desire to turn the meeting into a seminar on How Against Racism You Are. The subject of the conversation is probably not "your many close Black friends, and your sincere longstanding and deep abhorrence of racism."

Think of it as if someone points out that you need to wipe your nose because you've got a big glob of snot hanging out. The thing to do is say "oh, excuse me," wipe your nose, and move on. Insisting that everyone pat you on the back and reassure you that they realize you don't always have snot hanging from your nose, before the conversation can be allowed to move forward, is not productive.

4) Let Occasional Unfair Accusations Roll Off Your Back. Sometimes, even after you've given it serious thought, you'll come to the conclusion that a criticism was unfair. Great! Now please let it go. Don't insist that everyone agree with you. Don't enlist the people of color in the room to certify you as Officially Non-Racist. Don't bring it up again and again, weeks or months after everyone else has forgotten about the original discussion. In other words, see point #3.

Shorter Ampersand: Don't make it a whacking huge deal if you say something racist, or something others perceive as racist. Apologize, move on, and consider the criticism seriously so that you can improve your thinking, if need be.

(via Atrios)