Jump to content
advertisement_alt

Run Screamin

Members
  • Content Count

    384
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Run Screamin

  • Birthday 01/01/1970

Profile

  • Location
    Distrito Federal, Mexico

Personal

  • About Yourself
    I'm no longer an active poker player. I doubt I could get ITM or even stay afloat at 200NL... Just don't have the time to keep up with all the brilliant minds that seem to be playing these days... Algún día, me gustaría volver...
  • Your favorite poker sites
    32Red Poker
  • Favorite poker hand
    7H7C
  • Favorite place to play
    Los Angeles, CA
  • Favorite Cash Game and Limit
    NL/PL HE, $3/$6 to $5/$10
  • Favorite Tournament Game and Limit
    NL/PL HE MTTs, $100 and over

Screen names

Rankings

  • Worldwide

    N/A

  • All-time high

    13,067 (2010)

Cashes

  • Lifetime total

    $27,185

  • Biggest Cash All Time

    $6,500

  • Number of cashes

    29

  • Average cash

    $937

Latest post

  1. In thinking about the different reasons why we (the online gambling community) lost the battle in the House of Representatives and in thinking ahead to the upcoming battle in the Senate, I'd like to categorize (without blame) some of the more unstated reasons why we never stood a chance with our approach and what we can do to revise that approach in the Senate. At this point, we are all let down and we are all upset. However expressing that frustration in a negative way is not productive. Posts like "f Goodlatte" are not going to do anything to promote our cause. Understanding what led to the passage in the House, constructing a counter-strategy for the Senate, and executing against that strategy is our only hope of preserving our freedoms (today as they pertain to poker and tomorrow as they pertain to other areas of our lives). I am hoping the thoughts presented here in the resolution sections can be folded into a broader strategy by the PPA, the Senate, and others. So where did we go wrong? The Demographic We Presented: In much of our lobbying and addressing our concerns with the members of the House, we presented ourselves as a poker playing lobby. We discussed how there are millions of poker players who will take this fight as their main issue for the election. We discussed how 74% of Americans believe that you should be able to play poker online. A stat like that seems overwhelming at first until you begin to dissect that 74% and compare it to the other 25% (18% Yes and 7.4% Don't Know). The 74% that we presented as opinionated in the matter simply did not present this to their Representative. I am not certain if there was an outpouring of support for the Bill, but history tells us that the group this Bill is targeted towards energizing, votes and donates based on their morality. Their support is considered "vote concentrated" while our support is considered "vote passive". In our game 75/25 means 3/1 odds. In their game, 75/25 means a potential 1/1 because not all opinions vote, not all opinions campaign and not all opinions donate and each of these three things are weighted differently. My understanding from my Congressman's Office is that there was not much correspondence from either side. What does that mean? It means that with the debate in the House, the members saw the potential TV ads that could be used to motivate the 25% to vote against them and even potentially alter votes from some of the 74%. The Path of Least Resistance: In understanding what would make a lawmaker vote either in favor of this Bill or against it, we need to examine the potential outcomes of voting one way or the other. From the arguments that were outlined in the House, I came away with the following labels and categorizations: If you vote against the Bill, then you: 1) Are not protecting children 2) Are tearing families apart and causing suicides 3) Support terrorism 4) Are doing what "disgraced lobbyist Jack Aramoff" wanted If you vote for the Bill, then you: 1) Are taking away freedom and unnecessarily intervening in the lives of citizens 2) Are hypocritical in your approach because you support horse racing and lotteries 3) Are missing a massive opportunity to draw large amounts of tax revenue I believe that if we examine each of these arguments, we were the winners on a rational front because I believe that all four of the main labels placed on dissenters can be rebutted in a logical way in a discussion with a logical person. I do not agree that the reverse holds true in rebutting the three categorizations of those who voted for the Bill. Congratulations, we won the rational argument... but nobody cared. Why? Nobody cares because the way that these arguments are structured, the television and campaign messages that can be sent are stronger in their categorization than they are in our categorization. "For the kids" and "terrorism" are the Ace of Spades that have been trumping individual liberty, tax revenue and hypocritical approaches for as long as I can remember. Congress knows that and because they know that, they were unable to vote their conscience here. Voting your conscience against these arguments is "Reelection -EV". The Jack Abramoff Argument: This is an easy one. Nobody wants to be tied to Jack Abramoff because they think Americans care. I personally don't and I don't think most other Americans believe (correctly or incorrectly) that Jack Abramoff didn't knock on every Congressional door. Jack Abramoff was the one who got caught, but on the whole lobbyists attempt to pander to all Congressmen (and/or vice-versa). Somebody was eventually going to get caught and it just happened to be Jack Abramoff. Who really doesn't believe that there are 100 more of him out there pandering to 435 Congressmen and 100 Senators? Get real. That said, it was the Representative's own fears and projections of their behavior that made them want to distance themselves from Jack Abramoff. The funny thing is that the Jack Abramoff argument belongs on our side, but we did not own it. Jack Abramoff was lobbying on behalf of an online lottery company. This Bill is not the same and in fact would have protected his client. For all we know, the supporters of this Bill are being lobbied by Abramoff's former client. We Did Not Frame the Issue, Goodlatte Did: The biggest issue we ran into is that we did not frame the issue. I credit Congressman Goodlatte with an excellent campaign for this Bill (regardless of how I feel personally). Well done. He clearly articulated and laid out what this Bill and what the issues were really all about: 1) Abramoff 2) Children 3) Terrorism 4) Societal Benefit Somehow we all believed that we needed to rebut these points and to the rest of the House, voila, this became what the Bill was all about. In reality, this Bill is not about any of those things. We spent our time and energy rebutting ridiculous notions and a ridiculous framing of the real issues. So what did Congressmen understand about the upcoming vote? The message Congressmen took away was "while 75% agree that poker should be played on the Internet, not a significant amount care enough to vote against me... but the other 25% will lobby hard against me and portray me as a child hating, terrorist supporting, Abramoff loving degenerate if I do not vote in favor of this Bill." The choice was clear and from a career perspective, makes sense. Voting that way lacks integrity, but in the interest of preserving a career in an election year, is the rational choice to make. So what can we do now? Frame the Issue: Stop rebutting ridiculous points and come out with guns blazing! Frame the issue from the start of the conversation. This is about restrictions on the Internet, costs passed along to consumers, detracting from the effective tracking of terrorist financing, intrusive looks into the lives of citizens by their banks, legislating ISPs, and most importantly the subjective view of societal benefit by Congress. It means that if 2 Congressmen and 1 Senator decide that they do not see societal benefit in an activity, that they should ban it in an election year, particularly if they can link one person out of millions to committing a crime because of it. Chocolate, McDonalds (or all fast food), skydiving, motorcycles. None of these things make society any better as a whole (and forgive me if you disagree), but they are individual choices that people make (and have the information to make in a rational manner) that enhance their life, but have been accused of causing deaths every year. Expand Our Demographic: The next thing we need to do is make sure that Senators know that more than just you and I care. It begins with educating your friends, relatives, radio stations, news cameras, etc and explaining what this means to them. Take the issues listed above and explain them to your family, friends, significant other, etc and explain the additional bank fees, the reviews and analysis of their bank transactions and the accountability of this back to the government. Explain that your ISP will soon be ordered to prevent you from retrieving certain content via the internet and this legislation will be used as the precedent of censorship expansion. There is no need to scare here. Simply educate. This is scary enough without bias. We expand our demographic by making a personal commitment to each other. Each of us owe it to ourselves (and each other) to convince between 3 and 5 people who do not play poker online to email or call their Senator and identify themselves as somebody who does not play poker online, but feels this legislation is an intrusion in their life. If we have to write the letter, stamp it and simply have them sign it, fine... but DO IT. Turn the 74% passive to 74% active. Make them notice that it's not just a concern of millions of poker players, but it's a concern of all those who enjoy making their own decisions about their own life. This marketing has to be viral and fast or we will lose again. Take Back The Abramoff Argument: Stop letting people say that this legislation is a way to make a statement on the influence of Jack Abramoff. When you hit here, hit hard! The rebuttal is simple. We need to say this: Jack Abramoff is laughing at you! Even in prison, you continue to make him the most successful lobbyist ever. His client would want this legislation to pass and you continue to do exactly what he wants well into his incarceration! Supporters of this Bill are Jack Abramoff's Personal Clowns. What I cannot understand is whether they are so devious that they lie about it or too stupid (or maybe blind is a better word) to realize it. Which one? Devious or stupid? Make it Painful: We cannot let them make it easy to vote for this bill and hard to vote against it again. We need to take the labeling straight back at them. If dissenters of this Bill are supporters of Abramoff, who do not protect children, but do support terrorism, then fight back and counter label with the following. Supporters of this Bill: 1) Are Jack Abramoff's Personal Clowns. 2) Would rather your children gamble in a back room instead of being rejected by a legislated entity. 3) Are forcing banks to choose between tracking terrorists and tracking Joe Poker Player. 4) Believe in a Totalitarian Internet. 5) Restrict personal freedoms. 6) Are making life more expensive for banks and for Americans. 7) Believe they can dictate what you do with your money. This is simply a list to choose from. The message has to be simpler when delivered and have as much bang as possible. I am not the right person to craft it. Regardless, it needs to let those who vote for this Bill know that there are political repercussions. They need to start seeing the negative commercials in their head: "Senator XXX supports tracking and monitoring poker players (picture of Raymer with arms held high) to monitoring and tracking terrorists (shot fades to a picture of al-Zarqawi)." "Senator XXX is still doing the work of Jack Abramoff and his clients." (a special distinction for those who vote against the Lottery/Horse Amendment and for the Bill). Conclusion In writing this, my main hope is that we will begin to stop internally focusing our attention on how unpalatable that we feel the authors of this Bill are and how unsound we believe passage in the House to have been. Sharing our beliefs with each other is a waste of our own time. I would like to see us focus our energy on spreading the message that this Bill is a threat to more than just our community. I would like to see us craft this argument correctly and garner the support of our friends and family. This Bill is not unbeatable, but with our current messaging, is most likely headed for passage. Sidenote: For a detailed recap of my discussion with my Congressman's Office, please visit: http://www.pocketfives.com/E733D5B8-9FD7-4ADE-BBE0-4FA12D4F744F.aspx
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.