- A thorough rebuttal of Adelson’s recent anti-online poker stance.
Dear Mr Adelson,
We in the online poker community would like to really thank you for your recent statements in which you refer to Internet gambling as “...a toxin that all good people should resist.”
Why?
Because you wrote that article using scare-mongering tactics, and backed up your arguments with ridiculous claims, allowing even the most naïve reader to plainly see your ulterior motives.
And we appreciate that. We really do. It saves us a lot of trouble and makes writing this letter easier.
Our industry, specifically online poker, is still relatively young, being about 19 years-old. However, its youth breeds innovation and attracts creative thinkers and visionaries. It contains people who can see the marketplace changing, encouraging them to jump ahead of the pack to predict the next big consumer stampede.
You’ve run over 50 successful businesses, Mr Adelson. You surely remember what it was like to be a visionary? Such as when you ripped down the Sands to make way for the Venetian? Or when you gained a foothold in Macau?
Of course that was because you had freedom. And you are a lover of freedom. We know because you said so in an article on Forbes.com [November 2012].
“What scares me is the lack of accountability that people would prefer to experience, just let the government take care of everything.” That was what you said and we agree with you 100 percent.
People should be responsible for their actions. Especially those students with their loans that you claim are unable to stop themselves from gambling. Or the underage teenagers who you claim will be coerced into gambling while either drunk or high.
We believe that people can make their own decisions and that good parenting skills, rather than government controls, contribute towards improved accountability in our children. We also like to believe that people have a mind of their own and that they do not require the state to nanny them.
If we worry about people getting into debt with their gambling, should we not protect them from other frivolous spending?
Let’s limit their vacation spends as that often gets people into debt. As do clothing budgets, so perhaps we should also cap any money spent there?
Or should we just allow people to grow up and be responsible enough to make their own decisions in life?
Certainly online gambling offers people far more opportunity to have some fun. They can play slots for free, or poker for cents. We don’t think the Venetian offers those kinds of facilities. You might play a few hands if you have $200 in your pocket perhaps?
On the Internet, $10 is plenty to get you started. But betting $10 is hardly indicative of someone “clicking their mouse to lose their house.”
Yes, there are higher limit tables. But the vast bulk of Internet gambling is done at the micro-stakes level, with the average spend per hand being less than $0.10. That’s the same kind of poker you play at family reunions for fun. Maybe we should blame grandma and grandpa for creating compulsive gamblers with their family gin-rummy games.
And we believe those students, who you claim gamble to clear their loans, as well as anyone else, should have the freedom to wager a few bucks if they choose to. Especially in a country that refers to itself as “The Land of the Free.”
You disagree? Really? We thought your love of freedom was why you left the Democrats and joined the Republicans.
Do you remember? You said [in the Forbes article linked above], “What scares me is the continuation of the socialist-style economy we’ve been experiencing for almost four years. That scares me because the redistribution of wealth is the path to more socialism, and to more of the government controlling people’s lives.”
Of course, that decision had nothing to do with your personal tax rates. No, as you so often state, you are a patriot who is only doing the right thing. You are not a brick-and-mortar casino owner who has seen his US-based business decline, with the bulk of his gambling profits coming from Macau. Perhaps Macau is so popular because the socialist government that runs it keeps the Internet in check there. It is a place where freedoms are certainly less free.
But maybe you meant something completely different when you railed against socialist economies. Especially now that you are making the bulk of your money from one.
And if it’s capitalism you want, online gambling sites cost about $1.5 million to set up. That’s a whole lot better than a brick-and-mortar casino start-up.
That’s the freedom the online world brings. Just in the same way Amazon.com brought us Internet shopping, or that newspapers changed their business models to offer digital versions. Technology changes business, and transforms our lives. It moves us forward, Mr Adelson.
We now live in a new world that gives far more power to the consumer, because physical boundaries no longer apply. And the small guys, the little fish, get to swim with the sharks and grow up to become sharks themselves.
For a self-made man who started out selling newspapers and candy vending machines, you must still remember that feeling of being the small guy who was looking for a break.
In fact, in one recent interview you stated that you have no incentive to earn another $200 million, and that is why Internet gambling holds no interest for you. Well $200 million is the conservative projected income from New Jersey alone. The worldwide online gambling industry is worth about $30 billion, with Europe seeing an industry growth of around 45% in 2012.
Would that motivate you?
Perhaps not, as you refer to online gambling as “a cancer.” Yes, you believe that that the Internet will spread gambling as a disease. But if people come to your casinos it’s a wholesome experience. You know, “...when a person makes an effort to get dressed, join some friends and head to the local casino for a night of entertainment.”
And if they head to your planned EuroVegas resort in Spain they can even smoke while they enjoy that entertainment. But then you’ll probably say you’ve never pressured the Spanish government to bend their strict anti-smoking laws to enable patrons to smoke in your resort. That’s only a rumor.
After all, you would never use your finances to influence a government.
Oh wait, you were quoted on Forbes as saying, “I’m against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections. But as long as it’s doable I’m going to do it.”
Bringing smoking into public places, Mr Adelson, would be a real cancer. It’s why they have those big warning signs on cigarette packets.
Online gambling provides you with a smoke-filled or smoke free environment as you choose. You can play where you like. You can play dressed how you like. You can play when you like. You can play whatever game you like and you can play at whatever limits you feel comfortable with.
That’s the beauty of gambling online. It gives you the power to choose.
But before you counter with another gambling addiction accusation, let’s look at facts and figures. Not those ones you pushed about in your article that says 20% of all casino employees will lose their jobs if we don’t ban online gambling.
No, not those numbers. Mostly because they don’t make sense. The American Gaming Association states that there were 363,000 casino jobs in the US in 2012. How 20% of them then result in 200,000 we are not sure. And how you arrived at that 20% figure we are not sure about either. Maybe a spin of a roulette wheel?
Certainly other industries have not suffered that fate when the Internet entered their ballpark. In fact, those that embraced the technology have thrived, doing more business than they used to.
Instead, let’s look at numbers from the UK, which has a mature and carefully legislated online gambling market.
In 2012 the UK online gambling market was worth around £2 billion, having seen 80% growth from 2008. Poker actually only accounts for around 15% of that market. The vast bulk is sportsbetting.
Wait a minute though. You remember poker, Mr Adelson? That was the game you referred to as being purely driven by luck despite the fact that the same faces win tournaments over and over again; and despite the fact that there is a deep mathematical strategy to the game; and despite the fact that it requires you to master elements of human psychology.
If all gambling is based on luck, perhaps you’d allow us to come to your casinos with some boys from the MIT and a few super-computers? After all, it’s just a bet on a turn of a card. There is no skill there at all. So why worry?
But what is the important problem-gambling figure? Surely the terrible disease—as you put it—must have run rampant in the UK where it has been entrenched for so long?
According to Gamble Aware, the top estimate is around 0.9% of the UK population having a gambling problem. The US rate? The National Council on Problem Gambling puts it at 2%-3%.
Perhaps the UK found a cure? Or could it be that Internet gambling is not quite what you painted it to be? I mean, you are a brick-and-mortar casino owner who is losing gambling revenue to technology and still refuses to adapt. So what possible motive could you have?
Ah yes, you are a patriot.
If you were a patriot you might jump on the UK band-wagon and get behind legislation, because it might actually cut the problem gambling rate. After all, prohibition didn’t do much for alcoholism, and the war on drugs has not kept the streets clean.
So why don’t we agree to call a spade a spade (or a club a club, or a heart a heart) and say that online gambling is a natural progression from casino-based gambling. People are going to do it. People want to do it.
People have fun doing it.
You are already one of the richest men on the planet. You may not need another $200 million, but we are quite sure you wouldn’t like to lose $200 million in existing business. So why not just be honest and say you missed the bandwagon, you regret it, and you are playing catch-up when it comes to online poker.
You disagree?
Would you like to make a bet on that? Or perhaps a hand of poker?
Of course, we only play online…
