I'm sure Caesars could be more dense, but I'm not sure how

I have spent my entire life in marketing. Marketing is one of those broad job categories that not everyone understands - if I were an accountant, you could make a decent guess about what my typical day is like, but as a marketing guy I doubt you have much idea what I do.

Marketing is pretty simple at its heart - it's all about shaping ideas. If I want you to think positively about Coca-Cola, I create images related to Coke that you already have a positive sense about. We all like friendships, love and cute animals. If I can weave Coca-Cola into those things you already like, you'll start to like Coca-Cola by association, or at least have a positive feeling when you see the Coca-Cola brand.

Then you have Caesars, the parent company of the World Series of Poker and the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino. I can honestly say that I have never seen a major, worldwide brand more intent on destroying its own image than this company. I have written quite a bit about this over the years, including:

Six ways Caesars screwed up the World Series of Poker
WSOP 2015: Has anything changed?
Are you there, Caesars? It's me, Dan.

And just so you don't think I'm entirely biased against Caesars, I also wrote this:

How Caesars saved the World Series of Poker (2 parts)

The first story must have struck a nerve, because I received a flood of email from various senior WSOP people that sounded like Sean Spicer attempting to justify a 4am tweetstorm. That story was written three years ago, and despite its having gotten some high-level attention, exactly none of the six things I mentioned were acted upon. Caesars knows that they have a captive audience for six weeks every summer, so they feel safe in charging $12 for a hot dog and $2.50 for a banana.

This sort of callous attitude towards players has been a hallmark of Caesars' relationship with poker players since they first took over the WSOP in 2004. The most egregrious display of their insensitivity to their customers (in my opinion) was the decision to adopt the November Nine format. Caesars contributed exactly zero to either the prize pool or the players, but decided that, to achieve their own marketing objectives, they would call a halt to play for three months at the end of the world's largest tournament. They have done plenty of other things to offend and alienate players, but this was emblematic of their utter disregard for anything other than their own interests.

At this point, you might suggest that acting in their own interest is what business is all about, and you'd be right. But there is a unique synergy that is particular to the WSOP - players put up all of their own money. This is a company that is contributing nothing but a venue and media coverage, yet they are dictating how a tournament should play out for millions of dollars. And in the process, they are fundamentally changing the game.

[In their defense, the November Nine format has finally been deep-sixed.]

So what does this have to do with marketing?

There is a specialty of marketing called branding. My one-sentence definition of this highly complex topic is creating a unique name and image that presents a significant and differentiated market presence. Examples of companies that have done this extraordinarily well: Coca-Cola, Amazon, Geico and Apple - just reading each of those names likely stimulated images in your head. Example of a company that did this stunningly well in the poker market: PokerStars (although that has dramatically changed since their acquisition by Amaya).

Caesars has done the opposite. Their hard-nosed belief in their entrenched and safe position in the market has left hundreds of thousands of poker players with the most negative impression possible - one that convinces players that Caesars cares only about Caesars to the detriment of its players.

I'll give you two examples of this. As you probably know, MGM Resorts casinos began charging for parking last year, and Caesars properties decided to follow this unpleasant trend. They originally did something everyone thought was positive - the Rio was exempted. But last week they undid all of that by announcing that there will no longer be valet parking for the WSOP. Note that they didn't start charging for valet parking - they just stopped offering it except at the main entrance. They attempted to sell this as a benefit, claiming that the WSOP "still offers free valet parking," but since it's a roughly 1/3 mile walk from the casino entrance to the WSOP area, this is a specious claim.

This is bad for so many reasons that I'm not sure where to start, but I'll mention only one for now. Players leave the WSOP area at all hours of the night with substantial amounts of money. When there's valet service, a player can feel safe with a few thousand dollars. When the only option is a several-acre sea of cars with nonexistent security, it is only a matter of time before someone is attacked and robbed. If Caesars is lucky, no one will be killed, but I wouldn't want to take that bet.

The second example is even more specific, but it will give you a sense of just how little Caesars thinks of its players. Before I relate this - I won't spend a lot of time tooting my own horn here, but marketing, and online poker marketing in particular, is what I do. I have had a successful career at it, and I know what I'm talking about. 

I have talked for a long time about how the WSOP's online poker site seems to have no idea what poker players really want or look for. I finally decided to take some time and tell them exactly why I felt this way. I went back over my notes and composed a lengthy email to Bill Rini, the head of online poker for Caesars Interactive. Here's the email I sent:

From: Dan Goldman
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:02 AM
To: Bill Rini
Subject: Comments on WSOP.com

Hi Bill,

I asked [mutual friend] for your contact information because I really want WSOP.com to succeed, since it’s my only online poker alternative in Las Vegas. I realized as I was putting my comments together that I was actually giving you marketing advice, which I don’t really want to do. Instead, I want to point out a few things that I see through the eyes of both a player and a guy who’s managed a highly successful online poker operation before. I trust they will be taken in the intended spirit.

• Whoever does your satellite planning and scheduling, particularly for the WSOP, doesn’t seem to play much poker. WSOP.com is an amazing mouthpiece for the WSOP brand, but satellites are treated almost as an afterthought. Here are just a few examples:

• During the WSOP, you have a massive, captive audience for online poker. You do a reasonable (not great, but reasonable) job of promoting WSOP.com within the venue. But if you launch the client, it’s hard to know that the world’s largest poker tournament is even going on. I made this comment on my blog in 2015: “Let's use today as an example. It's Wednesday, and on Friday you have one of your biggest events, the Monster Stack. There are exactly ZERO upcoming satellites for the Monster Stack (OK, there was one at 4p. 4p, really?). Tomorrow, the day before the event, there are two. You should be running dozens.” Nothing changed at all in 2016. I spoke with other players, who all agreed that they would have played in as many Monster Stack satellites as they could – but there just weren’t any. The situation with other big events was the same. This is a massive waste of a marketing opportunity, both live and online.

• You run 1-2 $10 rebuy satellites a day in which you guarantee (2) $500 lammers. This is a pretty good idea, and they are well-attended. Why two lammers? I suspect that your typical player is depositing $50-100. Why not have satellites that guarantee one lammer, and make them $3 rebuys? Or even $1 or $2? You could run a lot more of them, and I can almost guarantee that you’d never miss a guarantee.

• This next item is appalling, even more so because it has now happened to me twice, once in 2015 and once in 2016. Here’s a complete description that I posted on my blog:

In a classic case of the left hand not having any idea what the right hand is doing - I won an online satellite for an event the following day, and didn't receive anything (no email confirmation, no call, nothing) about how to claim it. So I emailed support at about 1a, and immediately received an auto-responder saying you'd get back to me within 24 hours. I got no further response, so I called the support line at 9a. The first response from the woman who answered (who had to consult someone else) was, "Follow the instructions in the email we sent." Well, OK, but you didn't send one. "Oh, OK, hold on." A few minutes later, she returned and said (seriously), "We'll have someone get back to you within 24 hours." When I explained that the tournament was in 3 hours, she asked me to hold again. When she returned, she said, "Just go over to the WSOP and go up to the second floor." I explained to her that there was no second floor. Her response: "I don't know what to tell you. That's what they told me."

When I went to the Rio, there was absolutely no one who had any idea how to process my win. I got lucky and ran into Johnny, a WSOP.com guy who was very helpful last year, and he was a superstar. He stayed with me until they got my ticket, which took close to an hour.

This is inexcusable. Coordinating something like this is trivial. There is absolutely no reason why your onsite staff didn’t get this right the first time, and it wasn’t the only time it happened. I won 3 seats in 2015, and it happened every single time. Then, I won one in 2016 and waited in line for over an hour with a whole group of disgruntled WSOP.com satellite winners. I promise you that not one of them came away feeling better about the WSOP brand after this experience. And the fact that your telephone support staff doesn’t even know there isn’t a second floor at the venue makes it clear that you hired the cheapest possible labor and didn’t train them.

• It appears that your operations staff is equally out of touch with the realities of online poker. As an example, yesterday many players received an email from WSOP.com that said, among other things (this is condensed):

You have not logged into your account for more than 9 months and as a result, we will begin to implement our dormant account procedure on 2/1/2017. The twelve-month period triggering dormant status is calculated from the date you last logged into your WSOP.com account. Once your WSOP.com account enters the dormant account period the account will be closed and we will charge a monthly administration fee of $4.99. The administration fee will be deducted from the dormant account balance once each month and will continue to be deducted until the balance of the account has reached zero. When my daughter, who lives in LV but only plays online during the WSOP, sent me this, I thought it was a joke. This is horrifying customer service. Yes, I am aware that it’s in your house rules (http://www.wsop.com/legal/house-rules.asp - btw, go have a look at this page, which was apparently last changed on August 4, 2104). Maintaining a dormant account doesn’t cost you anything. In fact, you’re getting interest-free money from these players, some of whom have probably forgotten that it’s there. You have a significant number of players who only come to LV for the WSOP. Why not use this as a marketing opportunity instead of instantly offending every player who gets this? (In case you don’t already know, the damage from this absurd email has already been done, as it’s circulating on message boards.)

When a company behaves like this, its customers know they aren’t important. The WSOP itself already does plenty of this (see Six ways Caesars screwed up the World Series of Poker and Are you there, Caesars? It’s me, Dan for some examples). WSOP.com is, perhaps inadvertently, reinforcing the arrogance and near-hostility that virtually every WSOP player feels. The pervading sense is that Caesars believes that the WSOP brand is invulnerable. It’s not. As I mentioned in one of my posts, look at  America Online or Paradise Poker as examples of what happens to dominant brands that don’t take care of their base.

This has gone on much longer than I intended. I have high hopes for WSOP.com, but unless you guys get in tune with your players, I don’t think you have much of a chance.

Regards…dan

Here is the response I got from Bill about two hours later:

From: Bill Rini
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:02 AM
To: Dan Goldman
Subject: Comments on WSOP.comSent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 11:02 AMTo: Dan GoldmanSubject: Comments on WSOP.com Hi Dan,
 Thanks for taking your time to share your thoughts.  We'll take them into consideration. Best, Bill

OK, did I expect Bill to jump into action? Of course not. These are suggestions, but they all make sense from a poker player's perspective, and none challenge the base marketing concepts of the WSOP. Here's a perfect example: Today is May 30. The WSOP begins tomorrow. Here is the satellite schedule from WSOP.com:

That's right - there are thousands of players here for the beginning of the WSOP, and there is exactly one satellite running between now and Saturday - and it's for the Employee Event, in which most people can't play.

This isn't rocket science. If you have thousands of your best customers in town for a huge poker event, and you have an online poker site, you promote your big event on your poker site. Marketing isn't hard; most of marketing is very easy: give people what they are willing to pay money for, and they will pay you money. You have the simplest possible task, with a year to prepare for it - how could you possibly be this dense?

[Side note: to reinforce how little attention my email actually received, you will note that I pointed out a typo on the WSOP.com web site, in which they say that the last time their terms were updated was 87 years in the future (August 4, 2104). If you click here, you'll see that page is still there, with the same typo.] [UPDATE: Caesars finally fixed this typo on June 1, 2017.]

My marketing career has mostly consisted of not making the little mistakes that kill companies. Caesars, up to now, has had success with the WSOP while continually tripping over its own feet. I had hoped this was the year when they got smarter, but it looks like we'll have to wait for at least one more.

Sen. Feinstein responds (sort of)

A few weeks ago, I posted a letter that I had sent to Sen. Dianne Feinstein regarding her surprising support of the Sheldon Adelson-sponsored (some would say "bought") Restoration of America's Wire Act, a Federal bill designed to extend the powers of the Wire Act far beyond its authors' intent. I finally received a response today. While I didn't expect a personal reply, I honestly expected better than what I got - a form-letter response that reiterates her position and makes it clear that she's consumed a large dose of Adelson Kool-Aid. Her response follows, with my further response below.

For more on Adelson's attempt to buy Congressional support for this absurd bill, click here.

Dear Daniel:

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for Internet poker.  I appreciate knowing your views, and apologize for the delay in my response.

On February 4, 2015, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced the "Restoration of America's Wire Act" (H.R. 707), which would update the Wire Act to cover a broad range of Internet gambling.  The bill would thus return the statute to the interpretation given to it by the Department of Justice prior to 2011.  As you may know, I am a cosponsor of legislation (S. 1668) in the Senate.

I understand that you support the legalization of Internet poker.  I am afraid that this is an issue on which we must agree to disagree.  The dangers of Internet gambling have long been an area of concern for the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.  I share their view that Internet gambling is too easily accessible to minors; subject to fraud, money laundering, and criminal misuse; and too easily used as a tool to evade state gambling laws.

The "Restoration of America's Wire Act" has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.  Please know that while we may not agree on the legalization of Internet gambling, it is helpful for me to hear your perspective on this issue.  I respect your opinion, and will keep it in mind should the "Restoration of America's Wire Act" come before me in the Senate.

Once again, thank you for writing.   I hope you will continue to be in touch on issues that matter to you.  Should you have any additional comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

Sincerely yours,


  Dianne Feinstein
         United States Senator
============================================
Dear Sen. Feinstein,

I find your response disturbing in the extreme. It's OK with me that you sent a form letter response - I know that you must get thousands of emails every month. But a form letter, three weeks after my original email, that clearly doesn't address the issues at hand, is surprising and unacceptable from my elected Senator. I would hope that you have a human being who reads your email, but apparently either that's not the case, or someone decided that the issues I raised aren't worthy of comment. Either of these is disappointing and unacceptable.

On the assumption that perhaps a human reads THIS email - the views you describe in your response are quite out of touch with reality. What you said was:

"I share [the FBI and other law enforcement agencies'] view that Internet gambling is too easily accessible to minors; subject to fraud, money laundering, and criminal misuse; and too easily used as a tool to evade state gambling laws."

The view of law enforcement is only barely relevant. Law enforcement in the 1950s largely supported segregation, also. This is a legislative matter, not a law enforcement one (and it does not reflect the current position of either the Department of Justice or the FBI). The issues are far larger than this, and in fact each of the views you describe have been dealt with by the dozens of countries in which online gambling is legal. Specifically:

Underage gambling: There is no question that this is a key issue in this discussion. Industry estimates of underage gambling range from 1-2% of all online players - roughly the same percentage as the estimates for underage gambling in live casinos. And the means of verification and enforcement are far better online than in live casinos, who often let underage players play until they win, and then deny claims.

Subject to fraud: Having been in the industry for many years, I can tell you first-hand that online fraud (specifically credit card fraud, which I believe is what you refer to) is substantially lower than live credit card fraud. This is a regulatory and enforcement issue, and makes little sense as an argument against the industry at large.

Money laundering: This is certainly the most laughable of your claims, although it's been part of Sheldon Adelson's playbook since his campaign against online gambling started five years ago. Live casinos accept cash for over 90% of their transactions, making them far more vulnerable to money laundering than online casinos and poker rooms, whose money sources are nearly 100% traceable. As a glaring example, Mr. Adelson's own company settled a huge money-laundering claim in 2013 as a result of The Venetian's acceptance of $45 million in cash from a known drug trafficker. This crime could not have taken place online, as transactions as small as $10,000 are routinely examined and audited.

Tool to evade state gambling laws: I'm honestly not sure what this means. The vast majority of US casinos support legalization of online gambling. Properly implemented, online gambling can easily be restricted to defined state borders. This has been accomplished in Western Europe, where most countries have legal, regulated online gambling, as well as the three US states that have legal, regulated online gambling. What is your actual concern?

The bottom line is that a majority of your constituents, as well as a majority of casinos, support online gambling. Your arguments against legalization, while they may read well as bullet points, don't hold up to even the lightest scrutiny. If you have someone on your staff who actually understands these issues, I strongly urge you to have them either (1) articulate arguments against legalization that represent legitimate concerns that can't be resolved by regulation and stringent enforcement, or (2) stop obfuscating with irrelevant arguments.

Your position on this matter continues to make no sense. I look forward to hearing any reasonable arguments you have that support your arcane position on this matter.

Sincerely,

Daniel Goldman

An open letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein

I received an email today from the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), asking me to email my senator, Dianne Feinstein, about her support of the Sheldon Adelson-sponsored Restoration of America's Wire Act (RAWA). Since this is an issue that's close to my heart - I've previously written some analysis of Adelson's anti-online gambling stance - I decided that a personal letter made a lot more sense than the canned one the PPA asked me to send. That letter follows. Please feel free to plagiarize use any part of this you think appropriate if you contact your own Senator or Representative. If you want to use the PPA's form letter, which is pretty good, you can find it here.

Dear Senator Feinstein,

I have been an ardent supporter of yours since your run for Governor in 1990, voting for you then and in each of your campaigns for the Senate. I considered you a strong, fearless advocate, something that is quite rare in today's political climate.

Until now, that is. I find your support of Sen. Graham's Restoration of America's Wire Act reprehensible and irresponsible. I will set aside for now the discussion of the original 1961 Wire Act, which (despite your DOJ letter to the contrary) was never intended to regulate anything other than sports betting.

The real question here is the issue of online gambling and the impact of either regulation or a ban. The position you have taken on this issue is a nearly word-for-word copy of Sheldon Adelson's widely circulated opinion, which I find troubling in the extreme. Mr. Adelson has reversed his position on this matter since I first did business with him in 2006; at that time, he not only supported online gambling, but accepted millions of dollars from PokerStars (for whom I worked at the time). At that time, Mr. Adelson believed enough in online gambling that he allowed us to conduct a televised event at the Venetian, with both the Venetian and PokerStars logos on the table. I participated in a conference call in which Mr. Adelson participated discussing this event, so there is no question that he was both aware and supportive of it, which netted his company nearly $2 million.

In the intervening years, Mr. Adelson has changed his mind, and decided that online gambling is evil and destructive. Unfortunately, the data he has used to support this position is almost entirely fabricated. He has pointed to surveys showing a dramatic increase in gambling addiction in European countries that have legalized online gambling (which is most of Europe); however, the actual data shows the opposite. He has stated that live casino business suffers by as much as 20% when online gambling is introduced, even though published data shows a measurable increase. He takes the position that his and other casino companies can detect people with gaming problems and bar them, but this is far from the truth - casinos take almost no steps to control people with gambling addictions unless their problems disturb the casino floor. And he has taken the almost ridiculous position that his casinos can detect money laundering, despite the fact that the vast majority of live gambling is done with cash, the most easily exploitable means by which money is laundered.

The single area in which Mr. Adelson's arguments make a little sense is in underage gambling. This is a real problem, both in live and online gambling. However, banning online gambling doesn't solve this problem; in fact, it enables far more underage gambling by pushing the problem to unregulated non-US gambling sites, which have virtually no regulatory oversight.

I find your position on this subject particularly troubling because I have long respected your thoughtful positions on such issues as the assault weapons ban and medical marijuana for veterans. The position RAWA takes on online gambling is unsupported by almost 20 years of industry data, including over 10 years in legal, regulated markets.

As my Senator, I expect you to be the voice of reason in a Congress that often veers far from the course of reasonable choices. If you truly believe the position you have taken on RAWA, I strongly urge you to examine the easily-available data that exposes Mr. Adelson's position as nothing but a predatory business position. Absent this careful study, which your staff clearly hasn't done, your position is irresponsible and contrary to the facts.

As a constituent and long-time supporter, I respectfully request that you reconsider your position on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Daniel Goldman

Why Sheldon Adelson is a lying sack of mule muffins

Sheldon Adelson is chairman and the largest shareholder of Las Vegas Sands, the world's largest casino gambling company. About three years ago, Adelson decided that Internet gambling is the root of all evil in the world, and pledged to stamp it out. 

Coming from almost anyone else in the world, this pledge would hold little water. But this one comes from a guy who has the 12th deepest pockets in the world (according to the 2014 Forbes Magazine Forbes 400), with an estimated net worth of $28 billion. Rest assured that this guy has undue influence over American politics, having contributed over $100 million to various campaigns in the 2012 election. Adelson said a few years ago that he was willing to spend $100 million to wipe out Internet gambling; in a recent Bloomberg News interview, he revised that number to "whatever it takes" (more on this in a minute).

Adelson is a smart guy. He has long supported conservative Republican candidates, some of whom don't have strong feelings about Internet gambling. But an aspiring presidential candidate without strong feelings on this topic can easily be swayed by a fraction of the money Adelson is willing to spend on this campaign. Take Marco Rubio (R-FL) as an example. Three years ago, his stance on Internet gambling consisted of his saying, "I'm not a big fan." Now, after having passed the gauntlet of the Sheldon Adelson Primary (a gathering at the Venetian, technically called the Republican Jewish Coalition Spring Meeting, but widely acknowledged as a tryout for Republicans looking for Adelson's support), Rubio is not only rabidly anti-Internet gambling; he's cosponsoring Adelson's attempt to ban online gambling at the federal level.

A little history here: back in 1961, the Interstate Wire Act was passed and signed into law. The intent of the law was to restrict transmission of sports gambling information across state lines. Over the 25 years or so since the Internet became part of our lives, there have been repeated efforts to use the Wire Act to threaten or prosecute online gambling sites other than sports, although none has been successful (more on this in a lengthy 2-part article here).

In 2011, less than a year after Black Friday shut down the world's most popular online poker sites (PokerStars and Full Tilt), the Department of Justice issued a stunning opinion letter in response to a state-level request for clarification about selling lottery tickets online. The key sentence in this letter, from US Deputy Attorney General James Cole, read:

“The Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) has analyzed the scope of the Wire Act, 18 U.S.c  § 1084, and concluded that it is limited only to sports betting.”

Anyone who read the Wire Act already knew this, but the DOJ's formal renunciation of their former interpretation of the Act left the US with no federal-level legislation that directly impacted online gambling except the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The UIGEA, contrary to popular belief, didn't make any form of online gambling illegal. All it did was make financial transactions for illegal Internet gambling illegal, and it never defined what constituted illegal Internet gambling.

The heart of Adelson's anti-online-gambling campaign is a piece of legislation called the "Restoration of America's Wire Act." Keep that in mind as you read the rest of this story.

Let's go back in time a few years. In 2010, PokerStars was attempting to re-establish their presence in the US. One of these efforts was the North American Poker Tour, which was to consist of a series of events in the US and Canada. I have first-hand knowledge of this, because my wife Sharon and I both consulted with PokerStars on the project and were involved in the operation of the event.

When we first started discussions with the Venetian, Sharon and I met with Kathy Raymond, then-Director of Poker Operations for the Venetian. Before we had any serious discussions, Kathy informed us that the somewhat sensitive nature of PokerStars' involvement meant that their CEO needed to approve. That, of course, was Sheldon Adelson, and he did in fact approve PokerStars' participation. 872 players participated, generating a prize pool of over $4 million, of which over $200,000 went to the Venetian. But that was far from all - including rooms, events, meals, parties and all of the other revenue generated by an event this size, The Venetian took in no less than $1.5 million.

In fairness to Adelson, things did change after this, most notably Black Friday. I suppose Adelson could argue that Black Friday changed his thinking. But given his almost religious rhetoric describing online gambling as "sin," this seems unlikely. Somewhere along the line, Adelson became convinced that online gambling threatened his business, and took it on as a cause.

I'm not going to attempt to take a stand here - I think my attitude about online gambling is clear. But I'm going to dissect a very short video interview that Bloomberg's Betty Liu conducted with Adelson a few months ago to give you a sense of who this kingmaker is, and what he does with the truth (hint: it's not "telling it").

Here's the interview. I suggest you watch it, and then return when you stop laughing.

Following are my comments on this laughable effort to justify his position.

00:01

Adelson: "Why don't we legalize prostitution? ...Why don't we legalize drug addiction?"

Good questions, but they have nothing to do with this discussion. Gambling is a form of entertainment that is already legal, in one way or another, in 48 states. Neither prostitution nor drugs are.

00:15

Adelson: "The [air quotes] sin activity should be controlled."

OK. Which sins? Gambling? Oh, you mean just that online gambling stuff; never mind.

00:41

Adelson: "For instance, here in the land-based casinos, we're required to have the dealers shuffle a certain way. How do you do that in...on the Internet?"

This actually made me laugh out loud. (1) Allowing dealers to shuffle cards may be the individual biggest source of employee cheating in any casino. (2) Sands properties use ShuffleMaster machines extensively. What they do is nearly identical to the way cards are shuffled online. 

00:51

Adelson: "Here we're not supposed to allow underage people to gamble. How do you do that in (sic) the Internet? There's no technology a kid can't get around."

While it's true that no technology is unbeatable, there's another fundamental truth here: Every single player who plays online has to prove their identity and age. In live casinos, players at table games are often (not always) asked for ID, but players on slots are rarely asked - unless they win, in which case the win is voided if the player is found to be underage.

01:05

Liu: "But maybe, maybe, maybe the regulations have to catch up with the growth of the market."

Adelson: "No. There's nothing to regulate. I'm regulated in four jurisdictions. I don't know of one regulation that would apply to Internet gaming."

Once again, I had to choke back a laugh. That's true in the US, Sheldon. How about the United Kingdom? France? Australia? Your interpretation translates to, "We shouldn't regulate Internet gambling because there are no regulations."

02:01

Liu: "Your detractors say, look, the people that we've seen so far go online gambling, right, they're not visiting regular casinos."(We can debate the silliness of this statement another time.)

Adelson: "Because they're too poor."

Seriously, he said this. Can you conceive of anyone on the planet that is this tone-deaf? My best guess is that at least 50% of people who play online have visited a casino at least once. I'm probably off by a significant number, and it isn't down.

02:42

Liu: "Who's to say that's exploitation?"

Adelson: "I'm saying. And I'm the biggest guy in the industry."

I'm pretty sure I don't need to comment on that. The only thing he didn't say is, "I have $30 billion, and I say so."

03:33

Adelson: "Why should poor people, who cannot afford to lose that kind of money, be tempted with that kind of activity?"

This is a good reason for Adelson to shut down all of his casinos, no? Unless he's checking the bank accounts of every player who sits down to gamble at Sands properties, this is up there among his most disingenuous statements.

03:52

Adelson: "I can't tell (over the Internet) who's got financial difficulties. I can't tell who is not gaming responsibly. I can't tell whether money is being laundered. I can in the casino."

I'll give Adelson this one, provided that he tells me exactly what he does to find out if the guy playing $25 blackjack has financial difficulties. I'm pretty sure that I can just sit down at a table at The Venetian without providing a financial statement. He's right in the large - he can prevent money laundering to an extent, although his recent $27 million fine for money laundering says otherwise. But that is an issue for bigger gamblers - "poor people" aren't using the Internet to launder their money.

04:30

Adelson: "Do you think I'm bringing in unfortunate people to be exploited?"

I put that one in as a closing laugh.

What I've listed above is just a fraction of the blather that Adelson has spouted over the years. Here is another one that I'll let you watch on your own:

My favorite quote from that interview is one that will resonate with every poker player in the world. When asked about a carveout for poker because it's a skill game, his response was, "that (poker is) skill-based is just a bunch of baloney."

[Side note: keep an eye on the news for coverage of the upcoming trial of the lawsuit filed against Adelson by Steve Jacobs, former CEO of his Asian operation. Jacobs is suing for wrongful termination, accusing Adelson of money laundering (for which Sands Asia has already paid a $27 million fine), bribing public officials, having ties to the Chinese Mafia and...prostitution. None of these charges are proven, but the trial should be fun to watch.]

I know that everyone is entitled to their opinion. But this is a dangerous guy for our industry and our game. He has a personal, likely hidden, agenda, and he has limitless funds with which to implement it. There are bigger issues at stake than just poker - Adelson is a $30 billion blowhard intent on having his way. 

He's sure fun to watch, though.

Are you there, Caesars? It's me, Dan.

I've written several articles about Caesars' handling of the World Series of Poker, some critical ("Six ways Caesars screwed up the WSOP") and some not ("How Caesars saved the WSOP"). I see myself as uniquely qualified to critique Caesars' performance for several reasons: (1) I'm a longtime poker player, (2) I've been playing in the WSOP for 14 years, having played in 44 events, (3) I'm a marketing guy and (4) I have a lot of operations experience, some in casinos. So with that having been said:

Dear Caesars,

It's me, Dan. I know you've heard me complain before, but since we have a long-term relationship, I hope you hear what I'm about to say in its intended spirit, which is entirely constructive.

First, let me compliment you on a few things. You pulled off an impressive coup two weeks ago, running the largest tournament in the history of poker tournaments with surprisingly few logistical problems. You've improved the bathroom situation to an extent. And I can't say enough good things about your adoption of the "no flop, no drop" rule in cash games.

But before your head gets too big, I need to tell you that you have a very, very long way to go before your handling of the World Series of Poker moves up into the acceptable range. I know that gaming restrictions prevent you from changing much this year, but I hope you'll listen not just to me, but to the thousands of players who have rightly skewered you on social media. We're not just whiners. You've got work to do. 

Let me start by telling you that I know poker players are easy to ignore as a group. We whine about everything. Regardless of how good a job you do, we're always going to believe that you're just in this to fuck us. It's not a great starting position for a relationship. But we're the pretty girl and you want us at the prom, so get ready to know what it's going to take.

1. You came into this relationship at a disadvantage. Not only are we whiners, but we're predisposed to believe that you don't know poker, you don't give a rat's ass about what players think and you make decisions in a vacuum. I don't necessarily believe all of those things, but you need to know that this is the filter through which I'm going to judge you, as are my fellow fickle poker players. It's going to amplify the things you do wrong, and minimize the things you do well (unless they're amazing).

2. You have a lot of tangent points with your players, key of which are registration, cashouts, food venues and bathrooms. If you can create good experiences in each of these areas, you'll have leaped a giant hurdle in creating good feelings among your players. Unfortunately, even though you've now been at this for twelve years, I'd give you no higher than 5 on a 1-10 scale in any of these areas.

3. The first contact you usually have with players is registration, whether online or in person. Online registration is conceptually a very smart idea, but you've implemented it so poorly that it is just not worth the effort. It saves players no time, and in some cases causes them to wait even longer than players who just walk in cold. This is not terribly hard to fix - all you need to do is (a) come up with a means by which players can pay online (like PayPal), and (b) allow players to print their own tickets. Given the volume you do in a very short period, I suspect PayPal would be happy to work with you on rates. And your players may even be willing to pay some or all of that. I'd happily pay an additional 1% not to have to stand in line for an hour or more.

4. Cashouts have been a disaster this year, which is surprising, because in the past they've just been poor. I never expected that it could get worse. Now, I cut you a little slack because you ran the Colossus and had more people cashing out than you have registered for many events. But that excuse is only good for two days. I made my fifth trip today and was finally able to cash out, and even though there were only two people ahead of me, it took close to an hour.

One of your supervisors told me a few weeks ago that your typical cashout takes 12 minutes. That's unacceptably long, and having cashed out today, I can see where at least some of the problems are. One very obvious one: there's no reason why you need to scan every player's ID every time they cash out. It doesn't help a lot, but if it cuts a minute out of the process, that's an 8.5% improvement.

Related problem: you have, for some inexplicable reason, instructed your cashout clerks that every player cashing out must have their player's card. This makes absolutely no sense. I needed my player's card to register, so you know I have one. You know who I am, because you have (needlessly) scanned my ID dozens of times. If I have my card number, that should be more than sufficient. There's no legal, gaming or practical reason for this; in fact, when I asked a supervisor why this was a requirement, she very honestly replied, "I have absolutely no idea."

It would also help if you suggest that your cashout people not act like jackboot soldiers. When I finally sat down today to cash out from the Colossus, and told the clerk that I had my number but not my card, he said (this is an exact quote that I transcribed while I sat there), "I don't need the number, I need YOUR CARD, SIR. Go get a player's card and get back in line."

5. There's been a lot of discussion over the past year about WSOP.com. I know it's been somewhat less than the stellar performer you expected it to be when you launched. I can't speak to the rest of the year, but I can tell you that you've completely, and I mean completely, missed the boat in properly tying WSOP.com to the live WSOP. Three examples:

(a) You have thousands of players in Las Vegas for the WSOP. Many of them, like me, will play cash games and satellites at the Rio, but we would also play in satellites online - if you'd schedule them. It's crystal clear looking at the WSOP.com satellite schedule that the people who created it aren't talking to you guys. Let's use today as an example. It's Wednesday, and on Friday you have one of your biggest events, the Mega Stack. There are exactly ZERO satellites for the Mega Stack (OK, there was one at 4p. 4p, really?). Tomorrow, the day before the event, there are two. You should be running dozens. You don't have to guarantee them all, which I assume is the reason there are so few.

(b) In addition to the satellites I mentioned, you have started running satellites that award two $500 lammers. That's a great idea. Why not extend that great idea and run satellites that award ONE lammer? You could run more of them, even with a one-lammer guarantee, and they'd fill up.

(c) In a classic case of the left hand not having any idea what the right hand is doing - I won an online satellite two weeks ago for an event the following day, and didn't receive anything (no email confirmation, no call, nothing) about how to claim it. So I emailed support at about 1a, and immediately received an auto-responder saying you'd get back to me within 24 hours. I got no response, so I called the support line at 9a. The first response from the woman who answered (who had to consult someone else) was, "Follow the instructions in the email we sent." Well, OK, but you didn't send one. "Oh, OK, hold on." A few minutes later, she returned and said (seriously), "We'll have someone get back to you within 24 hours." When I explained that the tournament was in 3 hours, she asked me to hold again. When she returned, she said, "Just go over to the WSOP and go up to the second floor." I explained to her that there was no second floor. Her response: "I don't know what to tell you. That's what they told me."

When I went to the Rio, there was absolutely no one who had any idea how to process my win. I got lucky and ran into Johnny, a WSOP.com guy who was very helpful last year, and he was a superstar. He stayed with me until they got my ticket, which took close to an hour.

I sympathize with the difficulty in running a huge poker event - I've run a few, including the PokerStars Caribbean Adventure. There are thousands of little details, any one of which can trip you up. But we're not talking about those details here - we're talking the big things, the ones you guys should have spent 10.5 months out of every year since 2004 getting right. Yes, you've improved some things. But you've also made some worse. And until you get the big things right, your customers (because that's what we are - we're players, but we're your customers) are going to continue to hold your feet to the fire.

In closing, I'd like to remind you of something that you will probably laugh at. The WSOP is the gorilla that makes 900 pound gorillas look like capuchine monkeys. But so was Ashton-Tate, who in 1986 was in a virtual tie with Microsoft for the world's largest software company. Or here's one you've heard of: America Online. Or Paradise Poker, who owned the online poker market with more than 80% market share in 2002, and was effectively gone in 2004. 

You know what killed those companies? Arrogance. It can happen to you, too.

We've had a good run at this relationship. I hope it survives, because I do still love you. But you better get some counseling.

Regards...dan