No, no - not Las Vegas
By Jonathan M. Anderson, Special to the Rocky
Published May 10, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
If you are planning a trip to Las Vegas or Atlantic City after November for some high-stakes gambling, you might not need to leave Colorado.
The Colorado Gaming Association has submitted a 2008 ballot initiative that would pave the way to raising existing bet limits by 475 percent, allow for 24-hour gambling operations, and add Vegas-style craps and roulette to the existing gaming options. Essentially, they want to turn Colorado's limited gaming towns into a Western-themed Atlantic City.
When Colorado citizens voted for limited gaming in Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek in 1990, we relied on the proponents' express campaign promise that gambling in Colorado would be so limited - with low $5 stakes, restricted hours and limited games - that the harms and abuses inherent in higher-stake gaming would not be an issue in Colorado.
Since the limited gaming initiative was passed, seven ballot measures to expand gaming in Colorado have been resoundingly rejected by Colorado voters. These measures have attempted to expand gaming into western Colorado, eastern Colorado, Manitou Springs, lower downtown Denver, Trinidad and into racetracks throughout the state.
Attempts have been made to expand gaming across the entire state but these measures have been voted down by collective average margin of 76 percent. Colorado citizens have made it crystal clear that this state does not want to expand gaming beyond what was approved in 1990, but the Colorado Gaming Association is going to try to blow this door wide open in 2008.
Over the next six months, Colorado voters will have to endure yet another slick multimillion-dollar expansion-of-gaming campaign. The gaming association, made up of casino owners, will pour enormous sums of money into this initiative campaign; in fact they have already hired an elite army of lawyers, lobbyists, pollsters, consultants and campaign advisers to pass the initiative in November. These casino operators are not requesting a reasonable increase in the bet limit to account for inflation since 1990, they are seeking a dramatic and permanent shift away from limited stakes gaming in Colorado.
While limited stakes gaming has provided a boost in state revenues for worthwhile causes such as historic preservation, this does not justify a sharp turn toward the darker world of high-stakes gambling. As we all know, "serious gamblers" don't bother with Colorado's limited-stakes gaming towns - they want high-stakes, around-the-clock action with a full array of Vegas-style gambling options. This was exactly the point in passing limited stakes gaming in 1990 - keep the addiction, bankruptcy crime and corruption out of our backyard. Now Colorado voters will have to reaffirm this stance again in 2008.
If Colorado voters were to adopt this initiative and open Colorado's doors to high-stakes, 2 4/7, full-blown Las Vegas-style gambling, it would create an immediate financial incentive for gaming corporations and Indian tribes to expand operations to other Colorado locations, and especially into densely populated metropolitan areas. Of course, proponents of this measure will argue that it is not their intention to expand gaming in Colorado beyond the 2008 initiative measure, but Colorado voters heard that same line in 1990. Colorado is one of the best states in which to live because we protect that which makes it so good. This initiative isn't worth the gamble.
Jonathan M. Anderson is an attorney in Denver who worked extensively on gaming issues as chief counsel to Gov. Bill Owens.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
DPS improvements
This interactive shows you how schools will benefit under the bond proposal.
-
2008 Voter’s Guide
Use our Ballot Builder tool to compare your viewpoints to the candidates.
-
Broncos Game Action
Slide shows of the Broncos-Jags quarter-by-quarter photos from Invesco.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's totally biased postgame rant about the Broncos-Jaguars game.
-
A Dozen on Denver
Manuel Ramos' story is featured this week on 'A Dozen on Denver.' Check it out!
-
Peak Picks
Submit your fall foliage photos to our contest and vote on other submissions.
-
Presidential Elections
See how Colorado counties have voted through the years.
-
County election profiles
A look at how residents in each Colorado county may vote.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
May 10, 2008
3:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
fatdog writes:
Mr. Anderson is right on the button. In addition, we voted for the preservation of historic towns, with the 35% percent limit on area devoted to gambling, thinking of a few slot machines in the back of the store with a little blackjack table. HA HA HA!! The joke was on us, and the results were hardly preservation of the historic towns. Clever people continue to confund even the interested voters. jkd
May 10, 2008
4:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
Politicians in Blackhawk are preserving their own homes with the money, recent investigation shows. They may as well let gambling pay more of the bills. People in this country are addicted to any number of things, main one religion, look at the Rev Kenneth Copeland, they send him money to buy a $20 million jet, taking the chance there IS a God and heaven. He does it under the guise of God making them rich, just like the ads of the casinos. You gamble when you vote for a politician, hoping they will do what they promise, how has that worked out? Not so good.....
May 10, 2008
6:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
So what? Gambling is a business. People want to gamble. Let them. Things evolve whether you like it or not. If the market is there then develop it. If it isn't there the attempt will fail. Let the marketplace decide.
Too many nannyists want to control the "vices". People should not be made into criminals for natural "vices" such as gambling, drugs, and sex.
May 10, 2008
6:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
claudelong writes:
I object to Mr Anderson's thinly veiled morality. Please stop saving us from the gambling demon, Mr. Anderson. The truth is that it is not only the high stakes gamblers staying away from the casinos. Any student of gambling knows that the only way the better has of evening the odds built into any game in a casino is the ability to vary the bet. Betting more when you win and less when you lose is the only way to counter the house advantage in odds. The five dollar limit takes away any chance the bettor has to win. I'm not a high stakes gambler, but I stay away from 5 dollar bets (and therefore Colorado casinos). Personally, I'm a big believer in boycotting. If Mr. Anderson is against gambling, he should stay away from the casinos. People who want to decide what other people can do make me nervous.
May 10, 2008
6:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Those foolish enough to think they can beat the odds deserve little sympathy when they leave the casinos empty-handed. Higher stakes will only hasten their departure and help fatten Colorado's coffers. For a state which relies so much on "clean" tourism, expanding gambling seems like a great attraction. Bring it on!
May 10, 2008
7:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ginger writes:
Mr. Anderson should come clean and admit who he's really speaking for here -- the historic preservation community, which is crying "boo-hoo" that any NEW revenue generated from this proposal will benefit Colorado's statewide community college system for financial aid and classroom instruction programs. Community colleges are the very institutions that supply the Colorado restaurants, hotels, ski and gaming industries with workers, in other words, the tourism industry.
This initiative preserves the revenue stream for current recipients of gaming tax funds, such as tourism, historic preservation, arts, film, clean energy, etc. The historic preservation interests have received over $300 million dollars in gaming taxes since limited gaming was approved in 1990, and now they have the audacity to cry for more. Colorado historic preservation funds are higher than New York, Massachusetts, Virginia - states founded more than 100 years before Colorado. What's left to restore in the state -- structures built in the 1980s?
May 10, 2008
9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brunowolfe writes:
There is nothing "thinly veiled" at all about Mr Anderson's attempted morality piece on the Colorado Gaming Comissions ballot initiative. This is obviously an attempt by Gov. Owens to begin his fight against it. Even the picture and caption on it aren't truthful: giving the impression that the dealer at the casino was taking that much money from the poker hand as the casino's take.
The initiative that was passed in 1990 to allow limited stakes gaming was almost 20 years ago, and that initiative was representative of the time. Poker, and gambling, have taken on a completely different place in the American (and Coloradan) life. After Chris Moneymaker (a rank amatuer) won the World Series of Poker Main Event, the American zeitgeist on poker completely changed. I play in several home poker games a month, with Teachers, Lawyers, Judges, businessmen, college students, etc. Poker is accepted as a game in mainstream America now.
What Mr Anderson, and his ilk, do understand is that "what makes it (Colorado) so good" is that we "protect that which makes it so good". What they DON'T understand is what those two statements mean to Coloradans: that we allow people to live their lives as they wish with as little government involvement as possible, NOT that we force OUR version of morality on them.
Mr Anderson attempts to pander to our worst fears using the key phrases "24/7", "high-stakes gambling", "475% increase"(!!!)and worst of all "Las Vegas". At no point in his Opinion piece did he examine any of the things that could be done with the revenue that is either leaving Colorado or being spent on something else. Why would he bother with examing both sides and coming to a conclusion? Because his position on this issue isn't determined by analysis, it's determined by ideology...
Mr Anderson can't even get the numbers right: raising the $5 betting limits 475% would mean that the maximum bet would be $23.75 (lol). I can't imagine a casino producing a $23.75 chip...
Semi-professional poker player...
May 10, 2008
9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
alcambell_9 writes:
This effort is a product of the smoking ban. I know that because I was in on the discussions over a year ago with independently owned casinos when it was brought up. The independents don't want it because they don't have the money to support high stakes gambling and they think that would rob them of their costomers and futher decrease the profits that the smoking ban caused. Corporate casinos want it because they think that would mitigate the losses that the smoking ban imposed on them.
Across the board, all casinos are 10 to 15 percent down on their reveue and the corporate casinos think increased betting limits will up their profits. However that's a false idea, if profits are down at a $5.00 limit where do they think the money will come from, out of state gamblers will not come hear because most of them smoke and that is not allowed in Colorado. They'll go to Vegas or New Mexico where they can indulge their preferences which causes more lack of tax revenue to the State, so they must increase taxes on the public.
May 10, 2008
10:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eagle5 writes:
I do not think we want Las Vegas in Colorado. What we need though is voter ballot issues concerning everything about Casinos and gambling. I believe wager limits, how gambling revenue is to be used in the historical districts (no doggie doors), and allowing smoking or not should be voter decisions - not legislative or special interest dictates. Hours of operation should be a choice of the owners. With the above "push" going on, it is no wonder you can no longer win anything in the casinos!
May 10, 2008
11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brunowolfe writes:
Mr Campbell states that "This effort is a product of the smoking ban". While this may be true, I cannot care less where the effort initiated. Casino profits are down nationwide, not just in Colorado. It's not due to a smoking ban, it's due to an overall effect of the downturned economy. People have less disposable income.
In regards to Mr Campbell's assertion that "However that's a false idea, if profits are down at a $5.00 limit where do they think the money will come from, out of state gamblers will not come hear because most of them smoke and that is not allowed in Colorado." is silly. Every casino has a smoking area. Not every gambler is a smoker. Increasing the limits to $25 will mainly increase the number of Denver area and Colorado springs area people who will go to Cripple Creek or Blackhawk to play POKER. The slot machine people will continue to play the cheap slots. Craps will never be much, and neither will roulette. The extreem majority of people who play slots are going to continue to play the cheapest slots. What will change is that poker players who understand that $5 limit poker is nothing more then a donkfest (and the house is unbeatable due to the $5 rake per hand), those players will go to blackhawk and play $25 limit poker because it will be beatable. At every home game I play at I hear the same thing "I wont go to blackhawk to play $5 donkfest limit poker. I would go up there if they raised the limits, though". If you think no one from here is going to go up and play at higher limits, you don't understand the poker landscape in Denver. It has nothing to do with smoking, and everything to do with the amount of the limits....
May 10, 2008
11:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
Let's just put a huge banner on the state capitol building: Welcome Organized Crime!
May 10, 2008
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brunowolfe writes:
kathyM said: "Let's just put a huge banner on the state capitol building: Welcome Organized Crime!"...Intellectual discussion at it's worst and Fear-Mongering at it's best!!! That kind of knee-jerk reaction is reticent of the typical uneducated doofus that is against something based solely on ideological reasons...
Are you really of the opinion that the casino's in Vegas are ran by organized crime? Jesus, don't you opponents of gambling do any research at all before you shoot your mouth off???
Harrah's and other casino operators are registered on Stock Exchanges and have to abide by all the same financial rules as IBM, Yahoo, Starbucks, etc. Organized crime long ago left the casinos when the big corporations hit the gambling world. Casino's are hugely regulated.
What isn't regulated are the underground clubs (such as the old Matterhorn, the GinRummy Club, or the numerous non-storefront games), where people are playing because they can't find that kind of game at the casinos in Colorado.
Quit posting nonsensical knee-jerk reactions and try researching and arguing points based on said research, rather then some bizarre form of "faith based" ideology....
May 10, 2008
6:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
MrPeabody writes:
Gee, Brunowolfe, lighten up - it's not like YOU don't have a dog in this fight. I think it is not a bad idea to hear people's perspectives on this.
Vegas was founded by mobsters. It took most of this century for the feds to drive out most all of the mob ownership and influence (and crime) out of casino ownership. I'm not totally sure it is all gone. But some people have concerns about the "other activities" that flourish along with high stakes gambling. You may call it fear mongering but I call it reality.
Personally, I don't have an opinion either way on this issue, as I'm not a gambler. If I want to gamble, I "donate" a buck or two when Powerball gets over $100 million. Same chance of winning, virtually nil.
For those who really want to gamble with higher stakes, why is it so hard to travel to Vegas or Atlantic City? Do we really need to turn our state into a competitor with those places? I think it is a valid question.
May 10, 2008
9:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
Brunowolfe, it's you who don't know what you're talking about. Casinos in the Detroit and Chicago areas didn't even get built before the mob got their hooks in. Atlantic City's mob-casino history goes back decades.
Right now the Colorado casinos are small potatoes. But go to high-stakes gambling, and Colorado's casinos will be involuntarily sold to shady guys with entourages of thugs and pin-striped lawyers. They'll be successful because they get the working guy on their side (whether he knows it or not). They'll bring in lots of cash, start unions in the casinos, raise pay rates, hire lots of people, and expand/build new casinos, bringing lots of jobs and tourists. The amount of influence (votes) all this goodwill buys only ensures the mob's influence in the political arena, where of course they'll work to protect their racket.
You think this is fiction? Many of today's Chicago mobs have their origins in the prohibition days. No one has been able to dissolve them (not even Elliott Ness) in nearly 100 years. The history in NYC and New Jersey go back even farther.
I really don't think a mob gang would run away under the threat of a high-noon shootout any more than it would play by Colorado's rules. Don't kid yourself.
If you want to blow big bucks, go to Vegas. Keep the mob out of Colorado.
May 11, 2008
8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
prk166 writes:
$100 limits & adding some games? This isn't going to turn anything into Atlantic City. It didn't happen when they added the gambling years ago & it won't happen with these changes.
May 11, 2008
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
There is not much room to build in Blackhawk and Central City. Let the current casino owner's have high stakes gambling, why? One reason is tourism. When you go to Vegas that is all that is there. In Colorado we have an immense amount of things to do here. Sure you can go see a big show in Vegas but who can offer high stakes gambling,skiing,many vacation spots and a whole experience for the family? How much can a person do in Vegas? How many things do Colorado have to offer? That's why you see alot of 2-3 day trips to Vegas.
Another reason is the poker world has changed immensely. Bringing the WPT to Colorado is a great way to show off our state without spending a dime of tax payer money. If these two things happen it will bring many things to Colorado. It will bring tourists,not just the 2-3 day junket tourist's either. It will bring tax revenues that would lower our taxes. It will bring noteriety to Colorado as a beautiful state to bring the whole family. No need for a 9 billion dollar tourisism commision. It will still be a small gambling town but it will bring in high stakes,pro players with name recognition to Colorado. You can't buy that kind of publicity.
kathyM, it will not bring the mob. Colorado is not an attraction because they will not be able to expand beyond what it currently there. Besides we already have our own mob ( the legislature and government)and everyone knows other mob members are not supposed to operate in another mob's territory. You watch too many old documentary's. Everyone knows the mob of old is dead.It has been replaced with straight mob member's with legitimate businesses. They are called the government.
Let people gamble if they want and stop trying to legislate morality. Besides if gambling is so bad, why have it at all. If an alcoholic is an alcoholic he can't just take a sip of beer and move on. The same goes with gambling. You either have it or you don't. You either let the casino's run like real casino's or do away with them. This selective regulated vice is stupid. It is not going to allow the casino's compete with Las Vegas. Raising the limits will allow more tourism in the state without the government saying come to our state and we will tell you what to bet. Let's stop the holding of your noses when it comes to gambling.
One question no one has brought up is if the gambling limit is $5 per bet ,how does the Colorado Lottery get away with selling scratch tickets for over $5?
May 11, 2008
9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brunowolfe writes:
KathyM and Mr Peabody's comments are typical of the people who understand little about how the modern gaming industry works. Their opinions are based upon TV images of how vegas and Atlantic city used to be, and not based upon the reality of today's gaming landscape.
telling someone to "lighten up" when they make their argument is akin to saying "you have too much passion". try making an argument to rebut my points, instead of silly throwaways.
You make the statement Mr Peabody that you'll throwaway a couple bucks on powerball with a "same chance of winning virtually nil". Your perogative. I make a living playing poker. I have a large number of friends in the industry locally, and globally. If you want to throw away money on the worst gamble possible (lottery), have at it. But why should the people who are misguided paranoids who don't gamble and know nothing of the industry, such as KathyM, be allowed to decide for me if I want to play at higher stakes then $5 in my honme state?
Rediculous comments such as "high noon shoot outs", "mob", etc. only show either KathyMs inability to intellectually debate a topic, or a basic lack of education. kathyM said "Many of today's Chicago mobs"....that statement is just laughable. Exactly how many "chicago mobs" are there today (lol). And where did you find this information? Just hillarious....The mob DOES NOT run casino's in Vegas anymore, nor in Atlantic City. They are all large entertainment corporations, with SEC fillings, etc. Find one casino run by the mob and bring that information here and show it. otherwise you are fear mongering with NO factual data to back it up. KathyM said that the casino coporations would "start unions in the casinos(every dealer in Blackwawk would LOVE this), raise pay rates, hire lots of people, and expand/build new casinos, bringing lots of jobs and tourists". Hmm....that's a negative? More jobs and decent wages is a negative??? You appear to be a paranoid delusional kathy.
The estimated tax revenue for gambling at $100 stakes was over $30 million. For schools, etc. Show something, or make a decent argument for why that is false. Or a cost-benefit analysis that shows why the costs would be greater then $30M revenue. Otherwise, all you are doing is showing your ignorance on a topic that you obviously know nothing about.
May 11, 2008
9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brunowolfe writes:
One other thought:
The basic premise of all arguments here against raising the stakes in gambling is "higher stakes = mob" fear-mongering. And each time the premise is re-presented, it's by someone who isn't a gambler and someone who has no knowledge of the of the current gaming landscape, and someone who is incapable of producing an argument to support their premise. It's all ideologically based, neither pragmatic nor practical, with no factual basis for their points of view. Vudumom's point regarding having a little gambling being OK, is right on. If you thought marijuana was bad, would you be ok if you let you kid have a little bit? As long as it was only one joint and he didn't smoke an ounce a day? I'm a firm believer in moderation, but not legislated moderation. It faintly reminds me of the old discourse regarding pornography, the old "I'll know it when I see it"....lol
May 11, 2008
9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
vudumom, I have to disagree with you on this one. Any group with power--legitimate or not--will make room in the casino towns by any means necessary.
My family has had some unpleasant run-ins with organized crime, and one died at the hands of the mob. So don't tell me I'm watching too many movies.
Sure, the "mob of old" is gone. No mobster runs around with a fedora and a tommy gun anymore. The Sopranos are even old-style. The Mob 2.0 are guys with MBAs who know how to work the system and fly under the radar, who employ muscle to back them up--and their ruthlessness makes the old mob look like a bunch of grannies.
Organized crime exists. And if you think they'd pass up a big-money opportunity like a high-stakes Colorado, you are also kidding yourself.
May 11, 2008
10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
Brunowolfe, so you're a professional poker player. Bully for you. As if that gives you a crystal ball into the gaming industry.
If I'm paranoid delusional, then who killed one of my family, threatened another and took over his union, and got another fired because she wouldn't "give" them a public works contract? Oh, I know! It was those little gray aliens!
May 11, 2008
10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
mtnboy75 writes:
The one thing that I would be concerned about is the "vig" associated with all of the high stakes (greater than $5 bets) games, the "vic" being the percentage the odds are skewed in the favor of the house. In places like Vegas, there is a lot of competition in the Casino industry, so laws of economics ensure that the vig is lowered to a level where the well run casinos are profitable, but competetive enough so that there is a fighting chance for the gamblers.
My concern with this issue is that the Indians, a single entity, controls the gaming indusrty in Colorado. There may be different owners, but they belong to the same group. Maybe the Indians in charge of the gambling industry in Colorado are responsible citizens and I may be worrying too much about this, but this structure with one primary controlling group would make it very easy to collude so that the odds are stacked even more against the gambler.
QUESTION TO THE EDITOR: with this proposition, are there any measures to ensure competion amongst the casino owners? Or at least a requirement that the vig to be in line with those seen in Vegas?
I grew up in Vegas, so I have stories about high school buddies with parents that gambled away entire college funds. Having legalized gambling in a competetive environment is one thing, with its own set of problems. If legalized gambling is brought about in a manner where greater odds can be stacked against the gambler, I'm sure that will bring about a whole new animal, maybe with even uglier consequences. Frankly, I think it would be very irresponsible.
One other item of note, if the vig can't be competetive in Colorado, you won't be seeing any of the high rollers come here, they tend to flock to where the vig is most competetive.
If the stakes are high and the vig is high, the only people giving money to the casinos will be the ones that don't know anything about gambling. Most likely these same people would be the ones that couldn't have afforded to set foot into the casino in the first place. It will basically be a distribution of wealth within Colorado from the foolish and desparate into the casinos. Not much, at least nothing statistically significant, will be contributed from out of state.
May 11, 2008
2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brunowolfe writes:
kathym.....like i said,,,you're a paranoid delusional....lol
May 11, 2008
3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
Your only argument is to deride me. You've shown your hand--I mean, IQ--and it's pathetic.
May 11, 2008
6:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
MrPeabody writes:
KathyM - don't waste your time trying to debate a person who knows it all because he is a professional poker player. He disqualified himself from being credible by implying that there was no mob influence in Chicago which, as anybody who has lived there knows, is laughingly funny.
Yes, Brunowolfe, you have passion because you want this due to your lifestyle. Some of the rest of us regular folks don't really see the benefit of trying to compete with Vegas or Atlantic City for the higher stakes players. You may want to downplay or pooh-pooh the other less desirable things that inevitably follow high stakes gambling where-ever it goes.
We can attract other kinds of tourism without having to raise the limits to this extent. This basically goes against the argument that was made when limited stakes gambling was introduced here. Get your foot in the door, then try to change the rules seems to be the strategy being employed here.
I really don't see the upside for the state of Colorado, unless money at any cost for the state coffers is fine by us. If gamblers like Brunowolf want to engage in their favorite passion, I'm fine with it, as long as they have to travel out of state for their high stakes indulgences.
I'm not about legislating others' morality but would rather not see us caving in to gambling corporations going back on their original word. Hopefully, the voters of this state will once more resoundingly let the gambling community know that we are not interested in any expansion.
May 11, 2008
10:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
Thanks for the backup, MrP. Nice to know there are other people who know the reality of organized crime and the damage it can do.
To me, gambling is a huge waste of money, so I don't do it; but I'm not demanding the Colorado casinos be closed down. I AM saying that we'll create more problems than we'll solve by raising the stakes.
The World Poker Tour thing is silly, but my family enjoys card games. My father-in-law can count a 4-deck blackjack shoe and has cleaned up in Vegas. And my 9-year-old has cleaned up in Texas Hold'em at a table full of adults.
May 12, 2008
8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brunowolfe writes:
Point of clarification Mr Peabody (since you are incapable of such a thing yourself...), I never said "no mob influence in Chicago). Your reading comprehension is a little bit lacking. I said the mob doesn't run organized large gambling corporations.
As I've said KathyM...provide backup for your allegations that the mob runs gambling in vegas and atlantic city. You haven't done that. provide some analysis that shows that the costs incurred from the increase in limits will be greater then the increase in tax revenue. Give something that backs up your opinion, other then unsubstantiated personal annecdotal evidence (lol). neither you nor Mr peabody have done that.....typical of the person driven by ideology: completely ignore facts and data and questions that debate your particular stance. Typical "donk" (it't s a poker term)...
You don't answere my questions or provide proof or back-up because you can't. Your position is based upon ideology (i.e: you doan't want it cause you "think" it's bad): mine based on future tax revenue analysis, what the colorado poker player wants....Your another uneducated person who won't step beyond their knee jerk reaction....you're an idiot.
Enjoy the continued posting, and comfort in finding people who think "just like you do"...lmfao
May 12, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
kathyM, I understand your concern. My family is from Chicago and my grandparents and great grandparents were bootleggers and number runners for Al Capone. They did not die nice deaths either.
Those days are gone. The Mafia has only a small portion of of what they had years or decades ago. I really can't see them coming into our state. The legislature here is way too tight for that.They watch and legislate everything. They control everything we do here in Colorado. They may be crazy but they are crazy like a fox.
No one has answered my question. If the betting limit is $5 in Colorado? Why can the lottery sell scratch tickets for more than $5? We already have our own organized crime here. It's called the Colorado Politicians.
May 12, 2008
10:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
Yeah, I'm just making all of this up--me and the FBI:
*In 2007 and 2006, major members of the Gambino, Luchese, Bonanno, and Genovese crime families were busted for everything from racketeering to murder...oh yeah, and the violent control of the NYC cartage industry (and its unions).
*In 2005, 14 members of the Chicago Mob were arrested. Among the major charges were controlling unions (imagine that!), intimidation, and 18 murders.
Check it out for yourself...unless you can't handle being WRONG!
BTW, I never said organized crime only meant the Italian Mafia. Some of the newest players are Russian, Albanian, Greek, Laotian, and Vietnamese gangs. Again, check it out for yourself...unless you can't handle being WRONG.
May 12, 2008
10:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
Maybe organized crime thinks all casinos are small potatoes now because sissies like Brunowolfe call themselves professional poker players, but their max loss is the entry fee for the tournaments--they don't even play with real money--just like Monopoly! How can a mobster cash in on that?
May 13, 2008
6:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
Great points in your last post,kathyM. I forgot about all the outside mafias in this country. Yes, there is still a mafia organizations in New York and Chicago.I'm still not sure how much influence they would have in Colorado. For one thing the unions are not strong here. However you do make a very strong arguement backed up with recent mafia arrests.
May 13, 2008
8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
vudumom, I can count on you to see and consider facts, even if you don't agree w/the premise.
May 13, 2008
12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
RickyB215 writes:
kathyM, sorry for the experience you've had with the mob... and yes, I'll grant you that organized crime still exists in certain places today...
However, the Colorado model being proposed is very similar to that of Deadwood, SD and also Florida's poker stakes - which were both at the micro-stakes level for a number of years & have recently been expanded to approximately the $100 level being considered in Colorado.
These stakes still do not compare to the no-limit money in Las Vegas or Atlantic City. If there are examples where Deadwood and parts of Florida (or other parts of the country with similar limits) has been overrun by the mob due to $100 stakes, I'd be happy to consider them - but I just do not believe that to be the case.
Casinos of today are owned & operated by big business - without the shady backrooms of Vegas in the 60' & 70's. And all we are going to be asked to do here is vote as to whether we believe adults have the right to choose recreational gambling at more (moderate) adult-level stakes. ($100 instead of $5).
I personally am in favor of this proposal mainly because I am in favor of personal responsibility and personal freedoms. I resent government's attempt to protect reasonable adults from harming themselves. If I choose to spend an afternoon in Cental City playing cards for $10, 20, 50 or $100, I don't want to be told that I'm not responsible enough to make that type of decision for myself.
May 13, 2008
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brunowolfe writes:
kathyM....are you completely incapable of coherent thought? Of keeping on topic? As oppossed to you hijacking this thread to talk about some sort of percieved "mob" connection to you (your 15 minutes of "fame" here), or how the mob is alive and running today?
You made the acusation that casino's in Vegas are controlled by the "mob". I've asked you to prove it, by providing some form of documentation. You've done nothing of the sort here. And why the "italian" reference? Some sort of prejudice there (like: I'm not prejudice against black people, some of my best friends are black?...lmfao).
I've never disagreed with your premise that their is "mafia" or "mob" in this country. I agree there is. What I am saying is that Vegas casino's in this country are controlled by large entertainment corporations, that are listed on the SEC.
I guess that you need some research learning how to construct and argument supporting your opinions but first, perhaps, some research to form your opinions. Your opinion on this subject is based solely on ideology, and not on any facts related.
And as for calling me a "sissie"....could you be any more pathetic in your failed attempt to provide a coherent argument.....I laugh at you.....
May 13, 2008
4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
Brunodoof, ALL of your posts have contained nasty, snide, personal condemnations of all who oppose your opinion. That's a logical fallacy, not an argument.
What you do isn't real gambling when all you can lose is your entry fee. Maybe you can measure up at an old ladies' cribbage tournament. Feels good to be on the receiving end of your "argument" strategy, doesn't it?
So the Italian mob has moved on from the casinos; I stand corrected. But that doesn't mean they're not gone from Las Vegas anymore than they've left NYC. Nor does it mean casinos are clean. Here's something the FBI, Department of Justice, and I made up: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/c....
Gangs don't have to walk in the front door shooting anymore in order to steal millions. And they certainly don't have to tell YOU about it.
May 13, 2008
8:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
RickyB215 writes:
Mike Rosen hosted a great discussion on this topic this morning on KOA radio... you can still find it under his section of the KOAradio-dot-com website... both sides of the arguement were presented... very informative... listen with an open mind.
May 14, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brunowolfe writes:
kathym: I can't decide which is funier: your inability to provide a coherent argument for your position, or your ability to be a complete hypocrit....lmfaoau
Your link provides NO, I repeat NO, connection between casinos and mobs. Where the organized crime is, is in the "underground" gambling. It's not in the companies running casinos. But nice attempt at backward engineering your position through a google search...lmfao
For some reason you've arrived at the (misinformed) conclussion that I only play tournaments. Another mis-logical leap from you. I play cash games also. Around Denver, and in vegas, etc. For some bizarre reason you think that a cash game at the casino would be worse then a tournament game....silly....
And these attempts at "baiting" me only prove one thing: that you are incapable of presenting an argument to support your position. I've asked you to provide anything to support your argument and you havent't. Instead you've called me a sissie, made some bizarre reference to "old ladies cribbage" and how good your 9yr is at gambling (playing poker) for money (with the obvious intonation that he would kick my ass at it). I learned along time ago that what you say says nothing about me but everything about you...Can't you see the insanity in your position and argument and back-up. I pity your 9 yr old for having to grow up in that kind of intellectual environment. I'm sure I'll be paying for his incarceration well into my 60s....lol
May 14, 2008
1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brunowolfe writes:
RickyB215, thanks for the link to Rosen's interview with Mr Anderson. Good stuff.
Fairly obvious that Mr Anderson has financial and ideological intersts (his fees) in deciding his side on this issue. Interesting, on several fronts, that the first caller was the lawyer for the Colorado Gaming Comission and he accussed Mr Anderson of some shady stuff...
Mr Anderson showed himself to be very ill informed on the economics, etc, ("i'm not an expert on the economics of gaming", etc, etc.) of the issue: He's driven solely by ideology. As usual with Mike Rosen, he's all in favor of less governmental incursion into deciding the populaces life styles/choices. Mike, of course, out argued Mr Anderson: Rosen is an outstanding debater, and Anderson came with no backup-up data to support his points, other then some silly Newsweek study that Rosen shot holes through...
What I'm wondering is, if Anderson's Opinion Piece was just an attempt to put him in the spotlight on this issue, in order for him to be in a position to be paid as a speaker/attorney on this issue for either the Restoration group, or someone else who has a financial stake on the side of this failing. If so, he did himself no favors by appearing so unknowledgable and unprepared....
May 14, 2008
5:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
Yep, I baited you like you baited me. It's a rhetorical technique called hypocrisis: holding the mirror up to the opponent so he can see how stupid he looks. And it went right over your head.
I ceded your point about the mob in Vegas, but you were too busy insulting me and my family to notice.
BTW, my kid is a girl with a genius IQ. Her father is a scientist with patents an a genius IQ. And I'm an English instructor and author with a genius IQ.
Gambling is still a stupid waste of money, even though you and others enjoy it. See ya at the next Mensa meeting.
May 15, 2008
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brunowolfe writes:
kathym: nah, you don't have a genius IQ: you can't even debate....
Your whole argument was based around "increase in gaming = Mob", you've now ceeded that that statement is incorrect. Good. You have given no additional anything to back up your position, and as a self proclaimed "genius" should be able to quickly see that your position was wrong and you should change sides. Gambling may or may not be a "waste of money", but it's my money, and in this country I get to decide for myself how to spend it. As a self proclaimed "genius", I'll expect you to realize now that your position is untenable, and expect to see your vote as a yes on the gambling initiative on the ballot this Fall.
Thanks for your future support.....