In a study commissioned by the anti-online gaming and poker crusader Sheldon Adelson, a research group has found that, while many people are not opposed to live gaming, they have objections to the online version of the same activity.
In a memo dated October 9, The Tarrance Group and its founding partner, Dave Sackett – a research organization which was hand-picked by the Las Vegas Sands Corporation (which Adelson is the Chief Executive Officer of) – reported to the LVSC the results of a survey that they conducted from June to October of this year. Their report covered approximately 2200 “likely” registered voters in four states (Pennsylvania, California, Kentucky and Virginia) and attempt to demonstrate that Adelson’s anti-online gaming stance is the correct one.
When asked about their opinions on allowing for live casino gaming, the four states as a conglomerate were 60% in favor of the issue (Pennsylvania topped out at 66%, Virginia the lowest at 54%). It was a bit closer when those surveyed were asked if their particular states should expand live gaming to generate revenues; Pennsylvanians was 54%-41% in favor of the idea, while Californians were evenly split 48%-48% (Kentucky and Virginia do not have live casinos).
In three of the four states (PA, CA and KY), the survey participants state that they have a “positive” view of Las Vegas casino style gaming (Virginians are 44%-48% against the idea). Overall between the four states, the average is a 53% ratio of respondents who have a positive view versus 39% against it.
The survey takes a turn, however, when those polled were asked their views regarding online gaming. Every state was well over the 60% threshold against the idea (VA in at 72%, PA at 69%, KY at 63% and CA at 61%). Overall, the Tarrance Group report shows that, among those surveyed, 66% of the respondents had a “negative” view of online gaming and poker. Furthermore, Kentucky and Virginia respondents favored the current ban on internet gaming (there isn’t one, but apparently that’s beside the point) and all four states opposed legalizing online gaming or poker.
There are some severe issues with the survey and its findings. Not listed in the memo was how the questions were framed to the subjects of the study. As we’ve seen with many political issues and polls, how a question is asked of its subjects can have an effect on how they answer the question. If the Tarrance Group questionnaire was framed in any way to influence the response of its subjects, then the entire study has to be dismissed.
The second point of interest is in who was surveyed. The Tarrance Group’s website readily admits that they are a “widely respected and successful Republican strategic research and polling firm.” As such, their database of potential respondents is logically going to be Republican in nature; the GOP has taken a firm stance, according to their 2012 platform, that the party wants to outlaw online gaming and poker on a national level.
Using only members of one political mindset could also skew the results. A more balanced approach (33% GOP, 33% Democrat, 33% Independent, for example) would have more applicable results.
Adelson’s approach to online gaming has been likened to that of a dinosaur making its last roar before death. Instead of embracing the new outlet (as many others in the Nevada casino industry have), Adelson has taken to the pages of many magazines and newspapers to fight potential federal regulation and licensing of the industry. He has also created a website and organization, Stop Internet Gambling, that will logically lobby against any further expansion of online gaming in Nevada or nationwide.
With the results of this pseudo-survey in his pocket, we can count on Adelson making more anti-online gaming and poker statements. Whether they are heard by the people isn’t important; Adelson just needs to have an impact on the only segment of the population that he courts and seemingly cares about – those in positions of power in the government.
“How to lie with statistics.”
It will be a very long time before I spend another penny in one of his casinos and I call on all players that want on-line poker back to boycott the Sands’ properties. When it starts to negatively affect his botton line, the obvious reason he’s taking this “moral” stance in the first place, he’ll get the message and back off in a heartbeat.