PPA current campaign is seen as smearing gambling industry ?

[MiltonFriedman]

From today's Las Vegas Review Journal Inside Gaming:

"We're told some Capitol Hill offices are still being swamped with telephone calls, especially from the Poker Players Alliance. The alliance argues that proposals to make banks enforce the ban on online gaming by blocking transactions puts freedom at risk. But more seriously, the negative grass-roots campaign is blasting the gaming industry as being sleazy."

What is going on ? Why is the PPA campaigning against the gambling industry as being sleazy ?

[Coy_Roy]

Well I don't know if that's true or not but I do believe it's the right thing to do, seperate poker from the other types of online gambling that is.

Take care of poker FIRST.....worry about the others later.

Sad to have to act this way, but it may be the only way to save our great game.

[Nepthu]

Well offline US gambling is losing $$$ to online gambling. So it is in there best financial interest to try and shut down online gambling to protect their profits. I think it is probable that they did the lobbying and funding to Frist and were responsible for getting the recent anti-online gambling legislation through.

So maybe the PPA is campaigning against the offline US gambling industry for doing that?

[NorthDakota]

I have no idea what the PPA gameplan is and if the Gameplan is smart...

But, they are the only dog in the hunt right now...

Good Luck to the PPA

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
Well offline US gambling is losing $$$ to online gambling. So it is in there best financial interest to try and shut down online gambling to protect their profits. I think it is probable that they did the lobbying and funding to Frist and were responsible for getting the recent anti-online gambling legislation through.

So maybe the PPA is campaigning against the offline US gambling industry for doing that?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is complete speculation and completely off base. The B&M US casino industry worked very hard behind the scenes to block any Internet Gambling language/legislation from becoming law.

As for the PPA's message and plan. I haven't heard what people are relaying to Hill offices, but it seems that the PPA realizes that the next step in the fight is in the regulatory drafting process.

Separating poker from other forms of gambling such as blackjack and roulette is probably a good idea. I'm not sure it will work, but it gives the PPA the best chance to succeed in the future. It brings in arguments of skill, player vs. player (not vs. house), and traditional pastime.

[Nepthu]

[ QUOTE ]

The B&M US casino industry worked very hard behind the scenes to block any Internet Gambling language/legislation from becoming law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there anything the B&M US casino industry has done to block internet gambling legislation that can be verified?

[Moneyline]

I just read the entire article (it's very short) and what was written doesn't really add up. First of all, to my knowledge the PPA hasn't organized any member campaigns related to phoning members of Congress since the bill was signed into law. So I find it hard to believe anybody is getting swamped with calls anymore. I know for sure that the PPA has never encouraged its members to call the rest of the industry "sleazy."

Secondly, the author doesn't name his sources. I think it's very relevant who is telling him this. For all we know it's a member of Goodlatte's staff. Also, for all we know the arguement that forms of gambling outside poker are sleazy may have been stated by just one random PPA member calling on his own.

The author ends his piece on the PPA with: [ QUOTE ]
That taint (of being sleazy) could have traction and do long-term damage to the industry Las Vegas depends on if the sleaze factor figures into voting patterns.

[/ QUOTE ] This statement makes no sense. Does he really think citizens who support a poker exemption are going to somehow vote against the gambling industry as a whole? Is he saying that members of Congress who vote for an online poker exemption are going to turn against other forms of gambling more than they already have?

The one paragraph piece on the PPA is vague, unsubstantiated, and seems like a shallow attempt to whitewash that organization by painting it as anti-Vegas.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The B&M US casino industry worked very hard behind the scenes to block any Internet Gambling language/legislation from becoming law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there anything the B&M US casino industry has done to block internet gambling legislation that can be verified?

[/ QUOTE ]

Outside of my word and direct knowledge, I'm not sure there are press reports to such effects. It was a behind the scenes effort.

[Nepthu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The B&M US casino industry worked very hard behind the scenes to block any Internet Gambling language/legislation from becoming law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there anything the B&M US casino industry has done to block internet gambling legislation that can be verified?

[/ QUOTE ]

Outside of my word and direct knowledge, I'm not sure there are press reports to such effects. It was a behind the scenes effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you get your direct knowledge?

[faustusmedea]

A couple notes; first, online gaming is not affecting B&M negatively and the confirmation is in the last couple years profits for the industry. Katrina adversely affected them, but by and large the casino biz is growing. Second, with 120k in members, why can't the PPA act like a real organization and let members know what the hell they are doing? In reading the RJ article, its unclear about the meaning and what was said, but we should know what their strategy is as members; no? Finally, the AGA (B&M Trade assoc.) sponsored a study on online gaming and it is pretty interesting.

http://www.americangaming.org/assets/files/2006_Survey_for_Web.pdf

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
How did you get your direct knowledge?

[/ QUOTE ]

Via my job and a friend who I work with closely that happens to represent Harrah's

[Nepthu]

[ QUOTE ]
online gaming is not affecting B&M negatively and the confirmation is in the last couple years profits for the industry. Katrina adversely affected them, but by and large the casino biz is growing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes the B&M can still be profitable, but they may be more profitable if they can eliminate internet competition.

They can grow, but perhaps they can grow at a higher rate if they can get rid of internet competition.

I don't think growth and profits prove that online gambling doesn't affect B&M negatively.

[BluffTHIS!]

I am one who has maintained that we have to separate poker not only from other forms of gambling, but also especially sports gambling. But that doesn't mean we need to attack those other forms of gambling, just not hitch our wagon to theirs. I presume PPA realizes that, and nothing they have as yet said supports a contrary view.

My money says this is a false report seeded by someone who wants to start a competing organization or already has one, inlcuding those supporting other forms of online gambling and who don't want us going our separate way.

[Nepthu]

[ QUOTE ]
The B&M US casino industry worked very hard behind the scenes to block any Internet Gambling language/legislation from becoming law.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How did you get your direct knowledge?

[/ QUOTE ]

Via my job and a friend who I work with closely that happens to represent Harrah's

[/ QUOTE ]

It looks like the ABA represents the casino industry.

from The American Gambling Association (ABA)

"The AGA represents the commercial casino entertainment industry by addressing federal legislative and regulatory issues affecting its members and their employees and customers, such as federal taxation, regulatory issues, and travel and tourism matters."

from : http://www.americangaming.org/about/overview.cfm (2nd paragraph)

They have a letter to sen kyl on the unlawful internet gambling funding prohibition act. Here is a piece of it:

"With these changes to the original version of S. 627 the AGA could support the legislation."
(from the 2nd paragraph from the bottom)

from: http://www.americangaming.org/Press/correspondence/correspondence_index.cfm (click the top article)

They may be working behind the scenes to protect their interests. But from their own website, not only do they not oppose outlawing internet gambling but they activley SUPPORT it.

[Berge20]

That was from 2003, but feel free to use it as your keystone for arguing the B&M industry pushed for outlawing online gambling in the US.

I don't have the time to go back and forth on this issue right now, but perhaps others will chime in. Perhaps after the election when my head isn't spinning.

[BluffTHIS!]

Nepthu,

As Berge said, their position is likely different now, and their most recent statements pre-ban were that they were "neutral". You should realize that Berge is a political insider in DC and likely has the best information as to actual lobbying of the AGA during the runup to the bill.

While personally I have opined in the past the same as you that they might be in favor of the bill in the short term to hurt the online sites with a view to getting it repealed later when they wouldn't be facing dominating market leaders for US players, I will accept Berge's assertions to the contrary as far as their most recent lobbying position behind the scenes.

[faustusmedea]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes the B&M can still be profitable, but they may be more profitable if they can eliminate internet competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the motion picture industry tried to unsuccessfully argue this way during the advent of videotape. Now the industry makes most of its money from rentals...

Its simply illogical to believe introducing people who might have never gone to a casino to poker will not create net gains for casinos. Last year, online sites sent over 4000 entries to the WSOP ME; do you suppose Harrahs was not happy about that? Do you feel they could have generated all of those entries via alternative advertising?

Moreover, Harrahs was smart and forced every entrant to take a players card. Yesterday, I received a promotions letter from Harrahs. Its called tie-in marketing.

Its fine to question the what/why of this stuff and the casinos certainly have a strategy which we may/may not be fully aware of, but it isn't true in 2006 to say the casinos wanted the bill passed. What is important though is moving them from a neutral position to an active role in legalization/regulation.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Separating poker from other forms of gambling such as blackjack and roulette is probably a good idea. I'm not sure it will work, but it gives the PPA the best chance to succeed in the future. It brings in arguments of skill, player vs. player (not vs. house), and traditional pastime.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree but only if it is done in a positive way.

Say what is good about poker but avoid being negative about other legitimate forms of gambling.

[MagCFO]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The B&M US casino industry worked very hard behind the scenes to block any Internet Gambling language/legislation from becoming law.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How did you get your direct knowledge?

[/ QUOTE ]

Via my job and a friend who I work with closely that happens to represent Harrah's

[/ QUOTE ]

It looks like the ABA represents the casino industry.

from The American Gambling Association (ABA)

"The AGA represents the commercial casino entertainment industry by addressing federal legislative and regulatory issues affecting its members and their employees and customers, such as federal taxation, regulatory issues, and travel and tourism matters."

from : http://www.americangaming.org/about/overview.cfm (2nd paragraph)

They have a letter to sen kyl on the unlawful internet gambling funding prohibition act. Here is a piece of it:

"With these changes to the original version of S. 627 the AGA could support the legislation."
(from the 2nd paragraph from the bottom)

from: http://www.americangaming.org/Press/correspondence/correspondence_index.cfm (click the top article)

They may be working behind the scenes to protect their interests. But from their own website, not only do they not oppose outlawing internet gambling but they activley SUPPORT it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, welcome to 2006.

I work in the gambling business every day, and I can tell you the B&M casino's are NOT against online gaming.

Back in 2003, when your support was written, that was the case, but 3 years later, the casinos have seen how positive the effect has been for them.

I'm not sure why you're on such a crusade to show the casino industry supports the ban. They don't, stop wasting your time.

All of the Nevada house members voted NO to the house bill that passed. Wouln't you think congressman from Nevada would vote for the ban if it was viewed as helpful to the largest industry in the state? Did you see the youtube video of the Nevada representative ripping bill frist on the house floor over this bill?

[Nepthu]

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, welcome to 2006.

I work in the gambling business every day, and I can tell you the B&M casino's are NOT against online gaming.

Back in 2003, when your support was written, that was the case, but 3 years later, the casinos have seen how positive the effect has been for them.

I'm not sure why you're on such a crusade to show the casino industry supports the ban. They don't, stop wasting your time.

All of the Nevada house members voted NO to the house bill that passed. Wouln't you think congressman from Nevada would vote for the ban if it was viewed as helpful to the largest industry in the state? Did you see the youtube video of the Nevada representative ripping bill frist on the house floor over this bill?

[/ QUOTE ]

Big casinos made campaign contributions to Frist. They didn't do that to be patriotic or for some sort of charity. They expect something in return for those contributions. I doubt Frist screwed them over by passing a bill they didn't want.

[coachkf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The B&M US casino industry worked very hard behind the scenes to block any Internet Gambling language/legislation from becoming law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there anything the B&M US casino industry has done to block internet gambling legislation that can be verified?

[/ QUOTE ]

Outside of my word and direct knowledge, I'm not sure there are press reports to such effects. It was a behind the scenes effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you get your direct knowledge?

[/ QUOTE ]

When did you start following this legislation? October 14th? Just curious, because if you were around this forum at all during the MONTHS leading up to the eventual passage and signing, you wouldn't have to ask this last question. Berge and Mr.K slog through the political filth on Capitol Hill daily. (notice Berge's location... I would point you to his avatar pic, but he's deleted it?)

At any rate, most folks accept that "the B&M's hate online poker" is an old concern, and that B&M's now recognize how internet poker has helped fuel new growth to B&M's, and want a piece of the online action as well.

If you check the voting record on the original bill that passed the House in July, I'm quite positive 100% of Nevada rep's voted against the ban. The way they vote = the B&M's feelings towards the matter, in my opinion.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes the B&M can still be profitable, but they may be more profitable if they can eliminate internet competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the motion picture industry tried to unsuccessfully argue this way during the advent of videotape. Now the industry makes most of its money from rentals...

Its simply illogical to believe introducing people who might have never gone to a casino to poker will not create net gains for casinos. Last year, online sites sent over 4000 entries to the WSOP ME; do you suppose Harrahs was not happy about that? Do you feel they could have generated all of those entries via alternative advertising?

Moreover, Harrahs was smart and forced every entrant to take a players card. Yesterday, I received a promotions letter from Harrahs. Its called tie-in marketing.

Its fine to question the what/why of this stuff and the casinos certainly have a strategy which we may/may not be fully aware of, but it isn't true in 2006 to say the casinos wanted the bill passed. What is important though is moving them from a neutral position to an active role in legalization/regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

First... The big internet ban scare.

Second... All of a sudden poker rooms are looking toward Epoker rooms.

Third... A lot more hands an hour at the same rake.

Fourth... No dealer salary, No Chip Runners, Almost no overhead.

Fifth.. I think the LLLLARGE increase a casino could see in their poker room profits because of egaming is immense.

Sixth.. Who would be the biggest supporter of epoker in a casino.... Banned Online Players

Seventh.. Whose side do you think the casino is on now??

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]


First... The big internet ban scare.

Second... All of a sudden poker rooms are looking toward Epoker rooms.

Third... A lot more hands an hour at the same rake.

Fourth... No dealer salary, No Chip Runners, Almost no overhead.

Fifth.. I think the LLLLARGE increase a casino could see in their poker room profits because of egaming is immense.

Sixth.. Who would be the biggest supporter of epoker in a casino.... Banned Online Players

Seventh.. Whose side do you think the casino is on now??

[/ QUOTE ]

This is temporary, and won't last through 2007.. Why wasn't B&M poker doing this well for the 100 years before Internet Gambling? Don't give me the TV explanation, Chris Moneymaker was an Internet Qualifier.

I would never have entered a live casino if I couldn't have played online first to get my bearings. Once the effect of the zillions of dollars of poker advertising from Party Poker goes away, the B&Ms are toast, unless they want to spend those zillions themselves.