PPA Statement

[Taylor Caby]

The State of Poker

By Michael Bolcerek, president, Poker Players Alliance



Tonight, in an annual tradition, the President of the United States will address the Congress, his cabinet and our country on the “state of the union” and the goals of the government for 2007. It is not likely the president will include the “state of poker” among his crucial national issues. Thus, I would like to take this moment to provide an update on where poker sits today and examine how you and the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) can continue to work together to preserve and protect the game we love.



As we know painfully well, poker has come under vicious attack over the past year. We continue to learn on a regular basis about home and tavern poker games being raided by law enforcement and how charitable Texas Hold ‘Em tournaments are being shut down. Perhaps even worse, we have seen the federal government’s full force efforts to curb this American tradition from the Internet. Legislation aimed at prohibiting you from funding your online poker accounts passed the U.S. House this summer, then was quietly slipped into a port security bill, literally in the dark of night, which was signed into law on October 13. During these troubling times, the PPA has given you a voice to express your opposition to the government’s intrusive actions and to rally in a united fashion against these constitutional incursions.



The impact has been jarring, as the largest, publicly traded online poker operators shut down services to U.S. players. While many reputable sites still offer services to U.S. players, recent actions to close down payment processors and to subpoena banks are clear indications that the federal government is aggressively pushing the online gambling prohibition.



We don’t have to tell you that a prohibition won’t work, and in fact will likely cause many more problems than it aims to solve. The unintended consequences will soon be apparent and all the good intentions of protecting children, helping problem gamblers, and ensuring the integrity of financial transactions will be lost as rogue sites and unregulated payment methodologies surface to replace the trustworthy operators the government is driving out of business.



The PPA is not standing idly by. Poker should be exempt under the new law and that exemption is our primary goal. I have spent a good portion of January in Washington, D.C., meeting with lawmakers and others to get support for legislation that would provide a “skill game” exemption for poker. We hope to have a bill introduced very soon and then bring to bear the voice of more than 135,000 members of the PPA to push Congress to do the right thing. This would be a very positive development for the game. For the past year, we have been on the defensive, but now is the time to go on the offensive and get a bill introduced.



This year we will also be taking the issue directly to Members of Congress in their home districts, to truly nationalize the debate. We had a tremendous response from our members about becoming PPA grassroots representatives on the state and regional levels. Soon we will be announcing our positions across the country and engaging U.S. Representatives and Senators where they used to feel safe from facts and spirited debate.



While we are working toward the short-term goal of a poker exemption, the PPA will also be laying the foundation for the eventual U.S. regulation of online poker. This is the only proven public policy for online gaming. Licensing, regulating, and taxing online poker is technically feasible and the sensible and fiscally responsible thing to do. We will be working with others in Washington to move Congress in this direction.



Finally, we not only rely on your active participation but also on your active support to achieve our goals. Our new site now offers no cost introductory annual memberships. Please help us build our membership to enable us to deliver a full house to Congress and stop further threats to our game. Tell your friends, family, and fellow players to become members of the PPA. We also offer an ability to upgrade your membership from introductory to full membership and beyond. Our new and improved Web site, www.pokerplayersalliance.org (http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org), gives you tools and information to help our cause, as well as make it easier for you to donate to the PPA. I hope you will make a contribution at http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/donatenow.php.



2007 will be an important year for poker. With your help and continued support we are optimistic that poker will remain a great American tradition.

[addictontilt]

Gotta give press release props here

[Uglyowl]

More updates from PPA please. Thanks. Despite Mason's hate let us know what is going on.

[Hatchet]

Please name some of the Lawmakers you have met with...

[Darque Nuts]

I joined the PPA last year (via Party Poker). Michael Bolcerek's statement is fluffy, but the "2+2 Statement on PPA" (see link below) makes me wonder if someone is trying to cashin on our woes. I hope the PPA is legit, but the proof is not yet in the pudding.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post8351829 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8351829&an=0&page=0#Post 8351829)

[Grasshopp3r]

The PPA can quickly address Mason's concerns. If not, we should disavow them and rally around Mason and a new organization.

[ollie5050]

[ QUOTE ]
The PPA can quickly address Mason's concerns. If not, we should disavow them and rally around Mason and a new organization.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gifi fell out of the chair when i read this.... now the chair is missing one arm.

[pifhluk]

oh boy here we go again, "ppa sucks" "ppa steals our monies" "ppa kills kittens"

The fact still remains that they are the only organization that even claims to help our cause, thats worth $20 to me. Bolcerek has been on tv in magazines etc. he is doing something.

[Lucky]

[ QUOTE ]
The PPA can quickly address Mason's concerns. If not, we should disavow them and rally around Mason and a new organization.

[/ QUOTE ]

sarcasm?

[TheFish]

[ QUOTE ]
makes me wonder if someone is trying to cashin on our woes. I hope the PPA is legit, but the proof is not yet in the pudding.

[/ QUOTE ]


PPA is useless, but it's the only organization fronting for the poker community as a whole. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few more arise in light of rescent events, but also require a "membership fee" for their esteemed efforts...

[Eaglesfan1]

[ QUOTE ]
The PPA can quickly address Mason's concerns. If not, we should disavow them and rally around Mason and a new organization.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this def could work... if Mason was actually doing something for our cause...

[MiltonFriedman]

"Powerful industry leader and President of the Poker Players Alliance, Michael Bolcherek, claimed on Tuesday ..."

Say what ?

It takes very little juice to get a bill introduced. However, I wish him luck, as the AGA is not really behind a poker-carveout ... MGM wants it all legalized for US casinos/Harrahs would take a carveout, probably due to their diminishing value poker brand.

[permafrost]

Help me follow the logic here. The PPA's primary goal is to get a bill passed by Congress that gives poker a skill exception to the "new law". States then will have no choice but to allow any and all poker businesses since it is a skill game exempt from laws.


PPA will then move on to the "only proven public policy" for online poker; U.S. licensing, regulating and taxing. But if Congress earlier gave poker a skill game exemption from laws, why would they ever need to regulate and when was online regulation ever proven?? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[curious123]

I only browsed over this, but that confused me too perma.

[yeahright]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The PPA can quickly address Mason's concerns. If not, we should disavow them and rally around Mason and a new organization.

[/ QUOTE ]

sarcasm?

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely that was sarcasm....2+2 has made it very clear that have no plans to help the effort to save online poker. Here's Mason's quote from a couple days ago.

"Two Plus Two is not making any effort to form a player's group. But there are some posters here who are discussing this option and it is their perogative to do so."

Has anyone ever gotten an answer on why 2+2 will not support anything? Do they have some kind of vested interest in online poker being banned?

It just seems strange.

[SlapPappy]

It seems clear to me that Sklansky, Mason, and whoever else don't care that much about saving online poker. This is not a shot a Mason, or Sklansky I just think they don't consider it very important to them.

[Capitola]

[ QUOTE ]
Help me follow the logic here. The PPA's primary goal is to get a bill passed by Congress that gives poker a skill exception to the "new law". States then will have no choice but to allow any and all poker businesses since it is a skill game exempt from laws.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think so, at least not the second part.

I'm guessing their goal is just to get a carveout from the UIGEA and by extension the Wire Act. States will still be able to regulate poker and gambling however they want. It will still be illegal in Washington unless they change their law. But at least the DoJ will be off the backs of pure poker sites.

Also, I think US-based poker sites could then be set up as long as they didn't serve any states/jurisdictions where it was illegal. This would probably be tricky given all the ambiguous state gambling laws out there.

That's my take on it, anyway. Like a lot of people, I'll be waiting to see if a bill actually gets introduced. It probably won't go anywhere, but I'd be somewhat impressed with the PPA if they got it introduced.

[Knight Vision]

[ QUOTE ]
at least the DoJ will be off the backs of pure poker sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen any indication the DoJ is on the backs of the pure poker sites.

[Capitola]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
at least the DoJ will be off the backs of pure poker sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen any indication the DoJ is on the backs of the pure poker sites.

[/ QUOTE ]
Their pursuit of the PartyGaming founders is a little bit scary, since Party didn't offer sports betting when they opened and, according to some, didn't offer betting on American sports until after they had pulled out of the US market. So what exactly is the DoJ basing their case on? The two weeks that Americans could bet on horse races before they got booted off? Not much cash to be had there, and I'm sure cash IS an objective.

In any case, right now the DoJ position is that all forms of gambling violate the Wire Act, so we have no guarantee they won't go after pure poker sites. An explicit carveout would do wonders for online poker.

[JPFisher55]

Actually, IMO if a federal law giving poker this exemption is passed, then, under a line of cases referred to as the dormant commerce clause cases, that exemption would preempt state laws on online gambling.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, IMO if a federal law giving poker this exemption is passed, then, under a line of cases referred to as the dormant commerce clause cases, that exemption would preempt state laws on online gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I ask again, why would PPA then need to promote regulation of something that has just been made perfectly legal?

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, IMO if a federal law giving poker this exemption is passed, then, under a line of cases referred to as the dormant commerce clause cases, that exemption would preempt state laws on online gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I ask again, why would PPA then need to promote regulation of something that has just been made perfectly legal?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would not appeal to a libertarian but regulation can be used to help problem gamblers, ordinary players and help promote the game to a wider audience.

In Sept 2007 any UK based site will have to do quite a few "good" things because of the regulations. Ok things a site could choose to do anyway but under the regs they must...

Hold players money in a segregated account
Pay out promptly
Clearly and accurately show the odds (casino etc not poker really)
Ensure the games are fair and have them tested/audited
Make users set deposit limits per week/month
Show users what their total loss/win is
Show users how long they have been playing that session
Ensure all registered players are over 18
Allow players to self exclude
Link to gambling help sites/groups
Have a responsible gambling policy
Seek to identify and help problem gamblers
Pay towards gambling research and gambling welfare services
Be "fit and proper" people - no crims.
Monitor for and report potential money laundering activities.

After all this they get official sanction which makes the site more attractive to the casual player. (More Fish)

[AssFrister]

[ QUOTE ]

In any case, right now the DoJ position is that all forms of gambling violate the Wire Act

[/ QUOTE ]

The lottery is a skill game, man. If anyone here sucks at predicting random numbers that's their problem. Oh let me guess, lottery is rigged right? LOL. Yeah OK. Maybe you bunch o' fish should work on your games?

[yeahright]

more public information...

http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/m_opr_vie...E&CLIQUAL== (http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/m_opr_viewer.exe?DoFn=3&CLI=POKER%20PLAYERS%20ALLI ANCE&CLIQUAL==)

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, IMO if a federal law giving poker this exemption is passed, then, under a line of cases referred to as the dormant commerce clause cases, that exemption would preempt state laws on online gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I ask again, why would PPA then need to promote regulation of something that has just been made perfectly legal?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would not appeal to a libertarian but regulation can be used to help problem gamblers, ordinary players and help promote the game to a wider audience.

In Sept 2007 any UK based site will have to do quite a few "good" things because of the regulations. Ok things a site could choose to do anyway but under the regs they must...

Hold players money in a segregated account
Pay out promptly
Clearly and accurately show the odds (casino etc not poker really)
Ensure the games are fair and have them tested/audited
Make users set deposit limits per week/month
Show users what their total loss/win is
Show users how long they have been playing that session
Ensure all registered players are over 18
Allow players to self exclude
Link to gambling help sites/groups
Have a responsible gambling policy
Seek to identify and help problem gamblers
Pay towards gambling research and gambling welfare services
Be "fit and proper" people - no crims.
Monitor for and report potential money laundering activities.

After all this they get official sanction which makes the site more attractive to the casual player. (More Fish)

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying you can't have an exemption or carveout without also having regulations for that exemption? That doesn't seem to be the PPA (and others) stance.

[yeahright]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, IMO if a federal law giving poker this exemption is passed, then, under a line of cases referred to as the dormant commerce clause cases, that exemption would preempt state laws on online gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I ask again, why would PPA then need to promote regulation of something that has just been made perfectly legal?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would not appeal to a libertarian but regulation can be used to help problem gamblers, ordinary players and help promote the game to a wider audience.

In Sept 2007 any UK based site will have to do quite a few "good" things because of the regulations. Ok things a site could choose to do anyway but under the regs they must...

Hold players money in a segregated account
Pay out promptly
Clearly and accurately show the odds (casino etc not poker really)
Ensure the games are fair and have them tested/audited
Make users set deposit limits per week/month
Show users what their total loss/win is
Show users how long they have been playing that session
Ensure all registered players are over 18
Allow players to self exclude
Link to gambling help sites/groups
Have a responsible gambling policy
Seek to identify and help problem gamblers
Pay towards gambling research and gambling welfare services
Be "fit and proper" people - no crims.
Monitor for and report potential money laundering activities.

After all this they get official sanction which makes the site more attractive to the casual player. (More Fish)

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying you can't have an exemption or carveout without also having regulations for that exemption? That doesn't seem to be the PPA (and others) stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there regulations for online horse betting? Are banks pulling out on online horse betting sites?

No...so don't worry about the other garbage people post on this forum.

If poker gets an exemption like horse betting, we're fine.

[ekdikeo]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely that was sarcasm....2+2 has made it very clear that have no plans to help the effort to save online poker. Here's Mason's quote from a couple days ago.

"Two Plus Two is not making any effort to form a player's group. But there are some posters here who are discussing this option and it is their perogative to do so."

Has anyone ever gotten an answer on why 2+2 will not support anything? Do they have some kind of vested interest in online poker being banned?

It just seems strange.

[/ QUOTE ]

You not only post every message as if you are a shill for another organization, but you also appear to have a reading comprehension problem, or you are a news writer for FOX News.

Not forming a player's group doesn't have anything to do with not supporting anything, or having a vested interest in getting online poker banned.

How many other forums are setting up their own player's group? Let's seeeeeee here..... NONE.

I admit I've only been on this forum for about a week now, but I'm already sick of reading your messages, and am hoping that someone will install an "Ignore user" function.

[ekdikeo]

By the way, "regulation" would generally imply licensed, inspected, and on the up-and-up.

I just read through the Michigan law that authorized casinos outside of Native American lands, as I was editing it to fit on a web-page (35 or so pages of absolutely mindnumbing repetitiveness).. and I learned a lot about how casinos operate. They have a lot of requirements. The state also gives a huge responsibility for making sure that they are all running within their parameters to the Gaming Board, as well. Some requirements similar to what Richas stated, as well as others.

They are also pretty heavily taxed - 8 to 18% here in Michigan, which I know if I were taxed 18% of my gross income when I was running a business in this state, I would've been out of business in no time flat. Fortunatly, the casinos have no physical product that they are selling (however, I bet maintenance of their facilities and equipment isn't too far off from Cost of Goods for a retail business, but I don't have THAT much insight after reading that bill)

People will have more confidence in a regulated industry, although that will automatically limit the number of entrants that you have in the business.

The Michigan casino law basically requires a drop of somewhere around $10.5M to get a license and up and running, in addition to whatever facilities would be required, which basically automatically precludes anyone not already in the casino business, or who is severely wealthy to begin with. I'd imagine that there would be similar legislation to deal with online gaming, especially if the existing casino lobby were involved in getting that legislation going.

The government isn't going to have any interest whatsoever in keeping the status quo, aside from perhaps not pissing off a few million citizens, which they generally don't give a crap about anyway.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
If poker gets an exemption like horse betting, we're fine.


[/ QUOTE ]


Horse racing is legal in and regulated by several States (and has some Federal rules to follow). Since it is legal, the UIGEA never applied. There is no exemption.

Online poker is not lawful and regulated in any State. The exemption would have to say "UIGEA covers all unlawful Internet gambling except unlawful Internet poker". Or would it say the US government declares poker to be lawful?

I need to hear more about this poker exemption that somehow will be an "exemption like horse betting". Explain to me how it will work and what it will say, so I see the light.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
It would not appeal to a libertarian but regulation can be used to help problem gamblers, ordinary players and help promote the game to a wider audience.

In Sept 2007 any UK based...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So you are saying you can't have an exemption or carveout without also having regulations for that exemption? That doesn't seem to be the PPA (and others) stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I am saying that regulation can potentially benefit poker players, problem gamblers and poker overall. I'd also suggest that it is easier to convince a majority to allow regulated poker than to allow completely unregulated poker.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would not appeal to a libertarian but regulation can be used to help problem gamblers, ordinary players and help promote the game to a wider audience.

In Sept 2007 any UK based...

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
So you are saying you can't have an exemption or carveout without also having regulations for that exemption? That doesn't seem to be the PPA (and others) stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I am saying that regulation can potentially benefit poker players, problem gamblers and poker overall. I'd also suggest that it is easier to convince a majority to allow regulated poker than to allow completely unregulated poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm all for regulation but my question is why does PPA stress exemption for poker as a priority over regulation? And can you have an exemption without regulation as they are saying?