Are we fighting the wrong battles?

[Grasshopp3r]

Strategically, I think that we are fighting the wrong battles. The existing online poker industry is a profit based enterprise. Do I care that they make money on poker?

(Also, I do not care if other forms of online gaming are banned as they are -EV anyway. I don't see an online blackjack players lobby out there.)

Just like open source computing exists and prospers, it is in our collective best interest to regain control of the online poker model. The PPA or a similar collective entity can be the way that we achieve this goal.

Here is how the system would work:

1. A poker software system needs to be created and adopted.
2. A payment system needs to be created. There is no reason why the payment system needs to be centralized. While this may be a tangent, a peer to peer system may be more appealing and harder to structurally attack from those moralists who want to ban poker.
3. The rake pays only for the operations. There can be something set aside for future capital expenses or development of new code, etc.
4. The access to the system is available to members of the group.
5. Profit.

The group may need to front the initial startup expenses, but I think that can be achieved.

[Minsk]

Bravo , this is exactly what i was thinking.
I wish poker would start straying away from casinos and into the world of pro skill games ie chess / video gaming in asia

[Milagro]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is how the system would work:

1. A poker software system needs to be created and adopted.
2. A payment system needs to be created. There is no reason why the payment system needs to be centralized. While this may be a tangent, a peer to peer system may be more appealing and harder to structurally attack from those moralists who want to ban poker.
3. The rake pays only for the operations. There can be something set aside for future capital expenses or development of new code, etc.
4. The access to the system is available to members of the group.
5. Profit.

The group may need to front the initial startup expenses, but I think that can be achieved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, really, interesting idea.

1. Does anyone remember IRC Poker? It died out after the Planet Poker and Paradise Poker took hold but this is an example of something that was put together and maintained by a handful of programmers that did it for free. A guy by the name of Greg Reynolds (I think that was his name) even came up with a GUI in the later years. Of course there would be a lot more overhead in a any serious attempt to "mimic" the current state of the game on the internet not-the-least of which are security and a "bullet proof" shuffling algorithm.
2. For payment a peer-to-peer system is definitely the best way to go but how this might work would have to be "brainstormed". The technical part of transfering money I don't think is a difficult as dealing with fraudsters and scammers. One idea could be to adopt some kind of a "smart card" system where the "cash" would reside on the chip. These systems can be suprisingly inexpensive (if everyone is paying for their part that is), maybe $50 to $100 per user?? and the security quite good though dealer with cheats could be difficult without the threat of bankroll seizure? Now I am rambling but you get the idea.
3. Does there have to be a rake? Probably but I won't take this as a zero base assumption.
4. Access for members only has be be a given. Going back to the smart card idea, access could be secured with the same smart card that is used for payment.
5. I don't what is meant by "profit" and how it would make the system "work".

If there is enough interest maybe we should ask the 2+2 management if we could add this as a forum topic. Failing that I could donate a website that could be used to discuss this. If there is enough interest.

[Grasshopp3r]

By profit, I mean that it will work for the players' benefits.

Yes, Greg Reynolds did an IRC interface, though I have not used it. This page has some FAQ http://www.rgpfaq.com/ircpoker.html

Regarding peer to peer systems, I need to do some more research on how the barter sites do their accounting. That is more along the lines that I was thinking.

Smart cards need to be able to transfer both ways to be effective. Essentially, you would buy chips using the smart card when you are seated at the table and then receive a credit when you sit out. The timing of those transfers is going to be the critical item as you need to able to have the transfers in seconds in order to sit down so that the game keeps running efficiently. Although, under this system, the speed of sitting down may have to take several minutes in order to verify the card. We grow used to the conveniences that are afforded to us through the existing systems, such as PokerStars, etc.

[Milagro]

[ QUOTE ]
By profit, I mean that it will work for the players' benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can get behind that idea. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding peer to peer systems, I need to do some more research on how the barter sites do their accounting. That is more along the lines that I was thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds good to me. Let me know if I can help. I am (or a least used to be) a computer security specialist.

[ QUOTE ]
Smart cards need to be able to transfer both ways to be effective.

[/ QUOTE ]
They can. Money on, money off, faster than you can display the hole cards. We could integrate this functionality directly into the client without changing too much on the host side (he says with over-optimism). This project would have legs if someone out there would "donate" the poker client and host software. Probably not likely but maybe there was enough interest we could negociate something with a software solution provider of this type. Integration of a smart card system while not trivial is manageable.

Although, I have to say, from the responses that this thread is generating that American poker players are not much for actually <u>solving</u> problems. Better I suppose to ring your hands and complain at the unfairness of it all then to actually discuss DOING something about it. This as opposed to the religious right and their anti-freedom neo-con allies who seem quite good at DOING something about on-line poker's assault on the American family.

Anyway I'm off to play some 6-MAX Holdem with the amazing number of Euro-fish than have seemed to muliple and flourish now that the American sharks are safely caged out of most sites. Seriously on-line poker hasn't been this soft in years. I'll check back from time to time to see if anyone wakes up or not. /images/graemlins/grin.gif Cheers.

[Babygrand]

If the sites are setup and approved by the PPA, and only restricted to PPA members, I couldnt see this being difficult to setup at all. The PPA has to have hundreds of thousands of dollars. If not, it would be very easy to get the funds necessary.

The sites would be non-profit and run by periodic membership fees. Politicians would have to adopt new regulation on this. This would be as if I electronically started a poker game from my home computer. Then I allowed my friends to establish a connection to my computer and play at my table. There is no regulation for this.

[Skallagrim]

This could well be a great idea for the majority of Americans and could easily attract non-US players too becasue there would be no rake (operating costs could come from advertising, donations, membership fees in a different organization, etc...). I say majority of Americans casue it wouldn't help those in Washington or Louisiana which explicitly ban playing poker for money under any circumstances. But most state laws that cover poker at all, and all arguably applicable Federal law (there may not be any for poker) target the site that makes the profit from the play and ban them, not the actual playing. "America's largest home game." Any one wanna put in the time and effort without chance of being paid for it? Maybe if we all helped a little....

[Babygrand]

Without getting paid? No one said a not for profit can't raise money and pay people. Does the president not make $400k a year? I guess a gov't is a little different than not for profit, but priests get paid, too. The creation of sites could be outsourced and the company could be paid, no problem. The difference is PPA could not have owners making billions of dollars.

[Skallagrim]

True, the legality centers on whether the site hosting the game is getting paid. If the site hosting the game is getting paid through rake or fees, it doesnt matter whether its for-profit or non-profit under most state laws. So we raise the money elsewhere to get the site going - but how do we keep it going without it taking money from the players? Thats your legal/practical dilemma - BUT I HOPE YOU CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY!