Calif Online Poker Website

[Tuff_Fish]

I have built a website to help with the California Online Poker Initiative effort.

Click Here (http://www.caonlinepoker.org)

Drop by and take a look. Constructive criticism is welcome. Tell me what you think.

The haters, doomsayers, and anger mongers need to keep it in the other thread.

We can't gather signatures yet.

Thanks

Tuff
.

[skier_5]

uh. so you want people to act fast "because it causes the sites to lose money" yet you want them to limit people to a certain number of tables why? Doesn't that cause the sites to lose money as well.

I respect your efforts, but presenting an idea to solve online poker issues, while secretly implementing your selfish ideas and concepts for how a poker site should be run is kind of pathetic imo.

You do realize that many of us hud bots enjoy poker and depend on it as well, but yet you have no problem with ruining things for us either.

I'm not sure I worded this like I wanted to, but it seems to me that you are doing this because you want to eliminate and [censored] over the so called hud bots and professional players since you know you can easily play on pokerstars right now.

I think it sucks to present this idea as a solution to online poker when the real motive is obvious.

edit: just noticed the monster thread, so I don't know how much of this has been touched on.

Though I just want to say that this is my job and I depend on it and im shocked at your attitude and glee from the misfortune that this could cause for people like me.

Also, It's nice that you want to help veterans and teachers, but the fact that you are a veteran makes this whole thing shady.

[dp13368]

[ QUOTE ]
uh. so you want people to act fast "because it causes the sites to lose money" yet you want them to limit people to a certain number of tables why? Doesn't that cause the sites to lose money as well.

I respect your efforts, but presenting an idea to solve online poker issues, while secretly implementing your selfish ideas and concepts for how a poker site should be run is kind of pathetic imo.

You do realize that many of us hud bots enjoy poker and depend on it as well, but yet you have no problem with ruining things for us either.

I'm not sure I worded this like I wanted to, but it seems to me that you are doing this because you want to eliminate and [censored] over the so called hud bots and professional players since you know you can easily play on pokerstars right now.

I think it sucks to present this idea as a solution to online poker when the real motive is obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed 100%

[jaminbird]

[ QUOTE ]
I respect your efforts, but presenting an idea to solve online poker issues, while secretly implementing your selfish ideas and concepts for how a poker site should be run is kind of pathetic imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

So very true.

Edit to add:

As TheEngineer said in the other thread, you have no idea about the long term effects of multi-tabling. However, the management at sites like Party, FT and Stars, who's JOB who know a whole lot more about running an online poker room then you, all seem to agree that allowing multi-tabling is not a bad thing. I think I will trust the judgment of professionals over your opinion.

P.S. take those provisions out and you have my full support.
P.S.S. I'll post wherever I want, thank you.

[jumbojacks]

For all your hate on "HUDbots" and multitabling, you have no significant data that many of these major poker sites collect to back up your opinions. You got destroyed by a bunch of college kids who can do what apparently you could never do, and you find that this is a way to get back at them.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
4) The rake shall be 5.75% of the amount of the pot when last called capped at the amount of the big blind, excepting:

a) At all limits having a big blind of $1.00 and below the rake shall be 4% capped at the big blind.

b) At fixed limit games having a big blind above $1.00, if there are fewer than 5 players at the table the rake shall be 4% and capped at ½ the big blind.

c) At no limit games having a big blind above $1.00, if there are fewer than 5 players at the table the rake shall be 4% and capped at 2/3 the big blind.

d) Rake shall be capped at $2.00 at tables where the players are heads up.

e) No rake amount taken from any winning pot shall exceed $5.75.

f) All raked amounts shall be rounded up to the nearest $.05.

g) No rake shall be taken before the flop. No rake shall be taken from a pot called only by the small blind and in which there is no further betting.

h) Rake shall be only taken from money put into the pot that has been matched by at least one other player.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your going to have the rake determined by statute rather than the market, why on earth wouldn't you set it lower?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I respect your efforts, but presenting an idea to solve online poker issues, while secretly implementing your selfish ideas and concepts for how a poker site should be run is kind of pathetic imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

So very true.

Edit to add:

As TheEngineer said in the other thread, you have no idea about the long term effects of multi-tabling. However, the management at sites like Party, FT and Stars, who's JOB who know a whole lot more about running an online poker room then you, all seem to agree that allowing multi-tabling is not a bad thing. I think I will trust the judgment of professionals over your opinion.

P.S. take those provisions out and you have my full support.
P.S.S. I'll post wherever I want, thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I'm humored by how Tuff_Fish states his feelings as if they're certified, proven facts, then posts snickering "graemlins" as if to laugh at us. He's clearly yanking our chains with this. He's been railing against "hudbots" and multitablers since he joined 2+2.

Tuff_Fish: replace the provisions for banning PokerAce, PokerTracker, and the playing of more than two tables simultaneously with a requirement that the state of California conduct a study to determine appropriate limits on tools and tables consistent with maximum sustained profitability of the game and I'll gladly support your effort. Attempt to criminalize our play (especially when you have zero data supporting your opinions) like Goodlette, Leach, and Frist...expect us to treat you the same. Fair?

[smoking blunt]

Tuff has to be doing this as a joke, noone could possibly be as ignorant, short sighted and just plain retarded as his posts suggest.

p.s. that is prolly the ugliest website I've ever seen, good to know ur web design skills are as strong as your poker play.

[Soulman]

[ QUOTE ]
Tuff has to be doing this as a joke, noone could possibly be as ignorant, short sighted and just plain retarded as his posts suggest.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've seen his videos right? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4) The rake shall be 5.75% of the amount of the pot when last called capped at the amount of the big blind, excepting:

a) At all limits having a big blind of $1.00 and below the rake shall be 4% capped at the big blind.

b) At fixed limit games having a big blind above $1.00, if there are fewer than 5 players at the table the rake shall be 4% and capped at ½ the big blind.

c) At no limit games having a big blind above $1.00, if there are fewer than 5 players at the table the rake shall be 4% and capped at 2/3 the big blind.

d) Rake shall be capped at $2.00 at tables where the players are heads up.

e) No rake amount taken from any winning pot shall exceed $5.75.

f) All raked amounts shall be rounded up to the nearest $.05.

g) No rake shall be taken before the flop. No rake shall be taken from a pot called only by the small blind and in which there is no further betting.

h) Rake shall be only taken from money put into the pot that has been matched by at least one other player.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your going to have the rake determined by statute rather than the market, why on earth wouldn't you set it lower?

[/ QUOTE ]

For real, Tuff_Fish, please lower your proposed rake to internet norms: $3 max, $2 max on sh tables.

Starting off with drastically higher than normal rake is incompatible with your goal of giving the recreational player the best chance of winning. There is plenty of money to be made at $2 and $3 per pot.

[Benjamin]

Initiative wording:
[ QUOTE ]
9) Players shall be allowed to participate in the following Limit and No Limit Texas Holdem, and Pot Limit Omaha games, after affirming to the operator that they are sufficiently skilled, properly bankrolled, and understand the risks. These games shall have a 50x (50 times) the Big Blind minimum buyin.

$10/20 with a maximum buyin of 200x the BB

$20/40 with a maximum buyin of 200x the BB

$1/3 No Limit Texas holdem with no maximum buyin

$2/5 No Limit Texas holdem with no maximum buyin

$10/25 No Limit Texas holdem with no maximum buyin


[/ QUOTE ]

In the preceding section you made it clear that you were discussing the size of the small blind/big blind. That would be worth repeating here, I think, to avoid any confusion about the size limit game you are talking about.

[DONKTARDO]

[ QUOTE ]
9) Players shall be allowed to participate in the following Limit and No Limit Texas Holdem, and Pot Limit Omaha games, after affirming to the operator that they are sufficiently skilled, properly bankrolled, and understand the risks. These games shall have a 50x (50 times) the Big Blind minimum buyin.

$10/20 with a maximum buyin of 200x the BB

$20/40 with a maximum buyin of 200x the BB

$1/3 No Limit Texas holdem with no maximum buyin

$2/5 No Limit Texas holdem with no maximum buyin

$10/25 No Limit Texas holdem with no maximum buyin


[/ QUOTE ]


lol @ capped limit with uncapped no-limit

[Benjamin]

Here's the most controversial part:

[ QUOTE ]
6) Predatory tools and practices: Current (at this writing) online games are a haven for professional online poker players who use a variety of aids and software gadgets that allow them to track and take advantage of recreational and lesser skilled players.

The people of the State of California do not intend our poker site to be used by online poker professionals to take unfair advantage of other players. To this end, the site operator is hereby directed to disallow any and all real time predatory poker software including, but not limited to:

a) “Buddy” lists and “fish finders”:

i) The site shall not support any feature which allows a player to locate another player through means of automatic scanning of players present, through automated opening of tables and examining of those players present, or by any other means. The site operator shall use every means available to thwart such activities.

ii) Use of any software to find a specific player shall be considered a form of cheating.

iii) If a player wants to locate another player, they shall use conventional means of communication such as the telephone or online messaging.

7) A player shall be able to observe one additional table where action is in process in addition to the table(s) on which he or she is playing.

8) Table and player statistics:

a) The site software shall not support the display of any listing of table statistics to any player not seated with chips at the table. This shall include but not be limited to, percentage of players seeing the flop and average pot size.

b) The site shall not allow a player to use software aids that gather and display real time current session table statistics to any player at a table excepting that such software is a part of the site software and is freely available to all players participating on the site.

c) The site shall not allow a player to use software aids displaying real time current session statistics for any player excepting that such software is a part of the site software and is freely available to all players participating on the site.

9) Players playing multiple tables at one time:

a) Any player shall be allowed to play at two real money tables on the site at any given time. The tables may be cash games, tournaments, or a combination.

b) The software shall be designed to reject attempts to place chips on a third table for any player.


[/ QUOTE ]

Tuff,

I would go to greater pains to make it clear that all of these restrictions on multi-tabling and HUDs apply only to tables being played on the California state site, if that is your intent.

You don't intend to prohibit someone playing a couple tables on the Cali site while also playing on another site do you? Or to prohibit that player from using a HUD on that other site?

More clarity here might help defuse some of the criticism you are getting.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
9) Players shall be allowed to participate in the following Limit and No Limit Texas Holdem, and Pot Limit Omaha games, after affirming to the operator that they are sufficiently skilled, properly bankrolled, and understand the risks. These games shall have a 50x (50 times) the Big Blind minimum buyin.

$10/20 with a maximum buyin of 200x the BB

$20/40 with a maximum buyin of 200x the BB

$1/3 No Limit Texas holdem with no maximum buyin

$2/5 No Limit Texas holdem with no maximum buyin

$10/25 No Limit Texas holdem with no maximum buyin


[/ QUOTE ]


lol @ capped limit with uncapped no-limit

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, Tuff, what's with the maximum buy-in on the big-boys' limit games? I've never seen that on limit HE games anywhere. You can only lose so much on a given hand ... drop the maximum buy-in here.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4) The rake shall be 5.75% of the amount of the pot when last called capped at the amount of the big blind, excepting:

a) At all limits having a big blind of $1.00 and below the rake shall be 4% capped at the big blind.

b) At fixed limit games having a big blind above $1.00, if there are fewer than 5 players at the table the rake shall be 4% and capped at ½ the big blind.

c) At no limit games having a big blind above $1.00, if there are fewer than 5 players at the table the rake shall be 4% and capped at 2/3 the big blind.

d) Rake shall be capped at $2.00 at tables where the players are heads up.

e) No rake amount taken from any winning pot shall exceed $5.75.

f) All raked amounts shall be rounded up to the nearest $.05.

g) No rake shall be taken before the flop. No rake shall be taken from a pot called only by the small blind and in which there is no further betting.

h) Rake shall be only taken from money put into the pot that has been matched by at least one other player.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your going to have the rake determined by statute rather than the market, why on earth wouldn't you set it lower?

[/ QUOTE ]

For real, Tuff_Fish, please lower your proposed rake to internet norms: $3 max, $2 max on sh tables.

Starting off with drastically higher than normal rake is incompatible with your goal of giving the recreational player the best chance of winning. There is plenty of money to be made at $2 and $3 per pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

why stop there? why not no rake? even with no rake, there would still be incentive enough for an internet poker room to operate.

[counthomer]

Hello Tuff,

I have some questions I would like you to answer. As you want to keep the hate and whatnot in the other thread, I will make them neutral in tone:

1. What steps, practical, procedural or otherwise do you intend to take to ensure that you can guarantee the eradication of multi tabling and the use of third party tools?

2. Which group, company or individual will be responsible for ensuring that your rules and aims on these aspects are implemented and achieved?

3. What will be the punishment to the person/company/group responsible in (2) if people are found to have circumvented the steps you outline in (1)?

4. What will the punishment be to players who have circumvented your rules? Will you sue any player who 'cheats'?

5. What will you do if the player(s) in (4) are outside of your legal jurisdiction?

6. As you have deemed these methods/tools to be cheating will you compensate any players who were involved in hands against said players?

7. If you do intend to compensate, will you adopt the current industry practice of paying out of their own pocket in situations where you cannot recover any money from the player(s) involved?

8. Will you keep a fund for this purpose, or will you take it out of the money going to the teachers and veterans?

9. How will you ensure that the person playing (not necessarily the person who signed up or deposited) is over the legal age?

10. Will you sue any players who are found to have permitted someone underage to play on your site?

I hope you will be able to provide a detailed response to these questions, as they are obviously the sort of questions that any average person will ask in response to your proposals.

[aislephive]

If you want to protect fish so badly it makes no sense to have an uncapped buyin for NL games where they can go broke in one hand.

[Case Closed]

Tuff_Fish is so goofy. The capped limit is so hilarious. And why the hell would he set the rake so high? Wtf is with this communism poker?

[Tuff_Fish]

Excellent and civil questions all.

[ QUOTE ]
Hello Tuff,

I have some questions I would like you to answer. As you want to keep the hate and whatnot in the other thread, I will make them neutral in tone:

1. What steps, practical, procedural or otherwise do you intend to take to ensure that you can guarantee the eradication of multi tabling and the use of third party tools?
.
.
Site security would be the responsibility of the site operator and the Director. Obviously, there are no absolutes in anything connected with computors.
.
.

2. Which group, company or individual will be responsible for ensuring that your rules and aims on these aspects are implemented and achieved?
.
.
The Director is the ultimate authority and is ultimately responsible. He or she oversees the operation of the site, and directs the site operator.
.
.

3. What will be the punishment to the person/company/group responsible in (2) if people are found to have circumvented the steps you outline in (1)?
.
.
The site operator will be contractualy obligated to run a clean operation. The operator is under continual review, so negligence or sloppiness could result in loss of the contract. The Director serves at the pleasure of the Governor, so a failure on his or her part could result in being fired.
.
.
4. What will the punishment be to players who have circumvented your rules? Will you sue any player who 'cheats'?
.
.
Banning and loss of funds. Depending on jurisdiction and severity, there could be civil or criminal actions also.
.
.
5. What will you do if the player(s) in (4) are outside of your legal jurisdiction?
.
.
Banning and loss of funds are probaby the only practical remedies.
.
.

6. As you have deemed these methods/tools to be cheating will you compensate any players who were involved in hands against said players?
.
.
The Director and governing board will have to decide on general policy. The Director will probably have the authority to act on a case by case basis.
.
.

7. If you do intend to compensate, will you adopt the current industry practice of paying out of their own pocket in situations where you cannot recover any money from the player(s) involved?
.
.
It would be considered to be part of site overhead.
.
.

8. Will you keep a fund for this purpose, or will you take it out of the money going to the teachers and veterans?
.
.
Whether a fund or an adhoc payment, it is still site overhead.
.
.

9. How will you ensure that the person playing (not necessarily the person who signed up or deposited) is over the legal age?
.
.
You couldn't of course. This would also be the case if someone got hold of your login and password. However, only the person registered can get any money out.
.
.

10. Will you sue any players who are found to have permitted someone underage to play on your site?
.
.
The signup agreement will undoubtedly have terms and conditions covering a number of different things. This would be one of them.
.
.

I hope you will be able to provide a detailed response to these questions, as they are obviously the sort of questions that any average person will ask in response to your proposals.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MiltonFriedman]

This Initiative is breaking new ground and you want it to "avoid any confusion" about the size limit games being discussed.

Are you really thinking that a "wrong" answer about "multi-tabling" or size games would lead you to oppose its passage or implementation ? If so, get a better perspective ....

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This Initiative is breaking new ground and you want it to "avoid any confusion" about the size limit games being discussed.

Are you really thinking that a "wrong" answer about "multi-tabling" or size games would lead you to oppose its passage or implementation ? If so, get a better perspective ....

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon Milton. Tuff_Fish has been railing against "hudbots" since he joined the site. This is his chance to criminalize it. Why would we support that, especially as would apply to offshore sites?

Besides, if it does ever look like a good idea to push an initiative in CA, PPA will author a properly written one and will run this one over.

[dlk9s]

Know what's awesome? A second thread about this topic.

[MegaFossil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This Initiative is breaking new ground and you want it to "avoid any confusion" about the size limit games being discussed.

Are you really thinking that a "wrong" answer about "multi-tabling" or size games would lead you to oppose its passage or implementation ? If so, get a better perspective ....

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon Milton. Tuff_Fish has been railing against "hudbots" since he joined the site. This is his chance to criminalize it. Why would we support that, especially as would apply to offshore sites?

Besides, if it does ever look like a good idea to push an initiative in CA, PPA will author a properly written one and will run this one over.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I remember correctly, tuff used to be somewhat normal in the early days, it wasn't until it became obvious that he wasn't a winning player in the current poker climate that he started attacking the winning players and their (legal) tools.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
if it does ever look like a good idea to push an initiative in CA, PPA will author a properly written one

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be speaking with knowledge of what PPA is thinking, so let me ask you a few questions. Why do they think a California initiative isn't a good idea right now? Or not a good idea 6 months ago? What would change their mind? Any other State where it would be a good idea?

[MiltonFriedman]

Tuff seized the high ground. "Why would we support that" you ask ? Because he did something about getting an Initiative to allow SOME online poker. That is a HELL of a lot more than the PPA did.

Do you really want to argue that poker, with no "HUDbots" is SO BAD that you can't support it ? Why, you can't live with online poker as it was preHUD, in say 2001 - 2002, plus tournaments, and would rather have NO online poker ??

When Dumbo let go of the magic feather .... you may be able to fly without HUDbots.

Speaking of the PPA, now that Barney Frank took a turn away from any Federal poker exemption (toward treating UIGE repeal as a banking matter), WHAT does the PPA plan next ???? ANY word from them ? Are they supporting Frank's strategy or sitting around bemoaning the change ?

For that matter, has the PPA ever expressed a feeling about a State-sanctioned site, a poker "exemption" already in the UIGE Act ?

[Case Closed]

I think the most abhor ant part of this policy is the regulation of the rake by the government. Why are we not going to allow these poker sites to compete with each other by using rake rates as a tool?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really want to argue that poker, with no "HUDbots" is SO BAD that you can't support it ? Why, you can't live with online poker as it was preHUD, in say 2001 - 2002, plus tournaments, and would rather have NO online poker ??

[/ QUOTE ]

The choice isn't between accepting Tuff's proposal and nothing. His proposal is going nowhere.

To answer your question, his proposal is worse than nothing for the reasons I and about 300 of my closest friends have already expressed.

Hopefully these two threads will soon die a merciful death.

[MiltonFriedman]

The choice today in California is precisely that ... Tuff's proposal or nothing.

If you and 300 of your closest friends have something else in mind, get off your barca loungers and do something pro-active.

[MiltonFriedman]

So what ? Can't the "winning players" survive without HUD ? (I do not think HUD are "illegal", but if that is the price to pay for backing the ONLY poker initiative in play, then too bad for the crutchless "winning players". Let them propose their own poker initiative or drop dead as dinosaurs when the UIGE regs hit their player pools like some prehistoric asteroid.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The choice today in California is precisely that ... Tuff's proposal or nothing.

If you and 300 of your closest friends have something else in mind, get off your barca loungers and do something pro-active.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Tuff's proposal is nothing but a middle finger to the 2+2 community. He turns multitabling and PokerTracker (not just HUDs) usage into felonies, even on non-CA sites. And, how do you think it's Tuff's proposal or nothing? It's not on a ballot. It's just his wet dream. Any CA resident here can author up a proposal, you know.

As for me, I've been leading our effort to repeal UIGEA and advocate for online gambling rights in my Fight UIGEA Weekly Action Plan series. Besides that, I've written to and called at least one congressman or committee each week this year. What have you done, exactly?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
So what ? Can't the "winning players" survive without HUD ? (I do not think HUD are "illegal", but if that is the price to pay for backing the ONLY poker initiative in play, then too bad for the crutchless "winning players". Let them propose their own poker initiative or drop dead as dinosaurs when the UIGE regs hit their player pools like some prehistoric asteroid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you under the impression that this is on the ballot? It has zero signatures. In fact, it's not even in final form. Sounds like you want HUDs and multitabling legislated out of existence as well. Why don't you guys let the state decide how to run their games? Sounds like you both have an agenda.

[jaminbird]

As a California resident, I do not want "Tuffy's Rules" turned into state law. Once that [censored] is done, it would be nearly impossible to get undone. I would much rather shoot this crap down and wait for a better proposal to come along.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Tuff seized the high ground. "Why would we support that" you ask ? Because he did something about getting an Initiative to allow SOME online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't do [censored]. All he did was author a poorly-written initiative that criminalizes his pet peeves under some kind of Bill Fristian idea of using legislation to protect people from themselves. Then he sent it to the secretary of state of CA with $200. That's all! You act like this [censored] is on the ballot already.

Goodlette and Leach wrote a bill too. Maybe we should support that as well.

[ QUOTE ]
That is a HELL of a lot more than the PPA did.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure? We have D'Amato lobbying for us as well as the PPA. Our opposition has a lot of momentum and media support, but that's starting to change a little. PPA is relatively new....I'm surprised there's so much anger here to a start-up trying to fight for our rights.

By the way, everyone in CA writes initiatives. You act like it's some great thing he did.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really want to argue that poker, with no "HUDbots" is SO BAD that you can't support it ? Why, you can't live with online poker as it was preHUD, in say 2001 - 2002, plus tournaments, and would rather have NO online poker ??

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, how is that the choice? Anyone in CA can write in initiative, and Tuff_Fish isn't ahead of any of them, really.

HUDs will likely be illegal in CA under existing laws on computer usage anyway, and I'm fine with that as long as it comes from the state of CA, not "OUR" initiative. As for the multitabling limitations....well, that's just [censored].

[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of the PPA, now that Barney Frank took a turn away from any Federal poker exemption (toward treating UIGE repeal as a banking matter), WHAT does the PPA plan next ???? ANY word from them ? Are they supporting Frank's strategy or sitting around bemoaning the change ?

For that matter, has the PPA ever expressed a feeling about a State-sanctioned site, a poker "exemption" already in the UIGE Act ?

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure are angry at PPA. For someone cumming in his pants over a poorly-worded, vindictive initative (one that Tuff_Fish gleefully tells us "isn't for 2+2ers"), seems you should be happier with PPA's organized effort than you are.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.
.
He turns multitabling and PokerTracker (not just HUDs) usage into felonies, even on non-CA sites .
.
.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have said this two or three times. Now, WHERE in the initiative do you see this?

Tuff
.
.
.
.
.
. with my inane periods /images/graemlins/ooo.gif
.

[MiltonFriedman]

"I've been leading our effort to repeal UIGEA ".

Okay, I like your weekly action plan posts. I think they are well written, detailed and barking up the wrong tree if you think you will see a repeal of the legislation in its entirety.

I think Tuff has done us a service, even if his proposal is just a stalking horse for a better effort in the future. It is closer to the ballot than anything else pending, although admittedly it likely will not get signatures.

On a practical matter, IF Tuff fails miserably in California, how does that affect your campaign to get a repeal ? You should be pushing for him to get some success, not trying to undercut his efforts.

(What I "have done exactly" here is try and inject some practical political sensitivity into the forum.)

[UATrewqaz]

Whenever I picture Tuff "working" on this initiative all I can think about is that scene in A Beautiful Mind when Nash is out in his garage working on his "top secret government project" and in reality he's just circling random stuff in newspaper clippings and connecting them with string around the room.

Somehow I get the feeling a typical day in Tuff's life is telling his family "I'm going to go talk to the Governor about my poker bill today!"

and later they find him out in the front yard wearing his bathrobe and talking to the mail box.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Whenever I picture Tuff "working" on this initiative all I can think about is that scene in A Beautiful Mind when Nash is out in his garage working on his "top secret government project" and in reality he's just circling random stuff in newspaper clippings and connecting them with string around the room.

Somehow I get the feeling a typical day in Tuff's life is telling his family "I'm going to go talk to the Governor about my poker bill today!"

and later they find him out in the front yard wearing his bathrobe and talking to the mail box.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had to smile, there are days when I feel exactly like that. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Tuff
.

[Sniper]

Tuff, so would you make it a felony to use a HUD... how many years you wanna throw people in jail for?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, I like your weekly action plan posts. I think they are well written, detailed and barking up the wrong tree if you think you will see a repeal of the legislation in its entirety.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I know we're underdogs in our fight to repeal UIGEA (it's really a campaign to advocate for legalized gambling, but we're underdogs there as well), but sometimes it's necessary to take a stand. If we took a stand two years ago, we'd likely be better off today. Also, at least the politicians won't see this as easy pickings next time a bill comes around.

And, we're laying the groundwork for potential intermediate remedies with our support for complete legalization.

[ QUOTE ]
I think Tuff has done us a service, even if his proposal is just a stalking horse for a better effort in the future. It is closer to the ballot than anything else pending, although admittedly it likely will not get signatures.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll stop commenting on it, as it won't go anywhere. My issue is that he seems amused by people who don't like parts of it. He laughs at us and tells us it's not for us. I don't know who it's for. It's hard to imagine who can beat a shorthanded low or middle limit table with a > $5 rake (WTF is with that, anyway?). The rake will crush the fish faster than any skilled player could.

[ QUOTE ]
On a practical matter, IF Tuff fails miserably in California, how does that affect your campaign to get a repeal ? You should be pushing for him to get some success, not trying to undercut his efforts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our opponents will claim that as "proof" that the citizens of CA don't want online poker in their state.

[Ace0fSpades]

You're pretty rediculous. Even if you get this site up and running, no one will use it. I don't understand why you set the rake so high, why you spread so few games, and why you hate on multitabling/HUD so much. I really hope this effort is rejected and that instead the online poker ban is simply repealed. Why can't you just fight for online poker instead of fighting for your own agenda? Furthermore, why do you want to set up a site that no skilled online poker players in their right mind would ever play on? Are you trying to create a website of happy go lucky fish that "understand how to play" and "never go broke"? Honestly, you need to be realistic.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.
.

.
4) The rake shall be 5.75% of the amount of the pot when last called capped at the amount of the big blind, excepting:

a) At all limits having a big blind of $1.00 and below the rake shall be 4% capped at the big blind.

b) At fixed limit games having a big blind above $1.00, if there are fewer than 5 players at the table the rake shall be 4% and capped at ½ the big blind.
c) At no limit games having a big blind above $1.00, if there are fewer than 5 players at the table the rake shall be 4% and capped at 2/3 the big blind.

d) Rake shall be capped at $2.00 at tables where the players are heads up.

e) No rake amount taken from any winning pot shall exceed $5.75.

f) All raked amounts shall be rounded up to the nearest $.05.

g) No rake shall be taken before the flop. No rake shall be taken from a pot called only by the small blind and in which there is no further betting.

h) Rake shall be only taken from money put into the pot that has been matched by at least one other player.
.


.
.

It's hard to imagine who can beat a shorthanded low or middle limit table with a > $5 rake (WTF is with that, anyway?). The rake will crush the fish faster than any skilled player could.
.
.



[/ QUOTE ]

If you are an engineer, do some math. I wonder if you guys have even read the darned initiative.

Tuff

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are an engineer, do some math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. A full $5/$10 limit six-handed table will generate close to the $5.75 rake on many showdowns. At B&M casinos, one would expect a rake reduction for a 6-handed game. So, your game is about double that of the B&M casino (and also double the standard online rake).

We're really curious....why the expensive game?

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if you guys have even read the darned initiative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, we sure have.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
You're pretty rediculous. Even if you get this site up and running, no one will use it.
.
.

talk about ridiculous, your statement is idiotic.
.
.

.
.
I don't understand why you set the rake so high, why you spread so few games,
.
.
high rake?, few games? !!!, read the initiative you moron.
.
.

.

I really hope this effort is rejected and that instead the online poker ban is simply repealed.
.
.
keep hoping, maybe a meteorite made of gold will land in your kitchen.

.
.
... Furthermore, why do you want to set up a site that no skilled online poker players in their right mind would ever play on?
.
.
Now there is a question that deserves an answer...
.
.
Are you trying to create a website of happy go lucky fish that "understand how to play" and "never go broke"?
.
.
sounds like a plan to me

.


[/ QUOTE ]
.
.
Tuff

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why you set the rake so high, why you spread so few games,
.
.
high rake?, few games? !!!, read the initiative you moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read it. That description sounds accurate to me. So, why the high rake? Is the reason a secret or something?

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

Tuff, I've been holding out on any comments on your shenanigans, but I just can't stand to keep quiet any longer. I don't even know what can be said, except to pile on top with the "you're an absolute idiot" crowd. You truly are the very essence of idiot. Please cut the crap with all your anti-hud, anti-multitable, anti-player initiatives and put your efforts toward unambiguous legalization of poker. Then, when we've got poker back in good standing, if you really feel like you need a site with all the garbage restrictions you're proposing, move towards starting it. If it really is good for the general player, it'll survive. Good luck.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are an engineer, do some math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. A full $5/$10 limit six-handed table will generate close to the $5.75 rake on many showdowns. At B&M casinos, one would expect a rake reduction for a 6-handed game. So, your game is about double that of the B&M casino (and also double the standard online rake).

We're really curious....why the expensive game?

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if you guys have even read the darned initiative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, we sure have.

[/ QUOTE ]

A hundred dollar pot generates a full rake of $5.75. A two hundred dollar pot generates the same rake. The percentage is slightly higher than current online rooms which are at 5% mostly. The cap is a bit higher at $5.75 vs $3 or $4 at most current sites.

I actually don't know what the drop is on the $5/10 game at Commerce, but at Oceans Eleven low stakes, it is something like $4 on a pot as low as $8.

I figure a sanctioned state regulated site can command a bit of a premium.

And besides, I have heard adnausium about how the fish are oblivious to rake.

Tuff

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
A hundred dollar pot generates a full rake of $5.75 (thanks for the help with that complex math /images/graemlins/grin.gif ). A two hundred dollar pot generates the same rake. The percentage is slightly higher than current online rooms which are at 5% mostly. The cap is a bit higher at $5.75 vs $3 or $4 (no "or $4") at most current sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, double is a "bit" higher...lol. Sorry, but that's a real dealbreaker.

[ QUOTE ]
I actually don't know what the drop is on the $5/10 game at Commerce, but at Oceans Eleven low stakes, it is something like $4 on a pot as low as $8.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot compare B&M to online; the cost structure is different. Online is $3 max per hand. Why put us in the hole before you even finish writing your proposal?

[ QUOTE ]
And besides, I have heard adnausium about how the fish are oblivious to rake

[/ QUOTE ]

Unti they run out of money, which with your proposal will be sooner rather than later.

We're really trying to be reasonable. Seems you're enjoying creating something that hurts the poker community, then laughing about it. I'm glad you're amused.

I'm done with this. Have fun.

[ChrisV]

Tuff, I have one more question actually. Before you posted it, what did you think the reaction of 2+2 would be to this initiative?

[Ace0fSpades]

I read your initiative. You are not accomplishing anything by simply taking excerpts from people's posts and making smartass remarks. You need to at least consider that you are taking the wrong approach to this whole thing given that you are receiving so much negative feedback. Also, I don't understand why you think getting the online poker ban reversed is such a longshot because that's effectively what you are trying to do. Don't bother responding to this if you plan to simply give a sentence by sentence analysis that says nothing.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are an engineer, do some math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. More math (as it seems you didn't do any). A full $5/$10 limit six-handed table will generate a $5.75 rake on many showdowns. I checked my last 1,000 $5/$10 6-max limit hands for you. For this game ($3 max rake), the average rake was $1.53 per hand (0.153 BB/hand, or 15.3 BB/100). For your game, the average rake is $2.58 per hand (0.258 BB/hand, or 25.8 BB per 100). So, your game costs as extra 10.6 BB per 100 hands (1.76 BB/100 per player)!!! In other words, it's as if in addition to the normal rake, someone came by and took $106 off the table every hour or so!

For the FullTilt game I analyzed, if there were two skilled players making 1 BB/100 hands on average playing with four equally skilled average players, the four lesser players would lose 17.3 BB/100 hands between them, on average (-15.3 BB/100 - 1 BB/100 * 2 players), or 4.3 BB/100 per player. For your game, six equal players would lose 4.3 BB/100 per person on average (-25.8 BB/100 / 6 players). So, your "fish protection" plan was overtaken by the obscene rake. And, if there was merely one breakeven player (i.e., a nominal 1.76 BB/100 winner who's margin was erased by your 1.76 BB/100 per person rake premium) at the table, the five average players would lose 5.16 BB/100! So much for fish protection.

Anwyay, Party has a successful, profitable model. Why shouldn't CA go with it? The market data says that works. Winning players keep the tables going while folks playing for entertainment get what they wanted. Your model precludes winning by all but the very best, who MAY eke out a minor win rate (i.e., the current > 2 BB/100 players only). With almost everyone losing on a regular basis, it's hard to envision long-term sustainability of your plan.

Seems like you haven't run any numbers or collected any data at all. You simply wrote out what sounded good to you, then disparaged anyone who disagreed with you. Anyway, you asked for numbers and here they are.

[Dennisa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are an engineer, do some math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. More math (as it seems you didn't do any). A full $5/$10 limit six-handed table will generate a $5.75 rake on many showdowns. I checked my last 1,000 $5/$10 6-max limit hands for you. For this game ($3 max rake), the average rake was $1.53 per hand (0.153 BB/hand, or 15.3 BB/100). For your game, the average rake is $2.58 per hand (0.258 BB/hand, or 25.8 BB per 100). So, your game costs as extra 10.6 BB per 100 hands (1.76 BB/100 per player)!!! In other words, it's as if in addition to the normal rake, someone came by and took $106 off the table every hour or so!

For the FullTilt game I analyzed, if there were two skilled players making 1 BB/100 hands on average playing with four equally skilled average players, the four lesser players would lose 17.3 BB/100 hands between them, on average (-15.3 BB/100 - 1 BB/100 * 2 players), or 4.3 BB/100 per player. For your game, six equal players would lose 4.3 BB/100 per person on average (-25.8 BB/100 / 6 players). So, your "fish protection" plan was overtaken by the obscene rake. And, if there was merely one breakeven player (i.e., a nominal 1.76 BB/100 winner who's margin was erased by your 1.76 BB/100 per person rake premium) at the table, the five average players would lose 5.16 BB/100! So much for fish protection.

Anwyay, Party has a successful, profitable model. Why shouldn't CA go with it? The market data says that works. Winning players keep the tables going while folks playing for entertainment get what they wanted. Your model precludes winning by all but the very best, who MAY eke out a minor win rate (i.e., the current > 2 BB/100 players only). With almost everyone losing on a regular basis, it's hard to envision long-term sustainability of your plan.

Seems like you haven't run any numbers or collected any data at all. You simply wrote out what sounded good to you, then disparaged anyone who disagreed with you. Anyway, you asked for numbers and here they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of rake is moot in California. Card rooms which would include this online site, CAN NOT CHARGE A RAKE by current statute. They must charge a fixed drop per hand or a time charge. It is illegal for a card room to profit based on the SIZE OF THE POT. Tuff fish should of known this when drafting the proposal. Even if he gets this on the ballot, and it passes, the card room association will get it thrown out because it conflicts with current card room statues.

[crashjr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are an engineer, do some math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. More math (as it seems you didn't do any). A full $5/$10 limit six-handed table will generate a $5.75 rake on many showdowns. I checked my last 1,000 $5/$10 6-max limit hands for you. For this game ($3 max rake), the average rake was $1.53 per hand (0.153 BB/hand, or 15.3 BB/100). For your game, the average rake is $2.58 per hand (0.258 BB/hand, or 25.8 BB per 100). So, your game costs as extra 10.6 BB per 100 hands (1.76 BB/100 per player)!!! In other words, it's as if in addition to the normal rake, someone came by and took $106 off the table every hour or so!

For the FullTilt game I analyzed, if there were two skilled players making 1 BB/100 hands on average playing with four equally skilled average players, the four lesser players would lose 17.3 BB/100 hands between them, on average (-15.3 BB/100 - 1 BB/100 * 2 players), or 4.3 BB/100 per player. For your game, six equal players would lose 4.3 BB/100 per person on average (-25.8 BB/100 / 6 players). So, your "fish protection" plan was overtaken by the obscene rake. And, if there was merely one breakeven player (i.e., a nominal 1.76 BB/100 winner who's margin was erased by your 1.76 BB/100 per person rake premium) at the table, the five average players would lose 5.16 BB/100! So much for fish protection.

Anwyay, Party has a successful, profitable model. Why shouldn't CA go with it? The market data says that works. Winning players keep the tables going while folks playing for entertainment get what they wanted. Your model precludes winning by all but the very best, who MAY eke out a minor win rate (i.e., the current > 2 BB/100 players only). With almost everyone losing on a regular basis, it's hard to envision long-term sustainability of your plan.

Seems like you haven't run any numbers or collected any data at all. You simply wrote out what sounded good to you, then disparaged anyone who disagreed with you. Anyway, you asked for numbers and here they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of rake is moot in California. Card rooms which would include this online site, CAN NOT CHARGE A RAKE by current statute. They must charge a fixed drop per hand or a time charge. It is illegal for a card room to profit based on the SIZE OF THE POT. Tuff fish should of known this when drafting the proposal. Even if he gets this on the ballot, and it passes, the card room association will get it thrown out because it conflicts with current card room statues.

[/ QUOTE ]

False. Tuff's initiative, if approved by the voters, supercedes previously enacted statutory law (but not constitutional provisions) and overturns contrary court opinions. A well drafted initiative would have so specified.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]

False. Tuff's initiative, if approved by the voters, supercedes previously enacted statutory law (but not constitutional provisions) and overturns contrary court opinions. A well drafted initiative would have so specified.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tuff's initiative does specify this.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
This Initiative is breaking new ground and you want it to "avoid any confusion" about the size limit games being discussed.

Are you really thinking that a "wrong" answer about "multi-tabling" or size games would lead you to oppose its passage or implementation ? If so, get a better perspective ....

[/ QUOTE ]

You have jumped to conclusions about my perspective that are unwarranted, MiltonFriedman.

In what world does offering constructive criticism to remove ambiguity from his wording amount to opposition? It's my understanding that constructive criticism is exactly what Tuff posted this thread for.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
I figure a sanctioned state regulated site can command a bit of a premium.

And besides, I have heard adnausium about how the fish are oblivious to rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

A state sponsored site could get away with many revenue increasing tactics. High rake is one, allowing multi-tabling is another. Both are arguably bad for the recreational player, but high rake undoubtably takes money directly out of his pocket and will make him go broke faster than with lower rake.

Loose players win more pots and pay a higher percentage of total rake collected than do tight players. High rake is more punitive to loose players than it is to tight players.

It doesn't matter if recreational players 'are oblivious to rake', the fact remains that high rake is extremely detrimental to the recreational player.

I ask again. How do you possibly reconcile high rake with your emphasis on providing the best environment possible for the recreational player??? High rake is diametrically opposed to that goal!!!

Please, just copy the Stars rake schedule.

[crashjr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

False. Tuff's initiative, if approved by the voters, supercedes previously enacted statutory law (but not constitutional provisions) and overturns contrary court opinions. A well drafted initiative would have so specified.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tuff's initiative does specify this.

[/ QUOTE ]

19990.3(b) you are correct. I remembered seeing it in the first draft but did not find it upon scanning the latest draft. I should not post before the morning's first pot of coffee obviously.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
A full $5/$10 limit six-handed table will generate a $5.75 rake on many showdowns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually a $5/10 limit table will never generate a $5.75 rake. The rake is capped at the size of the big blind, which is $5. IINM.

That said, I agree with you 100% that Tuff should simply adopt a 'normal' online rake schedule. I.e. copy Stars or Party.

There is a big logical inconsistency in putting such emphasis on protecting the recreational player from sharks, but then turning around and making the operator the ultimate 'shark' / fish-eater by having significantly higher rake than is the norm online.

Furthermore, if this were adopted, I fully expect it would produce a booming site, and it would give the commercial sites incentive to raise their rakes. If Cali can get away with $5.75, then why shouldn't Stars bump it up to $4.

Yuck.

[TheScientist]

I'd be in favor of this proposal if it allowed just 2 tables and had a normal rake. It's just so extreme that I cannot support it, as much as I want to.

[Tuff_Fish]

The rake schedule is a valid point on which we might have differing viewpoints.

If you will notice, I made it somewhat easier to lower the rake schedule than to raise it. I am figuring that the California site would be alone in the market for only a limited amount of time. Rake is one (of many) areas where they would eventually have to compete.

Yes, I wrote it with a higher rake schedule. I don't forsee that being a big driver to the sites acceptance in the general poker playing population. If it were to become a problem, it can be lowered.

And, to get some enthuiasm going, some decent bucks have to be dangled in front of the voters. Where exactly the optimum set point for rake is will be determined by experience. The idea is to maximize income for the site.

Tuff
.

[aislephive]

Tuff, the point is your proposal is full of logical inconsistenciest. If the goal of the site is to maximize income, then banning multitabling makes no sense. Making up for the banning of multitabling by implementing a grossly high rake system also is stupidity.

Why not just make make it so you can play no more than 6 tables? Multitablers will be happy and 6 tables is pretty easy to keep track of for most players. The people who are extremely slow are generally the ones at 10-12 tables.

It just doesn't make any sense to post this initiave at 2+2, which is full of recreaction-semipro-pro players who all play several tables with pokertracker and pahud, and then try to make a big joke out of it when people respond adversely. What did you really expect?

[dlk9s]

The real question is this:

Will this thread get as long as the other thread that was about this exact topic?

[gutte169]

The more topics on this, the better.

This whole idea is completely illogical, it's a horrible first step in the direction of any kind of carveout. High rake and table limitations? How are you going to generate money with no players and no tables?

With the success of online poker sites from 2003-2006, how could anyone doubt their rake structure and code of conduct? It's like creating mp3 players that weigh 15 lbs and hold 5 songs. It's the complete opposite of what people want and what has been proven to be successful. Recreational players (all players)are protected by low rake, and the maximum amount of money is generated when people are playing as many tables as they can. Period.

If this, or anything similar, passes, EVERYONE in the poker community is worse off. I'm glad you are determined to get something rolling for CA, but this is just plain wrong.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
If you will notice, I made it somewhat easier to lower the rake schedule than to raise it. I am figuring that the California site would be alone in the market for only a limited amount of time. Rake is one (of many) areas where they would eventually have to compete.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where to start? Uhh....how often do politicians LOWER gambling taxes? If YOU won't lower them on your own, why would a politician do so later, once there are stakeholders in the status quo?

You asked me for numbers and I provided them....where are your smart ass comments now?

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I wrote it with a higher rake schedule. I don't forsee that being a big driver to the sites acceptance in the general poker playing population.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're all relieved that you don't foresee any issues. May we see your studies that verify this? Have you researched this at all? Or, is it just your data-free opinion? I'm guessing it's the latter.

[ QUOTE ]
And, to get some enthuiasm going, some decent bucks have to be dangled in front of the voters. Where exactly the optimum set point for rake is will be determined by experience. The idea is to maximize income for the site.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why not rake 100% of the pot? The state will make billions, according to your theory. Sorry, but the maximum price isn't always the most profitable. Just as GM can't return to profitability by charging $250,000 per car, you can't maximize income simply by setting a sky-high rake. The poker site will likely make more money with a lower rake and corresponding higher action.

Do you have any business experience at all? Funny how you expect us to all buy into your no-experience plan that contradicts the business models of all successful poker sites. It's not just that you hope we'll agree with you....you seem genuinely surprised and offended when we question your ideas.

Anyway, as for maximizing income, Party also wishes to maximize profits. Check out their business model.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are an engineer, do some math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Corrected for $5 max rake at $5/$10 full 6-max table (same conclusion)

Okay. More math (as it seems you didn't do any). A full $5/$10 limit six-handed table will generate a $5 max rake on many showdowns. I checked my last 1,000 $5/$10 6-max limit hands for you. For this game ($3 max rake), the average rake was $1.53 per hand (0.153 BB/hand, or 15.3 BB/100). For your game, the average rake is $2.49 per hand (0.249 BB/hand, or 24.9 BB per 100). So, your game costs as extra 9.6 BB per 100 hands (1.61 BB/100 per player)!!! In other words, it's as if in addition to the normal rake, someone came by and took $96 off the table every hour or so!

For the FullTilt game I analyzed, if there were two skilled players making 1 BB/100 hands on average playing with four equally skilled average players, the four lesser players would lose 17.3 BB/100 hands between them, on average (-15.3 BB/100 - 1 BB/100 * 2 players), or 4.3 BB/100 per player. For your game, six equal players would lose 4.2 BB/100 per person on average (-24.9 BB/100 / 6 players). So, your "fish protection" plan was just about overtaken by the obscene rake. And, if there was merely one breakeven player (i.e., a nominal 1.61 BB/100 winner who's margin was erased by your 1.61 BB/100 per person rake premium) at the table, the five average players would lose 5.0 BB/100! So much for fish protection.

Anwyay, Party has a successful, profitable model. Why shouldn't CA go with it? The market data says that works. Winning players keep the tables going while folks playing for entertainment get what they wanted. Your model precludes winning by all but the very best, who MAY eke out a minor win rate (i.e., the current > 2 BB/100 players only). With almost everyone losing on a regular basis, it's hard to envision long-term sustainability of your plan.

Seems like you haven't run any numbers or collected any data at all. You simply wrote out what sounded good to you, then disparaged anyone who disagreed with you. Anyway, you asked for numbers and here they are.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
The rake schedule is a valid point on which we might have differing viewpoints.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why are you setting one via the initative? Shouldn't the state set it based on the prevailing market? You could simply state that the state shall base the rake on the prevailing market rate and be done with it, if you weren't simply trying to be obstinate.

[ QUOTE ]
If you will notice, I made it somewhat easier to lower the rake schedule than to raise it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Politicians don't lower gambling taxes....ever. Besides, $5.75 per pot max would be the "will of the people"; who'd change that?

[ QUOTE ]
I am figuring that the California site would be alone in the market for only a limited amount of time. Rake is one (of many) areas where they would eventually have to compete.

[/ QUOTE ]

So go with a reasonable rake to encourage people to play without going belly-up every time they log on.

[ QUOTE ]
And, to get some enthuiasm going, some decent bucks have to be dangled in front of the voters. Where exactly the optimum set point for rake is will be determined by experience. The idea is to maximize income for the site.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why did you pull some obscenely high rake out of your ass for the starting point? You admit you have no idea what it should be, yet you wish to screw the game from the get-go with a too-high rake. And, when someone tries to reduce it, your beneficiaries (especially the non-playing ones) will think they're losing benefits. You think you the state is going to piss off the teacher's union over this? And, why shouldn't the beneficiaries make this argument...you've make the same argument here.

[TheEngineer]

I don't even know why we're trying to communicate with you, Tuff.

I've made my decision. I oppose your initiative.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]

I figure a sanctioned state regulated site can command a bit of a premium.

And besides, I have heard adnausium about how the fish are oblivious to rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the same fish that your trying to protect. Why do you bother to defend casual players from hudbots and multi tablers, if you are going to gouge them with a high rake?

[ QUOTE ]

And, to get some enthuiasm going, some decent bucks have to be dangled in front of the voters. Where exactly the optimum set point for rake is will be determined by experience. The idea is to maximize income for the site.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your priority is to maximize profits for the site. Are you kidding? It would be one thing if were going to open up a free market and the market created a high rake, but to have a state imposed high rake is ridiculous. If your trying to institute a tax, then just try to pass a law that increases taxes. Also, non poker playing voters aren't going to know the difference between a high rake and a low rake. If you are imagining a scenario where a voter is standing in a voting booth thinking, "I would vote for this, but I think the rake is set a little to low to generate enough revenue for the state," then quite imagining, cause that scenario ain't happening.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
And, to get some enthuiasm going, some decent bucks have to be dangled in front of the voters. Where exactly the optimum set point for rake is will be determined by experience. The idea is to maximize income for the site.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again I point you to the largest and most successfull sites as the obvious place to see where experience has led the successful veterans of the industry to set their rake.

Just adopt the rake schedule of Stars or Party, or one that roughly splits the difference.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
non poker playing voters aren't going to know the difference between a high rake and a low rake. If you are imagining a scenario where a voter is standing in a voting booth thinking, "I would vote for this, but I think the rake is set a little to low to generate enough revenue for the state," then quite imagining, cause that scenario ain't happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFTMFT

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
Politicians don't lower gambling taxes....ever. Besides, $5.75 per pot max would be the "will of the people"; who'd change that?


[/ QUOTE ]

QFFT

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
I've made my decision. I oppose your initiative.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the rake provision doesn't change, that'd be enough for me to oppose as well.

I think there's a real chance for a voter initiative in Cali to open the doors on internet poker. I don't want that door opened with a 5.75% rake.

Hell, I'd consider moving to Cali to promote a solid initiative. Er, and to be able to play in live (and online?) games legally. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Tuff, fix the rake, and clarify that you aren't outlawing playing on other sites with HUDs while playing 2 non-HUD Cali tables, and I'll consider moving to Cali to promote your initiative.

[Tuff_Fish]

Well, for better or worse, the initiative as written is what is going forward.

There is a not insignificant chance that it will have to be resubmitted with some changes (not with anything discussed here).

I have heard what input I can expect to get here.

The signal to noise ratio here renders this arena pretty useless for meaningful input. I do appreciate what little useful dialogue I have received here.

I see no reason to continue with these postings. Going forward, I will only post (without further comment) an occasional progress report, or to report if I pull the initiative.

Thanks again to those who offered constructive thoughts.

Tuff
.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a not insignificant chance that it will have to be resubmitted with some changes (not with anything discussed here).

[/ QUOTE ]

No surprise. You said this was the "screw you 2+2ers" initiative.

[ QUOTE ]
I do appreciate what little useful dialogue I have received here.

[/ QUOTE ]

We gave you a ton of information, including a good analysis on the obscene rake (the most expensive in the nation for 6-handed, including that at B&M casinos following a request for a rake reduction...you refuse to explain why). You chose not to listen.

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks again to those who offered constructive thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're welcome. Unless, of course, you define "constructive" as "agreeing with you".

I'll post my analysis of your proposed rake schedule at several gambling web sites. Also, in the unlikely event that your initiative goes anywhere, I'll write op-eds for all major California newspapers (and you know I can write).

[TheEngineer]