Which Groups *DO NOT* Deserve a Seat on the PPA Board? [Archive]

DeadMoneyDad

09-12-2007, 04:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I have discussed many times the composition of the PPA board and why I feel it is in drastic need of being revamped in order to give it a broad range of relevant and competent expertise that it needs to have the best chance of success in general, and also to be assured of pursuing all of the broader range of goals that most rank and file members have, as opposed to primarily focusing on benefiting the business models of specific concerns.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMPO your entire question is not only out of line it is based on a false premise.

Do the current board members deserve to be there?

Well let’s see? They stood up when asked to join. I don't know how much seed money they were required to personally contribute or "bring to the table" but that is usually the buy-in to be dealt a hand at a board room table like this.

Your premise is in effect an attempted proxy fight. You think the board sucks. I get that.

But what do you usually need in a proxy fight to win?

You have to show that the current board and management are unfit and its actions have hurt the organization.

Other than expressing your dislike of the current board, or demanding certain people be replacing by your own personal slate or possibly one chosen in this forum, what exactly are you getting at?

You have yet to show any harm to the poker world done by the PPA to date. You might have a mismanagement claim, which I might have supported before the board made the changes it has recently. We've got a new HQ location, a new Ex. Dir., even a new board member from "our" ranks. The PPA's KY participation is under serious discussion based on a cost vs. reward basis. Efforts are already under way with the e-mail TE posted to get an initial gauge of interest and I imagine see how good the e-mail list is. TE says the PPA is going to address the new IRS reg. Efforts are well underway to have a meaningful marking of the Anniversary of the UIGEA. I'm told the member questionnaire John promised to send out to the members is out or on it's way. John came here and posted. He's answered questions, e-mails, and had a meeting with me. I don't know and didn't ask how many others he's met with. Let alone the thousands things the PPA is doing that I know nothing about. These are all positives aren't they?

Where is the damage? What would your dream board do differently or what would you have them do differently, that is much different than is currently underway?

You act like there was a secret conspiracy to keep certain poker interests off the board. Do you have any proof of this? You act like the interests of certain aspects of the poker industry are being harmed by the PPA; can you point to specific actions?

As I posted once before, sometime around the age of four I pretty much gave up on the idea that I was ever going to get everything I wanted all of the time. Hell you know I've posted that I'm a lifelong Republican. I volunteered over 250 hours in 16 weeks in a Presidential campaign. I knew I'd been doing a lot, but it was my wife who told me how many hours I'd donated. Yes that's about a year of 40 hour work weeks in less than a quarter of a year. I’ve done a lot of work since then that was below my going rate. Even the Federal job I reluctantly accepted was taken at a pay cut to what I’d been making before taking it. Am I totally happy with everything the party does all the time?

What the hell am I doing as a lifelong Republican? Am I off to KY to do everything I can to try and save a fellow Republican? No I want to burry the SOB so deep they will need part of the Rockies to fill the hole! Yeah I think the PPA can mobilize the effort to make a mark on National politics in KY for poker. At this point in my life if I could afford to go down their on my own dime, I’d already be there! 3 kids, one in College will cause you to loose a little of your freedoms. Perhaps if I hadn’t given so much to the GOP and wasn’t getting to the point where the AARP sends you that nasty birthday card on your 50th I’d go anyway. Maybe if I was a better poker player I could afford to go. Hey anyone want to stake me??? John Pappas are you reading this? I bet it would be a positive ROI and likely return your staking in the form of new member donations….

I'd say this to you. Can you show me proof that there were people willing to step up and join the effort in a meaningful way when the PPA was formed but were denied a seat at the table? No I don't mean that they might not have had their butts kissed enough or given enough control to bother getting involved, I mean being told NO.

Can you show me other than through past mismanagement where the interests of any portion of the poker world was disserved or one portion given special favor over the competing interest of another?

You want to wage a proxy fight, let’s get it all out in the open. What is your claim to the "throne" why do you or what ever interest you represent or think isn't represented should be given control now? While you are at it tell me what they'd do differently. Give me a compelling list of reasons. I'm either a reasonable person or you might suggest one that is easily persuaded. Give it your best shot.

So far the current board has my vote, but I haven't signed my ballot just yet nor sent it in. My vote is up for grabs, convince me!

D$D

DeadMoneyDad

09-12-2007, 04:33 AM

By the way in a proxy fight or a non-skewed push poll, you leave options for people to vote for at least the status quo. Your's should be taken down and modified or considered completely meaningless.

Like I said my vote is currently for the PPA board that is unless they reject TE's nomination, then all bets are off!!!

D$D

BluffTHIS!

09-12-2007, 07:47 AM

D$D,

[ QUOTE ]

Do the current board members deserve to be there?

Your premise is in effect an attempted proxy fight. You think the board sucks. I get that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The right question and yep that's my answer.

[ QUOTE ]

But what do you usually need in a proxy fight to win?

You have to show that the current board and management are unfit and its actions have hurt the organization.

Other than expressing your dislike of the current board, or demanding certain people be replacing by your own personal slate or possibly one chosen in this forum, what exactly are you getting at?

You have yet to show any harm to the poker world done by the PPA to date. You might have a mismanagement claim, which I might have supported before the board made the changes it has recently.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yes that's the standard for judging, and yes the recent improvements are indeed just that. But doing too little too late, being reactive instead of proactive, and having a board that lacks the type of expertise one would expect with a wide range of releveant experience, not just in *certain* segments of the poker industry, but also in politcs, fundraising and the law (yeah I know one is an attorney), are many reasons for judging this current board unworthy. Add to that, until the Engineer joins, a total lack, let alone a sufficient representation, of the base membership (which could and should include some state directors), the very evident *conflicts of interest* that DOMINATE the current board, and there the membership has all the reason in the world to judge that a serious shakeup, and not just a tweaking, of the current board membership is in order.

Besides the members of the actual board, the PPA should have various advisory panels on various topics. And they could easily use their forums with private such ones to facilitate getting such needed advice. There are many industry and politics insiders who post here who can't publicly be affiliated with the PPA, but would be willing to provide valuable advice and counsel in a private setting, *if the PPA asked them to*.

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the damage? What would your dream board do differently or what would you have them do differently, that is much different than is currently underway?

[/ QUOTE ]

The damage is that the recent changes took far too long and fall far too short of what is needed. The PPA should have been addressing the broader range of goals that the majority of members have, like B&M poker, intra-state online poker, neutering the regs, and especially, being proactive in fighting on the judicial front as opportunities presented itself instead of just focusing on legislation. This doesn't mean of course that at any current moment some goals don't deserve more focus than others, in this case being the pending legislation. But it does mean that at least minimal efforts needed to be made to lay the groundwork for other goals, *all of which would work together with a synergistic effect*.

Also, even though none of us think the PPA some type of scam, it also has done too little in the way of financial and operational transparency. They finally last year after much criticism here posted the previous year's financials. But where is last year's now that this one is mostly gone? Such transparency should be a required best practice of any such organization.

[ QUOTE ]
You act like there was a secret conspiracy to keep certain poker interests off the board. Do you have any proof of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well let's see. Do you see any members who are average poker players, but with needed expertise in the law, politics or fundraising? No is the answer. Do you see any representatives of B&M poker? No is the answer. The plain fact is that the current board precisely represents the vested interests of certain business models in the poker industry, specifically current and former online sites, advertising media dependant on same, and affiliate interests. All of whom have zero interest, as is plain from the PPA's actions (or rather lack thereof), in furthering other forms of poker.

[ QUOTE ]
You act like the interests of certain aspects of the poker industry are being harmed by the PPA; can you point to specific actions?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are all actions of omission with one *flagrant and gross* exception. Which was their short lived advertising campaign (until they yanked same after criticism here) that took the party poker line that the UIGEA outlawed all the sites staying in the US market, contrary to the legal interpretations of the privately owned sites, and which was solely a move to harm the business and legal interests of those private sites, in line with the *very bitter* criticisms of same directed at them by Mitch the Bitch Garber, CEO of Party Gaming. Errors of omission can not only be as great, but can be greater than errors of comission.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you show me other than through past mismanagement where the interests of any portion of the poker world was disserved or one portion given special favor over the competing interest of another?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have answered this above, but note how casually you dismiss past mismanagement. That is HUGE. Too little too late won't cut the mustard.

And here's a different and very good way to look at things. If the board, other than its chairman Sen. D'Amato whom I currently have no problem with (but will if his buddy Fred comes out explicitly against us after he endorsed him), were being picked by all of us here today, what kind of persons would be looking for to fill it? Would we be looking for 4 members who are owners/past owners/writers of one specific poker publication, two of whom are domestic partners and a couple of whom are also invested heavily in the affiliate business that depends on one certain business model? And then would we round it out with only 3 others who represent various poker sites? Or would we be looking for at most one or two from each of those groups and seeking other non-industry members with better and greater experience in the law, grassroots politics, fundraising and business? If we had such a picture of the "ideal board" and then compared it to the current one, I think most here would find the current one severely lacking.

BluffTHIS!

09-12-2007, 07:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
By the way in a proxy fight or a non-skewed push poll, you leave options for people to vote for at least the status quo. Your's should be taken down and modified or considered completely meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if someone is generally happy with the status quo, some poker industry interest has to be judged the least worthy among the interests represented. That is the point of the poll, which then can be compared to the vested interests of the current membership precisely as an aid to judging how conflicted it is.

OldNantucker

09-12-2007, 10:30 AM

Who is currently on the PPA board (or whre can I find this info) and what reasons would any of them have not to fight for online poker rights?

DeadMoneyDad

09-12-2007, 10:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way in a proxy fight or a non-skewed push poll, you leave options for people to vote for at least the status quo. Your's should be taken down and modified or considered completely meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if someone is generally happy with the status quo, some poker industry interest has to be judged the least worthy among the interests represented. That is the point of the poll, which then can be compared to the vested interests of the current membership precisely as an aid to judging how conflicted it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the worth of having stepped up and built the value of the organization that currently exists? You keep insisting that because of the current affiliations of the board it can not move forward.

Of these prospective board members where were they when the PPA was formed? Did they volunteer their time, resources, and credibility? Has this vast resource been freely offered or tried to talk to the ED or board members when it was formed? How about recently? Or is the position been "we want x amount of seats just to talk"?

I can sort of understand both sides of this, it's that middle child crap again. 2+2 et.al. feel that the PPA while moderately sucessful, well sucessfull enough to want entry to the game, but so unsucessfull to demand control? That, and this all is only from what I've read, these new board members are so credible that they are not willing to risk association with the PPA without at least tacit veto power over future actions lest they diminish their credibility?

Come on now? Where's the middle ground? Your opening position is you suck, but unless I get a good deal of control I will not talk to you. I'll keep my offically "netrual stance" but watchout without out my help you are going to fail? wink wink "I'm going to make it clear that you suck no matter what you do unless you accept me on my terms."

We're a single issue group and you want to re-create all of the worst of our current 2 party system to play in that enviorment? With freeroll members, various levels of members, and some small number of big donnors who do you propose to vote this.

I've been in board rooms, good bad and in the middle of a fight for control. I was even in FlA for the re-count. How fancy are you going to try and make this?

While it might be true that for an individual "what doesn't destroy us makes us stronger". IMO that just isn't true in this case. IMO your cure is worse than the current effects of the desease you're trying to cure.

If cooler heads can't prevail and everyone pitch in to their own abilites and tastes with out this "I'm going to take my ball home" attitude I was right in my teaser post in FT's forum. Poker is doomed.

Seems simple to me. Donate you time and the resources you can. If you think you have something valuable enough to try and negociate something more go for it. But this king of the hill game you're playing is getting out of hand. I don't know for sure we as the PPA's members as a whole can walk and chew gum. Now on the eve of battle you want to add a whole nighmare of races amongst ourselves for State Rep unpaid jobs, so we can then vote on an advisory pannel? To tell the people who've done the work so far to do what is working and not do what isn't. OMG you sound like most of the thinking you get talking to people who've been in D.C. too long. Who's going to pay for all of this?

By the way where is this fancy gold plated boardroom any way? We're a infant non-profit, not a Fourtune 500 company. Besides you sound a lot like Gordon Gecko trying a leveraged buy out. But do you really think there is at this point that much to fight over and possibly destroy at this time? IMO you want to do this, I'm all for it come after the November elections in '08. Lets get some state reps in the field see who can carry the politicl water, see if we can operate as we should. Spending the time and effort to wrest the control now in the manner you're speaking of is IMPO insane. Heck you'd start with a problem I'm sure with already appointed state reps. Don't you have to toss them out as well as they were appointed not elected. Who you going to trust to count the ballots? Hire an outside accounting firm?

Lets get real. If one or all of your chosen few have the vast resources, go talk to John talk to the board members individually or in any number you can get them to listen. Work it out behind the scenes. But this my way or the highway crap is getting old and time is very short.

D$D

All opinions expressed in this and all my posts are soley my own. All spelling and gramatically errors are my own and due to sleep deprevation. I've spent the last 48 hours or so out pimping the PPA for free. I use my e-mail program as a spell checker and comcast's e-mail server is down and I'm tired of the password pop-up comming up every minute and me typing have my thought into the password field. I have no affiliation with 2+2 or the PPA other than the free services offered by each. Yes I met with John. I have had no with him conversations beyond how the PPA might avail it self of any talents I might have that he or it finds useful. If nominated to the board I will not accept any such offer should anyone be dumb enough to offer me such a nomination any time before 60 days after election day 2008. If you want to question my motives for my opinions feel free. I wear flame retardant underware. This is my fourth crack at this reply. Timed out twice and trashed the other two. I'll likely edit this after some sleep so enjoy it while you can. Go ahead quote it. Just for prosperity's sake!

uphigh_downlow

09-12-2007, 11:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I can sort of understand both sides of this, it's that middle child crap again. 2+2 et.al. feel that the PPA while moderately sucessful, well sucessfull enough to want entry to the game, but so unsucessfull to demand control? That, and this all is only from what I've read, these new board members are so credible that they are not willing to risk association with the PPA without at least tacit veto power over future actions lest they diminish their credibility?

Come on now? Where's the middle ground? Your opening position is you suck, but unless I get a good deal of control I will not talk to you. I'll keep my offically "netrual stance" but watchout without out my help you are going to fail? wink wink "I'm going to make it clear that you suck no matter what you do unless you accept me on my terms."

[/ QUOTE ]

Hit the nail on the head, as far as TPT LLC manouvering is concerned. I cant believe I was gullible enough not to see through this just a week ago.

Such tactics are only going to weaken TPT's ( ownership etal, not the community) credibility.

They have already lost one lost believer here, and I have good reason to suspect there are more.

BluffThis, you would have a much better chance at causing positive change, with positive contributions and I dont mean with your keyboard.

When you are passionate about an issue, you find innovative ways to find common ground and work on the matter at hand, rather than grandstanding.

I think TheEngineer is a good example.

I'm not being too simplistic or desperate. Its just that when you have two teams. One talks a lot and thats all it does. The other is not great but gets some work done. You go for the latter.

BluffTHIS!

09-12-2007, 11:43 AM

D$D,

I replied very substantively to your previous post, while you give yet another long diatribe that did not respond substantively to mine. And this has nothing to do with 2p2 of myself or any other particular person who might or might not be a prospective board member (I def am not interested). So there's no "middle child" thing going on. Either respond to the points I made or just keep ignoring them and spinning the spin. And if you do respond to those points, please be as concise as possible and skip all the irrelevancies, also known in debating circles as "proof by verbosity".

MiltonFriedman

09-12-2007, 01:35 PM

Take a break before you burn out.

Skallagrim

09-12-2007, 02:23 PM

What a long winded fight over relatively small matters.

I could care less who is on the PPA board, D$D is right on this one for the most part. If the PPA board were to be handpicked by you Bluffthis could you guarantee a better PPA? Of course not.

I am a member of the PPA because right now it is the only organization that even purports to be fighting for the cause: legal poker, especially legal online poker. It has only been in existence one year, and I am willing to allow it growing pains - I agree its performance so far has been less than spectacular.

At the moment, though, it appears to be moving in the right direction. So I will continue to support it as long as it is moving in the right direction and I have no better alternative.

Until and unless I see proof that this "unrepresentative" board is actively working against poker player's interests, I am not gonna care who they are but rather what they do. My actual guess is that they are people who truly care about poker but are "learning on the job" what it takes to craft and run a truly effective special interest advocacy group.

Sometimes, Bluffthis. your criticism is helpful to bettering the PPA and the cause (your criticisms of their tactics do have much merit); sometimes, as with this continued harping on the members of the board, it amounts to nothing but a waste of otherwise useful energy.

Thats my opinion anyway.

Skallagrim

RoundGuy

09-12-2007, 02:50 PM

I'm pretty sure 6 of us misread the poll.

DeadMoneyDad

09-12-2007, 03:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Take a break before you burn out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I cetianly need a few hours sleep, but great advice.

D$D

BluffThis I wrote 4 "substabtitive replies" two I got an error message when trying to post and one got lost in the cut and pasting ediditng trying to keep the quotes right.

Yes you deserve a response beyond what I ranted.

But on a simple upset vs reward at this time, and the fact that if people with resources can't get accpeted by reasonible cooperation I'm not sure I want them on any board. Yes all bets are off when a person like TE gets nominated if he were to be blackballed. TE did the work showed his value, and was asked to take a position he wasn't looking for, well as far as I know. That to me is the model.

Beyond that your Trilaterial Commission, Skull&Bones, and "Free Mason!" theories of a sinister board just fall short. But hey I'm a compromiser, the middle child in me bit, I try to see all sides, then follow logic and a common sense path weighed with my own risk reward calculation.

So unless anyone's help is shown the door because of their industry associations the proxy fight IMPO is a dead issue at this time.

If you want the poker anology, "we've got the hand we're dealt." I like my cards and the flop shows me a board (pun intended) that keeps me in the pot. KY is the turn, it may or may not get me out of the pot. I will know if I had a winner when we see the river which is '08.

Before November '08 if you don't like your cards fold, you think your hand is EV+ raise the bet or at least call the bet to you. Don't like the game? Your welcome to start your own at any time.

December '08 is a new deal IMPO then the blinds at least double.

Clear and concise enough for you.

D$D

Mason Malmuth

09-12-2007, 08:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I could care less who is on the PPA board

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have a lot to learn.

MM

Cactus Jack

09-12-2007, 09:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I could care less who is on the PPA board

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have a lot to learn.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't that depend on who's on the board? Many boards are people by members with high profiles but no power. Others are boards with real business experience and provide a lot of strategic decisions.

Since we really don't know who is on the BOD of the PPA, it's hard to make a determination whether to care or not.

I am hopeful this new direction remains positive. We need both the PPA and 2+2 in this fight. Having them at odds doesn't do us any good at all.

Tuff_Fish

09-12-2007, 10:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have discussed many times the composition of the PPA board and why I feel it is in drastic need of being revamped in order to give it a broad range of relevant and competent expertise that it needs to have the best chance of success in general, and also to be assured of pursuing all of the broader range of goals that most rank and file members have, as opposed to primarily focusing on benefiting the business models of specific concerns.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMPO your entire question is not only out of line it is based on a false premise.

Do the current board members deserve to be there?

Well let’s see? They stood up when asked to join. I don't know how much seed money they were required to personally contribute or "bring to the table" but that is usually the buy-in to be dealt a hand at a board room table like this.

Your premise is in effect an attempted proxy fight. You think the board sucks. I get that.

But what do you usually need in a proxy fight to win?

You have to show that the current board and management are unfit and its actions have hurt the organization.

Other than expressing your dislike of the current board, or demanding certain people be replacing by your own personal slate or possibly one chosen in this forum, what exactly are you getting at?

You have yet to show any harm to the poker world done by the PPA to date. You might have a mismanagement claim, which I might have supported before the board made the changes it has recently. We've got a new HQ location, a new Ex. Dir., even a new board member from "our" ranks. The PPA's KY participation is under serious discussion based on a cost vs. reward basis. Efforts are already under way with the e-mail TE posted to get an initial gauge of interest and I imagine see how good the e-mail list is. TE says the PPA is going to address the new IRS reg. Efforts are well underway to have a meaningful marking of the Anniversary of the UIGEA. I'm told the member questionnaire John promised to send out to the members is out or on it's way. John came here and posted. He's answered questions, e-mails, and had a meeting with me. I don't know and didn't ask how many others he's met with. Let alone the thousands things the PPA is doing that I know nothing about. These are all positives aren't they?

Where is the damage? What would your dream board do differently or what would you have them do differently, that is much different than is currently underway?

You act like there was a secret conspiracy to keep certain poker interests off the board. Do you have any proof of this? You act like the interests of certain aspects of the poker industry are being harmed by the PPA; can you point to specific actions?

As I posted once before, sometime around the age of four I pretty much gave up on the idea that I was ever going to get everything I wanted all of the time. Hell you know I've posted that I'm a lifelong Republican. I volunteered over 250 hours in 16 weeks in a Presidential campaign. I knew I'd been doing a lot, but it was my wife who told me how many hours I'd donated. Yes that's about a year of 40 hour work weeks in less than a quarter of a year. I’ve done a lot of work since then that was below my going rate. Even the Federal job I reluctantly accepted was taken at a pay cut to what I’d been making before taking it. Am I totally happy with everything the party does all the time?

What the hell am I doing as a lifelong Republican? Am I off to KY to do everything I can to try and save a fellow Republican? No I want to burry the SOB so deep they will need part of the Rockies to fill the hole! Yeah I think the PPA can mobilize the effort to make a mark on National politics in KY for poker. At this point in my life if I could afford to go down their on my own dime, I’d already be there! 3 kids, one in College will cause you to loose a little of your freedoms. Perhaps if I hadn’t given so much to the GOP and wasn’t getting to the point where the AARP sends you that nasty birthday card on your 50th I’d go anyway. Maybe if I was a better poker player I could afford to go. Hey anyone want to stake me??? John Pappas are you reading this? I bet it would be a positive ROI and likely return your staking in the form of new member donations….

I'd say this to you. Can you show me proof that there were people willing to step up and join the effort in a meaningful way when the PPA was formed but were denied a seat at the table? No I don't mean that they might not have had their butts kissed enough or given enough control to bother getting involved, I mean being told NO.

Can you show me other than through past mismanagement where the interests of any portion of the poker world was disserved or one portion given special favor over the competing interest of another?

You want to wage a proxy fight, let’s get it all out in the open. What is your claim to the "throne" why do you or what ever interest you represent or think isn't represented should be given control now? While you are at it tell me what they'd do differently. Give me a compelling list of reasons. I'm either a reasonable person or you might suggest one that is easily persuaded. Give it your best shot.

So far the current board has my vote, but I haven't signed my ballot just yet nor sent it in. My vote is up for grabs, convince me!

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Said better than I could have.

Tuff

Skallagrim

09-13-2007, 10:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I could care less who is on the PPA board

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have a lot to learn.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Then enlighten me oh wise one, because I also do not care who is on the board of the NRA, the Reason Foundation, NORML, Moveon.org, or any other advocacy group who I support when their position is the same as mine.

Skallagrim

BluffTHIS!

09-13-2007, 10:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I could care less who is on the PPA board

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have a lot to learn.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Then enlighten me oh wise one, becasue I also do not care who is on the board of the NRA, the Reason Foundation, NORML, Moveon.org, or any other advocacy group who I support when their position is the same as mine.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Skall,

If you would actually read what I wrote earlier you could get enlightened. But here's the cliff notes:

1) Conflicted interests
2) Which lead to errors of ommission as to the broader range of goals most of us have
3) Lack of broad enough relevant expertise
4) Added to managerial incompetence of the past until Mr. Pappas' appointment (and which continues as to judicial issues)
4) Along with ongoing problems in transparency

Now let's examine the current results of the poll. The clear sentiment is that sites that left the market and *especially* affiliate farms are the very least of deserving seats on the board. Yet 4 members associated with CP mag, two of whom have large affiliate farm interests, including with the prime site that left the US market, i.e. party poker, effectively control the board *primarily to their own benefit rather than that of the larger membership*. Granted though that there own narrow goal of promoting the business model of certain online sites coincides with *ONE* of our larger list of goals.

Wait you say. The Engineer will soon be joining! Which when his vote is added to those of the chairman and the reps of the sites still in the US market *could* overrule the CP/Party Poker/Affiliate Farm block. Right? Wrong! Look on the PPA website and you will see that they have added another person, one Mary Magazine, an attorney *without* relevant legal experience (unless you think being a traffic court judge is), whose vote will offset that of the Engineer. Now guess whose friend she is, and thus which group she will vote with should there ever be a divergence of views on the board. Here's a clue: think poker cruises.

fnurt

09-13-2007, 10:58 AM

I don't understand why the interests of sites like PartyPoker are divergent from our own.

TruePoker CEO

09-13-2007, 12:37 PM

Party's position is that PokerStars (as well other sites)break some unspecified law by giving US players access to online poker. Having abandoned the US market, rather than seek judicial clarification of the UIGE's scope, Party's management seeks to choke of that market and its players.

That sort of public posture and position is scarcely in your interest.

Skallagrim

09-13-2007, 12:38 PM

BluffTHIS wrote: "Skall,

If you would actually read what I wrote earlier you could get enlightened. But here's the cliff notes:

1) Conflicted interests
2) Which lead to errors of ommission as to the broader range of goals most of us have
3) Lack of broad enough relevant expertise
4) Added to managerial incompetence of the past until Mr. Pappas' appointment (and which continues as to judicial issues)
4) Along with ongoing problems in transparency"

First, let me say that 3 and 4 are issues I agree with, and I also hope Pappas and the Engineer are well on their way to correcting those problems.

As to conflicted interests and errors of omission, I still dont get it (expect that their clearly have been errors along the way). I say that because, if I hear you correctly, you believe that the make up of the PPA board leads them to support some things that favor only one subset of the poker community. Yet there is clearly no point to a fight within the poker community at this time. UNTIL AND UNLESS THERE IS SOME MOVEMENT FORWARD TOWARDS ESTABLISHING POKER AS A LEGAL GAME, THERE IS NOTHING TO BICKER ABOUT!

Right now the PPA supports, as do I, the Wexler "skill games" bill. This bill helps us all and favors no one subset of the poker playing community or the businesses that provide the poker sites.

Even the more regulatory Frank Bill does not, as we speak, favor any one business concern (admittedly that could change if it ever has a real chance of passing).

So while it is possible to see that somewhere in the future the interests of partypoker etc.., pokerstars/FTP etc... and the big casinos, and maybe even us players could diverge, that is not where we are NOW. If the PPA were to support any one business interest over another or over the interests of us players, I will withdraw my support of them faster than you can blink.

But until then the goal for ALL OF US is the same: some recognized framework where playing poker online is clearly legal.

Until and unless we get to that point the interests of partypoker and me, as fnurt points out, are exactly the same.

And we are still so far from that point that I still dont see the relevance of starting an internal squabble over the membership of the PPA board, certainly not at this time (except of course, as it relates to competence in actually getting to that point).

So I still say lets not worry about the actual parameters of legal poker benefiting party more than stars, or cardplayer more than 2+2, UNTIL WE SEE THAT THERE IS A REAL CHANCE FOR LEGAL POKER. You and MM are not seeing the forest for the trees, IMHO, you are worrying so much about what they may do IF they achieve some initial success, that you seem to want to deny them that success. And denying them that success denies me the ability to play clearly legal poker. How does that serve MY interests?

Skallagrim

PS, I will also concede the points on transparency, but again dont see how that affects the average poker player's interests at this time except, again, as to competency.

PPS - TPCEO is right, although I dont see party actually working to get FTP prosecuted. Yet I am sure party would love to come back to the US with stars/FTP/and even true poker excluded. IF, IF, IF that were ever to be part of the PPA agenda, THEN I will, as I said, withdraw my support for the PPA. I suspect, however, that if forced to choose between no US market and a market that includes FTP etc... party would choose to have the market back.

PPPS: isnt Howard Lederer on the PPA board? Doesn't he have strong ties to FTP? How does this fit into the "PPA favors party" theory?

BluffTHIS!

09-13-2007, 01:01 PM

Skall,

The high probability is that Franks/Weixler doesn't pass this year. In fact if you believe a story/interview on the G911 site, Franks believes that as well. So then we shift to the mid to long term. It is that longer term where it is *critical* to work on mulitple initiatives, like B&M and intra-state online at the state levels, which will heighten the visibility of the poker issue and help legalize online poker. But with a board majority who not only doesn't benefit from B&M and intra-state online poker, but whose interests can be harmed by legalization of same, then they are in fact harming the longer term chances of online poker.
Let's face it, if either intra-state online poker or better yet mulit-state (like the lotto), comes to pass, all those affiliate farms are SOL.

Also look at what types of business necessarily have the most tied into the specific business models of online sites. It is the derivative type businesses like affiliate farms, certain advertisors, some software providers, etc. Thus they stand to have the most conflicts of interest and not be willing to work for what the broader membership of the PPA desires. Which is why they not only shouldn't be on the board, but certainly shouldn't constitute a majority of same.

And I have a question for you and some others here. What is so damn wrong with Allyn Shulman and Linda Johnson resigning from the PPA board and being replaced not with their cronys, but with some other qualified members like the Engineer? If some of those board members really cared more about the PPA instead of their own vested interests, and also wanted to put this issue to rest as you do, then they would resign on their own today.

DeadMoneyDad

09-13-2007, 01:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I could care less who is on the PPA board

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have a lot to learn.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

Then enlighten me oh wise one, becasue I also do not care who is on the board of the NRA, the Reason Foundation, NORML, Moveon.org, or any other advocacy group who I support when their position is the same as mine.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Skall,

If you would actually read what I wrote earlier you could get enlightened. But here's the cliff notes:

1) Conflicted interests
2) Which lead to errors of ommission as to the broader range of goals most of us have
3) Lack of broad enough relevant expertise
4) Added to managerial incompetence of the past until Mr. Pappas' appointment (and which continues as to judicial issues)
4) Along with ongoing problems in transparency

Now let's examine the current results of the poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for a clean position to start with the thought of going back trough the mixed quote version was making my eyes bleed.

1, 2 & 3. Are really one issue, and your perceived consequences. You say there is a conflict of interests. I say at best there is only the appearance of one. You have not shown one action of the boards to prove this is a real issue.

From going back and reading "PPA history", if you can call it that of an organization a little over 1 year old I retract my agreement in principal on mismanagement.

My reading of the history is the people who thought up the PPA thought that board members should be poker players of high visibility. The list of current board members is at: PPA Board (http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/leadership/boardofdirectors.php) I addition these are the people who stepped up and got involved when asked.

Let's look at the issue of management. The PPA has about 3/4 Million members. This is not an insignificant number.

I have be refreshing my contacts on the Hill, and I find that even with those friends working for representatives not currently working for us and from the offices of one that the representative had opposed us, the visibility of the PPA on the Hill is high and even those not yet in our camp respect the actions and professionalism shown so far. Again this is not a very broad sampling but very encouraging given my "natural market".

The speed issue. We all want what we want and as quickly as we can damn well get it. None of us "detractors", and I lump myself into that group some what, but and learning more, have done much to help the group in the year or so it had been in existence. Some including me have actually hurt it with our negative posts to the PPA forum. Someone last night at a bar league was asking me my screen name and when I told them, the person sitting next to them said, "so you're that guy!" He went on to tell me that if I hadn't been taking positive action now he might have punched me for some of my comments past about the PPA.

So to make it easy to respond here are my points.

1. You have only shown an appearance of a possible conflict of interest. Errors of omissions are like trying to prove a negative. We do not know what was tried and didn't work. We can't IMO not say had you only done this or that, that the PPA would be better off now.

3. Again show me that anyone with the fantastic missing key experience you speak of and I'll ask them what they have done to try and lend that help to the PPA. My poker analogy still is someone developed a game, you seem to think it's worth playing in. But you seem to demand some ownership of the game just to take the time to visit the game. Show me that you tried to join the game, and were denied a seat for an unfair reason. Don't tell me the dealer they hired is crooked just because you've seen only a few hands and don't like the card distribution you've seen in just a few hands!

4. On going transparency. Financial. The PPA as a non-profit is required to file Form 990 and Schedule A annually. As a lobbing group it is also required to file other public forms disclosing its lobbing and spending activities. As an non-member or introductory free member that is all you are entitled to in any such organization. But you haven't shown me any mismanagement for any of those documents.

Now let’s talk about the PPA's willingness to talk to it's members. In my short experience the PPA has been very good at answering questions I have. I expressed my concerns and the ED was willing to meet me. Whenever I have had a question he has answered it. Whenever I had someone who wanted to talk to him directly he has indicated that he is more than willing to talk to them.

Not one offer of help or suggestion has ever been rejected totally out of hand. After a month or so of communications with John and a couple of the old SF group, I am confident enough to say I doubt that any offer of help has been turned down flat.

Keep in mind that we are dealing with a real organization here, one with on going operations, it has plans the were made some time ago agreed to all that were present at that time and are currently under way or in progress. This is not an abstract issue or some sort of MBA class case study.

This brings me to my short list.

1. No one has shown in any case where the Mission Statement of the PPA has not been followed to the letter.

2. You have yet to show where any open and honest offer of help or dedication of resources has been flatly rejected.

3. Other than all of our collective hindsight has not proven any mismanagement. All we have is our outside opinion based on how successful we think we might have been had we been "king". In fact, I suggest that the Board has shown the required competence in addressing the management issue in a method that didn't destroy any of the momentum they had with a fairly sizable shake up of the organization.

4. Given what I have learned in the last month about the PPA, I feel they are on much more of a solid ground than I ever expected them to be given my initial outside impression. Not one of my suggestions has been flatly rejected. Many of my "new idea" were already under consideration or already being planned for implementation.

5. Ask not what the PPA has done for you, but what have you done for Poker. Is the first and most important test IMO.

Your Poll is a joke. It is meaningless. Your backhanded attempt to remove people who have stepped up and put forward the effort to date is childish. IN MY PERSONAL OPINION!

Again you have showed at best minor harm and point to a slight potential future conflict of interest. But you have shown no reasonable way to correct this "problem". The organization you claim is so totally diseased is IMO, much healthier than you claim. Your suggested remedy is the equitant of swatting at flies with a sledge hammer.

Again show me malfeasance, show me where any potential conflict of interest has in any way been concretely demonstrated. Show me where any open and honest offer of help has been flatly rejected. Until you show me any of those things give it up. Then even if you do find something, you are going to have to prove that a) it already isn't being addressed and b) that what ever solution to your issue is better than the status quo, given any possible distractions and expenditure of resources.

Until then, IMO this is a closed issue.

I am always willing to re-open the issue at a future time. Once we get to 2 million members with a good number of paid members, have state reps with some track records, and have given the new boards direction at least 6 months more like a year, I'm all for discussing the voting of members, advisory panels, elected boards the whole nine yards. But until then, actions speak louder than words. I have IMO, barely shown enough action to be a semi-credible voice in this matter and I think I've shown a little concrete action, but that is all a very little given the time and effort others have shown to date.

BluffTHIS!

09-13-2007, 01:16 PM

DMD,

Another long post there filled with ad hominem and irrelevancies. And which didn't address my earlier arguments as before. And which ignores: the role and negative influence of conflicted interests, a failure to provide transparency, ineptitude in the past year regarding grassroots organizing and communication, and a failure to see the importance of working to facilitate judicial challenges that could benefit poker. In short there is every reason to believe that the current board that presided over those failures is inept and needs to be seriously revamped.

What are you? Their paid shill? Or just incredibly obtuse? (or scared like a lot poker players?)

DeadMoneyDad

09-13-2007, 01:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
DMD,

Another long post there filled with ad hominem and irrelevancies. And which didn't address my earlier arguments as before. And which ignores: the role and negative influence of conflicted interests, a failure to provide transparency, ineptitude in the past year regarding grassroots organizing and communication, and a failure to see the importance of working to facilitate judicial challenges that could benefit poker. In short there is every reason to believe that the current board that presided over those failures is inept and needs to be seriously revamped.

What are you? Their paid shill? Or just incredibly obtuse? (or scared like a lot poker players?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh wow! A claim of ad hominem attacks followed by what a string of ad hominem attacks?

Sorry I answered each of your points posted and you didn't address a single issue of mine.

Lets make it simple. You claim harm but show no real evidence other than errors of omissions, and I guess you want me to attempt to disprove a negative. You have all these Skull&Bones theories about how the potential conflicts of interest are crippling the board, the PPA, and poker in general, but show not one action by the board that proves a single interest has been or even is planned to hurt Poker overall.

Since you have not shown one viable piece of evidence to show a single action by the board or PPA that has harmed the any interest of poker, you are barking up the wrong tree.

I offered a solution. Any one who wants to help out give it a try. If they are bringing so much to the table that they think that should earn themselves a position on the board there is nothing stopping them.

I think it really is as simple as that.

D$D

Skallagrim

09-13-2007, 01:40 PM

Well Bluff, it seems that this is the issue: " It is that longer term where it is *critical* to work on mulitple initiatives, like B&M and intra-state online at the state levels, which will heighten the visibility of the poker issue and help legalize online poker. But with a board majority who not only doesn't benefit from B&M and intra-state online poker, but whose interests can be harmed by legalization of same, then they are in fact harming the longer term chances of online poker. "

This is a debate over tactics, and a stretch in my opinion. Right now, even under the UIGEA, intra-state online poker is possible, yet it does not exist. It does not exist because it is not economically feasible for the private sector, and except for TuffFish's initiative, does not appear on the radar of any state legislature. You have to have access to a large pool of players. An in-state poker site could only do that in a large state (CA or NY) and even then would have to ban their residents from playing at any other site... That is not in my interest at all (not to mention that it would be a blatant violation of the WTO).

Although you are right that increased exposure to poker helps the cause, nothing increases this exposure more than the WPT, HSP and WSOP, nor will it.

So, as much as I appreciate your bringing up these points, I cant agree on this one. IMHO the PPA would be wasting time on this kind of initiative.

And yes, its clear that this year will not bring success legislatively. But it took our opponents over 10 years to get the highly flawed UIGEA. I still believe that through the kind of effort put out by the Engineer, especially now that he will be an actual part of the PPA, we will achieve that success at some point, probably after January '09 when there is a new president and a substantial change in the congress that reflects the diminished power of the moralist right.

B&M poker issues are vastly different form online poker issues. I am most concerned with the online issues. The PPA is fighting that fight, and I still havent heard a good reason not to join them in it.

Skallagrim

fnurt

09-13-2007, 03:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Party's position is that PokerStars (as well other sites)break some unspecified law by giving US players access to online poker. Having abandoned the US market, rather than seek judicial clarification of the UIGE's scope, Party's management seeks to choke of that market and its players.

That sort of public posture and position is scarcely in your interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make any sense to me.

Party surely wants legal access to the lucrative US market.

They believe, rightly or wrongly, that present law makes it too dangerous for them to do business here.

So presumably, it's in their financial interests to seek changes to present law. It's hard to imagine what change they could seek that we would not view as favorable.

You seem to think Party made a poor decision by vacating the US market. So what? What position are they going to take, as part of the PPA, that would not be aligned with our own?

Logic would suggest that it's the companies which still do business here - and thus, have a competitive interest in ensuring that Party and others don't re-enter the market - who would pose a potential danger. And, uh, aren't YOU one of these competitors?

From my perspective, it seems to me that people simply harbor vindictive feelings towards Party for leaving the market, and aren't really thinking about whether they're a useful ally in a political sense.

TheEngineer

09-13-2007, 06:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The high probability is that Franks/Weixler doesn't pass this year. In fact if you believe a story/interview on the G911 site, Franks believes that as well. So then we shift to the mid to long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

Passing either bill has always been a long shot. Getting it out there in front of the public and keeping it there for the term has been great for us. PPA did a lot to make that happen, as did each and every one of us. Us staying on the offense has kept folks like Goodlatte on the defensive; he promised a bill this year to finish where UIGEA left off. Not only did that not happen, but he's been very quiet about the whole subject.

I said when I started the weekly action thread that we'd be successful this year if we could still easily play poker online and if we laid the foundation for our future long term fight. I think we did all that. And, the legislation is still out there for this term....it could easily find its way onto a popular bill via paygo.

[ QUOTE ]
It is that longer term where it is *critical* to work on mulitple initiatives, like B&M and intra-state online at the state levels, which will heighten the visibility of the poker issue and help legalize online poker. But with a board majority who not only doesn't benefit from B&M and intra-state online poker, but whose interests can be harmed by legalization of same, then they are in fact harming the longer term chances of online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Kentucky ballot issue is all about B&M casinos, and the PPA was enthusiastic to to join in. In fact, John spent a good part of last weekend getting our initial alert prepared to go out on Tue. morning, which it did. And, while TuffFish's proposal has met its share of resistance from within the online poker community, the PPA has still given his proposal space on their home page.

[ QUOTE ]
Wait you say. The Engineer will soon be joining! Which when his vote is added to those of the chairman and the reps of the sites still in the US market *could* overrule the CP/Party Poker/Affiliate Farm block. Right? Wrong! Look on the PPA website and you will see that they have added another person, one Mary Magazine, an attorney *without* relevant legal experience (unless you think being a traffic court judge is), whose vote will offset that of the Engineer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt they asked me to join (and I didn't lobby or even ask...the last thing I care about is glory or credit...I just want us to have freedom and liberty) to outvote me on every issue. We'll see how things go once I officially join, but I've seen no evidence of the board shutting John down on anything.

The board has empowered John to run the show, just like every other non-profit board does. I don't imagine he would have taken the job otherwise. He's spending money and other resources on B&M issues as well as online ones.

Let's just chill and give it a chance. They've clearly started moving in the right direction. I hope we'll work with them for what we want while continuing to hold them accountable for results.

DeadMoneyDad

09-13-2007, 07:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Let's just chill and give it a chance. They've clearly started moving in the right direction. I hope we'll work with them for what we want while continuing to hold them accountable for results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. It is clear I couldn't have said it better myself. Even though I had to try. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

D$D

Tuff_Fish

09-13-2007, 10:14 PM

Bluff, we got it.

You don't like the current makeup of the PPA board.

Now be constructive or be quiet. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

Tuff

permafrost

09-14-2007, 12:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]

And I have a question for you and some others here. What is so damn wrong with Allyn Shulman and Linda Johnson resigning from the PPA board and being replaced not with their cronys, but with some other qualified members like the Engineer? If some of those board members really cared more about the PPA instead of their own vested interests, and also wanted to put this issue to rest as you do, then they would resign on their own today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff, your call for large change in the PPA structure is timely and needed; they have been mostly inconsequential and we all hoped for more relevance. However, you are saying we can only await voluntary board resignations, I think. My questions: is there no way for members to affect a large change in the board/rules/goals? If not, why? and anyone have a plan to allow member change?

Just saw the John Pappas CP 'interview' and he seemed to be a nice guy toeing the party line (no pun intended). He said the PPA "ultimate goal" is to pass legislation to clarify Fed laws which will somehow lead to our lawful play online. That's nice, but we all know Fed law already allows state regulated poker online, so why have Fed law as "ultimate"?. Let's hope they see it would therefore be ideal to have some easier fallbacks -- state petitions/initiatives to allow poker, court cases, donation/money raising plans etc. -- all ready to go (or going) if things get worse. UIGEA isn't the only or main law that we need to "fight".

TheEngineer

09-14-2007, 09:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Just saw the John Pappas CP 'interview' and he seemed to be a nice guy toeing the party line (no pun intended). He said the PPA "ultimate goal" is to pass legislation to clarify Fed laws which will somehow lead to our lawful play online. That's nice, but we all know Fed law already allows state regulated poker online, so why have Fed law as "ultimate"?. Let's hope they see it would therefore be ideal to have some easier fallbacks -- state petitions/initiatives to allow poker, court cases, donation/money raising plans etc. -- all ready to go (or going) if things get worse. UIGEA isn't the only or main law that we need to "fight".

[/ QUOTE ]

The PPA is fighting at the state level in KY. Once successful, my hope is that we'll use this experience to expand to other states.

Also, intrastate poker may or may not be the cure we want. I don't imagine any state will establish a licensing procedure that doesn't make unlicensed sites illegal (essentially establishing a monopoly). Also, the position of the AGA is that Internet sites should have no competitive advantage over B&M casinos/cardrooms. I imagine the B&Ms have the same position. I can't imagine making a profit playing shorthanded limit with a $5 rake and no rakeback.

http://www.americangaming.org/Industry/factsheets/issues_detail.cfv?id=17

[ QUOTE ]

The AGA evaluates specific pieces of Internet legislation on a case-by-case basis as they are introduced in Congress. Any Internet gambling legislation must meet three tests to gain the support of the AGA: 1) The right of states to regulate gaming must be protected. 2) It must not create competitive advantages or disadvantages between and among commercial casinos, Native American casinos, state lotteries and pari-mutuel wagering operations; and 3) No form of gaming that currently is legal should be made illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we should fight for intrastate online poker, but we do have to make sure we get what we want in the process.

The federal legislation out there now allows for competition and for offshore sites. We get neither at the state level. Therefore, I suggest we continue fighting for fair federal legislation, for fair state legislation, and to maintain at least the status quo.

Legislurker

09-14-2007, 10:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just saw the John Pappas CP 'interview' and he seemed to be a nice guy toeing the party line (no pun intended). He said the PPA "ultimate goal" is to pass legislation to clarify Fed laws which will somehow lead to our lawful play online. That's nice, but we all know Fed law already allows state regulated poker online, so why have Fed law as "ultimate"?. Let's hope they see it would therefore be ideal to have some easier fallbacks -- state petitions/initiatives to allow poker, court cases, donation/money raising plans etc. -- all ready to go (or going) if things get worse. UIGEA isn't the only or main law that we need to "fight".

[/ QUOTE ]

The PPA is fighting at the state level in KY. Once successful, my hope is that we'll use this experience to expand to other states.

Also, intrastate poker may or may not be the cure we want. I don't imagine any state will establish a licensing procedure that doesn't make unlicensed sites illegal (essentially establishing a monopoly). Also, the position of the AGA is that Internet sites should have no competitive advantage over B&M casinos/cardrooms. I imagine the B&Ms have the same position. I can't imagine making a profit playing shorthanded limit with a $5 rake and no rakeback.

http://www.americangaming.org/Industry/factsheets/issues_detail.cfv?id=17

[ QUOTE ]

The AGA evaluates specific pieces of Internet legislation on a case-by-case basis as they are introduced in Congress. Any Internet gambling legislation must meet three tests to gain the support of the AGA: 1) The right of states to regulate gaming must be protected. 2) It must not create competitive advantages or disadvantages between and among commercial casinos, Native American casinos, state lotteries and pari-mutuel wagering operations; and 3) No form of gaming that currently is legal should be made illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we should fight for intrastate online poker, but we do have to make sure we get what we want in the process.

The federal legislation out there now allows for competition and for offshore sites. We get neither at the state level. Therefore, I suggest we continue fighting for fair federal legislation, for fair state legislation, and to maintain at least the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to make Bluff's point even again for him, but here is where we need the board changed at the PPA. Conflict of interest. We want consumer friendly poker sites, not B&M style Tuffish gay sites with one table. Not some backroom deal where we get some sort of redacted poker access to horrible rakes and no promotions. We want poker left to the market, and eventually to make it legal everywhere. Which the online rooms nor B&Ms want. If its going to be for the players, players need to call the shots.

TheEngineer

09-14-2007, 12:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to make Bluff's point even again for him, but here is where we need the board changed at the PPA. Conflict of interest. We want consumer friendly poker sites, not B&M style Tuffish gay sites with one table. Not some backroom deal where we get some sort of redacted poker access to horrible rakes and no promotions. We want poker left to the market, and eventually to make it legal everywhere. Which the online rooms nor B&Ms want. If its going to be for the players, players need to call the shots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you think online sites want a free market? It seems like that's exactly what they want. PPA certainly isn't trying to get state-run monopolies....they're clearly advocating an open market. Sure, it will be taxed, and there will be some regulation, but none of that necessarily leads to high rakes and no rakeback. If they were, I wouldn't have agreed to join the board.

Legislurker

09-14-2007, 12:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to make Bluff's point even again for him, but here is where we need the board changed at the PPA. Conflict of interest. We want consumer friendly poker sites, not B&M style Tuffish gay sites with one table. Not some backroom deal where we get some sort of redacted poker access to horrible rakes and no promotions. We want poker left to the market, and eventually to make it legal everywhere. Which the online rooms nor B&Ms want. If its going to be for the players, players need to call the shots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you think online sites want a free market? It seems like that's exactly what they want. PPA certainly isn't trying to get state-run monopolies....they're clearly advocating an open market. Sure, it will be taxed, and there will be some regulation, but none of that necessarily leads to high rakes and no rakeback. If they were, I wouldn't have agreed to join the board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because at heart every capitalist wants to be a monopolist.
I don't trust representatives of sites or B&M casinos to pursue players best interests. They want to use our voice, give us some voice. If it came down to only allowing 2-3 operators in a very rigid market, Party would take that. FT would. Stars would. If any of them could be included as an insider and shut out comepetition they would. Youre about the only reason they get even a semblance of trust to start doing better. Eventually, the board makeup is untenable, you have to see that i hope. At what point do players get to control their own union?

Skallagrim

09-14-2007, 01:45 PM

We dont even have enough clout to get a bill out of committee and you guys want to fight over the details of legal poker's future. STOP. Just support the Wexler bill OK, if poker is a game of skill then all the other s--t does not matter. Let the casinos and the racebooks fight over who gets to supply the "gambling" market. Poker as a skill game will get as much regulation as the bridge and scrabble sites.

Second, oh yeah permafrost, just what I want, a one-state monopoly site. That really deserves all of our effort now doesnt it. Me and a few hundred other people paying more rake than at a B&M site because thats the only way a state can make money off it.

Oh, and since we are having so much success politically, lets spend some of our extra time fighting over how to make a perfect PPA board, because once we have the perfect board our enemies will simply all bow down before us.

A little more of this and I will give up on the PPA and everything else and just wait for Harrahs to buy its way (politically) into a monopoly market that I am sure will have nothing but the best interests of us players in mind.

"A house divided cannot stand."

Skallagrim

4KingAceHole

09-14-2007, 03:16 PM

fnurt

09-14-2007, 03:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Party's position is that PokerStars (as well other sites)break some unspecified law by giving US players access to online poker. Having abandoned the US market, rather than seek judicial clarification of the UIGE's scope, Party's management seeks to choke of that market and its players.

That sort of public posture and position is scarcely in your interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make any sense to me.

Party surely wants legal access to the lucrative US market.

They believe, rightly or wrongly, that present law makes it too dangerous for them to do business here.

So presumably, it's in their financial interests to seek changes to present law. It's hard to imagine what change they could seek that we would not view as favorable.

You seem to think Party made a poor decision by vacating the US market. So what? What position are they going to take, as part of the PPA, that would not be aligned with our own?

Logic would suggest that it's the companies which still do business here - and thus, have a competitive interest in ensuring that Party and others don't re-enter the market - who would pose a potential danger. And, uh, aren't YOU one of these competitors?

From my perspective, it seems to me that people simply harbor vindictive feelings towards Party for leaving the market, and aren't really thinking about whether they're a useful ally in a political sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

At last count, 29 people have said that sites which left the market are least deserving of a seat on the board, but I'm still waiting for an explanation of why PartyPoker's interests are supposedly so divergent from our own.

I think this bolsters my argument that resentment is the main force behind those votes.

permafrost

09-14-2007, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We dont even have enough clout to get a bill out of committee and you guys want to fight over the details of legal poker's future.

[/ QUOTE ]
My take on the discussion is that it's about the operation of the member's group, maybe I missed the point. BTW, my question about if/how member's can affect PPA change still stands.

[ QUOTE ]
Just support the Wexler bill

[/ QUOTE ] Who is not supporting it? The strategy needs expansion in case of failure.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, oh yeah permafrost, just what I want, a one-state monopoly site. That really deserves all of our effort now doesnt it. Me and a few hundred other people paying more rake than at a B&M site because thats the only way a state can make money off it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You misread or assumed since I am strongly against state ownership of poker sites (and didn't even request 'all of our efforts'). Sorry for the length and derailing here, but you and others keep saying regulated intrastate sites would not be a viable business. That defies common sense. Sites would have start-up costs similar to or less than a B&M. Then they could pull from 5, maybe 25, maybe 100 times as many people. Then there would be smaller continuing costs. More people, less overhead, likely lower rake, competition for customers, fishy, plus advantages of online vs live.

Tell me how a B&M profits if busier, more efficient online models can't. Maybe TPCEO or other business guru could show me why I wouldn't want to partner/invest in a private legal intrastate online poker room.

[ QUOTE ]
"A house divided cannot stand."

[/ QUOTE ]People having differing strategic emphasis about reaching a goal isn't the same as division to me.

Skallagrim

09-14-2007, 05:01 PM

Well, perma, you are right about your last point: while I disagree with in-state online poker as a solution, I dont see it as division the same way I see the argument over who sits on the PPA board. It was just that responding to you came at the same time as responding to them, sorry for the mis-impression.

But I still disagree with you. Online site operate on an economy of scale: they can offer lower limits and rakes because of the large number of players. B&M rooms have much lower numbers and, of course, that is why the smallest game you can play is 2-4 limit with $4-5 rake. That is a pretty big game online, as I am sure you know.

Also, a one state site will, if it has to compete, lose players to the bigger multi-country sites (where would you rather play, honestly?). So it must be a monopoly to succeed (a technologically difficult if not impossible thing on the internet). Even then, the numbers (as have been explained to me) are just way too small except in the biggest states, so that may help Californians and New Yorkers but does the rest of us no good.

Right now, having the whole world to work with, the biggest site, Pokerstars, peaks at about 14,000 real money players at any one time. Shrink your available pool of players to just California, and even account for a few who would take up playing because of the new legal status, and you get a very small # of actual players. The execs I have talked to say you just cant make money that way given the costs, especially if you add in inevitable taxes and fees, unless the price goes way up.

Thats what I have been told anyway, any execs out there who can say for sure?

Skallagrim

TheEngineer

09-14-2007, 05:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me how a B&M profits if busier, more efficient online models can't. Maybe TPCEO or other business guru could show me why I wouldn't want to partner/invest in a private legal intrastate online poker room.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now, FullTilt has 329 $2/$4 or greater hold'em limit seats filled. They have access to much of the world, low taxes, big names behind their marketing campaigns, and that's all they have playing now. Imagine if that were one state only. How many players would be there? How many sites could that population of players support?

TuffFish's proposal creates a monopoly with no rakeback (or at least no reason to offer it). At one time, it set rakes higher than even B&M rakes. And, if it were to pass, the legislation passed to implement the referendum would almost certainly outlaw unlicensed sites, as the state gets the profits of the new site. And that proposal is from one of us. Imagine what a state would implement.

It seems states would have to have a monopoly to keep enough people playing (state run or not). By definition, whenever a state passes a licensing plan for anything, it adds some restrictions (if not an outright ban) on non-licensed businsses. If they didn't, the license wouldn't mean anything. So, it seems states would choose to outlaw unlicensed poker sites.

I agree with you that we should be working for intrastate online poker, but I think we need to be clear about our objectives.

TheEngineer

09-14-2007, 05:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, perma, you are right about your last point: while I disagree with in-state online poker as a solution, I dont see it as division the same way I see the argument over who sits on the PPA board. It was just that responding to you came at the same time as responding to them, sorry for the mis-impression.

But I still disagree with you. Online site operate on an economy of scale: they can offer lower limits and rakes because of the large number of players. B&M rooms have much lower numbers and, of course, that is why the smallest game you can play is 2-4 limit with $4-5 rake. That is a pretty big game online, as I am sure you know.

Also, a one state site will, if it has to compete, lose players to the bigger multi-country sites (where would you rather play, honestly?). So it must be a monopoly to succeed (a technologically difficult if not impossible thing on the internet). Even then, the numbers (as have been explained to me) are just way too small except in the biggest states, so that may help Californians and New Yorkers but does the rest of us no good.

Right now, having the whole world to work with, the biggest site, Pokerstars, peaks at about 14,000 real money players at any one time. Shrink your available pool of players to just California, and even account for a few who would take up playing because of the new legal status, and you get a very small # of actual players. The execs I have talked to say you just cant make money that way given the costs, especially if you add in inevitable taxes and fees, unless the price goes way up.

Thats what I have been told anyway, any execs out there who can say for sure?

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny. I posted my post before reading yours, and the points are very similar.

BTW: I also agree with you that Perma's instate poker discussion is not divisive.

Tuff_Fish

09-15-2007, 02:16 PM

Have any of you looked at Svenka Spel and how it operates? They make millions off of poker alone with a population 1/3 of California and a 2 1/2% rake.

So that model is very viable. Do you poker players really care whether the poker site is run by the State of California or by Harrahs? (BTW, the final draft of the initiative stated the rake % was to be competitive.) Does anyone even know who actually runs the California lottery? The answer is: "who cares.

And, folks from other states DO INDEED participate in the California lottery. So, it is not solely limited to California residents, and any legalized, private or state run, California online poker site would not be restricted either.

I can understand someone with a vested interest in a certain type of legalization opposing other types, say commercial licenses vs state run, but what the heck difference does it make to the average poker player? If it is honest, the money is safe, and funds are easy to get on and off, what else do we want?

Tuff

Tuff_Fish

09-15-2007, 02:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Have any of you looked at Svenka Spel and how it operates? They make millions off of poker alone with a population 1/3 of California and a 2 1/2% rake.

So that model is very viable. Do you poker players really care whether the poker site is run by the State of California or by Harrahs? (BTW, the final draft of the initiative stated the rake % was to be competitive.) Does anyone even know who actually runs the California lottery? The answer is: "who cares.

And, folks from other states DO INDEED participate in the California lottery. So, it is not solely limited to California residents, and any legalized, private or state run, California online poker site would not be restricted either.

I can understand someone with a vested interest in a certain type of legalization opposing other types, say commercial licenses vs state run, but what the heck difference does it make to the average poker player? If it is honest, the money is safe, and funds are easy to get on and off, what else do we want?

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh gosh. After reading my post I realized what was missing. Most of you want unlimited multitabling, HUDs, and every conceivable software advantage you can muster to decimate the fish as fast as possible.

My bad, I just wasn't thinking.... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Tuff

TheEngineer

09-15-2007, 03:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Have any of you looked at Svenka Spel and how it operates? They make millions off of poker alone with a population 1/3 of California and a 2 1/2% rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I believe they have a de facto monopoly and offer no rakeback. Interstate, competitive poker appears to be the best deal for us, especially for folks from small states.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh gosh. After reading my post I realized what was missing. Most of you want unlimited multitabling, HUDs, and every conceivable software advantage you can muster to decimate the fish as fast as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

We want multitabling.

Jack Bando

09-15-2007, 03:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Oh gosh. After reading my post I realized what was missing. Most of you want unlimited multitabling, HUDs, and every conceivable software advantage you can muster to decimate the fish as fast as possible.

My bad, I just wasn't thinking.... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think we want people who have actually ran or operated a online site to decide future rules for future sites, not the guy known for going busto in the first half of his videos and than rambling and swearing for the second half.

If McDonalds was not allowed to be in US, I wouldn't want someone with no experience running one to say "We can now have McDonalds, but no fries or Quarter Pounders, no one wants those."

I multitable (either 4 $.05/$.1 NL or 2 $1.25 10 table tourneys) for an hour or so a day, congrats on your plan of making a site I would not enjoy playing on.

DeadMoneyDad

09-15-2007, 05:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I multitable (either 4 $.05/$.1 NL or 2 $1.25 10 table tourneys) for an hour or so a day, congrats on your plan of making a site I would not enjoy playing on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with anyone multi-tabling to your hearts and bankrolls limits, BUT IMPO you're going to have to do it without all the hand histories and software aids.

D$D

Jack Bando

09-15-2007, 06:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I multitable (either 4 $.05/$.1 NL or 2 $1.25 10 table tourneys) for an hour or so a day, congrats on your plan of making a site I would not enjoy playing on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with anyone multi-tabling to your hearts and bankrolls limits, BUT IMPO you're going to have to do it without all the hand histories and software aids.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you consider to be unusable aides?

I use PT for cash games, but only to records win/loss rate and study my old hands. I do have PAHUD as well, but rarely use it.

DeadMoneyDad

09-15-2007, 07:12 PM

permafrost

09-17-2007, 02:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Right now, FullTilt has 329 $2/$4 or greater hold'em limit seats filled. They have access to much of the world, low taxes, big names behind their marketing campaigns, and that's all they have playing now. Imagine if that were one state only. How many players would be there? How many sites could that population of players support?

[/ QUOTE ]

To clarify, upthread I said "if things get worse" and agree there is little demand for legal intrastate poker sites since we have FullTilt et al.

If/when a crackdown on illegal poker sites happens, it would be good to have legalization or court cases working in a few likely states. People say the populace is for online poker; use that at a level where gambling is controlled.

Established poker sites could open a state profitably with low player numbers (if B&Ms do it, sites can--and an upside of pooling states). It won't be 12 tabler heaven, but it may be the only alternative soon.

I know action takes cash and if that is an impediment (to any action), I trust PPA will let us know.

And if they know a crackdown isn't coming, I trust PPA will inform us.

Tuff_Fish

09-17-2007, 03:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]

.
.
since we have FullTilt et al.
.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who has Full Tilt?

Anybody gotten any money off Full Tilt lately? Sure you can play, I did a bit this weekend, but moving money is a real pain, and not without risk.

And about that advertising.... and all those fish..er rec players....

Has anybody found a lively, reasonably non rock, non tough TAG game anywhere this year?

Tuff

Full Tilt NL $1/$2. I raised every hand for a full orbit twice before anybody played back at me. Yeah, the games are really good. Gain $30 for ten $10 raises, then somebody reraises $25. Yes I want to see this flop so I call. Flop is total airball, and I KNOW this grinder has a hand he loves or he wouldn't be in the pot. -$25, back to square one and we start over again. Obviously I didn't do this all the time, but getting money off these guys is hard rock mining.

But we have Full Tilt/PokerStars.....

BluffTHIS!

11-11-2007, 04:26 AM

Bump for posters asking me to explain my views on the PPA board. Check out my 3rd post in this thread in reply to DMD.

Skallagrim

11-12-2007, 01:25 AM

I have heard this issue debated many times now. I will therefore not repeat what I have said before in detail, just give my basic view:

The issues about the board are POTENTIALY legitimate. There is an excess representation of CP and "affiliate farms." My problem with the folks who insist on the board changing before participating in it, IS THAT THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO POINT TO A SPECIFIC PPA ACTION THAT CLEARLY BENEFITED THESE INTERESTS OVER THE INTERESTS OF EVERYONE WHO WANTS CLEARLY LEGAL ONLINE POKER. Given that, and the fact that the current board were there first to help create the PPA, I see it as insulting to ask them to resign at this time. Until they DO something showing partisanship, they ought to be given the benefit of the doubt.

As to transparency, I have 2 thoughts: First, the fact that there may have been a fair amount of industry money given to the PPA is not a debilitating fact politically (if proven and exposed), Americans nowadays expect that sort of thing. Gun manufacturers give to the NRA. and pornographers give to the ACLU, are you shocked? Second, the PPA has reporting requirements legally - AFAIK, it is in full compliance with its legal requirements - why should 2+2 or anyone else demand more?

I am not dismissing your concerns Bluff, but I am saying that this is not the time to make fights among any group that supports legal online poker. If and when a situation arises where you can show me a direct conflict, THEN I may think of changing my attitude.

Skallagrim

Legislurker

11-12-2007, 02:29 AM

Instead of asking them to resign now, ask them to set a date to either leave, or face an up/down vote from membership? Put
one or two more people SEEN as independant on the board for finite time periods as well. Something to eventually transfer power to membership? Im sure there is a way to cement it in legalese that 2P2 and its lawyers could verify.

BluffTHIS!

11-12-2007, 07:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
My problem with the folks who insist on the board changing before participating in it, IS THAT THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO POINT TO A SPECIFIC PPA ACTION THAT CLEARLY BENEFITED THESE INTERESTS OVER THE INTERESTS OF EVERYONE WHO WANTS CLEARLY LEGAL ONLINE POKER.

[/ QUOTE ]

Skall,

That assertion in fact is false as I demonstrated earlier in this thread. However I will be glad to go over it again.

1) The PPA initiated a short-lived ad campaign touting the line of party poker that the UIGEA made offering online poker illegal for all companies, contrary to the legal positions of the privately held companies still in the US market. This was for the benefit of party poker and its *affiliates* to the detriment of those other companies *and all US players*.

2) The PPA until the appointment of Mr. Pappas, and under the aegis of the majority of the current board, did NOTHING to try to neuter the regs waiting until it was too late to do anything effective, even if the PPA, thanks to their new exec director, now understands its importance. This is because those sites who cut and ran from the US market, *and their affiliates*, gain nothing and in fact see themselves as harmed competitively, if the status quo persists. If they fail to legislatively regain market access, they also want to insure those privately held competitors aren't able to conduct business here, which means the members of the PPA also won't be able to even have the more limited options they have had since the passage of the UIGEA.

3) The PPA *even now* still has done *very little* with regards to B&M poker. B&M issues are some of the most difficult because legalization/expansion often involves constitutional ammendments in various states and thus takes many years of effort. Thus it is imperative to work on this as early as possible, even if online efforts take priority. Again though, those certain online interests benefit not at all from B&M poker, so again those conflicted interests on the PPA board have screwed a big segment of the PPA membership. B&M players have been shafted for years by vested casino interests that until the online poker boom often never gave a [censored] about poker because slots produce so much more per square foot. The B&M players, many of whom also play online of course, need their interests protected by the PPA so as not to be dependent on casinos whose primary interest is in spreading more profitable -EV games.

4) The PPA has done NOTHING to work on intra-state online poker. Why? Because of course those affiliate farms tied to existing online business models won't benefit. Members of the PPA screwed again by those narrow interests that dominate the board.

An important point of the above, as I mentioned earlier, is that errors of omission can be just as serious and more so, as errors of commission.

All of the above clearly shows that the affiliate farm dominated board of the PPA cares only about their own financial interests and NOT the wider interests of the broader membership. If they can't make money off of a form of poker, then they don't give a [censored] about it.

Skallagrim

11-12-2007, 01:53 PM

Thanks for the specifics Bluff, I will address each in turn.

1) If what you say is true, why was this add campaign short lived? Most folks and journalists to this day repeat the mantra, "UIGEA made online poker illegal." And there is an interpretation of law where that would be true: the DOJ gets the SCOTUS to say the Wire Act covers ALL betting and wagering (very unlikely, but as the SCOTUS has yet to speak, still possible). And to top it off, I recall the very same Ms. Shulman posting at CP saying the UIGEA had changed nothing and criticizing Party and the others for leaving. I see little more here than some early too simple legal analysis (primarily, IIRC, from D'Amato), not a plan to benefit one group.

2) I dont know how much work behind the scenes was done on the regs, I bet there was plenty. There certainly has been significant work since Pappas took over. "Sins of ommission" maybe, but far more likely the result of the previous scattered management than, again, a plan to benefit one group.

3) The PPA has done only a little so far with B&M poker, true (they did go testify at th TX hearing on allowing it though). But I think all here agree that the focus of the PPA SHOULD be online poker at this point. Where B&M issues arise, the PPA should be there, but there are not really a lot of B&M issues out there (other than getting poker ruled a skill game in the courts which benefits both B&M and online poker - and I am hopeful the PPA will soon put together a team for doing exactly that). Going out and creating a popular movement for poker rooms in states that dont have them is, I think, a bit much to ask of this still young organization.

4) Intra-state online poker is a dead issue at the moment. Nevada already has a law allowing it. No one has applied for the license because as long as there are interstate sites competing, in-state online is a loser economically.

And we all know that FT and PS have close ties to PPA board members; if these folks are willing to continue working with the Shulmans and the Party "affiliate farms" why cant 2+2?

Again, I see potential for a conflict, but no actual conflict yet, at least as it relates to online. The only real area you can put your finger on is online v. B&M, but I think most of us agree online is the place for the fight right now and thats where limited resources should go first.

I appreciate you being here to keep us on guard, but I still think you go to far when you refuse to help the PPA because of the POTENTIAL of one group influencing the agenda to its advantage.

As a final point, I also believe you could do far more to insure that that one group does not dominate by joining and working from within the PPA to see that your concerns are addressed. TE was the perfect vehicle for that kind of effort, but I suspect that bridge is burnt now, to one degree or another.

Skallagrim

Mason Malmuth

11-12-2007, 03:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And we all know that FT and PS have close ties to PPA board members; if these folks are willing to continue working with the Shulmans and the Party "affiliate farms" why cant 2+2?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because 2+2 believes that "these folks" and other things will become some of the "talking points" (to quote another post) of the opposition, and, in our opinion, these will be very effective talking points at that.

Let me state again that we have nothing against affiliate farms. We are now doing some of that ourselves. But we do think that having these groups on the PPA board has the potential to become a very big negative. Don't underestimate the viciousness of the anti-gambling forces.

MM

Skallagrim

11-12-2007, 03:59 PM

Thanks for the reply MM.

I guess we can disagree on the potential political ramifications of "these groups" helping fund the PPA. As I noted earlier, NRA and ACLU funding also comes (in part) from industry groups who benefit from their legal/poitical positions. I am not sure FOF and their ilk could really make that much political hay out of it. I agree its a fair point though, and open to further discussion and debate.

But I still think it could be a debate you/we undertake with both of us being inside the PPA tent, especially since it has yet to become a big issue (except amongst us).

Sigh, 2+2 has the most active and intelligent* poker forum on the net, the PPA has (finally) started to become an active and intelligent political force. Wouldnt it be nice if they could work nice together?

Skallagrim

* excluding NVG, but NVG is fun so dont take that as criticism /images/graemlins/wink.gif .

DeadMoneyDad

11-12-2007, 05:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And we all know that FT and PS have close ties to PPA board members; if these folks are willing to continue working with the Shulmans and the Party "affiliate farms" why cant 2+2?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because 2+2 believes that "these folks" and other things will become some of the "talking points" (to quote another post) of the opposition, and, in our opinion, these will be very effective talking points at that.

Let me state again that we have nothing against affiliate farms. We are now doing some of that ourselves. But we do think that having these groups on the PPA board has the potential to become a very big negative. Don't underestimate the viciousness of the anti-gambling forces.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

I too feel that the only way this issue could hurt is from retarding the effectiveness of the PPA to reach and ultimately speak for the larger poker community if not the ability to gain traction there.

We do not have to cater to the B&M's to gain a better grasp of the live poker community. As it is a direct appeal to the B&M industry to help us gain their might IMO be unsucessful.

The on-line community has and does see the better efforts of the recent activities of the PPA, but the "average" recreational player who used to inpart make up the larger group of former on-line players and fish, who beleive that on-line poker is illegal, unprofitable, and or rigged, see the PPA as both useless and ineffective.

There are much easier ways to reach this larger "natural market" than through the B&M's IMO.

So while I userstand the issue I feel resigniation is not the only answer to attempting to solve this issue.

D$D

JPFisher55

11-12-2007, 05:12 PM

How can the companies who have the most to gain from legal, free online poker hurt the cause? Isn't that caving into our opponents?
D$D, you impress me as the ultimate pessimist. Have some faith, things are improving and the PPA has had some positive affect in DC, which is not easy to accomplish.

DeadMoneyDad

11-12-2007, 05:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How can the companies who have the most to gain from legal, free online poker hurt the cause? Isn't that caving into our opponents?
D$D, you impress me as the ultimate pessimist. Have some faith, things are improving and the PPA has had some positive affect in DC, which is not easy to accomplish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry from a political perspective I am always a pessimist. The better you plan and organize for the worst the better you are able capitalize on any portion of the better case senarios.

IMO you can always hope in your heart, but it has no place in political planning nor strategy.

I am sorry if I come off this way. I have just seen too many off the wall totally unexpected things happen and often change the course of many human event and even more so in politics.

What is the phrase? An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure....

D$D

DeadMoneyDad

11-13-2007, 06:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I multitable (either 4 $.05/$.1 NL or 2 $1.25 10 table tourneys) for an hour or so a day, congrats on your plan of making a site I would not enjoy playing on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with anyone multi-tabling to your hearts and bankrolls limits, BUT IMPO you're going to have to do it without all the hand histories and software aids.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you consider to be unusable aides?

I use PT for cash games, but only to records win/loss rate and study my old hands. I do have PAHUD as well, but rarely use it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope it is no more effective than the mythical "hole card" spyware, but there is a HUD linked to a leased database currently being marketed. I will not post the name as I do not feel like assisting what I consider cheating.

But for around $25 a month you no longer have to take the time and expense to datamine any levels and build your own databases.

Given the value of the efforts from the datamines to expose the cheating in the recent scandals I have no idea how you put an end to the abortion of poker and still manage to keep an eye on the site operators. I would love to suggest regualtion would be a panecia but I have no such faith in a government run system with the combined effiency of the DMV and the "customer service" of the IRS.

D$D

Richas

11-13-2007, 10:45 AM

You seem to have confused the regulation of competing private enterprises with a state run monopoly.

Legal, regulated, poker is not the same efficiency as the IRS it is a framework within which private firms can compete and players are protected (self set deposit limits, age verification, cash held in trust accounts, games fairness independently audited, easy legal deposits, mandatory account history information for the user, access to the courts in case of dispute.....)

DeadMoneyDad

11-13-2007, 11:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to have confused the regulation of competing private enterprises with a state run monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps. Perhaps it is simply my pessimism or scarcasm showing itself.

Given that Congress in general and your average Congressperson has much more understanding of monopolies than sucessfully run private business experience I have little faith in Congress to do the right thing by on-line poker.

I agree that there is enough profits in the economics of on-line poker even without any expansion to provide a good deal of new revenue and capture a wealth of uncaptured existing revenue for a sensible regulatory model to exist.

But having been on the Hill on this issue I've seen a few greedy $$ in the eyes of some on this issue, enough for some concern IMO.

On-line poker would not be the first golden goose nor cow that was killed from over production by over regualtion.

D$D

pokerg1

11-13-2007, 03:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Can I pick more than 2 please?

[/ QUOTE ] [/list]
pick3

DoTheMath

11-15-2007, 06:03 PM

Who should be on the board depends on whose interests the organization is promoting, on which issues the organization is confronting and on the knowledge, experience and connections that are needed to effectively promote those interests and address those issues.

What does the second 'P' in PPA stand for? We are talking here about the board of an organization called the Poker Players Allicance. Poker players have a number of interests in common with other Poker interest groups. For instance players, affiliates, and online site operators share concerns about the UIGEA, obtaining a carveout for online poker, etc. However, players also have some intersts in opposition to some of their allies on the foregoing issues, e.g. rake rates, market competition between sites, player protection, etc.

Some people seem to be viewing the question as: "who should be on the board of the Anti-UIGEA Alliance (AUA)?". If the PPA was renamed and repurposed as the AUA, perhaps there would be far fewer concerns about the makeup of the board. The fact that there really is no separate AUA seems to be at the root of many of the differences expressed in this thread.

A lack of clarity of interests and purpose seems to even confound OP:

[ QUOTE ]
... the composition of the PPA board ... in order to give it ... the best chance of success in general, and also to be assured of pursuing all of the broader range of goals that most rank and file members have, as opposed to primarily focusing on benefiting the business models of specific concerns.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It would especially be enlightening if such reasoning included what a specific industry groups brings to the table that helps the cause of poker, and what it brings that harms the cause of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we talking about promoting the goals of members, i.e. players, or are we talking about something more nebulous -" the cause of poker" - whatever that is?

If the PPA really is, as it claims [ QUOTE ]
... a nonprofit membership organization comprised of poker players and enthusiasts from around the United States who have joined together to speak with one voice to promote the game, ensure its integrity, and, most importantly, to protect poker players' rights.

[/ QUOTE ] then its board should not be made up primarily of people connected to organizations from whom player may need their rights protected - organizations which make money from players.

I don't buy the argument that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". The enemy of my enemy could just as well be my enemy too, just one that finds our common enemy more of a threat at the moment. The enemy of my enemy is a temporary ally, but may not be a friend and is definitely someone distinct from me.

The history of the PPA Board membership reminds me of the fox guarding the henhouse. They are guarding us chickens from the wolves and bears, perhaps in order that we can get fattened up.

In a ideal world, there would be a PPA, and the PPA would be one partner in the AUA. Another partner would be the non-B&M Poker Industry Alliance (NBPIA). Another player in all this is the B&M industry. They would aoppear to be organized on another side of this issue - one that either keeps online play difficult, or positions themselves to become the key providers in the market.

A problem with this idealized view - each set of interest having their own organization - is that grass-roots organizations are notoriously difficult to form and to keep running over an extended period of time. Also, there are only so many people available for, and able to effectively perform, the roles of PPA board member and AUA board member. There may not be critical mass enough to maintain two organizations.

If there aren't enough resources to go around, you have to choose which goals are most important now, and concentrate on those. If that means working on poker's legal status, against the UIGEA, for a carveout, etc., are what is most important now, then focus your resources on that. Just don't make the claim that the organization with that purpose is soley made up of, and soley acting for, poker players. The danger in calling the AUA the PPA, and in having its board stacked with industry people is that once the PPA wins the current battles, its members may find that "their" organization is staffed by the enemy from the next battles.