SafeandSecure is looking for support, so WHO are they ?

[MiltonFriedman]

They are NOT www.safeandsecure.org. (http://www.safeandsecure.org.) That is a fire protection and alarms company from Canada.

There is no website up at the url safeandsecureir.org, which was provided in a post from them.

They clearly have a public relations arm and are going around to various media to promote somthing. They have popped up in iGamingBusiness and the Remote Gaming Assoc with endorsements, but url links leading nowhere.

So, how about it Safe And Secure .... Who ARE you and who pays your bills ?

What is your mission ?

We know you want regulation, but why not support the Wexler Bill ?

[Grasshopp3r]

This is their site address:

http://safeandsecureig.org/

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
They are NOT www.safeandsecure.org. (http://www.safeandsecure.org.) That is a fire protection and alarms company from Canada.

There is no website up at the url safeandsecureir.org, which was provided in a post from them.

They clearly have a public relations arm and are going around to various media to promote somthing. They have popped up in iGamingBusiness and the Remote Gaming Assoc with endorsements, but url links leading nowhere.

So, how about it Safe And Secure .... Who ARE you and who pays your bills ?

What is your mission ?

We know you want regulation, but why not support the Wexler Bill ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Safe and Secure is a new entry into the anti-UIGEA lobbing market. I would imagine just the 2+2 hits to the Newsweek PR planted story was a major coup for this new group. A whois shows the site as just recently registered and to whom. I have yet to look for thier funding sources. It is not impossible to find once they make contact with the Hill. But given the links on their site I would guess it is a broader audience than just on-line poker. There are links to articles that support most forms of any on-line gambling, sports betting, on-line casino games etc.. Interestingly they seem fairly supisous of the on-line poker crowd given our skills game argument.

They are going through some growing pains, you think the PPA is bad. I could point out a few nasty PR headaches they will face just from some of their associations and I don't mean politically with the broader gambling issue. Perhaps I should pimp my services there.......

Just kidding,

D$D

[JeffreyS]

I appreciate you asking about the organization. We have been created to promote the opportunity for everyone to be able to legally gamble online, whether on poker, sports betting or other games. Please visit our site to see a list of the organizations that support our efforts. While there, I also encourage you to use the tool that allows visitors to voice their support for legalized Internet gambling by sending email messages to their elected representatives.

[MiltonFriedman]

So, basically, you are "supported" by UK entities who are interested in access to the US gaming market ?

Rents at 17th & M Street in DC are pretty steep. Where do you get your funding ?

From your site, which looks pretty professional, it seems you are totally wed to the Barney Frank Bill. Is that an accurate read ? If not, why not ?

If your organization was asked to support a POKER-specific beneficial effort, would it do so ?

Jay Cohen has asked you to STOP claiming your "Initiative" will resolve WTO issues. His argument seems pretty good that you do nothing with the Frank Bill except slough-off discretion to States or sports leagues. How, precisely, would your Initiative resolve any WTO issues ?

Finally, why would your Supporters, a bunch of UK entities, give a rat's ass about the rights of US poker players ?

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.
.
Finally, why would your Supporters, a bunch of UK entities, give a rat's ass about the rights of US poker players ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me take a stab at that... Uh... money perhaps?

Tuff

[MiltonFriedman]

We have a winner .... they do not give a rat's ass about our rights, only how to channel our money.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
We have a winner .... they do not give a rat's ass about our rights, only how to channel our money.

[/ QUOTE ]


And the same can logically and fairly be said of the affiliate farm interests that control the PPA board, at least as far as caring more about protecting the specific business models of online poker that benefit themselves, rather than the rights of the broader membership who seek to have as many choices to play as possible.


As far as the specific organization in question here, it has party poker written all over it. Funny they try to do this stuff covertly with a front organization instead of just seeking a declaratory judgment on their own initiative. More proof that party gaming is led by inept bunglers.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
So, basically, you are "supported" by UK entities who are interested in access to the US gaming market ?

Rents at 17th & M Street in DC are pretty steep. Where do you get your funding ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really if you have an operation run by a PR/lobbiest type wearing two hats. Resistering a domain name is cheap.

[ QUOTE ]
From your site, which looks pretty professional,

[/ QUOTE ]

Clean little front end but damn short on quality material, mostly off the shelf. Some link problems but for a month not too bad.

[ QUOTE ]
If your organization was asked to support a POKER-specific beneficial effort, would it do so ?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the $64 question. I can tell you almost verbatium their answer, but I want to see if I have the phrasing exactly right.............

[ QUOTE ]
Jay Cohen has asked you to STOP claiming your "Initiative" will resolve WTO issues. His argument seems pretty good that you do nothing with the Frank Bill except slough-off discretion to States or sports leagues. How, precisely, would your Initiative resolve any WTO issues ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually here in the US unrestricted betting with these on-line "cream cookies" where you can bet on anything there is a market for it, from sports to who's out next on American Idol, would really open a federalist can of worms, let alone send the NFL and College sports folks round the bend.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, why would your Supporters, a bunch of UK entities, give a rat's ass about the rights of US poker players ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me wrong here, they would love any leg up since on-line poker is legal in the UK. They will not have all the growning pains a new US poker site would have or the potential abandonment issues the ones that left might face, or the UIGEA "violator" issue US friendly sites fear.

Not a bad marketing strategy IMPO.

However you should know that many of you have already helped get them a place at the table in future UIGEA Congressional efforts.

Their innocent sounding call Congress and tell them you support the information in the package they delivered is a naked bid to claim "ownership" of all the anti-UIGEA calls Congress gets. This is a back hand way to claim a large grassroots "membership" without having to do the work of actually signing up a single member. As a pure political move I'm actually quite impressed, personally I'm pissed off.



D$D

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
We have a winner .... they do not give a rat's ass about our rights, only how to channel our money.

[/ QUOTE ]

If their giving a rat's posterior about channeling my money gets me unrestricted online poker, freedom to move funds about safely, a certified "honest" site, and advertising freedom in the USA, Then we do indeed "have a winner".

Tuff

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Their innocent sounding call Congress and tell them you support the information in the package they delivered is a naked bid to claim "ownership" of all the anti-UIGEA calls Congress gets. This is a back hand way to claim a large grassroots "membership" without having to do the work of actually signing up a single member. As a pure political move I'm actually quite impressed, personally I'm pissed off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is Safe and Secure connected to Casino Gaming Web, the company who delivered the packages?

Everyone,

Regardless, I hope we'll all use this opportunity to write to Congress this week. We (the poker playing community) can claim ownership for the packages just as easily as anyone else, so let's write.

[Richas]

My goodness it would be nice if the vitriol were saved for the opponents of gambling not those who want to have regulated, safe gambling with help for problem gamblers. If you look at the supporters for this you scream PARTY but the orgs are listed there. Here is an example of an organisation that can help lobbying in Washington

Gam Care (http://www.gamcare.org.uk/about.php)

The PPA has to be a US organisation, it cannot take foreign money for lobbying efforts and keep its status. For those of us in the rest of the world who want access for you (ok for us to your fish)and the companies that want to access the market to provide you with services and competition the PPA is not an option.

The foreign companies have gone down the WTO route, this is the lobbying route. They are on your side, its called having allies. Now do allies always have absolutely common interests and the exact same view or approach? No but they are still allies and it would be sensible to wor with them not attack them.

The interest groups in the PPA want to make money from poker, foreign companies want to make money from Poker, Antigua wants to make money from poker, some senators want to make money from poker (at least your allies do) but here is a shocker poker players have the same motivation too.

I find it amusing that some here want greater representation for poker players when what they often mean is for winning poker players, full time grinders, not the recreational hobbyist. Let's face it the only people who are not in this for the money are the recreational players and they would like to be in this fight for the money (and can learn to be).

Jees I know poker is not a team game but this s getting a bit silly.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

Jees I know poker is not a team game but this s getting a bit silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are absolutely correct, self interests are like personal freedoms. Everyone is all for all of them up and until they impinge on one of theirs.

Given the WTO and trade issues I think the all gaming groups have a very strong hand. But since I have no desire to bet on the next to be told to "pack their knives" on "Top Chief", and I think allowing such unrestricted bookmaking is a nightmare on many levels, I do worry about "our" allies.

But then I am not a gambler, I'm a poker player.


D$D

[JeffreyS]

Let me try my best to respond to the various questions and statements made.

SSIGI is working to legalize Internet gambling and our primary mission is to support the Frank bill. This does not mean that we don't find merit in the Wexler bill, but we believe that the best approach is to tax and regulate all Internet gambling, not just poker. Now, you may not agree with this approach, but our goal is to protect the freedom to gamble online and we feel that this may be best accomplished by encouraging legislation that includes revenue and consumer protections, two things that could spark the interest of a legislator who would otherwise not choose to act on the issue.

Regarding the WTO issue, despite statements made that the WTO case can not or will not ever force the US to rethink its policies related to Internet gambling, we disagree. There are many logistics that would still need to be worked out even if the Frank bill passes, such as how it works if sports leagues opt out or if one state decides not to allow Internet gambling, but we believe that these issues may be negotiated. We also believe that countries involved would much rather allow their local gambling operators to have access to the US market, even if somewhat limited, than they are in other possible solutions.

SSIGI is not financed by gambling operators. We receive financial support from the organizations listed on our website.

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this forum and hope your questions have been answered.

Jeffrey

[MiltonFriedman]

It is refreshing to actually get a substantive response to questions asked legitimately.

As a policy matter, you must appreciate why your belief that "the best approach is to tax and regulate all Internet gambling, not just poker" is questionable.

Poker can pick better 'friends" than sports betting and other "gambling" online, simply by turning to the "skill gams market.

You have chosen to burden everyone with freeing up Online Sports Betting as part of your fight, yet muddy the waters with some arcane formula where a private company, like the NFL can decide whether to invoke criminal penalties for third parties it does not like.

Whatever else one might say about your political/legal judgments, they certainly weigh down "Poker" with unneeded baggage from Sports betting concerns, both as to legality and as to allowing private groups to legislate criminal law's application.

WHY IS the WEXLER Bill better for Poker ?

In contrast to your requiring Poker to ally with Sports Betting interests in passing a law, the Wexler Bill seeks to ally Poker with Skill Games. (Who would you rather have an identity with, someone offshore whose business has been outlawed since 1961 or someone who is entirely legal and US-based ?) I think Poker gains more by potetnially bringing in AOL and MSN today as providers under the Wexler Bill. All the MGMs and Harrahs meanwhile can at least get a slice of US Poker, while they push for broader Internet Gaming.

Good luck, but your approach is clearly NOT the best way for Poker to prosper for US players.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me try my best to respond to the various questions and statements made.

SSIGI is working to legalize Internet gambling and our primary mission is to support the Frank bill. This does not mean that we don't find merit in the Wexler bill, but we believe that the best approach is to tax and regulate all Internet gambling, not just poker. Now, you may not agree with this approach, but our goal is to protect the freedom to gamble online and we feel that this may be best accomplished by encouraging legislation that includes revenue and consumer protections, two things that could spark the interest of a legislator who would otherwise not choose to act on the issue.

Regarding the WTO issue, despite statements made that the WTO case can not or will not ever force the US to rethink its policies related to Internet gambling, we disagree. There are many logistics that would still need to be worked out even if the Frank bill passes, such as how it works if sports leagues opt out or if one state decides not to allow Internet gambling, but we believe that these issues may be negotiated. We also believe that countries involved would much rather allow their local gambling operators to have access to the US market, even if somewhat limited, than they are in other possible solutions.

SSIGI is not financed by gambling operators. We receive financial support from the organizations listed on our website.

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this forum and hope your questions have been answered.

Jeffrey

[/ QUOTE ]


Mr. Sandman,

I agree that the WTO decision may ultimately bring the US to change its policies. What I take issue with is your organization's constant raising of the Frank bill as a solution to the WTO matter. The Frank bill does not bring the US into compliance withthe WTO decision. Please stop saying it does.

The Frank bill would also force all foreign licensees to Americanize. Once the companies complied with all of the requirements, there would be nothing left in their native countries. I don't know what country would support that. Foreign countries want their companies to have access to the US market, they don't want to see their companiess and jobs move to the US. There's a big difference.

[Grasshopp3r]

Poker's best ally is Bill Gates. There is a poker engine that is built into Vista for a reason.

[MiltonFriedman]

This is precisely my point.

WHY does Safeandsecure think an alliance with Sportsbetting is the way to go ? That is water carried by the Frank Bill.

Why would 'US Poker" do so when Microsoft wants to offer poker as a skill game ? The Wexler Bill gets that done.

NO ONE with any gambling operating experience would ever prefer to operate as a "regulated" gambling company if there is a chance to operate as an unregulated skill game company. The difference has NOTHING to do with wanting to fleece consumers or exploit the young, it has everything to do with the burdens upon any market in serving consumers when associated with "regulation"

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
This is precisely my point.

WHY does Safeandsecure think an alliance with Sportsbetting is the way to go ? That is water carried by the Frank Bill.

Why would 'US Poker" do so when Microsoft wants to offer poker as a skill game ? The Wexler Bill gets that done.

NO ONE with any gambling operating experience would ever prefer to operate as a "regulated" gambling company if there is a chance to operate as an unregulated skill game company. The difference has NOTHING to do with wanting to fleece consumers or exploit the young, it has everything to do with the burdens upon any market in serving consumers when associated with "regulation"

[/ QUOTE ]

While the ultimate deal between any lobbing groups will be made by the leaders and backers of each group on a risk vs. reward basis. I do think there is value in addressing the issues here. Some of us are members of the PPA, some are not, but we are all poker players.

D$D

[JPFisher55]

Jay, I am going to guess that Antiqua is not going to accept anything like the IGREA as a settlement to its WTO case. Would Antiqua accept anything other than either (1) a complete ban on all remote gambling in the US or (2) repeal of UIGEA and exemption for remote gambling from the Wire Act? I presume that if a state banned all gambling then Antiqua would allow it to ban online gambling. I think only 2 states have no gambling.
Do any other grounds for settlement exist?

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Jay, I am going to guess that Antiqua is not going to accept anything like the IGREA as a settlement to its WTO case. Would Antiqua accept anything other than either (1) a complete ban on all remote gambling in the US or (2) repeal of UIGEA and exemption for remote gambling from the Wire Act? I presume that if a state banned all gambling then Antiqua would allow it to ban online gambling. I think only 2 states have no gambling.
Do any other grounds for settlement exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course there are settlements in the middle. The Frank bill as written is not one of them. I have always said they would be willing to let Utah and Hawaii opt out since they have no gambling.

Antigua looks forward to the US to coming to the table in good faith. Up until now it has been "We'd like you to drop this." They have been stalling and lying for years.