Imagine.. with apologies to John Lennon [Archive]

Tuff_Fish

09-30-2007, 08:25 AM

It is 5 in the morning and I can't sleep.

Imagine if there was an online worldwide poker room.

Imagine if funding was as simple as a debit card, any debit card, or wire, or check, or whatever.

Imagine withdrawals that were as simple as a trip to the atm, direct bank deposit, timely check, or whatever.

Imagine there were absolutely no restrictions except age verification, 18/19/20/21, whatever. Anybody anywhere is good to go.

Imagine total freedom to advertise.

Imagine there was NO RAKE!, and no annoying advertisements, popup or otherwise, and no monthly fees.

Tuff, you have surely been into the mushrooms. What on earth did you eat for supper?

Imagine there were a benevolent bazillionaire Bill Gates type who just wanted us folks to be able to play a little poker amongst ourselves. So our benefactor pays the expenses of operating our online poker room including the expense of the finest, fastest, most stable software, really good security, excellent customer service, and even does some advertising to get the word out. And BTW, zero funds from any source ever flow back to our benefactor.

Legal?

Who could object?

Who would object?

Who likes it?

Who hates it?

/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Tuff

PS: Any guesses as to how much this is going to cost our mysterious friend to start up and maintain?

And, yes, I have something in mind here.

wrschultz

09-30-2007, 09:12 AM

Nice post man. Surely this really doesn't cost that much. One huge cost that would have to be paid for is the transaction fees. I'm sure the large sites spend millions a year on transaction fees with the ewallets.

Even if it was just funded through your bank account or credit card, there are still fees that would add up over time.

xSCWx

09-30-2007, 11:02 AM

It costs money to maintain the site and have support for when [censored] goes wrong too.

...but if it is possible please do it.

excession

09-30-2007, 11:08 AM

Well if you take away no rake but add no tax on winnings you get the position of a UK player on say Will Hill or Ladbrokes..

oldbookguy

09-30-2007, 12:04 PM

Since we are imagining this, transaction fees would be paid by the player.

Still, a huge cost in people, I.E., back end support, office personel, etc.

I read a basic site can be started for about 30K someplace, somewhere in time.

obg

Uglyowl

09-30-2007, 12:51 PM

Of course this would be fantastic, but:

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine if funding was as simple as a debit card, any debit card, or wire, or check, or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you get debit/credit cards through since that is up to the issuing bank?

DeadMoneyDad

09-30-2007, 01:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Of course this would be fantastic, but:

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine if funding was as simple as a debit card, any debit card, or wire, or check, or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you get debit/credit cards through since that is up to the issuing bank?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well all you have to do is be willing to do a little extra in the current system. TruePoker has gone the right direct IMPO, they will send a courier for a transaction of 1k or more. That got my attention, as well as got me to open an account!

Now all anyone else has to do is read the regs and be ready to tell the US gov't FU! Make it clear the response to any intimidation is "bring it on!"

The rest is a matter of a little proper planning and a little creativity.

D$D

Tuff_Fish

09-30-2007, 01:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]

.

Legal?

Who could object?

Who would object?

Who likes it?

Who hates it?

/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Tuff

PS: Any guesses as to how much this is going to cost our mysterious friend to start up and maintain?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think such a thing would be legal since there is no profit. I would like some legal minds to weigh in.

I am guessing the annual cost would be $5 - $10 million, but I actually have no idea. It doesn't matter, our wealthy friend does not care, but would need to know how much.

Transaction fees would, in all likelyhood, be borne by the player. Credit cards might be a problem because of risk to the CC company, but the transaction, assuming the whole thing is truly totally legal, would be no different than buying a book on Amazon.

I woke up in the wee hours envisioning a giant Saturday night poker game just between friends, tens of thousands of friends, over on my neighbor's friendly web site. Of course this would be a 24/7, 365 days a year Saturday night.

I don't see any reason whatsoever that a few (thousand) friends can't get together over the web for a fun filled, not for profit, poker game. The only impediment is cost to properly implement and sustain such a gathering.

Cheers,

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Tuff

Tuff_Fish

09-30-2007, 02:41 PM

Another thought.

What do you suppose would happen to the existing online poker sites if such a site, with no rake or very nominal rake (1% - 2%) were to become freely available to all poker players?

Assuming, of course, that the site had the aforementioned excellent software, security, customer service etc?

Tuff

DeadMoneyDad

09-30-2007, 03:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Another thought.

What do you suppose would happen to the existing online poker sites if such a site, with no rake or very nominal rake (1% - 2%) were to become freely available to all poker players?

Assuming, of course, that the site had the aforementioned excellent software, security, customer service etc?

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

50%+ of the world poker market!

tarath

09-30-2007, 04:35 PM

tarath

09-30-2007, 04:36 PM

stupid question, why would this not be illegal? what about the site profiting violates the laws vs the site not profiting.

Also,

if theres no multitabling allowed I'm sure stars/FT would stay in business just fine.

This whole thing blows my mind. God it would be nice.

_dave_

09-30-2007, 09:18 PM

As Excession said earlier, welcome to the United Kingdom.

Tuff_Fish

09-30-2007, 09:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
stupid question, why would this not be illegal? what about the site profiting violates the laws vs the site not profiting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many antigambling laws are written so as to specifically outlaw a gambling business . That is to say your weekly charity bingo nights are perfectly legal. I know of no place that would declare your Saturday night poker game in your neighbor's garage unlawful.

This is just taking the "garage" global. In reality, there would have to be a modest rake, perhaps 1% - 2%. Expenses must be paid. (Assuming there is no benevolent billionaire) But they must be paid cleverly, and not by the poker site operator directly.

I am still thinking on this. There may be a germ of an idea here,....or not.

[ QUOTE ]

Also,

if theres no multitabling allowed I'm sure stars/FT would stay in business just fine.

This whole thing blows my mind. God it would be nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Multitabling loses a lot of it's appeal if there is no rakeback. And.., if there is essentially no rake, there can be no rakeback. (As opposed to the idiot WSEX model which was really rake redistribution)

Tuff

Tuff_Fish

09-30-2007, 09:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another thought.

What do you suppose would happen to the existing online poker sites if such a site, with no rake or very nominal rake (1% - 2%) were to become freely available to all poker players?

Assuming, of course, that the site had the aforementioned excellent software, security, customer service etc?

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

50%+ of the world poker market!

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that the existing sites would retain 50% of the world market? If so, why would 50% of the worlds players stay with a raked site? Assuming they had access to the "rake free" site.

_dave_

09-30-2007, 10:24 PM

Tuff_Fish,

I'll say again, welcome to the UK

What you propose is exactly the current state of affairs over here, aside from the rake issue - but then such a business is not illegal over here, and Cryptologic sites with 30% rackeback and perpetual non-deducting bonuses make it close to the 2% you mention - and I'm sure that is more than enough to cover the costs, even on such a network with a small playerbase.

You may well be interested in this thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8852476&an=0&page=0

Significantly lowering the barrier of entry to a new site operator, given a few programmer friends and suitable server capacity for your playerbase /images/graemlins/smile.gif

best of luck,

dave.

Uglyowl

09-30-2007, 10:34 PM

DeadMoneyDad

09-30-2007, 11:22 PM

DeadMoneyDad

09-30-2007, 11:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another thought.

What do you suppose would happen to the existing online poker sites if such a site, with no rake or very nominal rake (1% - 2%) were to become freely available to all poker players?

Assuming, of course, that the site had the aforementioned excellent software, security, customer service etc?

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

50%+ of the world poker market!

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that the existing sites would retain 50% of the world market? If so, why would 50% of the worlds players stay with a raked site? Assuming they had access to the "rake free" site.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I didn't have so much family in the US I'd set up a sort of "arab or asian" type poker only money system. With "trusted people" in the network. The problem is that many people require payment and getting it done for less than the current 5% e-pisspoorservice.com charges is going to be tough considering the credit card fees, even if you could find a loophole in the proposed regs. The problem is getting a major finacal player to take on the US gov't.

I love TruePoker's system, but a $1,000 minimun for courier service is a little steep for most players.

Like I said I know plenty of people in the venture capital system but I don't yet have a workible system in place.

Imagine Poker dot com? IP? ...........

IMAGINEPOKER.COM is already taken!

Ok who's playing around??

D$D

Legislurker

09-30-2007, 11:40 PM

Imagine was a horrible filthy inhuman song, and this idea is about as unworkable. No profit, haven't we been down this route and [censored] by Dutch Boyd. No one likes WSEX. No one works for free. MAYBE the idea could be pitched as a loss leader for when the time is ripe to go for profit. But, poker players and gamblers in general are fickle. Whats the obsession with multitabling? Poker has two points, profit or fun. More tables means more profit or more fun. Rakeback or bonus is just icing. 99% of the people here will not help or actively oppose anything to do wiht singletablenazifying.

Oh, and Richard Branson might be a better person to be on our side than Bill Gates. Problem is twofold with him though. His big business is aviation and thats a dirty and corrupt business internationally. Virgin could be dropped from open skies agreements or gates as political punishment.
His poker room isnt that spectacular, but it launched around UIGEA time. The brand is at least popular. And he is certainly against the grain. Bill is a lil conservative.

tarath

09-30-2007, 11:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Also,

if theres no multitabling allowed I'm sure stars/FT would stay in business just fine.

This whole thing blows my mind. God it would be nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Multitabling loses a lot of it's appeal if there is no rakeback. And.., if there is essentially no rake, there can be no rakeback. (As opposed to the idiot WSEX model which was really rake redistribution)

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

This is flawed thinking. First of no rake is equivilient to 100% rakeback so if you think rakeback drives mutlitabling your site would drive it more.

Secondly I think the vast majority of players who multitable (and keep in mind plenty of fish multitable, i use smart buddy and regularly see fish at 8 tables at once) its because they like the fast pace of play that comes from playing a lot of tables, the icnreased rate that they gain experience and learn the game, and the increased win rate. And most of all its because they enjoy taking a statistical viewpoint of poker and being able to focus on macro gameplay and avoid the results oriented high variance struggle of 1-tabling.

I guess your whole dream of free unrestricted utopian online poker is beautfiul and i wish you all the best but I always feel like your a bit of a hipocrit because I know you don't really want free unrestricted onlin epoker, you want to crush all the multitablers who don't think about the game the same way you do.

So I'll ask you point blank since you didn't say one way or another. In this imagined poker world is multitabling allowed?

DeadMoneyDad

10-01-2007, 12:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
stupid question, why would this not be illegal? what about the site profiting violates the laws vs the site not profiting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many antigambling laws are written so as to specifically outlaw a gambling business . That is to say your weekly charity bingo nights are perfectly legal. I know of no place that would declare your Saturday night poker game in your neighbor's garage unlawful.

This is just taking the "garage" global. In reality, there would have to be a modest rake, perhaps 1% - 2%. Expenses must be paid. (Assuming there is no benevolent billionaire) But they must be paid cleverly, and not by the poker site operator directly.

I am still thinking on this. There may be a germ of an idea here,....or not.

[ QUOTE ]

Also,

if theres no multitabling allowed I'm sure stars/FT would stay in business just fine.

This whole thing blows my mind. God it would be nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Multitabling loses a lot of it's appeal if there is no rakeback. And.., if there is essentially no rake, there can be no rakeback. (As opposed to the idiot WSEX model which was really rake redistribution)

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

This is flawed thinking. First of no rake is equivilient to 100% rakeback so if you think rakeback drives mutlitabling your site would drive it more.

Secondly I think the vast majority of players who multitable (and keep in mind plenty of fish multitable, i use smart buddy and regularly see fish at 8 tables at once) its because they like the fast pace of play that comes from playing a lot of tables, the icnreased rate that they gain experience and learn the game, and the increased win rate. And most of all its because they enjoy taking a statistical viewpoint of poker and being able to focus on macro gameplay and avoid the results oriented high variance struggle of 1-tabling.

I guess your whole dream of free unrestricted utopian online poker is beautfiul and i wish you all the best but I always feel like your a bit of a hipocrit because I know you don't really want free unrestricted onlin epoker, you want to crush all the multitablers who don't think about the game the same way you do.

So I'll ask you point blank since you didn't say one way or another. In this imagined poker world is multitabling allowed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can live with people playing with on as many tables as they want using only their brains and bankrolls.

If multi-tabling is a deal breaker with Tuff it isn't with me. My issue is with computer assisted play of any type.

I don't want any data mining either. You want to get a read on me or any one else you have to pay for the right.

I think hand histories for anyone but any type of gaming review are out exect for play chip land.

Now how you get a money transfer system and a computer system people trust into that little box I don't have a clue. Like I said I haven't tried to program since bill added the third + to C++ as in trying to take over C+ with Visual C++, that is a old programers joke.

Standing offer if anyone can make it happen I can raise the cash......

D$D

jkpoker

10-01-2007, 03:55 AM

Free online poker has been tried.

The fish dont give a flying [censored]

BuddyQ

10-01-2007, 11:24 AM

Interest collected on players deposits on account is a source of revenue to poker rooms.

Tuff, why don't you put together a not-for-profit poker room, pay yourself a nice salary, and pay the expenses. The expenses left over after any revenue is credited could be passed on as to the players as rake. How much rake would be required? Wsex is now keeping 25%.

Tuff_Fish

10-01-2007, 03:54 PM

Let me clarify a few points. Imagine Poker, were it to come to pass, would be run by, and for the benefit of, the mysterious donar who would be making it possible.

It would fit no current online business model. It would be a true "not for profit" site, but there would be, for reasons which may become clear in due course, be a very modest rake.

One of the reasons I dreamed up such a scheme is to avoid all the problems currently bedeviling current US facing sites. Such a site would, by necessity, be run quite differently from the current model.

The only aspect which would be similar would be that it was poker and that it would be online. (And would be absent the funding, advertising, and legal access problems)

One of the reasons I posted was to ask the following questions:

Would it be legal?

Who would like to see a "not for profit" essentially rake free site?

Not too many folks seem wildly enthusiastic about a "Saturday night at the garage" model where you play poker with a bunch of other poker players.

If you can multitable and make it work without rakeback and HUDs, fine by me. I would only lobby for: a) a fast clock on your actions, with a time button of course, and b) the ability to change my screen name quite often.

As for WSEX, it was NOT a rakefree site. A rakefree site would not have collected rake in the first place. WSEX redistributed the rake, and did it in a manner which rewarded tight nit play, and penalized loose play. That plus bad software, and subsequently the UIGEA, did WSEX in. If rakefree really did fit their busines model, why did they collect rake in the first place?

I have a sneaky suspicion that many 2+2ers really would not be in favor of a true rake free site freely available to all online poker players worldwide. (Just an impression I get) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Tuff

Skallagrim

10-01-2007, 05:13 PM

One little point in this dream, not taking a rake would not make this enterprise legal in EVERY state. Most, but not all.

Skallagrim

augie_

10-01-2007, 05:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If rakefree really did fit their busines model, why did they collect rake in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

to show the fishies exactly how much they were paying in rake.

Grasshopp3r

10-01-2007, 07:09 PM

You do not need to have rake in order to have revenues. Charge a per table open fee and make that progressive if you feel that multi-tablers are bad. For example, if you have one table open at $1/2 limit, you pay $1 per hour. If you have 2 open, you pay $1.25/hour and so on.

As far as the money goes, just use a currency that is not the dollar, such as e-gold or e-bullion. That is outside the US gov't.

Alternatively, you could just set up a mutual payment system using existing smart credit cards that load independently of the ACH system. Everyone just plugs their cash card into the reader and then can play. The transfer is directly between the players and their cards. You need to buy a reader, but that is all for this system. You can load the card and use the card everywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebMoney

Tuff_Fish

10-02-2007, 12:54 AM

I like the way you think.

Playing poker for something other than money, and having the site make money in ways other than rake is akin to playing for matchsticks around the kitchen table.

However, a time charge would put you into the gambling business. One would have to be a bit more obtuse collecting your fees for providing the poker site.

I have thought of a site using advertising, but that is still a bit murky.

To be successful, your site has to be able to freely take in deposits and give payouts through the normal banking channels. Thus we have to be unquestionably legal.

Fish are not going to use sketchy methods. Grinders will, but fish will not.

Keep thinking though. It is good for you.

The murkier the UIGEA regs are, the better for any alternative model also.

Tuff

DeadMoneyDad

10-02-2007, 02:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I like the way you think. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Keep thinking though. It is good for you.

The murkier the UIGEA regs are, the better for any alternative model also.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

The pay off for anyone willing to challenge the vague reg and win would be tremendous, at least from an initial marketing view. Your business model would have to be strong enough to fend off copy cats later on.

Do you know the owner of the ImaginePoker domain name?

D$D<--loves whois lookups.

augie_

10-02-2007, 11:55 AM

i just registered imaginepoker.com...tuff, let me know if your friend wants the site, he can have it for 10 grand.

DeadMoneyDad

10-02-2007, 11:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i just registered imaginepoker.com...tuff, let me know if your friend wants the site, he can have it for 10 grand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I registered a better version of the name and you can have it for less than cost.

D$D<--doesn't F friends over.

Grasshopp3r

10-02-2007, 12:27 PM

Charge a membership fee on a monthly basis instead of time charges. Charge a data transmission fee based upon the number of packets sent, ie., more packets for multitablers. Then, you are not in the gambling business. You are a club that just happens to offer the service to its members.

Also, there is no honor among thieves, so just think up a different name, register it and then announce it.

I think that mutual trust depository institutions that don't lend money are outside of most of the banking regs. There are some funny financial regulatory structures that may achieve your goals, so you should do some research on that topic.

Tuff_Fish

10-02-2007, 01:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]

.
Then, you are not in the gambling business. You are a club that just happens to offer the service to its members.

.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

In California that would be running a gambling establishment.

In almost any scenerio where the provider recieves money directly from the gaming participants, it may be construed as running a gambling busines.

We need the "poker is skill argument" and/or some indirect way to a least pay the site expenses. If the site is truly non profit, then we have some leverage. But there have been many schemes attempted to circumvent the gambling laws. Most have met with a bad end.

Tuff

DeadMoneyDad

10-02-2007, 01:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

.
Then, you are not in the gambling business. You are a club that just happens to offer the service to its members.

.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

In California that would be running a gambling establishment.

In almost any scenerio where the provider recieves money directly from the gaming participants, it may be construed as running a gambling busines.

We need the "poker is skill argument" and/or some indirect way to a least pay the site expenses. If the site is truly non profit, then we have some leverage. But there have been many schemes attempted to circumvent the gambling laws. Most have met with a bad end.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

How did the NASCAR crew do it, they charge an AOL type fee......

D$D

Grasshopp3r

10-02-2007, 02:17 PM

There are some sites that are attempting to test these practices, such as Pure Play Poker, which has a monthly fee for premium rights or some scheme. The internet is a wonderful organizer, so lets see if we can use it.

The "honor among thieves" quote may actually be more relevant to this discussion as the solution may be in the form of a mutual depository as the "banker" for the payment processing.

Tuff_Fish

10-02-2007, 02:24 PM

What did NASCAR do? All I know is that they race cars.

Tuff

DeadMoneyDad

10-02-2007, 03:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What did NASCAR do? All I know is that they race cars.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker NASCAR story (http://news.bostonherald.com/business/media/view.bg?articleid=1034404)

Grasshopp3r

10-02-2007, 04:09 PM

I knew that NASCAR would be part of the solution. The only thing unusual about that site is that the dealer rotation is counterclockwise.

Tuff_Fish

10-02-2007, 07:16 PM

Just to distill a few thoughts here.

As things stand today.

A) It seems that if a bunch (thousands) of people got together on an internet site and played poker against each other for prizes provided by a third party (NASCAR), that is perfectly legal.

B) Even if such a site charged a non mandatory fee, that seems perfectly legal.

C) If a bunch (thousands) of people got together on an internet site and played poker against each other for money, and there was no rake or fees involved, it seems that this might pass muster in a court of law, I don’t know.

D) If such a site charged a non mandatory fee, things possibly would change and raise a question of legality, perhaps not.

E) If such a site charged a mandatory fee, then the site is in the poker business and things get really messy.

F) If a site collects a rake, well……..

So the trick is to get from C to C++ (sorry, I couldn’t resist). That is to say a bunch of people getting together on an internet site and playing together for money, but no rake or mandatory fees are involved, however the expenses of the site, including advertising, are taken care of.

Keep thinking.

PokerAmateur4

10-02-2007, 08:52 PM

Tuff Fish,

[ QUOTE ]
“I know of no place that would declare your Saturday night poker game in your neighbor's garage unlawful.”

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m pretty sure states and perhaps even cities vary on this. Sometimes it’s legal to have a home game, sometimes it’s only legal if there’s no rake, sometimes it’s illegal no matter what. But whether this site would be legal I have no idea but would also be very curious.

On another subject,
I think getting stuff moving and ideas circulating is fantastic, thanks for continuing to do it. However it seems getting things done is really hard and requires a lot of support if it is to happen. Perhaps deciding on the exact logistics such as rakeback/HUD/Datamining/HHs would be best discussed and figured out later. It’s clear that many, probably most, people get turned off to ideas, often vehemently, when this stuff is brought into the mix. If we can actually do something I think the groundwork that everyone agrees is a great thing should be taken care of first so that everyone is on board.
---
[ QUOTE ]
“D) If such a site charged a non mandatory fee, things possibly would change and raise a question of legality, perhaps not.

E) If such a site charged a mandatory fee, then the site is in the poker business and things get really messy.

F) If a site collects a rake, well……..”

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone know if even matters what method of collection occurs? Perhaps as long as it is non-profit it doesn’t matter? I.e. rake goes back to the people/maintenance 100%.

Jkpoker,
[ QUOTE ]
“Free online poker has been tried.
The fish dont give a flying [censored]”

[/ QUOTE ]

They would if it is done right. I.e. if partypoker was done for free no one would object and it would only be stronger, problem was WPEX/WSEX just wasn’t good enough for various reasons to capture any market share.

Skallagrim,
[ QUOTE ]
One little point in this dream, not taking a rake would not make this enterprise legal in EVERY state. Most, but not all.
Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]
Which ones not and why?

DeadMoneyDad,
[ QUOTE ]
Your business model would have to be strong enough to fend off copy cats later on.

[/ QUOTE ]
If it’s good that will happen, i.e. pokerstars/partypoker, eBay.

Tuff_Fish

10-02-2007, 10:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Tuff Fish,

.
On another subject,
I think getting stuff moving and ideas circulating is fantastic, thanks for continuing to do it. However it seems getting things done is really hard and requires a lot of support if it is to happen. Perhaps deciding on the exact logistics such as rakeback/HUD/Datamining/HHs would be best discussed and figured out later. It’s clear that many, probably most, people get turned off to ideas, often vehemently, when this stuff is brought into the mix. If we can actually do something I think the groundwork that everyone agrees is a great thing should be taken care of first so that everyone is on board.
.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have learned my lesson and am contrite. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

No more talk of restrictions until there is a US poker site to argue about.

Ideally it will boil down to free entry and free competition. Then there will be numerous sites and I am sure one will fit my bill.

Tuff

rrrorrim

10-03-2007, 01:19 PM

Unless the world blows up, we are headed in the direction you imagined...

Except the part about the the benevolent Bill Gates type. Are you out of your mind? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

As much as your post gave me warm fuzzies, I think rakeback is essential. The service would deteriorate - quickly - if the poker room wasn't making any money.

joes28

10-09-2007, 01:35 AM

what about earning money through ad revune? simple ads run at the bottom of the table while playing....

or what about a poker site that was linked to other sites and allowed u to use your funds to purchase things? sites could offer you bonuses based on how much stuff u bought etc.

think how awesome it would be to be able to instantly pay for things on Ebay with money right out of your poker account.

*send me some cash if u decide to start any of these

DeadMoneyDad

10-09-2007, 03:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
what about earning money through ad revune? simple ads run at the bottom of the table while playing....

or what about a poker site that was linked to other sites and allowed u to use your funds to purchase things? sites could offer you bonuses based on how much stuff u bought etc.

think how awesome it would be to be able to instantly pay for things on Ebay with money right out of your poker account.

*send me some cash if u decide to start any of these

[/ QUOTE ]

Well to be quite honest, Tuff has shared some of his idea to me in PMs, and while there are a number of the 1,000's of details to work through, I am totally impressed with the amount of though he has put into this idea, in the face of quite a bit of skepitism.

For someone who's only concern seem to be trying to get a really good site up, and seeming less interested in making a killing off of it is really refreshing not only in this day and age, but the fact that it has to do with poker.

On-line poker IMPO has almost been ruined by very short sighted greedy people, both operators as well a the seemingly majority of players.

There seems to be very few people in general who seem to really care about the future of this game we all claim to love. Even a number of very vocal posters here show to some degree of this seemingly general opinion.

However there a quite a number of people from the "regualars" like TE who are willing to invest a lot of time for the greedy with out any regard for personal gain. Personally that tell me a good deal about both of their personal characters.

For both of them to put up my some times overly abrasive style says even more.

If I every grow up I want to be like them! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

D$D

TheEngineer

10-09-2007, 07:21 AM

I don't agree that the current U.S.-facing sites or the players are hurting the game. You may have a different vision for the industry than the sites do, but that's just a difference of opinion. Once the industry is open to more competition, market forces will drive the industry to match the needs of the players.

I'm glad the sites operating today are greedy; if they were not "greedy", they wouldn't be operating in America. And, it's hard to ask them to work to build an industry to last for 100 years. The U.S. hasn't exactly laid out the welcome mat.

By the way, I'm not fighting for the poker sites. I'm fighting for us, the poker players. Legalization will affect the poker landscape significantly, and there's no telling where the current sites will end up. As for personal gain, thanks for the compliment; I do gain by getting to play and by keeping my rights.

DeadMoneyDad

10-09-2007, 12:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Unless the world blows up, we are headed in the direction you imagined...

Except the part about the the benevolent Bill Gates type. Are you out of your mind? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

As much as your post gave me warm fuzzies, I think rakeback is essential. The service would deteriorate - quickly - if the poker room wasn't making any money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'd like to get this thread back to where it was going to start with.

OK. You are God or a poker God anyway.

You get to start a US on-line site and if you do it right you get to own the US market IMO.

What type of policies would you have in a perfect world?

I beleive the free market types, but also know that if there is an advantage to a business most will take it. So think of the follow on results of any major changes to the status quo.

Here are a few of mine:

1. No one under 21 even for playchip land.

2. Safe, secure, easy deposits and withdraws from US banks, including notification of other people on mutiple named accounts.

3. Very public security results on cheating investigations. If someone finds a cheat or reports one they get a public or private cash reward.

4. TruePokerCEO's pit boss type software ID of problem gamblers. I'd even tithe to some anti-gambling org to fund studies and run their clincs.

5. Self blocking for self ID'ed problem gamblers, perhaps also some way to have any court suggest a block for anyone who's gambling problem ended them up in court. Spousal blocks migh be going too far...

6. Allow any consumer to use a nanny watch type block to any site that uses the poker site's name in any way.

What would you add?

D$D