Can someone explain what the PPA wants? and why

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
So I looked at the About Us page, where the Board of Directors is listed, and this is where I'm confused; no one on that board derives their income from playing online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that three pros and TE is a significant presence. I want to question your premise though - it is not professional players who are underrepresented but the casual recreational player, the fish. They are the vast majority of poker players and should have some representation.

Practically it also misses a chance to have a spokesperson who can explain that it can be a hobby, a cheap enjoyable hobby played for low stakes online. Online is much more accessible for the casual player who wants to play with a small amount of money.

I'm marginally profitable (until the variance kicks in again) but let us assume I lose $500 a year - the typical cost of the hobby is $10 a month so this would make me a big loser by that standard. Now compare that to what I spend on Golf or Football - not the betting playing or watching. If I want to spend $500 on poker, $2000 on golf and $4000 on my football nobody criticises me for the bigger spend on watching an playing sports but paying to participate in the sport/game of poker is under attack - there is no logic in that unless you want the state to control all your expenditures.

Me I'd like a board member who plays for fun, comes accross as freindly, normal, family focussed and with a passion for the game to help make these points and look after losing players interests on the board. There are such issues - datamining, personal information security, making it easier for pros to target you, making sure the light user gets decent rakeback deals......

The PPA should have representatation for the hobby player.