How do YOU feel about the PPA?
 

Re: How do YOU feel about the PPA?
 

I voted neutral but I am a bit more positive now that Engineer is on board.

That was a great move, I'm encouraged.

Re: How do YOU feel about the PPA?
 

I voted neutral as well. About the only really positive thing I have seen is the building of such an impressive membership base. It will probably reach a million members before too long with the new poker site freerolls. I would have never thought they could get so many members, so imagine how legislators will feel when they see this number. BUT, it's time to start leveraging that support. This is a HUGE membership and they should start wielding that power ala the NRA. As I've stated I would also like to see at least an awareness campaign to let people know how the NFL is trampling our freedoms. Same for eBay/PayPal.

Re: How do YOU feel about the PPA?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I voted neutral as well. About the only really positive thing I have seen is the building of such an impressive membership base. It will probably reach a million members before too long with the new poker site freerolls. I would have never thought they could get so many members, so imagine how legislators will feel when they see this number. BUT, it's time to start leveraging that support. This is a HUGE membership and they should start wielding that power ala the NRA. As I've stated I would also like to see at least an awareness campaign to let people know how the NFL is trampling our freedoms. Same for eBay/PayPal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Under Michael Bolcerek, the past PPA president, PPA didn't do much to activate the membership. John Pappas has pledged (and has repeated it several times in interviews) that one of his goals is to utilize the membership base. The KY governor's race is a great opportunity for PPA to trial this while gaining needed data.

Re: How do YOU feel about the PPA?
 

Its our only way to fight collectively currently. Its past performance was less than stellar, but new organizations rarely avoid growing pains. The member numbers are a big positive, and the course laid out for the future makes me somewhat positive.

Until, of course, we decide that fighting amongst ourselves is more important than fighting our enemies. If trends on this board are an indication (and I do not think they really are) that could become a major factor in switching my vote to negative.

Skallagrim

Re: How do YOU feel about the PPA?
 

I have moved from neutral to slightly positive. I did an editorial on my radio show just a couple of days before Pappas posted here, and the news came out about the changes. Some of the things I wanted to see, I'm starting to see, now.

However, until I see people from the PPA in the card rooms talking to and trying to sign up new members, I'll only feel slightly postive. There are a lot of people out here in Vegas playing in poker rooms that have no idea of the fight and about the PPA. The organization needs to get the word out.

I also will be more positive when I see no more news stories about poker and gambling that do not include a comment from the PPA. Imagine a story about gun control that doesn't get a comment from the NRA. Impossible. When we have that kind of profile--without the insanity and hyperbole--then I'll be positive indeed.

CJ

Re: How do YOU feel about the PPA?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also will be more positive when I see no more news stories about poker and gambling that do not include a comment from the PPA. Imagine a story about gun control that doesn't get a comment from the NRA. Impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Hey, PPA, if it ain\'t broke, don\'t fix it ....Support the Wexler Bill
 

Good question. I feel the PPA is doing its best to serve the interests of the Brick & Mortar casino industry in securing the US poker market for itself. I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing, and may be in the interest coincidently of US players.

I have tremendous respect and admiration for the ability of the larger US B&M operators to provide gaming services which consumers enjoy. That they have been as innovative as they have, hobbled by at times less-than-stellar regulatory structures, is a great achievment.

If there IS a regulatory structure to emulate, it would be Nevada's current Commission, which seems anxious to allow the State's operators leeway to effectively compete online. So long as the competitive arena focusses on customer service, than the US players will not be badly off. If the Frank Bill instead creates effective barriers to foreign competition, then the US players will not be as well served as they might be otherwise.

HOWEVER, I feel it is a shame that the PPA denigrates the unregulated, explosive growth of the industry and its popularity prior to ANY real regulation. The growth of the online poker industry, in the virtual absence of any regulation, was shaped entirely by meeting market demands. The hue and cry for "regulation" is a cover for erection of protectionist barriers. The reason that is a shame is that the US B&M operators have no choice, they are hamstrung by their ties to the landbased, highly regulated structures of their (former?) core businesses.

That the airline industry, trucking industry and telecommunications industries in the US have improved by DEregulation makes the PPA and Barney Frank's cry FOR regulation counter-productive...., if not downright backward, in an economic policy sense.

The PPA should back the Wexler Bill, as the most sound public policy, i.e "do not fix what ain't broke".
(Under the Wexler Bill US operators COULD easily enter the online poker market.)

Ironically, I would support the Berkley Study Bill, rather than the Frank Bill, precisely because if regulation IS coming, then time is needed to shape it to maximize the consumers' benefits from fair competition.

Re: Hey, PPA, if it ain\'t broke, don\'t fix it ....Support the Wexler Bill
 

[ QUOTE ]


That the airline industry, trucking industry and telecommunications industries in the US have improved by DEregulation

[/ QUOTE ]

Deregulation was an answer to over regulation. But each industry was initially hamstrung or the public harmed by the lack of any regulation in the formative years of each one.

Given my read on the current political scene/mood there isn't a chance for return to pre-UIGEA without some sort of sensible regulatory matrix. I'll leave it to the experts to fight over what is reasonible.

In the Business Week comments I was impressed with the New Zealand Problem Gambling "expert". Is this thing for real? The web-site seems real enough.

To get past the core reason for the UIGEA we have to get past the National Gambling Impact Study they hung their hats on as the hook. Addressing the core of those issues with the least amount of regulatory burden should be the goal of the on-line industry, IMPO.

It also seems to be pretty close to the PPA stated goals and Mission Statement.


D$D

Re: Hey, PPA, if it ain\'t broke, don\'t fix it ....Support the Wexler
 

Good read TPC.

[ QUOTE ]
The PPA should back the Wexler Bill, as the most sound public policy, i.e "do not fix what ain't broke".
(Under the Wexler Bill US operators COULD easily enter the online poker market.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You're aware that the PPA does support the Wexler bill, right? From Pappas' post:

[ QUOTE ]
Through our hard work, education and grassroots advocacy Rep. Robert Wexler introduced H.R. 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act, a bill which exempts poker and other games of skill from the UIGEA and also clarifies the WIRE Act to ensure poker is not included in DOJ’s overly broad enforcement of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Hey, PPA, if it ain\'t broke, don\'t fix it ....Support the Wexler
 

I agree with TruePokerCEO. Online poker does not need US regulation. The US government cannot regulate any industry with efficiency. It always over regulates and under enforces the good regulations. EPA may the worst example but FDA and agriculture are two examples. It would be nice if any US regulations would be limited to age verification, RNG verification and minimum financial standards. But that will never happen. Instead, US regulation will include background checks of operators, compulsive gambling regs, heavy taxes and other useless rules. See Rep. Franks' bill.

Re: Hey, PPA, if it ain\'t broke, don\'t fix it ....Support the Wexler Bill
 

One of the things that comes up repeatedly in my discussions with the poker playing community at large, as opposed to 2+2ers, is that they don't trust the off shore sites. Given a US based online poker site that is "certified" to be honest, many players would flock to such a site.

Although my initiative is going nowhere at a record pace, due mostly to lack of exposure and my current lack of time and energy, the people who I do have contact with love the idea of a "regulated" online poker site. By that, I mean one they can have full confidence in to be honest and safe.

They don't really address taxation, but trust, as their main priorties.

Tuff

Re: Hey, PPA, if it ain\'t broke, don\'t fix it ....Support the Wexler Bill
 

It amazes me that people equate trust with US government regulation. The whole S&L industry was heavily regulated and is no longer extant. What about all the corporate scandals headed by Enron, which was in a fairly regulated industry.
US regulation does not equal safety or trust. But it deludes US consumers into trusting regulated companies. Best example are the drug companies.
But I will agree that at least you could sue a US online gambling site; in practice, you cannot sue a foreign online gambling site.

Re: Hey, PPA, if it ain\'t broke, don\'t fix it ....Support the Wexler Bill
 

[ QUOTE ]
It amazes me that people equate trust with US government regulation. The whole S&L industry was heavily regulated and is no longer extant. What about all the corporate scandals headed by Enron, which was in a fairly regulated industry.
US regulation does not equal safety or trust. But it deludes US consumers into trusting regulated companies. Best example are the drug companies.
But I will agree that at least you could sue a US online gambling site; in practice, you cannot sue a foreign online gambling site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you trust that the Las Vegas poker games and casinos are run honestly?

Do you think that the State of Nevada Gaming Board might have a little something to do with that confidence?

Some of you need to finally accept that Party Poker 2004 - 2005 is GONE GONE GONE. You will have regulation and taxation or you will NEVER have safe legal US based online poker.

Tuff

Re: Hey, PPA, if it ain\'t broke, don\'t fix it ....Support the Wexler Bill
 

[ QUOTE ]


Do you trust that the Las Vegas poker games and casinos are run honestly?

Do you think that the State of Nevada Gaming Board might have a little something to do with that confidence?

Some of you need to finally accept that Party Poker 2004 - 2005 is GONE GONE GONE. You will have regulation and taxation or you will NEVER have safe legal US based online poker.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

What he said!!!!

Re: Hey, PPA, if it ain\'t broke, don\'t fix it ....Support the Wexler Bill
 

As unfortunate as it is, some amount of regulation is the price we have to pay for unquestioned legality in the current US political climate.

There is, however, lots of room to manuever in terms of regulation, and I, of course, hope for as little regulation as politically possible: age verification, RNG cert., an "identify problem gamblers" program, and a legal presence in the US for dispute resolution in US courts. Since taxes are another price to pay, sites in the US pay regular corporate taxes, sites anywhere must send a 1099 of player's money-in/money-out at end of year for income tax purposes. And to give the Feds money directly, we may have to have a yearly licensing "fee" too for both on and off shore sites.

If Wexler's Bill were to pass as is, as a skill game, poker would have a slightly different tax system (forms every cash over $600) and no real regulation (like the "skill" game sites OBG lists).

I think thats one reason Wexler has less supporters than Frank, but it would be an easy thing to add. I think thats the best we are gonna get away with.

Skallagrim

Re: Hey, PPA, if it ain\'t broke, don\'t fix it ....Support the Wexler Bill
 

Very well put my friend, that is what we should be seeking, the government will of course want more.

However, in our corner will be MSN, YAHOO!, AOL, World Winner and others prefering and wanting to keep the regs for the skill games as they are.

I personally think we posters and the PPA are missing the boat, we should be really pushing and using Chuck Humphries ruling to add substance to our Poker Argument, it is now legal, we want recognition of that, pushing congress into a corner to either pass legislation outlawing wagering contests all together or not.

The outlawing it all will not happen.

obg

Re: Hey, PPA, if it ain\'t broke, don\'t fix it ....Support the Wexler Bill
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It amazes me that people equate trust with US government regulation. The whole S&L industry was heavily regulated and is no longer extant. What about all the corporate scandals headed by Enron, which was in a fairly regulated industry.
US regulation does not equal safety or trust. But it deludes US consumers into trusting regulated companies. Best example are the drug companies.
But I will agree that at least you could sue a US online gambling site; in practice, you cannot sue a foreign online gambling site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you trust that the Las Vegas poker games and casinos are run honestly?

Do you think that the State of Nevada Gaming Board might have a little something to do with that confidence?

Some of you need to finally accept that Party Poker 2004 - 2005 is GONE GONE GONE. You will have regulation and taxation or you will NEVER have safe legal US based online poker.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Tuff, I am 52 years old. I first went to Las Vegas and played $2 blackjack when I was 18. My parents were fairly big (comped) gamblers from the mid-1950's until about mid 1970's and no one checked id. Believe me that when the MOB ran Las Vegas it was safer, more customer friendly and just as honest as today. In the 1950's and 1960's a few illegal, private, but well known casinos operated in St. Louis and East St. Louis. My parents occasionally patronized a couple of them, won money and never had any problems. Casinos, online or not, including poker rooms are too lucrative to cheat the customer. A few that do cheat the customer will not last long. I generally win at online poker, but some sites notably UB and FTP seem to just take my money. But I do not think they are rigged. I suspect that I get on a 10,000 hand bad run (longer at FTP) and leave for my old, more profitable sites, before giving a new site a real chance.
Cheating the government was the object of the mob. I suppose regulation has somewhat curtailed that activity, but it has not added any protection for the customer.
I feel that you and Skall are probably right about regulation being inevitable. Probably the minute that a court rules that online poker is legal, the pols will have some legislation regulating and taxing it. But I don't have to like or support it.

Re: Hey, PPA, if it ain\'t broke, don\'t fix it ....Support the Wexler
 

Frankly, I don't know that online gaming can be regulated. The closest they've come is with the UIGEA, which regulates the funding, but we've gotten around that and will continue. The only reason it's hard right now is because they are dragging their feet on the regs. Once those come out, expect to find new ways of funding the offshore sites to pop up.

Trying to regulate the Internet is like the currently popular analogy of herding cats. Ask China how easy it is to regulate the Internet.

It's just another form of Prohibition, and everyone knows how well THAT worked.

Once the dust settles in a year or so, I think it will be back to business as usual. I simply don't think the US Govt will ever be able to stop the offshores, and the customer will go where he gets the best deal.

(Tuff, most of those who don't "trust" the online sites are idiots, and you know it.) lol

CJ

Re: Hey, PPA, if it ain\'t broke, don\'t fix it ....Support the Wexler
 

[ QUOTE ]


I first went to Las Vegas and played $2 blackjack when I was 18. My parents were fairly big (comped) gamblers from the mid-1950's until about mid 1970's and no one checked id.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Believe me that when the MOB ran Las Vegas it was safer, more customer friendly and just as honest as today.

[/ QUOTE ]


You are undermining your own argument. Obviously the mob-run Vegas was not sufficiently safe or honest if they did nothing to deter underage gambling.

Disputing a notion that \"regulation\" is required for consumers\' good.
 

Tuff, you wrote "You will have regulation and taxation or you will NEVER have safe legal US based online poker."

With due respect, your statement is complete and utter nonsense on a couple of levels.

First, US players currently have the same "safe, legal ... online poker" they have had for years. Unless you have some reason to doubt the honesty and experience of established online offshore operations, "safety" is a red herring. Market discipline has worked pretty well to regulate practices to date. Somehow, you think that gaming needs "regulation" more than the deregulated successes of the airline, telecommunications, and other industries. The political trend in the US is to lessen regulation, not promote it.

Why demand that US poker consumers fall on the sword of regulation to obtain what the free market already has shown it can provide ? Sounds downright Un-American to do so.

Second, playing semantic games, like inserting the words "US based online poker" is disingenous at best. You have spoken like a real politician, Tuff. There has NEVER been US based online poker because of government thrats and interference. Do you think for one minute that FTP would not have remained based in L.A. but for threatened prosecution and pressure ? Do you not think that unfettered access to the US banking system would help rather than hurt off-shore operators in serving the demands of US consumers ?

The Wexler Bill does not tax/regulate offshore poker, it allows the rather successful market-based industry freedom to serve US consumers.

To argue that Party 2004-2005 is "gone, gone, gone" is irrelevant. PStars 2007 seems a popular replacement. Regulation had nothing to do with Party's success and plenty to do with its exit from the US market.

Finally, it is not a lack of "consumer confidence" afflicting the US poker market, it is a direct political assault and pressure upon its market functions, infrastructure, marketing and operations.

Re: Hey, PPA, if it ain\'t broke, don\'t fix it ....Support the Wexler Bill
 

[ QUOTE ]

Very well put my friend, that is what we should be seeking, the government will of course want more.

However, in our corner will be MSN, YAHOO!, AOL, World Winner and others prefering and wanting to keep the regs for the skill games as they are.

I personally think we posters and the PPA are missing the boat, we should be really pushing and using Chuck Humphries ruling to add substance to our Poker Argument, it is now legal, we want recognition of that, pushing congress into a corner to either pass legislation outlawing wagering contests all together or not.

The outlawing it all will not happen.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you assume Congress desires to make laws logical, and will act simply to make things fair and consistent. I've seen no evidence of this concern.

What do you mean by "pushing them in a corner"? We're doing our part by writing and calling....I don't see how we can force their hand.

Re: Hey, PPA, if it ain\'t broke, don\'t fix it ....Support the Wexler
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I first went to Las Vegas and played $2 blackjack when I was 18. My parents were fairly big (comped) gamblers from the mid-1950's until about mid 1970's and no one checked id.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Believe me that when the MOB ran Las Vegas it was safer, more customer friendly and just as honest as today.

[/ QUOTE ]


You are undermining your own argument. Obviously the mob-run Vegas was not sufficiently safe or honest if they did nothing to deter underage gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one cared about underage gambling in 1973. Honesty and safety have nothing to do with the age of the gambler. My parents could well afford $2 blackjack. Anyway I won at blackjack with basic strategy and good money management. I haven't played blackjack or craps in a casino for 3 years. I am still amazed that St. Louis has casinos. I guess I failed to get addicted to casino gambling.
In 1973, the age limit was looked upon at a silly government regulation. If the casino knew your parents and you looked 21, then the casino could care less if you gambled at low stakes.

Re: Hey, PPA, if it ain\'t broke, don\'t fix it ....Support the Wexler Bill
 

JP,

You are correct that the mob and the private rooms did not cheat the customers. But the difference was that everyone was still in the US, and the customers had the ultimate protection of the government. If the casinos were to be found regularly cheating the customers, they had the ability to bring unwanted heat onto the establishment.

So, even though it was the mob running things, they still had to respect the possibility that the law would take an interest in their activities.

Tuff

Let\'s get rid of the \"underage gaming\" red herring NOW
 

Nick, you write about an argument that is another red herring... "not sufficiently safe or honest if they did nothing to deter underage gambling."

Online poker operators have every financial incentive to block or screen underage gambling, especially based upon credit cards. It is bad for business.

If this recent hue and cry were really about "underage" gambling, then why not make whatever parental blocks or other available screens the price for access ot the market ? In return for allowing unfettered US access to the ADULT poker market, I am certain operators would strictly screen out kids at least as forcefully as the credit card industry does in extending card offers.

Re: Hey, PPA, if it ain\'t broke, don\'t fix it ....Support the Wexler Bill
 

Jeez, D$D, for a diehard Republican, you sure buy into "regulation is necessary" pretty easily.

What happened to your faith in free markets ?

Re: Disputing a notion that \"regulation\" is required for consumers\' good.
 

Sir,

Your post reads like it was written by someone who really would not want to see US based online poker.

The fact of the matter is:

The US banking system is off limits for the most part to US poker players. That would change if there were legal US games explicitly allowed.

The games are not "safe" as far as a lot of mainstream poker players are concerned. The poker world is a lot larger than 2+2.


The instant there is a US based online poker site widely available to US players, those offshore sites that do not become part of a US based operation will lose 95% of their US customers and 90% of their foreign customers if they are allowed access to the US site.

Poker must become legal in some manner or there will be continued harrassment through the banking system.

Just the facts.

Tuff

Don\'t be afraid of free markets or political threats to freedom.
 

Tuff,

I believe that a free market succeeded remarkably in getting online poker available to every US player who wants it. Any industry woes can be laid at the feet of political interference and government pressure, not the laws governing poker.

Poker IS not prohibited by federal statute. There is no common law criminal system in the US. Why are you so willing to throw away your freedom and everyone else's ?

US consumers are best served by a free market, not be a regulated, entry barrier ridden system. (Your proposal in California, while admirable for its initiative,would place incredible regulatory strait-jackets on operators' ability to adapt their services to consumer dsires. Sorry, Tuff, but you write like someone who is afraid of free markets.)

If you are truly afraid of "continued harassment" of poker, then support the Wexler Bill and put poker on equal footing with other skill games. There is no need to march everyone unprompted into a regulatory quagmire.

You misread me. I am someone who does not want to see a highly regulated, hamstrung, restricted-entry barrier-laden US poker market.

Re: Hey, PPA, if it ain\'t broke, don\'t fix it ....Support the Wexler Bill
 

[ QUOTE ]
Jeez, D$D, for a diehard Republican, you sure buy into "regulation is necessary" pretty easily.

What happened to your faith in free markets ?

[/ QUOTE ]



<u>Personal reasons:</u>
I am 48 years old. I've owned a number of businesses. I have been in sales in one form or another all my life. I know how easy it is to separate a sucker from a buck.

<u>Political reasons:</u>
The National Gambling Impact Study. If we can't blunt the majority of our opponents’ arguments the issue is dead.

<u>My personal matrix:</u>
Robust under aged gambling protection, safe and secure money transfer, solid ID verification, aggressive attempts by the sites to utilize data mining to ID potential problem gamblers, Nevada like gaming oversight to insure a straight game, and licensing fees to just cover the gaming oversight costs and some support for problem gamblers.

<u>Good of the Game Summary:</u>
IMPO any gaming operator that doesn't realize that all of these things will do nothing but encourage more people to play on-line poker is a too foolish, too criminal or too greedy for the good of the game.


D$D

Re: Don\'t be afraid of free markets or political threats to freedom.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that a free market succeeded remarkably in getting online poker available to every US player who wants it.

[/ QUOTE ]


TP CEO -

I agree with you that a highly regulated US poker market is not the answer. I would much rather see the Wexler Bill passed.

However, your comment that a "free market" succeeded is not entirely accurate. We have never seen a truly free market in the US. The big players (Casinos) have always been afraid to operate on-line. If the Government suddenly announced that on-line poker is legal to operate and play in the US, then we would have a free market.

If this happened, I think most US players would choose to play at sites operated by well known US companies. Most of the foreign sites that currently depend on US players would either be bought out or fail.


SF

Re: Disputing a notion that \"regulation\" is required for consumers\' go
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sir,

Your post reads like it was written by someone who really would not want to see US based online poker.

The fact of the matter is:

The US banking system is off limits for the most part to US poker players. That would change if there were legal US games explicitly allowed.

The games are not "safe" as far as a lot of mainstream poker players are concerned. The poker world is a lot larger than 2+2.


The instant there is a US based online poker site widely available to US players, those offshore sites that do not become part of a US based operation will lose 95% of their US customers and 90% of their foreign customers if they are allowed access to the US site.

Poker must become legal in some manner or there will be continued harrassment through the banking system.

Just the facts.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. You're nuts. If Stars is illegal and Harrahs has a poker room, Stars will still have more business if the option to choose and fund are there. Card rooms in B&amp;M casinos have treated poker players, and low limit players(15/30 and down) like [censored] for generations. Thats not going to stop overnight.

Re: How do YOU feel about the PPA?
 

I say neutral. I think one of the best things the PPA could do would be to plaster the TV (esp. during the WPT, WSOP broadcasts and Football games) with pro-online gambling propaganda. Have Alfonse D'Amato come on the TV and talk about how the government is taking away people's freedom, how poker is a game of skill, how the U.S. is ignoring the WTO, etc. Make some commercials with Toby Maguire, or James Woods, or Jennifer Tilly. Basically try to rally people who don't care too much one way or the other to our side.

Re: How do YOU feel about the PPA?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I say neutral. I think one of the best things the PPA could do would be to plaster the TV (esp. during the WPT, WSOP broadcasts and Football games) with pro-online gambling propaganda. Have Alfonse D'Amato come on the TV and talk about how the government is taking away people's freedom, how poker is a game of skill, how the U.S. is ignoring the WTO, etc. Make some commercials with Toby Maguire, or James Woods, or Jennifer Tilly. Basically try to rally people who don't care too much one way or the other to our side.

[/ QUOTE ]

The PPA doesn't seem interested still in building a mass movement with active members. Money seems tight and willingness to devolve policy and actions recalcitrant. Maybe I am impatient, but I don't see any reason whatsoever why membership and profile raising aren't issue #1.

Re: How do YOU feel about the PPA?
 

I'd be willing to bet Pokerstars, Full Tilt, UB, even Party, would be willing to kick some decent money if the PPA presented them with a reasonable plan for a TV propaganda blitz.

Re: How do YOU feel about the PPA?
 

Id think so to, so why not do it? Look at the money stars and absolute and FT are spending when any day their business could be cut off. Why won't the PPA do a full frontal membership drive? Because they won't devolve power or enable players to act collectively on their own dime. Flat out, the industry fears organized players. They would rather make backroom deals for half ass poker than have players together and communicating who want home poker, local poker, and internet poker. Its still short-sighted, protect my monopoly insiders who call the shots. The PPA we want is their worst nightmare.

Re: How do YOU feel about the PPA?
 

Poker players should look to organize/start something else then. There's not much of a point of trying to change the PPA if the people that control have it an agenda that diverges widely from its members.

Why aren't the lobbyists hired by offshore online poker sites, or the sites themselves trying harder to get public support for online gambling. The money is there. Instead of having all these "Fulltilt.net" commercials, why not have commercials that encourage public outrage over the UIGEA? IMO the general public is pretty easily manipulated by political soundbyte type adversing, so why aren't the sites trying it?

This whole thing isn't even an issue among the public at large. If the players/sites can make it one, maybe we'll get some of the presidential candidates to come out in support of online gambling.

Re: How do YOU feel about the PPA?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Poker players should look to organize/start something else then. There's not much of a point of trying to change the PPA if the people that control have it an agenda that diverges widely from its members.

Why aren't the lobbyists hired by offshore online poker sites, or the sites themselves trying harder to get public support for online gambling. The money is there. Instead of having all these "Fulltilt.net" commercials, why not have commercials that encourage public outrage over the UIGEA? IMO the general public is pretty easily manipulated by political soundbyte type adversing, so why aren't the sites trying it?

This whole thing isn't even an issue among the public at large. If the players/sites can make it one, maybe we'll get some of the presidential candidates to come out in support of online gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is your DEM 30 second attack Ad against the GOP.

Voice over clip of nice WOMAN/minority playing poker on line.

"The GOP and x candidate are costing you millions of jobs, and making a mockery of the American people in the eyes of the world by banning your freedom to play poker America’s favorite card game in your own home."

"The Bush Administration's and candidate x's position will cost thousands of jobs in the x, x, and x industries"

Background flashes of WTO newspaper article quotes.

"Stop this hypocrisy by voting for x on election day"

Clips of Bush and the USTR demanding China enforce US IP rights.

"We can't allow this countries freedoms and economy to be destroyed by religious extremists!"

Start with FoF clips of anti-gambling protests "poker/gambling is evil signs".
Disolve to FoF types playing church bingo with pastor calling the numbers.

Scroll of the number and website to make a donation.

Paid for by "Committee to Save Your Rights"


Or something like this,


D$D

Re: How do YOU feel about the PPA?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here is your DEM 30 second attack Ad against the GOP.

Voice over clip of nice WOMAN/minority playing poker on line.

"The GOP and x candidate are costing you millions of jobs, and making a mockery of the American people in the eyes of the world by banning your freedom to play poker America’s favorite card game in your own home."

"The Bush Administration's and candidate x's position will cost thousands of jobs in the x, x, and x industries"

Background flashes of WTO newspaper article quotes.

"Stop this hypocrisy by voting for x on election day"

Clips of Bush and the USTR demanding China enforce US IP rights.

"We can't allow this countries freedoms and economy to be destroyed by religious extremists!"

Start with FoF clips of anti-gambling protests "poker/gambling is evil signs".
Disolve to FoF types playing church bingo with pastor calling the numbers.

Scroll of the number and website to make a donation.

Paid for by "Committee to Save Your Rights"


Or something like this,


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

You're good [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: How do YOU feel about the PPA?
 

There is regulation, and there is regulation...

The devil is always in the details. If I thought we could pass the Wexler bill as is, I'd be 100% with TPCEO. I just dont think we will ever have the numbers if we demand totally unregulated poker.

Still, given the gratitude I feel towards the sites that have continued to let me play (even if they are running my cards really bad lately [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] ) I want them to be able to stay in the market and remain competitive.

So I go back to my original thesis: any site from any country can obtain a license to offer games in the US provided they have the magic formula: RNG Verification, Age verification, Problem identifying software, US agent for lawsuits, and issuance of 1099 forms.

If that also turns out to not be enough we have to figure a way for the Feds to get a cut of the revenue, but still not in a fashion that truepoker, for example, cant afford to compete.

What none of us want is a controlled, monopolized US only market, but the WTO should stop that from happening openly. The only other way Party and/or Harrahs gets an upper leg is through some fee or tax schedule that cuts the small guys out or some scam licensing rules - we should stridently oppose that too.

But support the "harm reduction" regulation, that is important to winning many fence sitters over to our side.

Skallagrim

Re: How do YOU feel about the PPA?
 

Skall, I agree with you except for the US agent for service of process. I am afraid that if the poker sites can be sued in US courts, they will not be able to police cheaters.
Presently, they can confiscate the account of a cheater and distribute it to victims. If they had the difficulty of proving the cheating to a jury, even by the weight of evidence, I think that they could only ban a cheater and return his or her money. Then the cheater would pay no penalty for cheating and just cheat at another site.
Maybe some arbitration process would work, but Congress is not smart enough to set up such a process.