How do YOU feel about the PPA?

[TruePoker CEO]

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.

[TheEngineer]

[ 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.

[JPFisher55]

[ 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.

[Tuff_Fish]

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

[TruePoker CEO]

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.

[TruePoker CEO]

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

What happened to your faith in free markets ?

[Tuff_Fish]

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

[TruePoker CEO]

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.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ 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

[SwordFish]

[ 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