CA Online Poker Initiative!!

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
Permafrost.

Here is the answer to your puzzlement as to why they are so vehement in their opposition.

Most of them probably don't fully understand the California initiative system. What they do understand is that this could possibly pass as written. (And they are correct. If an initiative passes, it is law as written unless it is clearly unconstitutional, which this is not, or clashes with existing law which this does, but that is mitigated in the language of the initiative. The resident "jailhouse lawyers" can argue about it, but that reality doesn't change)

This is their nightmare.

A safe,legal site which will attract every fish who can legally play there. It will also set a template for any other legalization efforts.

Even if Joe recplayer has an inclination to multitable, he is going to opt for absolutely safe, totally legal, easily funded, and easily accessible over the dubious prospect of multitabling FTP, UB, or Stars.

If this does pass, how many months before there are agreements in place allowing players from all over to play at this site? Very few months I'll wager. The Day it opens, most states, all Canada, the UK, and dozens of other places are in. Agreements will have to be reached with places like the UK who will want to protect their own online industry, and most states will want something out of it to allow their folks to play.

California will have a site that is the grandest fishing hole ever, and the grinders will only be able to drop one line and one hook at a time.

That is why they are so angry and negative.

They want the grand fish pond, but they also want to put in their seining nets and reel in the fish by the boat load.

Futhermore, they don't want the fish leaving the existing sites where multitabling is allowed. The fish are going to go where they feel safe and not just targets for the online pros. They are going to go where they don't see the same 6 tough TAGs on every table.

California online poker, HUDbots nightmare. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

And, to the fool who said the provisions were probably unenforcible, bail bondsmen do a brisk business with wiseguys who think they can screw the state when it comes to the state's money.

Tuff
.
[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

PS: You can insult my poker playing skills to your heart's content. I am immune..... [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, you must live in some alternate form of reality.

We could care less if this gets passed as the almighty Fish wrote it. If it gets passed and our BB/hr is going to suffer playing there, we will play somewhere else. Simple as that. Plenty of other places to play.

The reason I spoke out against it is not only does it impede our ability to make bb/hr, it ALSO completely goes against the last 10years of PokerSite business operations. PokerSites on average have to hire props for at least two to three years into their operations just to keep games running. Because guess what, if a fish logs in and sees only one game running at their lvl and it is full, they are going to go play somewhere else. However if the fish logs in and sees 10 games running, some full, some not, the fish will sit down and play for awhile, EVEN if all the tables are full of multitabling HUD botters.

Now I know you are pretty clueless when it comes to PokerSite operations, but if you do some research on becoming a prop, you will find out that there are PLENTY of PokerSites still hiring props to keep their games full.

These sites would LOVE to have multitabling HUD botters instead of paying props.

So it isn't that I could care less about you trying to create some "home" game where the 8 people who play there play by the Tuff_Fish rule book, and I don't get to fleece them because I am not invited to use my multitabling HUD botting techniques. I am speaking out against it because the idea is flawed at the basic level of business.

[donfairplay]

I'll sign this initiative any day of the week, even with all of the problems with it (I'm guessing you didn't consult a lawyer when writing this). However, this is not how CA initiatives work Tuff Fish, and I think you know it.

1. You need enough money to put every independent signature gatherer outside of every Home Depot/local grocery store/Walmart/Target to get enough signatures to pass. Unless you have a brigade of people gathering signatures for free there is going to be a problem gathering enough sigs (well, maybe a bunch of motivated online poker players will stand outside Ralph's for free).

2. You should have gotten the teachers and veterans to support your initiative BEFORE you wrote this initiative. Now you're working against time. And why not include Calpers (all CA gov't workers) along with Calstirs? And why direct the funds to their retirement fund and not the general education budget?

That being said, if online poker has any shot of being semi-legal, CA and other ballot initiative states are the best chance of that happening. I hope you get enough signatures, tuff.

And why no omaha eight hi/lo or stud? That's kinda screwy.

[kartinken]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe I just read this whole thread . . . mostly filled with troll-like posts.

The guy put something forward . . . Maybe instead of acting like complete jerks falling over each other to criticize the loudest, you could find a way to be supportive of him doing something.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the worst attitudes in the world today. It's attitudes like this that want to take SUVs off the road and create gay unions. Doing "something" is not good if the something slows the progess of what "we" want (we being the people trying to bring about change). Sorry if that sounds simple, but I think people need to take a minute to think.

Changing things in small ways is how the bad guys win. People see a little change and they go "oh that's nice, the gays have unions, at least it's something." meanwhile they are still denied the rights of straight citizens.

Why don't I write a bill legalizing gambling but only if all the profits go to Bill Frist, hey, at least it's something.

What Tuff did here was create a document to advance his agenda and he used the gambling law to get people on board.

That proposition is a disgrace to poker and americans. Sorry for the harsh words, but that's how I feel. The way I see it there's no difference between what Tuff created here and what Frist created in the house. It just gives us a little more of what WE want instead of what THEY want.

Political gaming is political gaming, and that's what Tuff is doing.



KK

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, this would be great. Legalize online poker using one man's personal wants/diswants as rules. Great.

[/ QUOTE ]

A police state is great . . . if you're the police.

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]


Seriously, your no multi-tabling rule is illogical, from any way you look at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with the multi-tabling rule. The fact that he basically defines every aspect of the game. And it's completely undoable on many different levels which equals being a completely pointless effort. For instance, if I pass a bill that says you can have online poker but only if you can ensure that the bets will happen at a speed greater than the speed of light . . . well, that means no poker. So when he makes comments like:

[ QUOTE ]
13) It shall be the responsibility of the site operator to ensure:
a) The game hardware and software is completely secure.
b) The games are free from collusion and cheating.
c) Problems encountered by players and problems with the games are dealt with in a speedy
and just manner.
d) That the players maintain a measure of decorum at all times.
e) The poker hands are dealt in a fair and completely random manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

No hardware or software can be said to be completely secure. Didn't we learn that from MI2 when Ethen Hunt broke into the IMF computer? Seriously, there's no such thing as a completely secure computer.

How can a site operator ensure that the game is free from cheating and collusion? No site in existance, nor any that could be created in the future can ensure that. Again, another completely impossible criteria.

You know how you clear all of this up? You don't say:

"It shall be the responsibility of the site operator to ensure:"

You do say:

"The site operator shall take resonable efforts to ensure:"

But this isn't about TF writing something that's doable. This is his personal, and completely unrealistic, wishlist.

[Wahoo73]

I think this may be of help to you: http://www.ocdla.com/links.html

[Soul Rebel]

Tuff I have one question for you. Are you going to suggest that the maximum stakes be kept to 10/20 limit holdem and 2/4 no limit to keep the fish from going broke? Because that argument makes the same amount of sense as allowing 1 table at a time. This whole "let's protect the fish from themselves" attitude is ridiculous and is the reason online poker is in trouble right now.

[ChrisV]

The more I read and think about this the more it pisses me off. It's wankers like Tuff_Fish who cause government to become a bureaucratic mess. The legislature is not there as a toy that you use to get what you want. If you really think sites which disallow multitabling and HUDs are a better business proposition than ones which allow them, then start one yourself. If you don't think that, then on what basis do you have the right to tell other people how they can and can't run their poker site? Why not go the whole hog and leave it as it is right now; everyone can already play poker for play money, right? Why do you need to play for real money? Playing for play money will really ensure that the poor fish don't lose their money quickly.

This annoys me and it doesn't even have any chance of passing and I don't live in the US. Otherwise I'd be furious.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
And, contrary to the hater's beliefs, my own personal playing preferences had little to do with how I wrote it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever fledgling respect I had left for Tuff dissapeared after reading this.

[Grasshopp3r]

Tuff fish should be commended for getting off his fanny to actually do something, however, the wording of the measure needs to be carefully crafted and lawyered up. That is where organizations such as the PPA are supposed to come into the picture. Tuff fish needs to go to the PPA for some help on this.

Also, there are many opinions in the poker community of what regulation should look like. The debate regarding our positions collectively is a good start. The debate needs to continue.

Personally, I disagree with Tuff fish's position on multi tabling, but there could be a single table only area within the system. Besides, it would not prevent someone from loading up ten different sites and playing one table on each one.