Casino Gambling Web Delivers 435 Packets to Congress - Page 4

BluffTHIS! · #31 09-19-2007, 07:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Eddietom, I'd like you thank you and CGW for delivering these packets. The timing is perfect, as we'll be going to Washington ourselves in a few weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Engineer,

Please put yourself on record here. Do you have a problem with poker interests being seen in the minds of legislators as mixed in with those of sports betting and casino interests? This is a very important question for not just you but the PPA as well.

cjk73 · #32 09-19-2007, 07:15 PM

Yup, is an informative and mostly well written forum. That said, there are clearly "rules and cliques". Too bad.

TheEngineer · #33 09-19-2007, 07:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eddietom, I'd like you thank you and CGW for delivering these packets. The timing is perfect, as we'll be going to Washington ourselves in a few weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Engineer,

Please put yourself on record here. Do you have a problem with poker interests being seen in the minds of legislators as mixed in with those of sports betting and casino interests? This is a very important question for not just you but the PPA as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally (I don't speak for the PPA) think the poker lobby should be freestanding. In fact, I was careful to make sure our KY advocacy effort did not endorse casinos or games of chance....it's poker only. Still, anyone against UIGEA is a friend of mine.

I think you overestimate the abilities of congressmen to discriminate between poker and roulette. Are you suggesting we should oppose IGREA on similar grounds?

BluffTHIS! · #34 09-19-2007, 07:24 PM

Engineer,

I am only suggesting that we are FOR poker and not AGAINST anything else in gaming. But that we can't be seen as 100% allies of those other interests whose goals do overlap some of our own. As long as we are seen to only promote poker, and specifically make the point that such is all we are promoting (and why poker/skill games are in fact different), then we should be seen as separate in the minds of congressman, who otherwise would indeed be inclined to lump poker in with all other forms of gambling.

Now that doesn't mean that I don't think it wise/important to ally ourselves in the judicial arena. But just that in the legislative arena we cannot afford to do so. However it seems you basically agree and I thank you for your response. However I would caution against our allowing ourselves to be drug into alliances with those sports/casino interests, which is what CGW desires, as do the sports betting interests. They are in the worst shape in all of this and gain a lot from our pitching in with them, where we not only gain nothing but are positively harmed.

jlkrusty · #35 09-19-2007, 07:26 PM

Here's a couple of options of how we could respond to the original post:

Option #1: "Your original post sounds interesting. But, before calling my Congressman, I'd like some more information about this. For example, can you give us details about what exactly was in the packet and how it was delivered? Also, more detail on which aids, lawyers, and company presidents endorsed this packet would be helpful."

Option #2: "Since your original post left out information, I am going to tear you to pieces. I hope you enjoy me ripping you a new one--I know I will."

I dunno. Which option do you think is better? With so much infighting among us, it's no wonder that it is so difficult to rally together. OP wasn't asking us to send money afterall. He was just asking we call our congressman. I know that OP's original post made some overly broad statements, but I think there is a good way to ask for more information and a bad way.

So, EddyTom, please don't give up. This is a big forum, with a wide range of opinions. One person's statements do not reflect how all of us feel. A lot of us do support your efforts.

However, please understand that scammers have come on here in the past. So, try not to judge us to harshly either over what may be overreaction.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if you stay on board, many of us will help by calling congressmen, etc. I wonder if you could send us a link containing at least some scans of what was actually in the packet. Seeing what the congressmen actually got would be helpful to me.

Merkle · #36 09-19-2007, 07:28 PM

I'll go on record Bluff as saying I see a BIG difference between casino games and poker. I will NEVER play casino backed games as I am not a gambler. I am a games player (chess, backgammon, poker, bridge, canasta etc...) Money is not only a way you keep score in poker and backgammon but it is a weapon in the form of the timely raise or offer of a doubling cube. And there is no effective way to play either one without money being on the line.

That said, I appreciate any help and efforts to rectify the disaster from last years law. If I honestly saw Wexlers bill moving ahead then perhaps we could reject the offers of CGW and others. But at this time, whether we like it or not we are in the same boat. But I think it will be the casinos themselves who get this reversed in the long run.

P.S.
I sincerely hope that in the long run poker is recognized as a game of skill for legal and tax reasons. Nothing says that can't be the ultimate goal, but shouldn't the immediate goal be to start playing again without ridicouls barriers to transferring our money?

BluffTHIS! · #37 09-19-2007, 07:35 PM

Merkle,

Your post above shows you are a proud poker player who isn't a negative EV gambling sucker. However you still need to be able to spot -EV prop bets when you see them, which is what CGW and the sports betting interests are offering us. No matter how much help our cause needs, we still come out with even less of a chance of success if we take that sucker bet and ally with those interests. Our gas tank may be perilously close to the empty mark, but adding casino/sports additives is only being suckered into pouring sugar water into the tank. It not only won't help but will cause the engine to fail before all the gas is truly gone.

TheEngineer · #38 09-19-2007, 07:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

I am only suggesting that we are FOR poker and not AGAINST anything else in gaming. But that we can't be seen as 100% allies of those other interests whose goals do overlap some of our own. As long as we are seen to only promote poker, and specifically make the point that such is all we are promoting (and why poker/skill games are in fact different), then we should be seen as separate in the minds of congressman, who otherwise would indeed be inclined to lump poker in with all other forms of gambling.

Now that doesn't mean that I don't think it wise/important to ally ourselves in the judicial arena. But just that in the legislative arena we cannot afford to do so. However it seems you basically agree and I thank you for your response. However I would caution against our allowing ourselves to be drug into alliances with those sports/casino interests, which is what CGW desires, as do the sports betting interests. They are in the worst shape in all of this and gain a lot from our pitching in with them, where we not only gain nothing but are positively harmed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, we're basically in agreement there. I don't want to entangle poker and -EV gambling.

As for CGW, we have a common interest in opposing UIGEA. They set up an online petition against UIGEA. I posted something here about it. They posted here thanking us for the help. Most of us here signed it. And, they delivered packets as promised. Sounds very cool to me. Also, IGREA includes them and us, so their folks and our folks are likely lobbying Congress the same way. Common work when we have common ground while maintaining independence.

Merkle · #39 09-19-2007, 07:54 PM

Bluff,

I frequently agree with or at least pause to think about what you have said. I will do that in this situation. I hope you are correct about separating poker and gambling. Just not sure we can win anytime soon without mutually supporting each other.

TheEngineer · #40 09-19-2007, 08:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Bluff,

I frequently agree with or at least pause to think about what you have said. I will do that in this situation. I hope you are correct about separating poker and gambling. Just not sure we can win anytime soon without mutually supporting each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can be separate while supporting the same stuff. We all want to overturn UGIEA, for example. Then, when our interests diverge, we diverge. I'm sure they don't expect us to support lumping sports betting and poker into one bundle, for example, and we don't expect them to support the Wexler bill.