Mat, David, Mason...where are you?

[JoseGonzlez]

yeah so sklansky was a broke nobody before internet poker.

[Lawman007]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah so sklansky was a broke nobody before internet poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but I guarantee you that he wasn't nearly as well off as he has become because of online poker.

[JoseGonzlez]

no but im sure there business reached a point where they dont have to take unncessary risks.

Im sure their business has exploded in the last 5 years. Part of it is internet poker the other part is poker on television.

But if internet poker were gone it certainly would not be the end of their business.

[cowboy.up]

if internet poker goes bye-bye - i believe that most poker shows on tv will go too. most of the advertisement revenue comes from online poker rooms. if there aren't nearly as many US players they have no reason to advertise (since only the most hardcore players will find ways around the ban - saying everything is "properly" implemented). so if this is true, not only does their business lose online players but also fans of tv.

then the only ones buying their books will be the dedicated live players (which while still a decent crowd, it's nowhere in the millions that play online).

[Mr. Orange]

[ QUOTE ]
We met this morning with our attorney Mark Tratos. A statement by him and myself is being worked on and will be posted as soon as it is ready.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any word on this?

[robinsons]

2+2 publishes books and promotes discussion between players via this forum, they're not a lobbying group.

I think that a 'this is going on, click here for more info' link to this forum on the home page would have probably been in order to inform people on what is happening, however I do not think they have any responsibility to do anything, whether it be a link, funding the PPA, or anything else.

2+2 writes strategy books on gambling, not political issues. They do not owe anything to people who have purchased their books, the only reason I say I would have liked a link on the homepage is because a large number of people visit this site who may have no idea about whats happening, and it would be a good opportunity to inform them. I do not think there is any need for them to take an any more active stance on it than this (if they do not wish to).

[Mr. Orange]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not think there is any need for them to take an any more active stance on it than this (if they do not wish to).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just gonna echo what many others have before. They may not "owe us anything" and may be a "just a publishing company" fine. But not being involved is just a bad business decision (this is also true of many of the online poker rooms that are doing very little). If online poker is banned their sales will decrease pretty dramatically. I don't see how any one could argue that. So it's in THEIR best interest AS WELL as ours to get involved somehow.

[robinsons]

I agree that their sales would be hit majorly (>50%?) if online poker was to be completely banned in the US. I'm sure they have thought a lot about this, and they have reasons which mason believes are correct for the stance they're taking.

hopefully those prove to be more accurate than 'no limit will never be a viable form of poker for cash games'

[Zele]

Quite frankly, what I have gathered so far is that Mason's reason for doing nothing is that he doesn't want to support the PPA, and presumably the reason for that is his personal dislike of Barry Shulman.

[antneye]

[ QUOTE ]
Quite frankly, what I have gathered so far is that Mason's reason for doing nothing is that he doesn't want to support the PPA, and presumably the reason for that is his personal dislike of Barry Shulman.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then let him support NROG. Who cares who he supports, but for gods sakes man, when someone is going after your livelihood stand up and do SOMETHING.