Tuff Fish's proposal cleared by CA Sec. of State for petition circ.

[LeapFrog]

I am aware of Tuff's arguments. I would bet even 80 year old pensioners play 2 tables or maybe 3! Fish like action (high vpp anyone?).

If one was seeking investment capital for a poker site with a 1 table max any financial adviser worth his salt who looked at the situation would laugh you out of the room(they are all going to laugh at you).

Your costs are going to be almost identical over the long run (less bandwidth obv, less 'server power' needed) but the biggest expense is going to be personnel/advertising -- so why shoot yourself in the foot? I don't buy the multitabling sharks killing off all the fish theory either. Guess what, almost every site apparently sees it the same way!

PacificPoker was ahead of its time though, they had some real trend setters in charge. As an example, they let me cash out a $100 bonus after playing 100 hands micro limit. I bet their exces have all gone fortune 500 now [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]


--- Also, thanks for posting the link to the initiative.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
I am aware of Tuff's arguments. I would bet even 80 year old pensioners play 2 tables or maybe 3! Fish like action (high vpp anyone?).

[/ QUOTE ]

For every maniac that goes busto every Saturday night, there are 300 weak-passive slow-bleeders that fill tables Sunday through Friday.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer and others, have you gone over this proposal with a fine tooth comb? I am extremely leery of the idea of supporting this given its genesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty straightforward now. TF had to reduce it to a single page, so there's no place to hide.

I see Tuff Fish is back to calling people idiots. I'm not surprised.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
A good argument can, and has been, made that multitabling grinders are bad for the overall health of the industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it hasn't. Casinos take money from gamblers as fast as they'll give it up....they're in no danger of going out of business. As for the Internet, online roulette flourishes as well.

I don't understand why I'm "greedy" by expecting to be able to make money at this activity when casinos are not. The fish can learn to play just like everyone else.

So, how are you going to get all those signatures? Door to door by yourself?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The real question for me is where is the PPA in this whole process? Should they have whipped up an initiative that would be a little more coherent in California and in other states that allow the initiative process? This is a flawed first step, but a step in the right direction.



[/ QUOTE ]Second this motion. If it is a matter of money to do this in some likely states, PPA needs to say that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.

[Bilgefisher]

Pardon me, but at least he got off his ass and did something. Seems to me folks want the whole shabang at once. Small steps. This could really open the floodgates. Other provisions would follow. I say take what you can get.

[Legislurker]

That's the problem wiht a state ballot initiative, it has no review and amendment. It IS law, and a bad law. Its not going to pass, he has no friends, no money, no interests, nothing, he is going the Unabomber route. He hated the Federal government so he sent mail bombs. You don't see Libertarians lining up to lionise him. Can you see the glee at FoF when they can grab media headlines; Big Blue Atheist California backs moral positionst against evil online gambling! Praise Hitler!

[batair]

Tuff Fish i hope you get this passed, i long for the days when my one table at pacific would out produce my three stars tables in the same amount of time.

gl tuff

bat

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
That's the problem wiht a state ballot initiative, it has no review and amendment. It IS law, ....blah, blah, blah..

[/ QUOTE ]

What part of

"m) This act may be amended by 2/3-majority vote of both legislative houses and the Governor’s concurrence."

did you not understand.

Lobby the legislature if you think multitabling is the way to go. They are always hot for money, if your argument holds water, the will love it.

Tuff

[Tuff_Fish]

My response to an inquiry on my website as to why the one table restriction.

This says it all about as well as I can say it.

Thanks for your message.

My belief is that multitabling pros were killing online poker as surely as the UIGEA did. This provision, for which I have taken much heat, is intended to ensure some longivity to the site and to the industry.

If a lake is overfished, nobody ends up with fish for long. Professional poker is very much like fishing for a living. Practice good conservation methods and fish for a lifetime, or greedily clean out the pond, then find another profession.

I do not subscribe to the belief that there are unending supplies of rec players eager to deposit money where there is little chance of success. If you clean them out too quickly, they are gone for good. Poker does not have the same player base, nor do the players have the same mentality as slots gamblers.

Tony



T