Which Groups *DO NOT* Deserve a Seat on the PPA Board?

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
We dont even have enough clout to get a bill out of committee and you guys want to fight over the details of legal poker's future.

[/ QUOTE ]
My take on the discussion is that it's about the operation of the member's group, maybe I missed the point. BTW, my question about if/how member's can affect PPA change still stands.

[ QUOTE ]
Just support the Wexler bill

[/ QUOTE ] Who is not supporting it? The strategy needs expansion in case of failure.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, oh yeah permafrost, just what I want, a one-state monopoly site. That really deserves all of our effort now doesnt it. Me and a few hundred other people paying more rake than at a B&M site because thats the only way a state can make money off it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You misread or assumed since I am strongly against state ownership of poker sites (and didn't even request 'all of our efforts'). Sorry for the length and derailing here, but you and others keep saying regulated intrastate sites would not be a viable business. That defies common sense. Sites would have start-up costs similar to or less than a B&M. Then they could pull from 5, maybe 25, maybe 100 times as many people. Then there would be smaller continuing costs. More people, less overhead, likely lower rake, competition for customers, fishy, plus advantages of online vs live.

Tell me how a B&M profits if busier, more efficient online models can't. Maybe TPCEO or other business guru could show me why I wouldn't want to partner/invest in a private legal intrastate online poker room.

[ QUOTE ]
"A house divided cannot stand."

[/ QUOTE ]People having differing strategic emphasis about reaching a goal isn't the same as division to me.

[Skallagrim]

Well, perma, you are right about your last point: while I disagree with in-state online poker as a solution, I dont see it as division the same way I see the argument over who sits on the PPA board. It was just that responding to you came at the same time as responding to them, sorry for the mis-impression.

But I still disagree with you. Online site operate on an economy of scale: they can offer lower limits and rakes because of the large number of players. B&M rooms have much lower numbers and, of course, that is why the smallest game you can play is 2-4 limit with $4-5 rake. That is a pretty big game online, as I am sure you know.

Also, a one state site will, if it has to compete, lose players to the bigger multi-country sites (where would you rather play, honestly?). So it must be a monopoly to succeed (a technologically difficult if not impossible thing on the internet). Even then, the numbers (as have been explained to me) are just way too small except in the biggest states, so that may help Californians and New Yorkers but does the rest of us no good.

Right now, having the whole world to work with, the biggest site, Pokerstars, peaks at about 14,000 real money players at any one time. Shrink your available pool of players to just California, and even account for a few who would take up playing because of the new legal status, and you get a very small # of actual players. The execs I have talked to say you just cant make money that way given the costs, especially if you add in inevitable taxes and fees, unless the price goes way up.

Thats what I have been told anyway, any execs out there who can say for sure?

Skallagrim

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me how a B&M profits if busier, more efficient online models can't. Maybe TPCEO or other business guru could show me why I wouldn't want to partner/invest in a private legal intrastate online poker room.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now, FullTilt has 329 $2/$4 or greater hold'em limit seats filled. They have access to much of the world, low taxes, big names behind their marketing campaigns, and that's all they have playing now. Imagine if that were one state only. How many players would be there? How many sites could that population of players support?

TuffFish's proposal creates a monopoly with no rakeback (or at least no reason to offer it). At one time, it set rakes higher than even B&M rakes. And, if it were to pass, the legislation passed to implement the referendum would almost certainly outlaw unlicensed sites, as the state gets the profits of the new site. And that proposal is from one of us. Imagine what a state would implement.

It seems states would have to have a monopoly to keep enough people playing (state run or not). By definition, whenever a state passes a licensing plan for anything, it adds some restrictions (if not an outright ban) on non-licensed businsses. If they didn't, the license wouldn't mean anything. So, it seems states would choose to outlaw unlicensed poker sites.

I agree with you that we should be working for intrastate online poker, but I think we need to be clear about our objectives.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, perma, you are right about your last point: while I disagree with in-state online poker as a solution, I dont see it as division the same way I see the argument over who sits on the PPA board. It was just that responding to you came at the same time as responding to them, sorry for the mis-impression.

But I still disagree with you. Online site operate on an economy of scale: they can offer lower limits and rakes because of the large number of players. B&M rooms have much lower numbers and, of course, that is why the smallest game you can play is 2-4 limit with $4-5 rake. That is a pretty big game online, as I am sure you know.

Also, a one state site will, if it has to compete, lose players to the bigger multi-country sites (where would you rather play, honestly?). So it must be a monopoly to succeed (a technologically difficult if not impossible thing on the internet). Even then, the numbers (as have been explained to me) are just way too small except in the biggest states, so that may help Californians and New Yorkers but does the rest of us no good.

Right now, having the whole world to work with, the biggest site, Pokerstars, peaks at about 14,000 real money players at any one time. Shrink your available pool of players to just California, and even account for a few who would take up playing because of the new legal status, and you get a very small # of actual players. The execs I have talked to say you just cant make money that way given the costs, especially if you add in inevitable taxes and fees, unless the price goes way up.

Thats what I have been told anyway, any execs out there who can say for sure?

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny. I posted my post before reading yours, and the points are very similar.

BTW: I also agree with you that Perma's instate poker discussion is not divisive.

[Tuff_Fish]

Have any of you looked at Svenka Spel and how it operates? They make millions off of poker alone with a population 1/3 of California and a 2 1/2% rake.

So that model is very viable. Do you poker players really care whether the poker site is run by the State of California or by Harrahs? (BTW, the final draft of the initiative stated the rake % was to be competitive.) Does anyone even know who actually runs the California lottery? The answer is: "who cares.

And, folks from other states DO INDEED participate in the California lottery. So, it is not solely limited to California residents, and any legalized, private or state run, California online poker site would not be restricted either.

I can understand someone with a vested interest in a certain type of legalization opposing other types, say commercial licenses vs state run, but what the heck difference does it make to the average poker player? If it is honest, the money is safe, and funds are easy to get on and off, what else do we want?

Tuff

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Have any of you looked at Svenka Spel and how it operates? They make millions off of poker alone with a population 1/3 of California and a 2 1/2% rake.

So that model is very viable. Do you poker players really care whether the poker site is run by the State of California or by Harrahs? (BTW, the final draft of the initiative stated the rake % was to be competitive.) Does anyone even know who actually runs the California lottery? The answer is: "who cares.

And, folks from other states DO INDEED participate in the California lottery. So, it is not solely limited to California residents, and any legalized, private or state run, California online poker site would not be restricted either.

I can understand someone with a vested interest in a certain type of legalization opposing other types, say commercial licenses vs state run, but what the heck difference does it make to the average poker player? If it is honest, the money is safe, and funds are easy to get on and off, what else do we want?

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh gosh. After reading my post I realized what was missing. Most of you want unlimited multitabling, HUDs, and every conceivable software advantage you can muster to decimate the fish as fast as possible.

My bad, I just wasn't thinking.... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Tuff

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Have any of you looked at Svenka Spel and how it operates? They make millions off of poker alone with a population 1/3 of California and a 2 1/2% rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I believe they have a de facto monopoly and offer no rakeback. Interstate, competitive poker appears to be the best deal for us, especially for folks from small states.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh gosh. After reading my post I realized what was missing. Most of you want unlimited multitabling, HUDs, and every conceivable software advantage you can muster to decimate the fish as fast as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

We want multitabling.

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]

Oh gosh. After reading my post I realized what was missing. Most of you want unlimited multitabling, HUDs, and every conceivable software advantage you can muster to decimate the fish as fast as possible.

My bad, I just wasn't thinking.... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think we want people who have actually ran or operated a online site to decide future rules for future sites, not the guy known for going busto in the first half of his videos and than rambling and swearing for the second half.

If McDonalds was not allowed to be in US, I wouldn't want someone with no experience running one to say "We can now have McDonalds, but no fries or Quarter Pounders, no one wants those."

I multitable (either 4 $.05/$.1 NL or 2 $1.25 10 table tourneys) for an hour or so a day, congrats on your plan of making a site I would not enjoy playing on.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]

I multitable (either 4 $.05/$.1 NL or 2 $1.25 10 table tourneys) for an hour or so a day, congrats on your plan of making a site I would not enjoy playing on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with anyone multi-tabling to your hearts and bankrolls limits, BUT IMPO you're going to have to do it without all the hand histories and software aids.


D$D

[Jack Bando]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I multitable (either 4 $.05/$.1 NL or 2 $1.25 10 table tourneys) for an hour or so a day, congrats on your plan of making a site I would not enjoy playing on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with anyone multi-tabling to your hearts and bankrolls limits, BUT IMPO you're going to have to do it without all the hand histories and software aids.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you consider to be unusable aides?

I use PT for cash games, but only to records win/loss rate and study my old hands. I do have PAHUD as well, but rarely use it.