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

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I applaud your effort, but it's pretty weak that you'd put together this otherwise promising campaign and include the one tabling provision. Believe it or not, not all sharks play 20+ tables and not all fish just play 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why Tuff Fish doesn't think CA shouldn't be allowed to simply set up their Internet poker site however the state sees fit. Unfortunately, Tuff Fish doesn't care what you, I, or anyone else here thinks. In fact, he's amused that we dont like it.

If Tuff ran a casino, he'd immediately remove half the slot machines and lower the rest to $0.25 or below, so the gamblers wouldn't lose too much and stop gambling. If stockholders complained, he'd yell at them, calling them greedy people who wished to "overfish" the town. If they asked him for proof of his theory, he's just laugh at them and tell them it was his way or the highway. Then, he'd act surprised when he couldn't get their support.

430,000 signatures are required by Christmas -- 3,022 per day. Actually, he'll need many more to ensure he has enough after the signatures are verified. As he doesn't have much backing, either within or outside the poker community, I hope he has comfortable shoes and a full tank of gas, because he'll have a lot of doors to knock on. After all, it's not like Wal-Mart or any casino will allow him to stand in front of their places of business to gather signatures.

Hey Tuff -- did you get your 3,022 signatures yesterday? Better get on it.....you don't want to fall behind.

[Hoopster81]

As a multitabling grinder myself, it would actually benefit me (and lots of other serious pros) if these measures were enacted. We will always be able to find ways around them, and the less devoted and not-so-computer-savvy multitabling semi-pros will be the ones who will really take the hit.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]


In fact, he's amused that we dont like it.

Naw, not amused, but I am facinated by the incredible resistance to what is arguably the best shot in the near term for legal online poker because you guys wouldn't be able to immediately start to sein the lake dry of fish.

.

If Tuff ran a casino, he'd immediately remove half the slot machines and lower the rest to $0.25 or below, so the gamblers wouldn't lose too much and stop gambling. If stockholders complained, he'd yell at them, calling them greedy people who wished to "overfish" the town. If they asked him for proof of his theory, he's just laugh at them and tell them it was his way or the highway. Then, he'd act surprised when he couldn't get their support.

430,000 signatures are required by Christmas -- 3,022 per day. Actually, he'll need many more to ensure he has enough after the signatures are verified. As he doesn't have much backing, either within or outside the poker community, I hope he has comfortable shoes and a full tank of gas, because he'll have a lot of doors to knock on. After all, it's not like Wal-Mart or any casino will allow him to stand in front of their places of business to gather signatures.

Hey Tuff -- did you get your 3,022 signatures yesterday? Better get on it.....you don't want to fall behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just for arguments sake:

The typical slots player knows the odds are against him/her. They know that if they win big, it will be a lightning strike and they will have gotten incredibly lucky. When this doesn't happen, they don't feel unlucky, or feel like they have been "had", or go away angry. They just play up to their limit, whatever that is and prepare to do it again next time, whenever that might be.

They didn't really expect to win and aren't terribly disappointed when it didn't happen. They will keep at this forever if the slots are their thing. Once in a while they hit a little jackpot to keep up their interest. And, of course, there is always the occasional, extremely well publicized big winner to keep the juices flowing.

The poker player is different. He/she knows they are playing against other players. He is aware that over time the better player wins. He knows this is true at every level from home games to high stakes LA or Las Vegas tables.

The poker player will play at the venue he feels comfortable at, and against players he feels he has a chance against. If this player goes online or anywhere and sees that he is at a comparative disadvantage, or is consistantly having to deal with tight/tough players at every table, and if he see those same players at several tables, he will not frequent those sites again.

If the poker player finds himself constantly losing, he instinctively knows that it is because his opponents are better. He will either get better (not a fish anymore), or he will seek out an easier place to pursue poker.

The online games were getting tougher before the UIGEA kicked up the pace, and the health of the industry was, and is, at risk. It just hasn't played itself out yet.

Widespread multitabling will kill the online poker game as you know it today just as surely as over fishing has killed many a once plentiful fishing ground.

Tuff

PS Nowhere near 3000 signatures yet. Not even 300. But it is early too. I am aware of the daily numbers, I have even had a chat with the post office as to how to handle several thousand letters a day. The answer, BTW, will be to pay for will call mail, and show up a 5 in the morning [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] to collect the mail.

[NozeCandy]

[ QUOTE ]
If the poker player finds himself constantly losing, he instinctively knows that it is because his opponents are better.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is incredibly debatable, at best. Ever seen anything FGators as written? There are tons like him.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the poker player finds himself constantly losing, he instinctively knows that it is because his opponents are better.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is incredibly debatable, at best. Ever seen anything FGators as written? There are tons like him.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah i'm pretty sure you can make a better case for it being generally false than generally true.

[aislephive]

As silly as it is that I'm going to try and reason with this man again, it at least makes me feel smarter.

[ QUOTE ]


In fact, he's amused that we dont like it.

Naw, not amused, but I am facinated by the incredible resistance to what is arguably the best shot in the near term for legal online poker because you guys wouldn't be able to immediately start to sein the lake dry of fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, can you stop using these fish and fishing analogies? They're stupid and degrading to recreational players and you make out professional poker players to be merciless animals who are preying on weak minded individuals. Even if you feel this way, your choice of words is poor and reflects negatively towards poker, which is NOT something you want to do when you're trying to pass legislation legalizing online poker.




.
[ QUOTE ]


Just for arguments sake:

The typical slots player knows the odds are against him/her. They know that if they win big, it will be a lightning strike and they will have gotten incredibly lucky. When this doesn't happen, they don't feel unlucky, or feel like they have been "had", or go away angry. They just play up to their limit, whatever that is and prepare to do it again next time, whenever that might be.

They didn't really expect to win and aren't terribly disappointed when it didn't happen. They will keep at this forever if the slots are their thing. Once in a while they hit a little jackpot to keep up their interest. And, of course, there is always the occasional, extremely well publicized big winner to keep the juices flowing.

The poker player is different. He/she knows they are playing against other players. He is aware that over time the better player wins. He knows this is true at every level from home games to high stakes LA or Las Vegas tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somebody who is aware that the odds are against them at slots, are not aware that the odds are against them at poker (if they play bad which obviously most do). Even if they did, why would they treat it any different than slots? If they are willing to lose money at a game they no they are destined to lose at, why wouldn't they do it at poker as well where they at least have the chance at eventually becoming a winning player? You won't find many poker players who don't think they are good either so this is pretty much a moot point. Just because you realize that you're a "fish" doesn't mean other people do as well. Everybody who is knew at poker starts out as a fish until they gain experience. Some remain to be fish (ie. you), others eventually "get it" and become winning players. Contrary to popular non 2p2 belief becoming a winning player isn't difficult. It's a lot more difficult now post-legislation, but it's still the same game and lots of people are winning money, consistently.

[ QUOTE ]
The poker player will play at the venue he feels comfortable at, and against players he feels he has a chance against. If this player goes online or anywhere and sees that he is at a comparative disadvantage, or is consistantly having to deal with tight/tough players at every table, and if he see those same players at several tables, he will not frequent those sites again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you use any facts for your arguments? Or are they all based on your experiences and what you think people would do if they thought like yourself? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that you who playing against a bunch of "sharks" at Party $10/20 last year? You even recognized at the time that you were out of your league, but yet you still played. Recreational players like playing against good players, it provides them a challenge. They know they can win on any given day against anybody, and that's what keeps people coming back for more.

[ QUOTE ]
If the poker player finds himself constantly losing, he instinctively knows that it is because his opponents are better. He will either get better (not a fish anymore), or he will seek out an easier place to pursue poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

People come to casinos to play with money they can afford to lose (some come with money they can't afford to lose, but that's a different story). Same thing with online poker when it comes to novice / recreational players. The reason games have been slowing down and tightening up is because the difficulty to deposit and the fact that your average person belives online poker is illegal, not the difficulty of the games.

[ QUOTE ]
The online games were getting tougher before the UIGEA kicked up the pace, and the health of the industry was, and is, at risk. It just hasn't played itself out yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

The games were getting tougher because people were getting better due to sites like this and Cardrunners. There were still a ton of fish at all stakes on all sites pre-legislation.

[ QUOTE ]
Widespread multitabling will kill the online poker game as you know it today just as surely as over fishing has killed many a once plentiful fishing ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

You preach this stuff as if it were a fact. Party, Stars, FTP have all been thriving for years and you can play > 9 tables on all of them. Sites that have tried to restrict multitabling like Bodog and Pacific may have fishier games but the revenue they generate in comparison to the bigger sites is laughable. And yes, the primary objective would be to have the site make money, not to provide you with a fishfarm of your own where everybody acts in a timely manner for your convenience, which is what this whole thing seems to be about in my opinion.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
As silly as it is that I'm going to try and reason with this man again, it at least makes me feel smarter.

[ QUOTE ]


In fact, he's amused that we dont like it.

Naw, not amused, but I am facinated by the incredible resistance to what is arguably the best shot in the near term for legal online poker because you guys wouldn't be able to immediately start to sein the lake dry of fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, can you stop using these fish and fishing analogies? They're stupid and degrading to recreational players and you make out professional poker players to be merciless animals who are preying on weak minded individuals. Even if you feel this way, your choice of words is poor and reflects negatively towards poker, which is NOT something you want to do when you're trying to pass legislation legalizing online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

So suggest a better analogy for the issue? Maybe Hunters and game.. or maybe Loggers and Trees? I think fish and sharks is fine considering it is the defacto standard in the industry.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Just for arguments sake:

The typical slots player knows the odds are against him/her. They know that if they win big, it will be a lightning strike and they will have gotten incredibly lucky. When this doesn't happen, they don't feel unlucky, or feel like they have been "had", or go away angry. They just play up to their limit, whatever that is and prepare to do it again next time, whenever that might be.

They didn't really expect to win and aren't terribly disappointed when it didn't happen. They will keep at this forever if the slots are their thing. Once in a while they hit a little jackpot to keep up their interest. And, of course, there is always the occasional, extremely well publicized big winner to keep the juices flowing.

The poker player is different. He/she knows they are playing against other players. He is aware that over time the better player wins. He knows this is true at every level from home games to high stakes LA or Las Vegas tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somebody who is aware that the odds are against them at slots, are not aware that the odds are against them at poker (if they play bad which obviously most do). Even if they did, why would they treat it any different than slots? If they are willing to lose money at a game they no they are destined to lose at, why wouldn't they do it at poker as well where they at least have the chance at eventually becoming a winning player? You won't find many poker players who don't think they are good either so this is pretty much a moot point. Just because you realize that you're a "fish" doesn't mean other people do as well. Everybody who is knew at poker starts out as a fish until they gain experience. Some remain to be fish (ie. you), others eventually "get it" and become winning players. Contrary to popular non 2p2 belief becoming a winning player isn't difficult. It's a lot more difficult now post-legislation, but it's still the same game and lots of people are winning money, consistently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Significantly more people are losing money than winning money. I don't really agree with Tuff's view that people have an expectation to win money when they sit down. If I were to walk onto my local golf course and start betting random golfers on who wins a hole. I am pretty sure I would lose a lot of money. I think for recreational poker players, they hope to win money, but realize that they probably won't.[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
The poker player will play at the venue he feels comfortable at, and against players he feels he has a chance against. If this player goes online or anywhere and sees that he is at a comparative disadvantage, or is consistantly having to deal with tight/tough players at every table, and if he see those same players at several tables, he will not frequent those sites again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you use any facts for your arguments? Or are they all based on your experiences and what you think people would do if they thought like yourself? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that you who playing against a bunch of "sharks" at Party $10/20 last year? You even recognized at the time that you were out of your league, but yet you still played. Recreational players like playing against good players, it provides them a challenge. They know they can win on any given day against anybody, and that's what keeps people coming back for more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again I have to disagree with Tuff here. I don't think there is any evidence that fish avoid multitablers. If they were that aware of their bad play, and cared enough to avoid the multitablers, then they would care enough to study a little and get better. I actually think it is exactly opposite, multitablers start tables, fill tables, keep games going, without multitablers you would have much fewer games running.[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
If the poker player finds himself constantly losing, he instinctively knows that it is because his opponents are better. He will either get better (not a fish anymore), or he will seek out an easier place to pursue poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

People come to casinos to play with money they can afford to lose (some come with money they can't afford to lose, but that's a different story). Same thing with online poker when it comes to novice / recreational players. The reason games have been slowing down and tightening up is because the difficulty to deposit and the fact that your average person belives online poker is illegal, not the difficulty of the games.

[ QUOTE ]
The online games were getting tougher before the UIGEA kicked up the pace, and the health of the industry was, and is, at risk. It just hasn't played itself out yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

The games were getting tougher because people were getting better due to sites like this and Cardrunners. There were still a ton of fish at all stakes on all sites pre-legislation.

[ QUOTE ]
Widespread multitabling will kill the online poker game as you know it today just as surely as over fishing has killed many a once plentiful fishing ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

You preach this stuff as if it were a fact. Party, Stars, FTP have all been thriving for years and you can play > 9 tables on all of them. Sites that have tried to restrict multitabling like Bodog and Pacific may have fishier games but the revenue they generate in comparison to the bigger sites is laughable. And yes, the primary objective would be to have the site make money, not to provide you with a fishfarm of your own where everybody acts in a timely manner for your convenience, which is what this whole thing seems to be about in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually this is where I agree with Tuff more than disagree. The popularity of poker has peaked and is now waning. Without a geometrical increase in new players, the games will continue to get tougher. This has been discussed in MANY other posts (look post moneymaker), but basically as fish learn to play better, sharks learn to play better, and without an introduction of new fish winrates WILL suffer.If winrates dwindle enough then the multitablers will go elsewhere, and the number of games going on a site will decline.

We are already seeing this with many 2+2ers looking for traditional employment.

Vegas Casinos rarely if ever spread NLHE pre moneymaker because they wanted to protect their resource. Just because online rooms are more interested in making the dollar now than later, doesn't mean that the resources is unlimited.

Now I don't know what limit you play aislephive, but if you play 200/400 NLHE then I can see how you think 99.99% of players are fish. However, for the 100NL player, it seems 95% of players are sharks, and there are only a few fish spread few and far between. Either way it is really hard to measure accurately.

A more accurate measurement is the number of tables being played. If a site sees its number of tables dwindling then MAYBE enacting policies that hurt sharks (fewer tables, or other idea) will increase the number of tables in the long run, by building up the fish population.

Stars has recently made publicizing players stats on sharkscope etc. illegal unless the player opts in. This seems to be a measure to protect the fish. Stars also disallows datamining, again to protect the fish. Stars realizes to keep the number of tables at its peak, and revenue at its peak, protecting the resource is a required part of the business plan.

Now I think Tuff has went WAY overboard by drawing a bunch of arbitrary lines about what is good for a pokersite. Pokersite management should be able to manipulate these variables as needed. Tying managements hands with regulations is an inefficient model.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]

So suggest a better analogy for the issue? Maybe Hunters and game.. or maybe Loggers and Trees? I think fish and sharks is fine considering it is the defacto standard in the industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do we need an analogy? Especially one that makes poker look like a game that preys on the weaker players? I know it's standard nowadays, but to people who know little about poker that analogy is just going to come off bad for poker.

[ QUOTE ]

Significantly more people are losing money than winning money. I don't really agree with Tuff's view that people have an expectation to win money when they sit down. If I were to walk onto my local golf course and start betting random golfers on who wins a hole. I am pretty sure I would lose a lot of money. I think for recreational poker players, they hope to win money, but realize that they probably won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reread the post, he said that players go into Casino's and sit down at slot machines expecting to lose money, which makes his comments about how people who know they are going to lose (eventually) at poker will stop playing at some point but won't do the same with slots and other table games pretty silly.


[ QUOTE ]
Again I have to disagree with Tuff here. I don't think there is any evidence that fish avoid multitablers. If they were that aware of their bad play, and cared enough to avoid the multitablers, then they would care enough to study a little and get better. I actually think it is exactly opposite, multitablers start tables, fill tables, keep games going, without multitablers you would have much fewer games running.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, agreed.

[ QUOTE ]

Actually this is where I agree with Tuff more than disagree. The popularity of poker has peaked and is now waning. Without a geometrical increase in new players, the games will continue to get tougher. This has been discussed in MANY other posts (look post moneymaker), but basically as fish learn to play better, sharks learn to play better, and without an introduction of new fish winrates WILL suffer.If winrates dwindle enough then the multitablers will go elsewhere, and the number of games going on a site will decline.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course the popularity of poker will at some point peak and it probably did at some point last year. So? The game is still immensely profitable for a ton of people, let alone how profitable the games were at this time last year. With the lack of recreational players now due to legislation of course it's going to turn into survival of the fittest, and the weaker players who probably were small winners pre-legislation became losing players. The games on FTP/Stars have only been getting more and more regulars and still not a huge amount of fish but there are dozens and dozens of tables up to 3/6. You and Tony's theory that multitabling will set off a decline in online poker is a silly conspiracy theory. Instead of making illogical assumptions about what's best for the longevity of online poker, maybe you guys should be looking at sites that are successful and have been for years, then try to implement what they're doing.

[ QUOTE ]
We are already seeing this with many 2+2ers looking for traditional employment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not everybody is cut out to be a professional poker player, what is your point? The sites are still thriving despite this, and this is what is important, not how soft the games are for serious players.

[ QUOTE ]
Vegas Casinos rarely if ever spread NLHE pre moneymaker because they wanted to protect their resource. Just because online rooms are more interested in making the dollar now than later, doesn't mean that the resources is unlimited.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason NL wasn't spread pre-moneymaker was because NL wasn't popular; everybody was playing limit holdem. Once NL cash started to get some publicity from the WSOP and moneymaker's win it caught on quickly and all the casinos accomodated it. NL is spread all over every casino with a poker room in the USA, what has changed now? Are they no longer worried about protecting their "resource" and trying to keep the players safe? If you think the online poker room giants like Party/Stars/FTP are operating with no regard for the future you have no clue. They're each making millions a day off rake alone, they're a lot more concerned with keeping the games thriving for as long as possible than making a little more now while risking the future of their games.

[ QUOTE ]
Now I don't know what limit you play aislephive, but if you play 200/400 NLHE then I can see how you think 99.99% of players are fish. However, for the 100NL player, it seems 95% of players are sharks, and there are only a few fish spread few and far between. Either way it is really hard to measure accurately.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play $400nl, and I don't consider most players playing lower $400nl or lower to be sharks. Playing a TAG game alone doesn't qualify you to be a shark. Anyways, I don't really know where you're going with this.

[ QUOTE ]
A more accurate measurement is the number of tables being played. If a site sees its number of tables dwindling then MAYBE enacting policies that hurt sharks (fewer tables, or other idea) will increase the number of tables in the long run, by building up the fish population.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see enacting a table limit of 6 or something, but 1 is just ridiculous. People play online to get in a lot more hands than they can get live. There will never be a situation where it's on the site's best interest short or long term to cap the number of tables to one or two.

[ QUOTE ]
Stars has recently made publicizing players stats on sharkscope etc. illegal unless the player opts in. This seems to be a measure to protect the fish. Stars also disallows datamining, again to protect the fish. Stars realizes to keep the number of tables at its peak, and revenue at its peak, protecting the resource is a required part of the business plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet they allow you to play as many tables as you want, go figure huh? Not publicizing player's results is fine and I'm sure in the best interest of a lot of players, but we're talking about something else unrelated to the issue. Let's try to stay on subject.
[ QUOTE ]

Now I think Tuff has went WAY overboard by drawing a bunch of arbitrary lines about what is good for a pokersite. Pokersite management should be able to manipulate these variables as needed. Tying managements hands with regulations is an inefficient model.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, agreed.

[Nathan_2]

A California initiative battle royal is brewing over Indian slot expansion pitting rich tribes against a faction of the horse lobby and labor unions LINK. Good chance an anti gambling backlash is on the way and will defeat the tribes expansion plans also taking the poker initiative down with it.

[Legislurker]

At some point "indian" gaming and normal gaming are going to collide. The popularity and spread of it, and tailight disease have caught the establishment by suprise. People love to gamble, people in this country are [censored] rich, and when they go broke, they have JOBS to go get more $. Each type of gambling and each government wants to stake out a claim on one or two monopolistic areas for their own, and demonize the rest. Unfortunately, the gaming consumer isn't represented at all. It is an awesome organizing opportunity that will never happen. I do think we need a federal law about state gaming to stop a race to the bottom and legislative and ballot battles.
I'm not 100% sure how the CLass I, II, and III system works, but states should only be allowed to pick a level of gaming for the state as a whole. No exceptions for a tribes, family members, or certain areas. Licenses easily available for anyone capitalized. If you have a lottery, well, you can have unlimited BINGO, poker, and horses. But a nice, neat fair workable law isn't what this country is about.