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

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything used during the games other than your brain and bankroll.


D$D

[permafrost]

[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

To clarify, upthread I said "if things get worse" and agree there is little demand for legal intrastate poker sites since we have FullTilt et al.

If/when a crackdown on illegal poker sites happens, it would be good to have legalization or court cases working in a few likely states. People say the populace is for online poker; use that at a level where gambling is controlled.

Established poker sites could open a state profitably with low player numbers (if B&Ms do it, sites can--and an upside of pooling states). It won't be 12 tabler heaven, but it may be the only alternative soon.

I know action takes cash and if that is an impediment (to any action), I trust PPA will let us know.

And if they know a crackdown isn't coming, I trust PPA will inform us.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.
.
since we have FullTilt et al.
.
.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who has Full Tilt?

Anybody gotten any money off Full Tilt lately? Sure you can play, I did a bit this weekend, but moving money is a real pain, and not without risk.

And about that advertising.... and all those fish..er rec players....

Has anybody found a lively, reasonably non rock, non tough TAG game anywhere this year?

Tuff

Full Tilt NL $1/$2. I raised every hand for a full orbit twice before anybody played back at me. Yeah, the games are really good. Gain $30 for ten $10 raises, then somebody reraises $25. Yes I want to see this flop so I call. Flop is total airball, and I KNOW this grinder has a hand he loves or he wouldn't be in the pot. -$25, back to square one and we start over again. Obviously I didn't do this all the time, but getting money off these guys is hard rock mining.

But we have Full Tilt/PokerStars.....

[BluffTHIS!]

Bump for posters asking me to explain my views on the PPA board. Check out my 3rd post in this thread in reply to DMD.

[Skallagrim]

I have heard this issue debated many times now. I will therefore not repeat what I have said before in detail, just give my basic view:

The issues about the board are POTENTIALY legitimate. There is an excess representation of CP and "affiliate farms." My problem with the folks who insist on the board changing before participating in it, IS THAT THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO POINT TO A SPECIFIC PPA ACTION THAT CLEARLY BENEFITED THESE INTERESTS OVER THE INTERESTS OF EVERYONE WHO WANTS CLEARLY LEGAL ONLINE POKER. Given that, and the fact that the current board were there first to help create the PPA, I see it as insulting to ask them to resign at this time. Until they DO something showing partisanship, they ought to be given the benefit of the doubt.

As to transparency, I have 2 thoughts: First, the fact that there may have been a fair amount of industry money given to the PPA is not a debilitating fact politically (if proven and exposed), Americans nowadays expect that sort of thing. Gun manufacturers give to the NRA. and pornographers give to the ACLU, are you shocked? Second, the PPA has reporting requirements legally - AFAIK, it is in full compliance with its legal requirements - why should 2+2 or anyone else demand more?

I am not dismissing your concerns Bluff, but I am saying that this is not the time to make fights among any group that supports legal online poker. If and when a situation arises where you can show me a direct conflict, THEN I may think of changing my attitude.

Skallagrim

[Legislurker]

Instead of asking them to resign now, ask them to set a date to either leave, or face an up/down vote from membership? Put
one or two more people SEEN as independant on the board for finite time periods as well. Something to eventually transfer power to membership? Im sure there is a way to cement it in legalese that 2P2 and its lawyers could verify.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
My problem with the folks who insist on the board changing before participating in it, IS THAT THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO POINT TO A SPECIFIC PPA ACTION THAT CLEARLY BENEFITED THESE INTERESTS OVER THE INTERESTS OF EVERYONE WHO WANTS CLEARLY LEGAL ONLINE POKER.

[/ QUOTE ]


Skall,

That assertion in fact is false as I demonstrated earlier in this thread. However I will be glad to go over it again.

1) The PPA initiated a short-lived ad campaign touting the line of party poker that the UIGEA made offering online poker illegal for all companies, contrary to the legal positions of the privately held companies still in the US market. This was for the benefit of party poker and its *affiliates* to the detriment of those other companies *and all US players*.

2) The PPA until the appointment of Mr. Pappas, and under the aegis of the majority of the current board, did NOTHING to try to neuter the regs waiting until it was too late to do anything effective, even if the PPA, thanks to their new exec director, now understands its importance. This is because those sites who cut and ran from the US market, *and their affiliates*, gain nothing and in fact see themselves as harmed competitively, if the status quo persists. If they fail to legislatively regain market access, they also want to insure those privately held competitors aren't able to conduct business here, which means the members of the PPA also won't be able to even have the more limited options they have had since the passage of the UIGEA.

3) The PPA *even now* still has done *very little* with regards to B&M poker. B&M issues are some of the most difficult because legalization/expansion often involves constitutional ammendments in various states and thus takes many years of effort. Thus it is imperative to work on this as early as possible, even if online efforts take priority. Again though, those certain online interests benefit not at all from B&M poker, so again those conflicted interests on the PPA board have screwed a big segment of the PPA membership. B&M players have been shafted for years by vested casino interests that until the online poker boom often never gave a [censored] about poker because slots produce so much more per square foot. The B&M players, many of whom also play online of course, need their interests protected by the PPA so as not to be dependent on casinos whose primary interest is in spreading more profitable -EV games.

4) The PPA has done NOTHING to work on intra-state online poker. Why? Because of course those affiliate farms tied to existing online business models won't benefit. Members of the PPA screwed again by those narrow interests that dominate the board.

An important point of the above, as I mentioned earlier, is that errors of omission can be just as serious and more so, as errors of commission.

All of the above clearly shows that the affiliate farm dominated board of the PPA cares only about their own financial interests and NOT the wider interests of the broader membership. If they can't make money off of a form of poker, then they don't give a [censored] about it.

[Skallagrim]

Thanks for the specifics Bluff, I will address each in turn.

1) If what you say is true, why was this add campaign short lived? Most folks and journalists to this day repeat the mantra, "UIGEA made online poker illegal." And there is an interpretation of law where that would be true: the DOJ gets the SCOTUS to say the Wire Act covers ALL betting and wagering (very unlikely, but as the SCOTUS has yet to speak, still possible). And to top it off, I recall the very same Ms. Shulman posting at CP saying the UIGEA had changed nothing and criticizing Party and the others for leaving. I see little more here than some early too simple legal analysis (primarily, IIRC, from D'Amato), not a plan to benefit one group.

2) I dont know how much work behind the scenes was done on the regs, I bet there was plenty. There certainly has been significant work since Pappas took over. "Sins of ommission" maybe, but far more likely the result of the previous scattered management than, again, a plan to benefit one group.

3) The PPA has done only a little so far with B&M poker, true (they did go testify at th TX hearing on allowing it though). But I think all here agree that the focus of the PPA SHOULD be online poker at this point. Where B&M issues arise, the PPA should be there, but there are not really a lot of B&M issues out there (other than getting poker ruled a skill game in the courts which benefits both B&M and online poker - and I am hopeful the PPA will soon put together a team for doing exactly that). Going out and creating a popular movement for poker rooms in states that dont have them is, I think, a bit much to ask of this still young organization.

4) Intra-state online poker is a dead issue at the moment. Nevada already has a law allowing it. No one has applied for the license because as long as there are interstate sites competing, in-state online is a loser economically.

And we all know that FT and PS have close ties to PPA board members; if these folks are willing to continue working with the Shulmans and the Party "affiliate farms" why cant 2+2?

Again, I see potential for a conflict, but no actual conflict yet, at least as it relates to online. The only real area you can put your finger on is online v. B&M, but I think most of us agree online is the place for the fight right now and thats where limited resources should go first.

I appreciate you being here to keep us on guard, but I still think you go to far when you refuse to help the PPA because of the POTENTIAL of one group influencing the agenda to its advantage.

As a final point, I also believe you could do far more to insure that that one group does not dominate by joining and working from within the PPA to see that your concerns are addressed. TE was the perfect vehicle for that kind of effort, but I suspect that bridge is burnt now, to one degree or another.

Skallagrim

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
And we all know that FT and PS have close ties to PPA board members; if these folks are willing to continue working with the Shulmans and the Party "affiliate farms" why cant 2+2?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because 2+2 believes that "these folks" and other things will become some of the "talking points" (to quote another post) of the opposition, and, in our opinion, these will be very effective talking points at that.

Let me state again that we have nothing against affiliate farms. We are now doing some of that ourselves. But we do think that having these groups on the PPA board has the potential to become a very big negative. Don't underestimate the viciousness of the anti-gambling forces.

MM

[Skallagrim]

Thanks for the reply MM.

I guess we can disagree on the potential political ramifications of "these groups" helping fund the PPA. As I noted earlier, NRA and ACLU funding also comes (in part) from industry groups who benefit from their legal/poitical positions. I am not sure FOF and their ilk could really make that much political hay out of it. I agree its a fair point though, and open to further discussion and debate.

But I still think it could be a debate you/we undertake with both of us being inside the PPA tent, especially since it has yet to become a big issue (except amongst us).

Sigh, 2+2 has the most active and intelligent* poker forum on the net, the PPA has (finally) started to become an active and intelligent political force. Wouldnt it be nice if they could work nice together?

Skallagrim

* excluding NVG, but NVG is fun so dont take that as criticism [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] .