Can someone explain what the PPA wants? and why

[beanie]

being an affiliate and being affiliated with are 2 separate matters. I do not work for Bodog and I never have. I can't imagine a scenario where Bodog will ever be legal under US laws.

I really don't care much about casino's though I don't see them being particularly harmful and I am pro-personal freedoms so I don't think much should be illegal. But anything that lumps us in with sports betting is really bad. I don't think anyone would support that and I would not recommend that we try to do that since it is a dead end.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Do remember that I am a supporter of the PPA and I have done a lot to push your web presence but as a supporter I am currently confused.

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to the "club"!! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I will not delve too deeply into the board make up issue as that too is viewed by some as a dead horse or a very nasty can of worms to open right now.

Given the B&M's recent announcements and discussion both public and private at G2E depending on whom you talk to their interests are converging or dramitically widening with some ready to hit the mattreses for a long bloody war.

As it is, except for a few other recent entrants into the lobbing gaming game, the PPA remains the only organization with a poker, abet with a distinctly on-line focus.

We all hope for vast improvement in the PPA's efforts.

Personally I hope they address many of the structrual and cultural issues as fast as possible.

But I am an optomist in pesimist's clothing,


D$D

[Sponger.]

Jeff what is up with this thread? You should have done a little more research before acting...

Edited

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
So I looked at the About Us page, where the Board of Directors is listed, and this is where I'm confused; no one on that board derives their income from playing online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that three pros and TE is a significant presence. I want to question your premise though - it is not professional players who are underrepresented but the casual recreational player, the fish. They are the vast majority of poker players and should have some representation.

Practically it also misses a chance to have a spokesperson who can explain that it can be a hobby, a cheap enjoyable hobby played for low stakes online. Online is much more accessible for the casual player who wants to play with a small amount of money.

I'm marginally profitable (until the variance kicks in again) but let us assume I lose $500 a year - the typical cost of the hobby is $10 a month so this would make me a big loser by that standard. Now compare that to what I spend on Golf or Football - not the betting playing or watching. If I want to spend $500 on poker, $2000 on golf and $4000 on my football nobody criticises me for the bigger spend on watching an playing sports but paying to participate in the sport/game of poker is under attack - there is no logic in that unless you want the state to control all your expenditures.

Me I'd like a board member who plays for fun, comes accross as freindly, normal, family focussed and with a passion for the game to help make these points and look after losing players interests on the board. There are such issues - datamining, personal information security, making it easier for pros to target you, making sure the light user gets decent rakeback deals......

The PPA should have representatation for the hobby player.

[Legislurker]

Then why not open up the board seats to membership election, if its really FOR the players? You can nominate all the hobbyists you want. The pros on the board are signed by the rooms, so their independence is laughable. Why would you take a line against FT or Stars if they are paying you 6 figures a year? Apparently the PPA is CP's for life.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.
It seems to me that three pros and TE is a significant presence. I want to question your premise though - it is not professional players who are underrepresented but the casual recreational player, the fish. They are the vast majority of poker players and should have some representation.
.

Practically it also misses a chance to have a spokesperson who can explain that it can be a hobby, a cheap enjoyable hobby played for low stakes online. Online is much more accessible for the casual player who wants to play with a small amount of money.
.

I'm marginally profitable (until the variance kicks in again) but let us assume I lose $500 a year - the typical cost of the hobby is $10 a month so this would make me a big loser by that standard. Now compare that to what I spend on Golf or Football - not the betting playing or watching. If I want to spend $500 on poker, $2000 on golf and $4000 on my football nobody criticises me for the bigger spend on watching an playing sports but paying to participate in the sport/game of poker is under attack - there is no logic in that unless you want the state to control all your expenditures.
.

Me I'd like a board member who plays for fun, comes accross as freindly, normal, family focussed and with a passion for the game to help make these points and look after losing players interests on the board. There are such issues - datamining, personal information security, making it easier for pros to target you, making sure the light user gets decent rakeback deals......

The PPA should have representatation for the hobby player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand ready to serve.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Tuff

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
come on, i don't believe that is true at all. I thought Howard Lederrer essentially stopped playing poker. I have never seen him on Fulltilt, and would surmise that there is very little chance that he made greater than $1,000 from online poker this past year. Combine this with his $millions from Tiltware, and online poker is essentially nothing. Chris Ferguson is doing his "challenge," which is essentially just short-stacking and hit-and-running, but his income from online poker is nothing compared to Tiltware. Greg Raymer I know less about because I don't play much on PokerStars, but considering he has a 7-figure deal from PokerStars, makes money from other ventures, and plays in bigger NL games that I don't think he's a long-term winner in, I'm assuming his online poker income is neglible as well. So all of these people are profiting from online poker, not through it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've not researched their income sources, so you're well ahead of me there. I was going by the recent Annie Duke interview, where she stated that a number of pros derive a good percentage of their income from online poker.

I have met Howard Lederer, and I can tell you he's a great advocate for online poker. Additionally, he and Skallagrim have collaborated on efforts to prove that poker is a game of skill. I briefly met Chris Ferguson at the Fly-In. He did attend it and he did advocate for our rights to various politicians.

A neat story there -- I was walking thorugh the halls of Congress with Chris Ferguson, Howard Lederer, Andy Bloch and a couple of other pros. It looked like the beginning of Poker After Dark. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Anyway, we walked past a congressman who recognized Ferguson. The congressman introduced himself and asked about our meetings. We didn't have him on our schedule, but he told us he could spare 20 minutes for us and he invited us in for an improptu meeting, right there on the spot.

I've never met Greg Raymer, but I understand that he's a great proponent of our rights as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, still vague and representing of a large group, but this sounds pretty good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was answering a general question. I'll answer any specific questions you have.

[ QUOTE ]
I think more of a reason that you don't get flooded with requests and emails by members, is that most of them don't really care. I'm making another assumption here, but can you honestly tell me that greater than 50% of the PPA's members signed up with no promotion and reason to do so? So not by signing up for a PokerStars or Fulltilt freeroll, or to get a deposit bonus at Fulltilt? Because when I look at that 800,000+ members, and remember all the incentives to join, I feel like this number is extremely misleading as a very large percentage joined for a few dollars in free equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of organziations have members of varying involvement. For example, NRA cannot get all 4 million of its members to write to Congress on a moment's notice. Gun shops give away memberships with purchases of new guns. Likewise, the freerolls enable PPA to sign up like-minded people.

Rich Muny
Member, PPA Board of Directors

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
If I had to think about what a Poker Players' Alliance would do, I would think it would work for the better welfare of the players. Maybe monitoring poker sites, doing regulation. For instance, with Absolute Poker, where was the PPA? There are still numerous players who are short money owed to them from Absolute. Shouldn't the PPA be working to get these players all of their money back? In addition, there are a lot of accounts that have been hacked by a few individuals. The PPA could work to help bring about criminal prosecution of them. Also, while I pretty much trust the sites in their taking steps to lock players' accounts for using bots or other illegal actions, having a board of online players being able to see the evidence to ensure that it is legitimate should be something that the PPA does. Also, the question about taxes is asked a ton of times and it is overall a very gray area. The PPA could research the tax code and come up with suggestions tax filings. It could also recomend CPA's who are well-versed in online poker tax filings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate those suggestions and I'll bring them to the attention of PPA. I think you have some good ideas. Thanks.

If you're wondering why PPA isn't already doing this stuff, I think it's important to remember that PPA isn't as large (in terms of numbers of employees) as some think. The challenge is to not spread so thin that the main efforts are negatively affected. PPA is expanding into other areas like the ones you mentioned and will continue to do so, but will only be able to when it is ready. After all, the prior leadership wasn't even able to execute on parts of its basic mission. PPA has really turned around over the past few months. I'm starting to feel like we have some momentum, especially with the recent Harrah's announcement concerning the future of online poker in America.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, what type of online poker does the PPA want? I saw Tuff_Fish's trip report, and that was kind of what got me interested. His idea of what online poker should be is extremely different than mine. If I was forced to play just 1 table of online poker, I would quit as I would find it way too boring. I remember reading his plan to get poker legalized in California, and thinking that if I had an opportunity to vote for it, I would vote NO. I think the PPA has an image problem as well which would be much better helped by getting some younger members. I don't have statistics of the age breakdowns, but at least for the one forum I mostly post in here, MSNL, just about everyone is 18-25

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA wants the marketplace to determine what poker is offered online. I envision a poker market serviced by many sites, such that players can choose what they want.

None of the proposals supported by PPA have endorsed state-run games or the creation of monopolies.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the PPA has an image problem as well which would be much better helped by getting some younger members. I don't have statistics of the age breakdowns, but at least for the one forum I mostly post in here, MSNL, just about everyone is 18-25.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in my 30s. I'm pretty sure John Pappas is as well. I hope we're not too old to serve. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually don't even think that I'm a member of the PPA. I never wanted to waste my time playing in the freerolls. About me, I'm a 20 year old college student. Although I'll be taking a hefty paycut, I don't plan on playing professionally when I graduate.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are other ways to join, but that's totally up to you. I'll not solicit members here. I will suggest that we poker players are far better off with the PPA than without. Anyone here think we'd be better off if PPA folded tomorrow?

Please let me know if you have any more questions, either here or at the PPA forum.

Rich Muny
Member, PPA Board of Directors

[Jeffmet3]

Thanks for the response, you were definitely a good choice to be a spokesperson for the PPA regardless of how old you are.

I'm still kind of wary over what the end-game goals of the PPA are, as I'm assuming control comes with financial contributions, but I guess that's the way it goes.

I guess when I first started reading something, it reminded me of the movie: Thank You For Smoking. When you're advocate is the one making the money from you...