CA Online Poker Initiative!!

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
casual players can't win on the internet, the players are too good and the long run comes too quickly for them. There's no way to protect casual players from going bust online. They need to be naturally gifted or they are done.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a casual player and I haven't gone bust yet.

Thanks for your concern, though.

[tizlinda]

I am a teacher in California and a online poker player. I was elated to see someone taking the initiative and getting our message out there, many such endeavors fail at first but the mere exposure prompts others to follow up and perhaps more powerful and more experienced men (not a slight) will take the ball and run with it. I personally thank you and hope you continue with your efforts.

However, I have to agree completely that I do NOT want the government to be running anything, much less my favorite online hobby. I trust them even less than the shadiest outfit I've ever played on.

[kartinken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
casual players can't win on the internet, the players are too good and the long run comes too quickly for them. There's no way to protect casual players from going bust online. They need to be naturally gifted or they are done.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a casual player and I haven't gone bust yet.

Thanks for your concern, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you have the natural talent I mentioned in my post.

Maybe you can use that talent to learn to be a more comprehensive reader...

KK

[diabolus8]

Yeah Kartiken, I agree with most of what you wrote.

But Tuff also mentioned that "grinders" would kill the game. Well such rake would kill it anyhow. IMO to a higher extent than "grinders" would. Current rake on most sites enables a high % of recreational players to break even, and these players form the main cores of poker sites. But such high rake (and people underestimate how much a difference it would make) would turn even most of them into losers.

[kartinken]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah Kartiken, I agree with most of what you wrote.

But Tuff also mentioned that "grinders" would kill the game. Well such rake would kill it anyhow. IMO to a higher extent than "grinders" would. Current rake on most sites enables a high % of recreational players to break even, and these players form the main cores of poker sites. But such high rake (and people underestimate how much a difference it would make) would turn even most of them into losers.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, very good point. I assumed, when I thought it would be privately run that the extra rake was the tax on the game, which whil still sickening was to be expected, but with ALL the money going to the state the rake should be lower not higher.

Our governments have no idea how to use money, giving it to them is criminal.

[tagtastic]

So you want legal online gaming, BUT:

Since you can't multi-table well (lack of attention/perception skills / quick thinking / hand-eye coordination), no one can.

Since you can't take the information provided by PT & HUDs and use it effectively, no one can.

Since you can't fathom playing for higher stakes than those you listed, no one can.

So online poker is great, as long as no one is even given the opportunity to make more money than you (by multi-tabling, playing stakes you can't afford, or using information you don't understand).

I can forsee an amendment you'll propose to this initiative: checkraising is now illegal, raising and folding more often than calling is cheating, and discussing or thinking about hands after they end is also banned.

Congrats on turning a perfectly good idea into a list of your own (ridiculous) special interest technicalities that the average joe won't understand and won't care about, just because you're not good enough to beat online poker as it currently exists (even pre-Frist when it was super easy!).

Your justification is that the fish pool will be gone in 2-3 years if the good players are allowed to use advantages currently inherent to online play. But, there's still fish online now, despite the games being tougher than ever and depositing becoming very difficult (although, they're likely not fish to you). The reality is that if online poker was 100% legit and legal (rngs regulated by the gov't, funds fairly safe, American companies running the show, super easy to get money on and offline) - there would be an absolutely ridiculous amount of players, the vast majority of them fish, for a very long time. The average Joe now does NOT trust online poker because of rumors of cheating, bots, people seeing your hole cards, afraid to trust their money to offshore companies, the cards are rigged for big pots, etc. If these fears could be at least somewhat removed by gov't regulation and/or clear legalization - the games would be very healthy for decades to come, regardless of what the players who study poker and are profitable are allowed to do.

[SCBielski]

Tagtastic is right on. Thanks for typing out my exact thoughts. The online poker market was fine for casual poker players before the ban and it will be fine if it is uplifted. Don't make bringing back online poker more complicated than it needs to be.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a teacher in California and a online poker player. I was elated to see someone taking the initiative and getting our message out there, many such endeavors fail at first but the mere exposure prompts others to follow up and perhaps more powerful and more experienced men (not a slight) will take the ball and run with it. I personally thank you and hope you continue with your efforts.

However, I have to agree completely that I do NOT want the government to be running anything, much less my favorite online hobby. I trust them even less than the shadiest outfit I've ever played on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please take a closer look at the initiative. The State of California's involvement is minimal with the exception of the Governor who appoints the Director.

The model for my initiative is the California lottery. It is basically on autopilot. The use of the money generated is fixed and irrevocable, the people who actually run it are private contractors with limits on their fees, and there has never been a squawk about any shennigans that I am aware of.

The same with this initiative. Once up and running, there is nothing for the State to do except for the State Controller to cut a check each quarter to CALSTIRS and California Department of Veterans Affairs.

My reasoning for making it a gov monopoly is that the revenue stream to the beneficiaries would be greater, hence making it more attractive and gaining more support.

Also, the Swedish site, Svenska Spel, seems to be doing gloriously using this exact model.

Wouldn't the Ca retired teachers like $100,000,000 extra in their coffers each year? Or even $10,000,000?

Nothing in this initiative got here by accident. And, contrary to the hater's beliefs, my own personal playing preferences had little to do with how I wrote it.

In due course, myself and others are going to have to explain and defend this measure. I hope I have put together a rational, promotable plan. Writing it to satisfy the majority of the players who frequent 2+2 was a non starter.

I welcome reasoned input and responses from interested parties such as teachers and veterans. The rest of you can keep making noise.

Cheers.. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Tuff
.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah Kartiken, I agree with most of what you wrote.

But Tuff also mentioned that "grinders" would kill the game. Well such rake would kill it anyhow. IMO to a higher extent than "grinders" would. Current rake on most sites enables a high % of recreational players to break even, and these players form the main cores of poker sites. But such high rake (and people underestimate how much a difference it would make) would turn even most of them into losers.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the difference in the rake? Do you even know?

Tuff

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah Kartiken, I agree with most of what you wrote.

But Tuff also mentioned that "grinders" would kill the game. Well such rake would kill it anyhow. IMO to a higher extent than "grinders" would. Current rake on most sites enables a high % of recreational players to break even, and these players form the main cores of poker sites. But such high rake (and people underestimate how much a difference it would make) would turn even most of them into losers.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, very good point. I assumed, when I thought it would be privately run that the extra rake was the tax on the game, which whil still sickening was to be expected, but with ALL the money going to the state the rake should be lower not higher.

Our governments have no idea how to use money, giving it to them is criminal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the initiative, it is easy to lower the rake, hard to raise it. After the site has been running a while, go make your case.

Can you people even read? .. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]


Tuff
.