Casino Gambling Web Delivers 435 Packets to Congress

[Merkle]

I have been following this forum daily (actually several times a day) for months now. Yet I am disappointed at the reception of what to me appears positive action and actual initiative. I thought the link he pasted explained quite adequately what was delivered and who too. The request for the poker community to "follow up" their hand delivery with phone calls was not unreasonable and is very sensible. It isn't like they said "please send your entire wallet or signed blank checks to ABC for promoting online gaming".

His request should have been incorporated into TE's weekly action plan. Just like many of us did follow up calls and letters to NFL and their sponsers when the issue was hot. When you couple this physical approach to the congressman with the timely articles about WTO last week, then yes, it is a good time for follow up calls and extra effort to remind them we are watching and we do care.

If I want to build a fence to enclose my pool and my neighbor approaches me about sharing the costs of a fence to enclose his dog. Should I refuse his offer because we don'thave the same reason??

[BluffTHIS!]

Merkle,

The problem is that the interests of legalizing poker are harmed very much by allying ourselves to online sports betting and/or casino interests. So even if this initiative is legit, it still amounts to asking poker to make such an alliance, where poker gains *nothing* and instead *is harmed*. If you have been reading this forum for long enough, you would know this.

I want to note as I have before, that I do not oppose those forms of gambling, and in fact *after* poker were legalized fully and openly online would give my backing to it. It is just that we cannot in the current political environment put the sports/casino gaming albatross around our collective necks lest we DOOM our cause.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Merkle,

The problem is that the interests of legalizing poker are harmed very much by allying ourselves to online sports betting and/or casino interests. So even if this initiative is legit, it still amounts to asking poker to make such an alliance, where poker gains *nothing* and instead *is harmed*. If you have been reading this forum for long enough, you would know this.

I want to note as I have before, that I do not oppose those forms of gambling, and in fact *after* poker were legalized fully and openly online would give my backing to it. It is just that we cannot in the current political environment put the sports/casino gaming albatross around our collective necks lest we DOOM our cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. While I agree our fight should be freestanding, how do others arguing against Internet gaming harm us? I welcome anyone who hates UIGEA to the fight.

[cjk73]

Yup, is an informative and mostly well written forum. That said, there are clearly "rules and cliques". Too bad.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been following this forum daily (actually several times a day) for months now. Yet I am disappointed at the reception of what to me appears positive action and actual initiative. I thought the link he pasted explained quite adequately what was delivered and who too. The request for the poker community to "follow up" their hand delivery with phone calls was not unreasonable and is very sensible. It isn't like they said "please send your entire wallet or signed blank checks to ABC for promoting online gaming".

His request should have been incorporated into TE's weekly action plan. Just like many of us did follow up calls and letters to NFL and their sponsers when the issue was hot. When you couple this physical approach to the congressman with the timely articles about WTO last week, then yes, it is a good time for follow up calls and extra effort to remind them we are watching and we do care.

If I want to build a fence to enclose my pool and my neighbor approaches me about sharing the costs of a fence to enclose his dog. Should I refuse his offer because we don'thave the same reason??

[/ QUOTE ]

His initial request WAS part of my action thread, for some time. Not only that....I x-posted it to all the threads on 2p2. The requested follow-on action will also be part of the next update.

If you all don't recall, this is that e-petition we all signed in response to a FoF action warning about this very delivery. CGW promised to hand-deliver the packets to each member of Congress both here and at www.casinogamingweb.com , so I imagine he didn't think he had to describe it all over again.

Eddietom, I'd like you thank you and CGW for delivering these packets. The timing is perfect, as we'll be going to Washington ourselves in a few weeks.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Eddietom, I'd like you thank you and CGW for delivering these packets. The timing is perfect, as we'll be going to Washington ourselves in a few weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]


Engineer,

Please put yourself on record here. Do you have a problem with poker interests being seen in the minds of legislators as mixed in with those of sports betting and casino interests? This is a very important question for not just you but the PPA as well.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Eddietom, I'd like you thank you and CGW for delivering these packets. The timing is perfect, as we'll be going to Washington ourselves in a few weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]


Engineer,

Please put yourself on record here. Do you have a problem with poker interests being seen in the minds of legislators as mixed in with those of sports betting and casino interests? This is a very important question for not just you but the PPA as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally (I don't speak for the PPA) think the poker lobby should be freestanding. In fact, I was careful to make sure our KY advocacy effort did not endorse casinos or games of chance....it's poker only. Still, anyone against UIGEA is a friend of mine.

I think you overestimate the abilities of congressmen to discriminate between poker and roulette. Are you suggesting we should oppose IGREA on similar grounds?

[BluffTHIS!]

Engineer,

I am only suggesting that we are FOR poker and not AGAINST anything else in gaming. But that we can't be seen as 100% allies of those other interests whose goals do overlap some of our own. As long as we are seen to only promote poker, and specifically make the point that such is all we are promoting (and why poker/skill games are in fact different), then we should be seen as separate in the minds of congressman, who otherwise would indeed be inclined to lump poker in with all other forms of gambling.

Now that doesn't mean that I don't think it wise/important to ally ourselves in the judicial arena. But just that in the legislative arena we cannot afford to do so. However it seems you basically agree and I thank you for your response. However I would caution against our allowing ourselves to be drug into alliances with those sports/casino interests, which is what CGW desires, as do the sports betting interests. They are in the worst shape in all of this and gain a lot from our pitching in with them, where we not only gain nothing but are positively harmed.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Engineer,

I am only suggesting that we are FOR poker and not AGAINST anything else in gaming. But that we can't be seen as 100% allies of those other interests whose goals do overlap some of our own. As long as we are seen to only promote poker, and specifically make the point that such is all we are promoting (and why poker/skill games are in fact different), then we should be seen as separate in the minds of congressman, who otherwise would indeed be inclined to lump poker in with all other forms of gambling.

Now that doesn't mean that I don't think it wise/important to ally ourselves in the judicial arena. But just that in the legislative arena we cannot afford to do so. However it seems you basically agree and I thank you for your response. However I would caution against our allowing ourselves to be drug into alliances with those sports/casino interests, which is what CGW desires, as do the sports betting interests. They are in the worst shape in all of this and gain a lot from our pitching in with them, where we not only gain nothing but are positively harmed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, we're basically in agreement there. I don't want to entangle poker and -EV gambling.

As for CGW, we have a common interest in opposing UIGEA. They set up an online petition against UIGEA. I posted something here about it. They posted here thanking us for the help. Most of us here signed it. And, they delivered packets as promised. Sounds very cool to me. Also, IGREA includes them and us, so their folks and our folks are likely lobbying Congress the same way. Common work when we have common ground while maintaining independence.

[Merkle]

I'll go on record Bluff as saying I see a BIG difference between casino games and poker. I will NEVER play casino backed games as I am not a gambler. I am a games player (chess, backgammon, poker, bridge, canasta etc...) Money is not only a way you keep score in poker and backgammon but it is a weapon in the form of the timely raise or offer of a doubling cube. And there is no effective way to play either one without money being on the line.

That said, I appreciate any help and efforts to rectify the disaster from last years law. If I honestly saw Wexlers bill moving ahead then perhaps we could reject the offers of CGW and others. But at this time, whether we like it or not we are in the same boat. But I think it will be the casinos themselves who get this reversed in the long run.

P.S.
I sincerely hope that in the long run poker is recognized as a game of skill for legal and tax reasons. Nothing says that can't be the ultimate goal, but shouldn't the immediate goal be to start playing again without ridicouls barriers to transferring our money?