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

[Grasshopp3r]

This is picking up some more exposure:

http://www.gambling911.com/Californi...er-080107.html

The real question for me is where is the PPA in this whole process? Should they have whipped up an initiative that would be a little more coherent in California and in other states that allow the initiative process? This is a flawed first step, but a step in the right direction.

Tuff Fish needs to start making some noise about this. It is great publicity.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What would be the process of removing the multitabling provisions? Another initiative? I would vote No still strictly on that if I were in California, even if I know I can run VM, gotomypc, or run multiple machines to get around it, its still the nittiest, gayest, stubbornest provision imaginable. Why would he alienate his biggest supporters in such a way? And, someone has to lobby the unions, they can kill almost anything. The indians and the cardrooms are hard enough to fight, but add in a voting bloc, its DOA. Fixing potholes? Come on, find a better place for the revenue stream to go and get some allies.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was originally for teachers, and you see how grateful they are. Again, my comment was if it makes the ballot. We may be better off if it doesn't go anywhere.


[/ QUOTE ]

The California Teachers Association is against a bill that will bring them money? Honestly, this is pretty hard to imagine - you can't listen to the radio for more than ten minutes without hearing an ad from the teacher's union asking for more funding in one way or another.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]

The real question for me is where is the PPA in this whole process? Should they have whipped up an initiative that would be a little more coherent in California and in other states that allow the initiative process? This is a flawed first step, but a step in the right direction.



[/ QUOTE ]Second this motion. If it is a matter of money to do this in some likely states, PPA needs to say that.

[Tuff_Fish]

And a good day to all of you.

Unfortunately I have a day job that keeps me pretty busy, and more so lately. I just found this thread. I was going to post something in a day or so.

To those of you who are so greedy and short sighted as to think that this is a bad thing because it specifies only a single table, you are idiots.

As for anybody else, if you like the idea, support it. Sign the petition and urge others to do likewise.

Or do nothing, or oppose this effort if you think that is more in your interest.

I did finally speak to Steve Geissinger. I think this article was in the works before our conversation. I hope I get at least a bit better press after our talk.

If enough folks like the idea of California internet poker, or having some extra money in the pot for potholes, then this will go somewhere. If everyone is apathetic, then it won't.

I could care less what the teachers unions think. I got exactly zero response from them when I first had this idea and was thinking of a suppliment for retired teachers.

The thought that this would take away lottery revenue is ludicrous. I don't know where that came from. I know of no force on earth that will keep the lottery players and the slots players from their games.

We will see how it plays out. I will try to spam as many media outlets as possible. I will also try to get a better story out than has happened so far. It all takes time.

Watch my website for developments, and for pictures of me standing in front of Walmart.

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

Tuff

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
What would be the process of removing the multitabling provisions? Another initiative?

[/ QUOTE ]

Read the initiative, it clearly spells out how it can be amended.

But bear in mind that you will be arguing your cause in front of folks who are not at all interested in the well being of pro grinders. They will be interested in the longer term financial picture and the well being of the recreational plyer.

A good argument can, and has been, made that multitabling grinders are bad for the overall health of the industry.

I hope to engage some of you in front of the legislature on this subject someday.

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

Tuff

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TF removed the high rake and the criminalization of PokerTracker.

[/ QUOTE ]

When'd he actually do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

A few months ago, when the offic of the Sec. of State explained a few things to him relative to legislating fine details using large multipage initiatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]

To those of you who are so greedy and short sighted as to think that this is a bad thing because it specifies only a single table, you are idiots.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please sir show us the error of our ways. Tuff you are a true visionary. I predict (with Viper like insight) that all the majors will be turning to 1 table max (by the 2nd Thursday in October), embrace the future.

Engineer and others, have you gone over this proposal with a fine tooth comb? I am extremely leery of the idea of supporting this given its genesis.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To those of you who are so greedy and short sighted as to think that this is a bad thing because it specifies only a single table, you are idiots.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please sir show us the error of our ways. Tuff you are a true visionary. I predict (with Viper like insight) that all the majors will be turning to 1 table max (by the 2nd Thursday in October), embrace the future.

Engineer and others, have you gone over this proposal with a fine tooth comb? I am extremely leery of the idea of supporting this given its genesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference of opinion is this:

1. Tuff believes that 1 table limit will sustain a high percentage of fish on the site, because they wont be eaten up by multitablers. I can't argue with this.

2. As multitablers, we want access to those fish. We want all of their dollars right effing now, forget the future. I can't argue with this either.

3. The consequences of #1 are: Sharks will only be able to eat fish one table at a time (low winrate), but forever.

4. The consequences of #2 are: Shars will be able to eat a lot more fish, but for a limited time. (I see lots of SSNL/MSNL players getting real jobs recently & LHE is starting to pickup popularity again, because the fish are fewer are farer between)

Will FT/Stars limit multitabling in the future? I doubt it. I think they believe that the economy is self balancing. (which it might be)

Does it hurt or help to have a single state with sites that only allow 1 tabling? I don't see how it could hurt anyone. If you are a shark in Cali, you will have that one Cali table open (per site), and 842 tables of FT/Stars open.

[george w]

does this mean there would be only one state run poker site with no competition? that's not as good as multiple sites obviously.

or if there are multiple sites would you be able to play one table at each site which would make it possible to multitable?

[Grasshopp3r]

Here is Tuff's site with the initiative language.

http://www.caonlinepoker.org/