PPA Washington Fly-In October 22nd thru 24th

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.
.

I do have one comment about TF's position. His CA initiative very likely shuts out affiliates, yet PPA gives him front-page links on their web site, plus John Pappas has personally discussed the initiative with him.

I was actually quite curious how PPA would handle TF's proposal on a number of levels....I'm happy with their level of advocacy, and I think TF is as well (I can't speak for him, of course).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am certainly happy to have a link on the PPA website, thanks John.

I believe that the PPA realizes that genuinely legal online poker with free access, easy funding, and the right to advertise would create poker boom part II. This is a rising tide that would lift all boats, online, B&M, big tournaments like a 25,000 entrant WSOP, magazines, affiliates, poker forums, books, etc, etc, etc.

I am still puzzled that some smart politicos have not recognized that it would also have the potential to generate some much appreciated (not necessarily much needed) revenue. And it could be done without ruinous taxation rates. The golden goose principle would be in play. Let the goose lay a modest egg everyday, and the goose will lay forever.

Tuff

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
When we the broader group of poker players have a wider range of goals that we seek to achieve, it is true that those who have a narrower range *might* help us to some degree when they advance their own which are only a subset of our larger group of goals.

<font color="blue"> Do we really have a wider range of goals? It kind of seems to me like we are all fighting for the same thing. Can you explain further what you mean by this? </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Well to some degree there seems we (thePPA or poker players) face some political infighting ourselves. The total gaming folks who we agree with in opposition to the UIGEA seem convinced from both posts here and on their sites that the PPA and on-line poker players are willing to throw them under the buss for a poker only anti-UIGEA deal.

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, those narrow interests would seek (by omission) a situation where we have fewer choices in venues to play in.

<font color="blue"> This is a pretty big assumption to make. Besides that, what makes you think they could do this, even if they wanted to?</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be the concern of who might get to offer on-line poker as a result of the collective poker world effort to change the UIGEA on-line poker world. The unanswered question seems to be would in the name of a future deal either those that stayed in the US market or those that stayed out of the US market be given preferential treatment in the name of a deal. That is if the deal came down to at, ball crushing time, banning any poker site that "violated/flaunted" UIGEA i.e. FT &amp; PS, would the PPA take the deal. I have no idea what Chris Fersuson's financial stake is in FT except he endorses FT as does Howard Letterer. My thought was since they were on the PPA board this was unlikely. Greg Raymer has a deal with PS and is on the board. I am not up on the exact list of the pros who have endorsed or have deals with PP but I don't see any of the ones I know on the PPA board.

So even in the on-line poker community we have our own politics. Should Party and the others who for a variety of reasons followed the spirit of the UIGEA or gave up on US players, depending on your point of view, be given dominace in any final backroom deal to get a UIGEA carve out for on-line poker?

[ QUOTE ]
And not only that, would squander the resources entrusted to them by the broader membership where the sunk cost of overhead could be used for promoting those other goals with less overall expenditure of resources.

<font color="blue"> When I give money to any charity or special interest group, I often do the little bit of research it takes (like reading the PPA's website) to find out what that particular company's priorities are. We all know what the PPA's priorities are. They say so on their website. I get the sense that you are trying to say that the PPA's best interest isn't that of ours as recreational players. That's a lie. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be the crux of the question of the PPA board make up issue. If you take the position that getting a poker carve-out for the UIGEA for on-line poker but it banned FT and PS or severly limited their entry into the US market how would the PPA given it's board make up turn down such a deal or expend member resources to protect the "hidden" agenda of the known board members.

Of course Bluff can speak for himself but this is my take on the issue of board make up issue. There are other questions as well but these seem the most obvious.

D$D

[coachkf]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that since affiliates benefit from only certain narrowly defined business models in the poker market, that their interests are only served by advancing such interests, and by blocking those of other players in the market. Since we as players want as many playing options as possible, our interests are harmed when such conflicted vested interests control an organization that supposedly represents us.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that most "affiliates" are also players right? I'm a rakeback and general poker affiliate, but I was a player long before that. What's funny is since my site is over 50% non-USA, I could still make a fine living without USA players. But I'm on this forum every day because I play poker, and I don't want to be told not to.

In my opinion, poker players, poker affiliates/marketers and poker sites all have the same goal. Legalized online poker. I'd also say most share the same motivation, that being 'making money from the online poker industry', though I'm sure there are some politically active losing players out there as well.

Why fight amongst ourselves? Is there some hidden motivation that makes an affiliate's desire to see online poker legalized, slimey?

[TheEngineer]

Everyone,

Let's get a show of hands. Who's participating in the flyover?

[Uglyowl]

I am unable to attend due to work obligations, but am very very interested in the "virtual fly in".

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone,

Let's get a show of hands. Who's participating in the flyover?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fly-in? Fly-over is a derogatory term for the area between LA and NY...... [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

D$D

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that since affiliates benefit from only certain narrowly defined business models in the poker market, that their interests are only served by advancing such interests, and by blocking those of other players in the market. Since we as players want as many playing options as possible, our interests are harmed when such conflicted vested interests control an organization that supposedly represents us.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that most "affiliates" are also players right? I'm a rakeback and general poker affiliate, but I was a player long before that. What's funny is since my site is over 50% non-USA, I could still make a fine living without USA players. But I'm on this forum every day because I play poker, and I don't want to be told not to.

In my opinion, poker players, poker affiliates/marketers and poker sites all have the same goal. Legalized online poker. I'd also say most share the same motivation, that being 'making money from the online poker industry', though I'm sure there are some politically active losing players out there as well.

Why fight amongst ourselves? Is there some hidden motivation that makes an affiliate's desire to see online poker legalized, slimey?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just can't see giving 100% committment to an organization wholly UNACCOUNTABLE to its constituency. If we form a group it is NOT a one-off to legalize online play. As a PLAYER with no affiliate links I want all poker legal. Home poker, local club poker, internet poker, and poker anywhere that follows the law and pays taxes. Affiliates do NOT want legal home poker or local poker clubs. Right there is a big conflict of interest. As for how they would shape the onlien environment, I do not know, but Im sure Bluff has an idea of what they want. If the PPA is going to be of the players, by the players, and for the players, it needs a radical retooling. If push came to shove on a decision, who makes it? Who vets it? Who decides who OUR NAMES are behind? Its not a fight so much as a REASONABLE request in exchange for our money and grassroots effort. If they are in our interest, let more of our interests in ,and show where the money comes from, where its spent, and how leadership will be determined.

[Mason Malmuth]

There's nothing wrong in being an affiliate. In fact, we have similar ads here. But I don't think you should be a PPA board member.

Best wishes,
Mason

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Affiliates do NOT want legal home poker or local poker clubs. Right there is a big conflict of interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument seems to fall flat on it's face in a simple look at the current state of the "poker world". The increase in poker's popularity has "lifted all boats". No where in all of my discussions with John, or anyone in any way connected to poker has anyone with 1/2 a brain not understood that legal poker helps all aspects of the poker world. I even spoke to a B&amp;M in Indiana about getting information to their KY players. While the poker room employee thought the GM might not want the increased competition from new casinos in KY, the GM understood his parent organization would indeed likely grow with such an expansion. He even said he'd have to talk to the employee as more casinos meant more chances for that employee to move up in their organization.

While it seems natural for everyone to assume that everyone else is out to use whatever position or power one or the other might have to screw everyone over, and your personal life experience might re-inforce that feeling, not everyone operates from this perspective.


D$D

[Legislurker]

I don't trust them to not drop the ball IF there was some kind of online presence established. How many of those new, eager converts are going to like it when they find out the people signing them up for this Alliance only want them to click thru their website? The fervor sort of goes sour in your mouth when you find out who is calling the shots and that players will never be capable of calling the shots in the PPA.