PPA has released its UIGEA regulations comment talking points

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because not one thing the PPA has said the Poker World would do to gain entry into the US market in the form or a regualtory mix will every come to pass.

Sure the market will open up and others who are in the wings or who let the market will try to re-enter, but who's position is the strongest? The major off-shore operators!

They "own" the current portion of the US market and to some degree will get to shape the future of on-line poker market for some time. Any inovation that they can live with in their business model they can implement quicker than anyone else and keep market share. Think M$ and Apple.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense to me at all. A company like Apple didn't gain its market share by providing a service that a huge portion of its potential customer base stayed away from because they feared it was illegal.

I love PS. I played my first hand there, and haven't left except to whore during the Bonus Rush. With that said, if poker were exempted tomorrow and MGM Poker opened Friday, I'd be one of the first people to open an account there -- along with every Joe S. Pack who thinks online poker has been shut down since last October.

Expressly legal poker in the United States is not a bad thing. Even the aforementioned Apple could open its own site and compete quickly with monsters such as Party. The off-shore operators' market share is based on supply only.

This is somewhat analogous to saying marijuana dealers would still own the market share if a 20-pack of pre-rolled joints were available at Smoker Friendly for $15.

And, IMHO, the competitive market will make all of the fears about regulated poker (high rake, more fees) moot because sites will be willing to accept lower profit margins in order to construct their own legal cash cow.

Where am I wrong here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well since we are in a virtual world where big money is at stake the powers involved have a little more forsight.

Think of what happened to Apples operating system. Most of the world thinks Bill Gates invented Windows or at least his company M$.

Any new entrant to the market can be quickly matched by those with existing market share. Since they already have a significant market share they can easily match any new marketing and or technical inovations.

The new entrant has to gain market share in some cases by reducing margins (profits) in this case with bonuses or reduced rake, but they can not afford to do this as easily as an established market leader or market share holder.

While some of these may end up being good things in a future poker world, most are likely to be loss leader ideas that die away once the new entrant can no longer afford to keep offering.


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Me to my kids: "Maybe."
Kids: "Does that mean yes?"
Me: "It means I don't know yet."
Kids: "But it doesn't mean no right?"
Me: "I can give you an answer right now, but you might not like it..."
Kids: "Maybe works."

[/ QUOTE ]

PPA: "But we have to know RIGHT NOW!"
Regulators: "Then the answer is NO, and that's final."

It's nothing short of insanity to think that the regulators won't go for the broadest (safest) definition of which forms of online gambling are unlawful.

The PPA might just succeed in getting the rest of the poker sites cut off from the US. Good job, guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can tell you a lot of effort was put into generating the points. While it may seem wonderful to have UIG undefined, the regs put banks in the position of either overblocking or of having to prove allowed transactions are "lawful". Also, the reg authors admitted they were unable to define UIG. Given this admission, it seems we could gain by pushing them in this area. There are other pro-poker reasons to support a definition as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reg writers also admitted they couldn't design a governmental system without worring about our pesky due process rights. Why not push there?

In the reg process the best you can hope for is a comment burried in the review portion that the Agencies don't write laws therefore they can not define for Congress or the Courts what is legal or illegal.

It is a waste of time IMO.


D$D

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TheEngineer - you put up a poll with one of two choices being "D$D's Idea" - but none of us can tell what he's saying, because his writing is so confusing - with all the rambling, triple negatives, mixed tenses and basic grammar/spelling errors.

If you understand whatever it is that he is trying to say, could you post a short note explaining it?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's actually why I called it "D$D's Idea".

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, has ANYONE taken time to talk to your local bankers yet? Get them on board as opposing these regs?

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Well a local regional bank here I spoke to I found in its terms of service that it will block all transactions it deems to be involved in gambling including horse racing.

The phamplet was last updated in 2005.

So it seems the banks don't like these transactions nor have they for sometime.


D$D

[JPFisher55]

D$D, you make a good point about the state laws on online gambling. IMO, Congress could pass a law with a firm set of laws governing online gambling and this law would supersede state laws. The UIGEA is not such a law and it does not exist.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
D$D, you make a good point about the state laws on online gambling. IMO, Congress could pass a law with a firm set of laws governing online gambling and this law would supersede state laws. The UIGEA is not such a law and it does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congress wouldn't even have to pass a law. A Federal Agency can just say we claim jurisdiction under Commerce Clause, Utah go [censored] yourself. Its over. This Supreme court won't roll back Commerce.

[TreyWilly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where am I wrong here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well since we are in a virtual world where big money is at stake the powers involved have a little more forsight.

Think of what happened to Apples operating system. Most of the world thinks Bill Gates invented Windows or at least his company M$.

Any new entrant to the market can be quickly matched by those with existing market share. Since they already have a significant market share they can easily match any new marketing and or technical inovations.

The new entrant has to gain market share in some cases by reducing margins (profits) in this case with bonuses or reduced rake, but they can not afford to do this as easily as an established market leader or market share holder.

While some of these may end up being good things in a future poker world, most are likely to be loss leader ideas that die away once the new entrant can no longer afford to keep offering.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Putting the public's demand for software against the public's demand for online gambling is far from an apples-to-apples comparison. Expressly legal online gambling will be a brand new market. Nobody stayed away from Microsoft because they thought it was shady or downright illegal.

The market share MGM owns (or Yahoo! or Harrah's) is much more powerful than the market share Stars or Party owns. Do you really think the fish are going to sign up at Party Poker over Google Poker?

Also, the profit margins for an online poker room -- let alone an online slot parlor -- are much greater than the profit margins for eBay or iTunes. To put it simply, there won't be much loss in these loss-leader programs.

Sites U.S. players can trust to be regulated and lawful will dominate in no time at all.

Think bootleggers vs. liquor stores, and liquor stores vs. Wal-Mart.

I'm repeating myself here, but you are yet to acknowledge my points. In fact, your Gates-inventing-windows example supports my argument. If the door is opened to anyone, people in 20 years are going to think MGM.com invented online poker.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where am I wrong here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well since we are in a virtual world where big money is at stake the powers involved have a little more forsight.

Think of what happened to Apples operating system. Most of the world thinks Bill Gates invented Windows or at least his company M$.

Any new entrant to the market can be quickly matched by those with existing market share. Since they already have a significant market share they can easily match any new marketing and or technical inovations.

The new entrant has to gain market share in some cases by reducing margins (profits) in this case with bonuses or reduced rake, but they can not afford to do this as easily as an established market leader or market share holder.

While some of these may end up being good things in a future poker world, most are likely to be loss leader ideas that die away once the new entrant can no longer afford to keep offering.


D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Putting the public's demand for software against the public's demand for online gambling is far from an apples-to-apples comparison. Expressly legal online gambling will be a brand new market. Nobody stayed away from Microsoft because they thought it was shady or downright illegal.

The market share MGM owns (or Yahoo! or Harrah's) is much more powerful than the market share Stars or Party owns. Do you really think the fish are going to sign up at Party Poker over Google Poker?

Also, the profit margins for an online poker room -- let alone an online slot parlor -- are much greater than the profit margins for eBay or iTunes. To put it simply, there won't be much loss in these loss-leader programs.

Sites U.S. players can trust to be regulated and lawful will dominate in no time at all.

Think bootleggers vs. liquor stores, and liquor stores vs. Wal-Mart.

I'm repeating myself here, but you are yet to acknowledge my points. In fact, your Gates-inventing-windows example supports my argument. If the door is opened to anyone, people in 20 years are going to think MGM.com invented online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are talking a bit in circles but here is what I think.

If you were MGM who has stayed out of the US market until it was clear how to set up a fully legal US system with your only risk being your business risk in the market might not you say to Congress that PS and FT should be excluded? I could make a convincing argument that PP should be as well.

Some people seem to worry about a US regulated market and if it will be too much to bear. All regulation will do is remove enough risk from the market place to allow the big time players to enter the market.

You are right, 20 years from now no one may even remember FT. You might mention to someone 20 years from now FT and they might look at you the way my kids do when I ask them to "roll up the car window."

To suggest that FT or anyone else might use their position on the PPA to even think of possibly protecting their part of the pie and to be treated like a "on-line poker is rigged" poster is just wrong.


D$D

[TreyWilly]

I don't argue with the idea that MGM would want PS and FT excluded, although I'm not convinced it will matter.

All I'm saying is it will be hard for any current site, including Party, to exist if poker is free in America. If business risk is the only risk, these emerging monster companies can do enough through subsidization of their existing profits to drive any current site right off the map.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
You are right, 20 years from now no one may even remember FT. You might mention to someone 20 years from now FT and they might look at you the way my kids do when I ask them to "roll up the car window."

[/ QUOTE ]

FT may be the Compuserve, Netscape, or Prodigy of Internet poker. I have no idea how they'll compete with Google, Yahoo, or MGM, but they want the opportunity (beats a future Internet poker prohibition).

[ QUOTE ]
To suggest that FT or anyone else might use their position on the PPA to even think of possibly protecting their part of the pie and to be treated like a "on-line poker is rigged" poster is just wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I did was comment that you find conspiracies everywhere, then get bent out of shape and really offended when no one goes along with them. You seem to think people reject your ideas not because they're half-baked, but because there is some conspiracy against people hearing your "knowledge". I guarantee you FT and PS are not trying to keep PPA from sharing your ideas about banks with the world.

Anyway, there is no conspiracy. FoF and the NFL, along with support from Harrah's, got UIGEA passed. PPA is working to get poker explicitly legalized without special regard for FT or PS. John Pappas is not controlled by FT or PS. John isn't even "controlled" by the PPA board. And he doesn't ask us for permission for every little thing he does...he runs the show. We can fire him or restrict funds, but we certainly don't call daily meetings to micromanage his day-to-day activities.

Feel free to post your theories to the contrary, but don't be surprised when others disagree. And, do continue to post ideas of what you think is good for us but is bad for FT and PS. I've read your posts and I don't think you've done that yet, or at least not effectively.