Perhaps why you should care about bots and cheats

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Me I want to standing there with case by case documented proof of every technology out there where the industry has taken steps to combat every one of these types of cases time and time WITHOUT the government's HELP to even stand a chance of winning that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aside from your bot issue, this was all demonstrated at the 6/8 hearing.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
So, you want us all to write to Congress to demand federal regulation of Internet poker, on the grounds that they won't act in the players' best interest? You think that will help us get it explicitly legalized? Seems like a bad idea to me.

As for the non-bot issues you mentioned, I have no doubt you could put together a string of bad stories. However, you seem to fear these more than we do. Maybe you believe them. I don't know. You don't come across like someone who believes in our right to play poker, given that you're willing to give away so much before negotiations even start. The NRA didn't get where they are by consenting to every restriction demanded by gun banners, just because it would be easier. I hope we'll stay strong. We should be on offense, talking about freedoms and our rights, like the NRA.

As for bots, you realize you don't have a "right" as a customer to dictate terms and conditions to these companies, don't you? If you don't like the site, don't play on it. The free market works. Perhaps you should buy stock in your preferred site to gain a vote for what you want, or perhaps you should move abroad and start your own site, rather than trying to dictate business practices to private companies via the federal government. After all, it's that attitude that got us where we are today.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll second this.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
So, you want us all to write to Congress to demand federal regulation of Internet poker, on the grounds that they won't act in the players' best interest? You think that will help us get it explicitly legalized? Seems like a bad idea to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I that unclear or are you that obtuse?

Writing congress never entered into my mind or was anywhere in my post. I applaud you and fully support your letter writing campaigns. I follow them and send in a few letters even though I think in general letter writing in the grand scheme of political power is a complete waste of time. But since it is currently the best grassroots effort the PPA is backing I'm 1,000% for it .

But nowhere in this or any thread have I suggested that Congress address this issue.

I have suggested that IF the poker industry doesn't take action it is possible and quite LIKELY that Congress WILL do it for them!

In the end every poker player will pay in the end for the short sighted greedy response from FT on these issues.


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I that unclear or are you that obtuse?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're that unclear. You've said a few times that you're proposing regulation. Can you summarize what exactly it is you're proposing?

[ QUOTE ]
Writing congress never entered into my mind or was anywhere in my post. I applaud you and fully support your letter writing campaigns. I follow them and send in a few letters even though I think in general letter writing in the grand scheme of political power is a complete waste of time. But since it is currently the best grassroots effort the PPA is backing I'm 1,000% for it .

[/ QUOTE ]

The letter writing is the best thing our (2p2) unfunded, relatively small, geographically disperse group can do. We've been successful far beyond our numbers. Expansion of the effort will naturally expand the advocacy beyond letters, but we'll always want to communicate regularly with Congress.

[ QUOTE ]
In the end every poker player will pay in the end for the short sighted greedy response from FT on these issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. If FT can't meet its customers' expectations, the players will go elsewhere. FT isn't a public utility. Explicit legalization won't focus on FT...it will focus on Harrah's and MGM, as explicit legalization won't happen if it doesn't allow U.S. companies to offer services.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
And why do you think affiliates should be responsible for this? That's a little like saying Anheiser-Busch should be responsible for drug testing of NFL players.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Auggie IV was giving pro NFL player free truck loads of beer and the public was pissed off about drunk NLF players I'd back any action including a massive letter writing campaign to AB. If that didn't work I'd lobby congress for a law to stop the parctice.

The rake back affiliates process the proceedes, there for IMPO bear some of the responsibility.

But the ultimate responsibility is with the poker sites themselves. I even post this in poker affiliate world and on my rake back site's forums. You'd be surprised at the positive responses from some smart people in the poker industry, well at least I was............


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Please take this poll down as it is it is an insult.

D$D

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
In the end every poker player will pay in the end for the short sighted greedy response from FT on these issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why has this "issue" affected you so deeply? If it is such a big problem, players will leave FT and the correction will take place as it should in a free market.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the end every poker player will pay in the end for the short sighted greedy response from FT on these issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why has this "issue" affected you so deeply? If it is such a big problem, players will leave FT and the correction will take place as it should in a free market.

[/ QUOTE ]

It affects all on-line poker players and will IMPO make the job of negociating the very minimum of regulatory burden on the industry by the PPA and poker players on behalf of the poker sites much more difficult.

Realistically they don't care about the regulatory burden, they will ALL pass the costs on to us in the form of higher rakes, less rakeback or changes in payout.

If FT wants my 1,000% efforts to help them make more money of which I'll never see a penny, they should IMPO step up and help us out NOW.

Sitting back and letting them pass any future costs on to us because we didn't raise a stink now would be our fault!


D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Please take this poll down as it is it is an insult.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot....the deadline has passed.

It's not intended to be an insult at all. We do debate ideas here. Again, that's why it's the premier site.

My topic reflects my understanding of the point you were trying to make. What is your point? You just want us to "care"? Do you just want us to be "angry" with FT? We really don't know. The only thing we know is that you're upset with FT.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I that unclear or are you that obtuse?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're that unclear. You've said a few times that you're proposing regulation. Can you summarize what exactly it is you're proposing?

[/ QUOTE ]

FT only distributing the seized account money in a proven bot account after 2+2'ers found the bot on their own and reported it to FT is chicken$hit, IMPO!

Given only the information I see from the report on my own rake back account I could with one data base sort seperate the casual poker players from any bots.

Give me a look at FT's daily information and I could seperate well over 50% of the multi-tabling grinders and bots with another database type sort or filter.

I don't know enough about the full "poker" accounting, but can imagine given the information in my rake back account AND an inside look at FT's security information eliminating 95% of humans from bots can't be that hard. A few phone calls and some faxed documentation or even an affiliate vouching for accounts IMPO would get us 100% of the way to a workible solution.

At the very least the time and programing cost to FT including giving every player twice what they paid out in this case is worth 100 times or more in less regulatory burden that might be imposed by my "imagined" future hearings.

I am asking FT to stop just looking at this week's or this quater's bottom line but look at the multi-year profits. Show congress, the anti-gambling nuts, and me they have the best interests of poker at heart.

Even if FT ultimately got a free pass in "my imagined" congressional hearings write it off to good will.

But don't expect me to hold my tounge when we are asked to suggest that the industry is self regulating and a free market rewards the best poker site in response to the crap the anti-gambling nuts will pull. I'll do what I'm told but hey in my mind I'm going to be saying "I told you so!"


D$D