How do YOU feel about the PPA?

[TheEngineer]

[Coy_Roy]

I voted neutral but I am a bit more positive now that Engineer is on board.

That was a great move, I'm encouraged.

[whangarei]

I voted neutral as well. About the only really positive thing I have seen is the building of such an impressive membership base. It will probably reach a million members before too long with the new poker site freerolls. I would have never thought they could get so many members, so imagine how legislators will feel when they see this number. BUT, it's time to start leveraging that support. This is a HUGE membership and they should start wielding that power ala the NRA. As I've stated I would also like to see at least an awareness campaign to let people know how the NFL is trampling our freedoms. Same for eBay/PayPal.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I voted neutral as well. About the only really positive thing I have seen is the building of such an impressive membership base. It will probably reach a million members before too long with the new poker site freerolls. I would have never thought they could get so many members, so imagine how legislators will feel when they see this number. BUT, it's time to start leveraging that support. This is a HUGE membership and they should start wielding that power ala the NRA. As I've stated I would also like to see at least an awareness campaign to let people know how the NFL is trampling our freedoms. Same for eBay/PayPal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. Under Michael Bolcerek, the past PPA president, PPA didn't do much to activate the membership. John Pappas has pledged (and has repeated it several times in interviews) that one of his goals is to utilize the membership base. The KY governor's race is a great opportunity for PPA to trial this while gaining needed data.

[Skallagrim]

Its our only way to fight collectively currently. Its past performance was less than stellar, but new organizations rarely avoid growing pains. The member numbers are a big positive, and the course laid out for the future makes me somewhat positive.

Until, of course, we decide that fighting amongst ourselves is more important than fighting our enemies. If trends on this board are an indication (and I do not think they really are) that could become a major factor in switching my vote to negative.

Skallagrim

[Cactus Jack]

I have moved from neutral to slightly positive. I did an editorial on my radio show just a couple of days before Pappas posted here, and the news came out about the changes. Some of the things I wanted to see, I'm starting to see, now.

However, until I see people from the PPA in the card rooms talking to and trying to sign up new members, I'll only feel slightly postive. There are a lot of people out here in Vegas playing in poker rooms that have no idea of the fight and about the PPA. The organization needs to get the word out.

I also will be more positive when I see no more news stories about poker and gambling that do not include a comment from the PPA. Imagine a story about gun control that doesn't get a comment from the NRA. Impossible. When we have that kind of profile--without the insanity and hyperbole--then I'll be positive indeed.

CJ

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
I also will be more positive when I see no more news stories about poker and gambling that do not include a comment from the PPA. Imagine a story about gun control that doesn't get a comment from the NRA. Impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[TruePoker CEO]

Good question. I feel the PPA is doing its best to serve the interests of the Brick & Mortar casino industry in securing the US poker market for itself. I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing, and may be in the interest coincidently of US players.

I have tremendous respect and admiration for the ability of the larger US B&M operators to provide gaming services which consumers enjoy. That they have been as innovative as they have, hobbled by at times less-than-stellar regulatory structures, is a great achievment.

If there IS a regulatory structure to emulate, it would be Nevada's current Commission, which seems anxious to allow the State's operators leeway to effectively compete online. So long as the competitive arena focusses on customer service, than the US players will not be badly off. If the Frank Bill instead creates effective barriers to foreign competition, then the US players will not be as well served as they might be otherwise.

HOWEVER, I feel it is a shame that the PPA denigrates the unregulated, explosive growth of the industry and its popularity prior to ANY real regulation. The growth of the online poker industry, in the virtual absence of any regulation, was shaped entirely by meeting market demands. The hue and cry for "regulation" is a cover for erection of protectionist barriers. The reason that is a shame is that the US B&M operators have no choice, they are hamstrung by their ties to the landbased, highly regulated structures of their (former?) core businesses.

That the airline industry, trucking industry and telecommunications industries in the US have improved by DEregulation makes the PPA and Barney Frank's cry FOR regulation counter-productive...., if not downright backward, in an economic policy sense.

The PPA should back the Wexler Bill, as the most sound public policy, i.e "do not fix what ain't broke".
(Under the Wexler Bill US operators COULD easily enter the online poker market.)

Ironically, I would support the Berkley Study Bill, rather than the Frank Bill, precisely because if regulation IS coming, then time is needed to shape it to maximize the consumers' benefits from fair competition.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]


That the airline industry, trucking industry and telecommunications industries in the US have improved by DEregulation

[/ QUOTE ]

Deregulation was an answer to over regulation. But each industry was initially hamstrung or the public harmed by the lack of any regulation in the formative years of each one.

Given my read on the current political scene/mood there isn't a chance for return to pre-UIGEA without some sort of sensible regulatory matrix. I'll leave it to the experts to fight over what is reasonible.

In the Business Week comments I was impressed with the New Zealand Problem Gambling "expert". Is this thing for real? The web-site seems real enough.

To get past the core reason for the UIGEA we have to get past the National Gambling Impact Study they hung their hats on as the hook. Addressing the core of those issues with the least amount of regulatory burden should be the goal of the on-line industry, IMPO.

It also seems to be pretty close to the PPA stated goals and Mission Statement.


D$D

[whangarei]

Good read TPC.

[ QUOTE ]
The PPA should back the Wexler Bill, as the most sound public policy, i.e "do not fix what ain't broke".
(Under the Wexler Bill US operators COULD easily enter the online poker market.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You're aware that the PPA does support the Wexler bill, right? From Pappas' post:

[ QUOTE ]
Through our hard work, education and grassroots advocacy Rep. Robert Wexler introduced H.R. 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act, a bill which exempts poker and other games of skill from the UIGEA and also clarifies the WIRE Act to ensure poker is not included in DOJ’s overly broad enforcement of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]