Has the PPA held any discussions or sought any cooperation with State lotteries regarding State level efforts to legalize and regulate online poker ?

State legislators from a number of States are conferring in Las Vegas on January 8. Does the PPA consider their interests active enough or strong enough to engage in any direct dialogue on behalf of player interests, at that conference or otherwise ?

Can the PPA send Skall at least ? He reminded us that he has experience in State level efforts. (He did a great job in Massachusetts some time ago.)

This is why PPA headquarters needs to post, on their website, who the state directors are. If things break on the national level the way they appear to be headed, the battle will shift to the states and PPA headquarters does not seem prepared.

From your lips to TE's ears.

There apparently are no state resources for the PPA. If you click on resources and then click on states, what you get is a bunch of article headlines. I remember two years ago, when I clicked on states, I got something like, there "is no activity in your state." I've actually been told there is a state PPA leader here, but was never given any info. I didn't press the issue because I'm not doing anything local.

fighhthtt!

And, of course, having said all of that, I don't know what use a state director would be up till now in my state anyway. I would assume there are state directors in FL, NV, NJ, and CA. But that's just me assuming.

Florida has a State Director (Donna Blevins) and a Deputy State Director (myself). (I used to be State Director, but turned that over to Donna who is better connected in the world of live poker players.) We do have a couple projects currently in the works.

I can say this about state-level activities: the national staff of the PPA is limited in manpower and resources. They are occupied with their top priorities. But the door is wide open for anyone to step in as a volunteer to initiate and implement state-level activism, with the support of the national office. Grassroots means grassroots: it is up to members to build the state organizations, not the national staff.

I think it's up to the national organization to put up the frame and state organizations to build their groups the rest of the way, but the national organization hasn't even put up the frame.

I say this because national doesn't seem to be doing anything on a state level of any state. Putting up a state director section, even if it's a statement there's no state director in a particular state and national is looking, on the PPA website would be a step in the right direction.

I'm working to get some things changed in my state, but I'm not the person for the job.

I agree with this as well, although it shouldn't stop anyone from activism that has the motivation.

True, but this could lead to a state level activist recreating the wheel the national PPA already invented. A waste of time, don't you think? But we don't know what resources national PPA has because they're not publicizing it.

This is where the bridgework between established gambling industries and the PPA needs major work. I'm not going to make this an anti-PPA thread, but just try to explain where I see the process at. Poker is a socially acceptable pastime now, outside of heavily rural or epistemic areas(Utah). Now, gambling revenue is a lot like alcohol revenue. The state demands a cut for "permitting" the activity, and those who already have market share fight to keep others out. Right now, the states and the feds aren't sure how or how much revenue they can slice off for themselves. The industry is divided over how to exclude competition, or having their own sales cannibalized(living in the 90s brick cave).

We have a federal landscape where some Dems and Reps are open to advancing ipoker, PROVIDED the industry agrees on how to do this. It is nice to not be fighting an all gambling is evil Congress, which we had in the 90s, and well into the last decade. When a committee is drafting a bill, and certain provisions are brought up.......say attaching an ipoker bill, the chair or caucus bigwig looks around a room full of staffers, congresspeople and lobbyists, and asks if anyone has a problem with this. Right now, parts of the gambling industry, who have WAY more say than the PPA have problems. That word stops ipoker bills dead in their tracks.

To make it worse, the parts of the industry that don't have a problem, and see the revenue, aren't lined up with us or each other. It begs for a compromise, and a compromise that will probably force players to eat some **** early on in the process. No one relishes being a free lobbyists for Harrah's. But, the only way to give our allies an upper hand as the face of the industry to Congress is to back them up with our numbers, calls, and tweets. The social media work would be multiplied if veteran Hill lobbyists doubled down by showing a Reid or Barton that support from numbers of actual voters aligned pretty well with a corrupt, donating, and revenue-making industry.

If we can't orchestrate that feat at the federal level, the State level is worse.
There, you have the gambling is evil, draconian, conservative legislatures from the 20th century. Bill Bradley and Jon Kyl have nothing on people in state legislatures when it comes to foaming at the mouth over gambling. There, established gambling in the form of lottos, horses, and casinos is even more parochial. They see a gambling dollar spent online as one not spent at their place. You are talking election CYCLES to undo some of those state webs. And how? With no resources for state organizing now, what about in a year when the PPA is more broke?

Just look at a state like NY where almost every state senator is in a totally safe seat, and the only concern is how to fundraise, self-promote, and look for higher office. There is no way a PPA can compete against the slot factories, lottery leviathan, or the race tracks by itself.........If some alliances aren't formed federally now, and the fight goes to the states, do you really think the resources will appear out of thin air to tackle built-in machines?

So even if you are a proponent of a federal or a state approach, you have to bow to the reality of needing help, in the form of relationships and money. Imagine how much the PPA could accomplish with even 5 employees dedicated to organizing? You might not get 50 state directors, ever, but you can foresee a scenario where a small core of staff could work on key states, interest groups, and activist lists. But, not with the IGC only, or even an attempt at player-funding. We have to go somewhere, and probably beg.

There's not much of a starting point. State lotteries are in business to maximize state revenues. It's their job to figure out the highest rake the market will bear. PPA could assist them in moving legislation, perhaps. That could get us poker in some states, but IMO it would have some seriously anti-player provisions.

I saw where you said John Pappas went to the State Legislator conference. Your post is dated after that experience. In another thread, you repeated the same "They look to maximize revenue" theme. Any thing specific behind that theme from the Legislators conference ?

The poker backers for the Lotteries are experienced Networks, Playtech and Boss among them. Are you saying that these operators do not understand how to maximize revenue without rake-gouging ?

I began he thread by asking:

"Does the PPA consider their interests active enough or strong enough to engage in any direct dialogue on behalf of player interests, at that conference or otherwise ?"

Your answer seems to be, the lotteries may be active, but they seem to be wholly consumed by revenue along lines which are anti-player".

Sounds like the PPA is going to take a pass on working with lotteries, even State by State, and is going all-in on the anti-lottery Barton Bill. (I have no axe to grind on behalf of lotteries, am not arguing here, just noting the apparent alignment, which you think taken is in players' interests.)

FWIW, if the lotteries advance their agendas and get poker under their arena, the PPA can revisit the contact then.

DQ,

PPA has been active. For example, PPA has reached out in California, as you know. We've testified there and we've employed lobbyists there as well. I've spoken to my own state lawmakers here in KY. I also spoke at the National Conference of State Legislatures meeting in Louisville in July 2010.

There is one common theme to speaking to states - revenue. That's all they see. Look at California. They don't see poker players as consumers. Rather, they see us as an asset to be exploited. They believe the money poker players spend playing at offshore sites today rightfully belongs to them, which is why their legislation includes provisions criminalizing play on unlicensed sites, along with civil penalties.

When one has a monopoly (or at least a monopoly on pricing, as we'd likely see in a state like CA), one can charge what the market will bear. Read the rake threads here...many players complain that we need legislation to keep rakes down specifically because too many players are not price sensitive here. Or, just walk into any casino and see how many people are willing to play -EV games.

Lotteries exist for revenue maximization. It's in their charters, either explicitly or implicitly. Show me a lottery official who announces, "revenues are down 5% this year because we decided to enhance the player experience," and I'll show you an ex-lottery official.

I addressed much of this in this week's PPA member update:

Update: Tell Your Governor and State Lawmakers to Support Internet Poker – 1/10/2012
http://theppa.org/newsletters/2012/0...poker-1102012/

^^^ sounds like more spin and misdirection from the PPA and their IGC overlords. The path to regulation has clearly shifted to the states and away from Federal legislation but the PPA along with NV casinos like Caesars and MGM don't want to except that so they have to try and spew a lot BS to keep the federal path alive.

While Federal legislation might be preferred there are many uncertainties that come along with a federal approach not to mention the fact that getting Congress to pass a federal bill seem unlikely in the near future and uncertain in the long-term.

Even if the Barton bill or another Federal bill starts move in Congress it will be amended and changed along the way and we're uncertain what any finial bill will look like.

To say state regulation of online poker/gambling will simply be for revenue causing the games to be unprofitable while Federal legislation will not is simply wrong. At this point we can't say how a federal bill will taxed by the feds or opt-in states and what the state of the games will be like once up and running. We are a long ways form knowing.

How can you say state regulation will be terrible for players but federal regulation will good? Both are largely unknown at this point.

The fact is the recent DOJ letter will empower the states and not the feds to act. Sure some states may pass horrible regulation making games unplayable but some will get it right. It may take many years for states to get games up and running but a few states will start the process sooner rather then later.

We need to work with states and have a voice in the drafting regs and implementing online gaming not simply say '**** you states you suck we want a federal bill'. When will the PPA see that the path to online poker is going to be coming form the state level and not from the fedral Gov.?

While it may be necessary to continue efforts on a federal level we need to shift most efforts to the states. How many many years of inaction on the federal level are poker players going to have to see before the PPA realizes its a dead end? Or is that the PPA will never see it as dead as long as their funding keeps coming from offshore gaming companies?

Time for the PPA to realize that the game is going to be played-out on the state level and a federal bill will be a long time coming if ever. Time to stand up for players and play ball where the game is going to be played.

Why the personal attack? I have no IGC overlord. I just want to win this fight.

Funny why you take any criticism of the PPA or statements posted by you as an official rep of the PPA as an attack on you personally and not the message of the organization.

IF the PPA wants to represent whats best for players and not other interests then why solely put all your eggs all in one basket. Like it or not states are going to start moving legislation and it would be nice if the poker players had representation in the state debate.

It seems like the PPA is only focused on a federal bill and is unwilling to look to advance state bills. So another year will pass with no federal bill and the PPA will talk of all the progress and momentum we built on capital hill only to do it all again with the same nothing results. Of course Pappas and others at the PPA will spin it once again about all the momentum they're building and how they are looking out for players but IMO its all bull ****.

The PPA has a checkered past and its done little to change that. IMO its best for our future if players stop supporting the PPA so we can move forward. The PPA is just not in a position to look out for players going forward and I have to question if they ever were.

I think getting a state involved as anything more than a regulator is asking for trouble. If a state lottery is running the game, say goodbye to any chance of competition.

That doesn't mean, even if true, that we should stop trying. If nothing else, we have already seen Reid attempt an attachment on Dec 2010 and it's not far-fetched to believe he will try again sometime this year. We should definitely maintain a strong voice on Capitol Hill for players' interests.

I've read in their entirety every i-poker/i-gambling state bill and every i-poker/i-gambling federal bill so far, plus all the amendments that were proposed for the previous Barney Frank federal bill. I can safely deduce from them that state bills (with the one exception of NV) will not be player-friendly but a federal bill will be. Sure, the future can't be predicted exactly, but the best we can do is make logical choices based on all the information to hand.

Whereas, if we can push a federal bill through we'll get a lot more states getting player-friendly sites with pooled players up and running faster.

The PPA can have a voice at the table in drafting regs at the same time it advocates for a federal bill. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Yes, as state bills come in that can be supported, the PPA should be there to participate. But it's a little too soon to declare the federal level a "dead end". This year is the best shot at a federal bill so far imo. Re-evaluating at the end of the current Congressional session will be in order, but don't give up the ghost yet. Haven't you noticed that the federal wheels have been greased (by the vested interests) to make a big push for a federal bill? We'll be shooting ourselves in the foot if we make the shift away from the federal level right now.

True. My gut feeling is that is one big reason why you see casinos still fighting to ban lotteries by legislating them out federally.

There is likely an difficult discord between private casinos' culture and State lotteries' culture, especially where the two already compete in a State market. (I think Connecticut is an interesting test arena. Illinois, also.)

(My handicapping of State lottery authorities' efforts/interests in online poker are generally misunderstood by some vested interests as a "rooting interest in lotteries". That has never been the case, I just think their developing interests at the State level and apparent opposition at the federal level need to be properly considered.)

Nova,

He does way less of that personalizing of posts than he does answering substantively. Give TE a break and let him vent occasionally.

The truth is that the State efforts will proceed with or without the PPA, as would the federal efforts, I was encouraged by the Nevada regulations, as they reflect an understanding by the proponents of a minimalist approach to regulation and provided for player/consumer protections. THAT result came about with little visible PPA input. Rather, it was drafted by competing private interests who shared a common concept of maximizing industry revenue by providing an "fair game and an entertainment experience".

I strongly disagree about the future potential of a player-funded PPA; if the players fund the organization and see results, then it can become self-sufficient.(I have seen this sort of funding effort before, it is not impossible if adopted by the PPA as a core necessity. Denial and defensiveness would have to take a hike however for that change to take place in the organization.)

The PPA is the only game in town for player representation, like it or not. If you don't like it, then you need to advocate change, such as going to player-funding, and allocation of resources to State level activity.

I'm not at liberty to say where it comes from although I will say it's not about online poker directly, but I've got first hand knowledge of how one part of one state government views competition for things they run. And it's not pretty.

I don't. Criticize PPA all you want....I won't take personal umbrage at all.

In this case, though, I guess you didn't see that I wrote that piece and that it reflected my opinion on the matter ("Weekly Update from Rich Muny, VP of Player Relations").