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/