Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer
Every bit of that is ridiculous.
PPA never claimed to be the online poker police. We are a group that lobbies for poker rights (as you note). I have no idea why you feel licensing of online poker requires first addressing unlicensed sites. That's like saying anyone fighting Prohibition (of alcohol) had to address the quality of speakeasies' bathtub gin first.
The reality is that PPA has made it clear that licensing and regulation are needed specifically to prevent issues like what we saw with FTP and the AB/UB cheating scandal.
I definitely don't get why you say we're a joke. PPA is not a "they". It's our shared fight. You get out of it what you put into it, so let's all stop treating the group like it's some entitlement that we deserve.
Rich, it was nice meeting you at the WSOP this past summer, and I can appreciate your ongoing efforts with the Poker Players Alliance. I hope that your mission continues with a renewed purpose - one that strives to both fight for playing rights in the U.S., but additionally, that can craft and recommend, a qualitative series of 'benchmark' regulations, that make sense to both players, and legislators in government.
You might argue that that second task is not the role of the PPA. But the dynamics have changed drastically. The PPA's credibility is taking a hit, from having held a high level of confidence in individuals whom the DoJ alleges ran an on-line
Ponzi Scheme, while they were acting PPA board members. Whether it's proven to be true or not is irrelevant at this time, and we can hope for the best outcome for the betterment of the game. And the goodwill gained from offering congress a regulatory framework, could go a long way toward gaining additional support on Capitol Hill.
As you know, I'm a rebounding PPA supporter. I didn't appreciate that nearly 40% of the PPA board consisted of Full Tilt ownership, leading up to, and extending beyond Black Friday. We talked about this at The Rio, and I do believe that no special considerations were made for Full Tilt, and that nothing inappropriate occurred at the PPA concerning FTP. But Full Tilt was notorious for its poor customer service over the years, and I thought it both ironic and hypocritical that the PPA's cause be fueled by service providers that, frankly, just didn't get it.
I've felt for a long time that self policing by corporations within the poker industry wasn't working. It's not just the exorbitant amount of money being exchanged at the click of a mouse, but how real lives are affected by irresponsible actions of 'industry leaders'. It was just a few months ago that one of Poker's leading publications named Howard Lederer, the "Most Influential Person in Poker". As it turns out, that was a bluff, otherwise known as a deception.
The
Poker Players Alliance may take the position that it never tried to be the poker Police. I understand and appreciate that. But that was in the past. And while I'm not suggesting that the PPA should now take on more of a policing role, it could assume more duty to players, and take on a more inclusive, advocate role for players and their rights at this time.
I read the PPA mission statement again tonight:
to establish favorable laws that provide poker players with a secure, safe and regulated place to play. Through education and awareness the PPA will keep this game of skill, one of America’s oldest recreational activities, free from egregious government intervention and misguided laws.
The word
'favorable' jumped out at me, because I have yet to read about 'player favored', and PPA recommended regulations for legislative review, ones that can safeguard players, and allow for continued exercising of individual freedoms. Also, you might consider replacing the word
will, with,
strive toward keeping, or something like that. I just think it's best not to make a promise that hasn't yet been kept, or one that might be difficult to keep.
I started playing cash games in high school over thirty years ago. I pride myself on having a thorough grasp of many different poker games, and have a respectable tournament pedigree to prove it. But no amount of poker skill can change the way the cards fall, after all the chips go in the middle. This is chance, it lurks in every shuffle, and humbles the most experienced, at the worst possible moments. Some poker hands will be absent of skill, but none will ever be removed from chance.
I love poker and will always introduce new people to the game. But I will never offer newcomers the promise of success and consistent financial gains, as a reward for attaining a higher level of skill in Poker. Going broke from a bad beat is the same for a newbie as it is for a seasoned player - broke is broke.
One last thing that deserves mention here is that this game belongs to it's consumers, to the players, not service providers, advertisers or media. I hope that in the future, the Poker Players Alliance can see that it's mission is not as narrowed, just because it may read that way on paper. The PPA membership are stakeholders in the game of poker, that pay money to different brands for a variety of products and services.
Take the World Series of Poker, a brand that stands above all others. As the WSOP brand continues growing, the game of poker itself is becoming more susceptible to change. Let me just say, no, I don't believe that the World Series of Poker is an evil empire. But Poker stakeholders should not rely on the WSOP, or any one brand, to look out for the betterment of the game, as much as they can count on that brand to maximize it's revenue gains, even if it means changing the way the game was meant to be played.
The use of sunglasses in WSOP competition has been sharply criticized by Poker HOFer's including Daniel Negreanu and Doyle Brunson. But their concerns were quickly dismissed. And WSOP entrants haven't yet been afforded an opportunity to vote in favor of, or against the use of sunglasses, that are a tool and game changer.
The WSOP has every right to make final decisions about where it earns it's revenues, but the decision about making fundamental changes to the game belongs to the poker public, to it's stakeholders. And if not the PPA, what body and advocate of player rights will argue the merits of preserving Poker traditions in competition, when a brands revenue opportunity may impose making fundamental changes to the game?
The point is, it's not about sunglasses or ski masks. It's about fighting for rights of players and the game itself. Inherent in it's mission is that the PPA already fights for the game. That fight, that player advocacy, extends beyond the fight to legalize on-line poker. It's all inclusive, it's a package deal. I hope that the Poker Players Alliance can own it all. If it does, that'll go a long way toward honoring the players, and the game, and gaining Congressional support for legalizing on-line Poker in the near future.
Keep up the good work Rich.
J. Percival