John Pappas vented his frustrations at the lack of a vote by blaming "obstructionist" tribes on Twitter.

He then made a bit of an ass of himself when reacting aggressively to accusations that he was a PokerStars shill.

Some of the exchanges are in this article - http://www.usafriendlypokersites.com...ill-postponed/ - but you might also want to have a look at last night´s Twiiter timelines for @ppapoker, @ijiLaw, @VictorRocha1, and @curtinsea to get a better idea of what went on and the damage it might have caused.

More info on the proposed amendments to the bill here:

http://www.calgaminglaw.com/resources.html

(Top link under "Legislation" on right hand side)

One issue has held up online poker in CA for years. It's the same issue, always. I keep asking this question without hearing a solid reasoning, it's a fair question others have asked as well . . .

Are players really willing to wait year after year for a bill that gives us Pokerstars? Or are we willing to have legal online poker without them?

I say the fight is for online poker, not Pokerstars. Lets have a bill we can pass, for the players' sake, and let Pokerstars fight for entry afterward.

We are being exploited for one company's gain, and held hostage until they get what they want.

Oh, and we're not even trying in small states where that one company doesn't see potential profit. Those players are just SOL

Maybe because PokerStars has the best platform offering, customer service and moral bar of all the online poker providers? And they are the most likely platform to provide the kind of player experience that poker players enjoy in terms of liquidity and reliability.

Sure, there are some changes since Amaya took over that sully their reputation and standards to some extent. But let's not forget that they robustly serviced the US players all those years after passage of the UIGEA, and they bailed out the US players after Black Friday to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

I think a better question is why should they be targeted for exclusion from the opening of a new regulated jurisdiction, to the detriment of the player experience?

I do think that "bad actor" clauses have a place in legislation. But such should target actual bad actors - those that are proven to have committed acts that harm the players, or have a history of moral turpitude. A bad actor clause which is meant to provide business protectionism is not really a "bad actor" clause but rather an "anti-competition" clause.

That seemed rather tame, to be honest. And the Pechanga guy started the name calling. Hard to believe that responding to being called a "shill" by calling the other party a shill for the other side would cause irreparable harm to online poker in CA.

I like Pokerstars' product as much as the next guy.

Pokerstars is selling a brand, though. As much or more than the product. It built that brand flouting US laws, laws it would have continued to flout if action hadnt been taken against them. There needn't be a conviction to know they broke the law (we all know OJ did it for example), the fact they did is inescapable. So should they be rewarded at the expense of local intetests? I think not, and it matters in all other states where Tribal gaming rules.

So there needs to be some give. A waiting period perhaps (the longer the fight the longer before the clock starts running) or as I have advocated for, let them wholesale their product to local intetests.

What we see in NJ is what Tribes object to .... Pokerstars dominating the market under their own banner behind an invisible false front.

Sent from my LGL33L using Tapatalk

Why would you think Poker Stars wields this kind of power in CA, when they have no business interests there? The truth is that they don't.

It's not a PokerStars issue. If it were, the CA Assembly would have passed a bill with a so-called bad actor clause designed to prevent one company from entering the market long ago. Rather, it's about a couple of tribes who don't seem that enthused about getting any poker done. Sorry, but they are being obstructionist and we players are paying the price.

I have no horse in this fight. If the bill would pass with a bad actor clause, it would have already and we'd be playing.

This. That exchange was all on Rocha.

I don't see how they could become any more opposed.

Seriously? They bought the clout they needed when they announced their partnership with Morongo, Commerce, et al, as was demonstrated when they torpedoed the effort in 2014

it's true they have no business interests in CA at this time, all the more reason the legislature shouldn't bend over backwards to make room for them.

It was likely they would have two years ago if not for the combined lobbying efforts of Pokerstars et al. It has always been about Pokerstars, and their anticipated market share.

The tribes partnered with Pokerstars have a stake now in seeing Pokerstars get in, so obviously a bill with so called bad actors language would be obstructed by that group.

Really, why should they? They stand zero chance to make a buck doing it, why should they let Pokerstars nudge in on their territory they have fought hard to gain?

But those same tribes you call obstructionists were well on board two years ago, prior to Pokerstars announcing their partnerships.

that is merely a point of view, the same can be true of the Pokerstars coalition. Watch when the bright line is pushed back to 2006, they, and the PPA, will become those opposed. But I doubt the majority of tribes not affiliated with Pokerstars but on board with Grey's bill will get on board with the new bill too.

I'm guessing we'll see that bad actor language revert back to the 2006 brightline. Support the bill then, despite bad actor clause, so we can be playing already

The reason this matters to me in Washington is simple, and it should matter to all of you in states dominated by tribal gaming. Our states will have to have this fight too. The fight hasn't even started yet, and it will take many years.

If Pokerstars partners with Tulalip in advance of legislation, then the Muckleshoots will oppose any legislation.

And vice versa So it becomes a tug o war, a battle between the haves and the have nots.

Yes, PS doesn't have this clout on their own. As you say, tribes formed a partnership with PS, and it's those tribes pushing this bill. PS is lobbying heavily, but the legislature is not held at gunpoint. Tribes wishing to work with PS have a right to push that angle too, just as opposing tribes have a right to push theirs.

And they're not. Suitability should be determined by regulators, not by some ex post facto law designed to block one company never even charged with violating CA law.

The natural state of law is not for legislatures to block anyone who dares to inconvenience the process by seeking to do business in the state, or to protect smaller players from competitors.

Why it is their territory? The tribal compact doesn't give the online space to tribes, hence this bill. The idea that big companies should be kept out seems odd. It would be like banning GM and Ford to allow CA automakers a chance to grow and thrive.

I'm sure these tribes could find a way to partner with PS, have a skin on the PS network, or to partner with one another for economy of scale. They can try to get the legislature to protect them from PS, but it's hard to see how that's PS's fault.

There you go.

Again, the idea that government should protect anyone from competition seems odd. I get that this minority of tribes will continue to fight the majority wishing to pass this bill as it is, but I think you make an error blaming PokerStars for merely seeking to do business in the state. The legislature could simply make a decision one way or another. Expecting PS to bow out gracefully from all states with any tribal gaming doesn't seem realistic. Should Caesars and other big gaming companies bow out too, simply based on their size and ability to compete?

Again, you seem to fault PS for merely seeking to do business in the state. I think that's misapplied. Again, the legislature could have passed whatever law they wished. Or, tribes could have united around one approach. There are many variables here that go well beyond PS not realizing that, according to this line of argument (and I write that will all due respect), they ought not even try to do business in CA and other states.

Every state features fights between haves and have-nots. Blaming a company for daring to try to enter a market for slowing down legislation is shortsighted. For one, everyone has a right to try to get in. For another, this happens with every single gaming fight (except perhaps legislation authorizing state lotteries). It's just part of the process.

The problem in CA is that lawmakers won't force votes and make some decisions.

First it's not about Pokerstars at all, then it's you can't blame Pokerstars for just trying to enter the market. With all due respect I don't know who you think you are fooling.

I don't begrudge Pokerstars for trying to enter the market. I want their product in the market. I'm not against Pokerstars. However . . .

And while I can't blame them for wanting their brand to be forward facing, I am positive that will not fly in Tribal gaming states. Period. I also find the 'divide and conquer' approach to be unseemly.

So while we can rue and complain about how unfair some Tribes are being (ignoring their well established and fought for position), it isn't a practical approach to getting legislation passed. And getting legislation passed is what we want most of all, isn't it?

There are other ways to get their goods to market, while allowing broad participation of in state interests. Pokerstars garners the same market share whether they have five partners or twenty-five partners.

There is no indication that Pokerstars is going to operate as a network, with their partners each having a 'skin.' Their stated intent is that Pokerstars will be the forward facing brand, and that their is no partner skin in NJ is indicative of that intent.

They should seriously reconsider their approach. Be a supplier instead of a competitor, make friends not enemies.

How do you reach that conclusion? There is a coalition of major cardrooms and tribes that have formed a conglomerate with PokerStars. Do you think they just sign a contract with PS to get a piece of the pie without running their own skin? I think the fact that there are multiple cardrooms and tribes signed on with them IS an indication that there will be PokerStars skins in CA.

NJ is a different market, with laws and regulations that encourage self-branding of the online sites. Plus it is not a tribal gaming state. What PokerStars has done there is not necessarily indicative of how they will operate in tribal gaming states.

I don't know what PokerStars plans actually are for operations in California. Do you?

Pokerstars stated in 2014 when announcing their CA partnerships that Pokerstars would be the forward facing brand. Not 'a' but 'the.'

there may be skins, I have no inside knowledge. We should ask them

Sent from my LGL33L using Tapatalk

also if they were going to have skins, isnt the obvious solution offering Pechanga et al skins as well, creating an even playing field?

that they havent gone there tells me skis are not what stsrs has in mind

but of you were to tell me such an offer is on the table and Pechanga wont consider it, I would be moved to agree with the charge of obstructionism

Sent from my LGL33L using Tapatalk

Here's a great op-ed by PPA Executive Director John Pappas for the Modesto Bee: www.modbee.com/opinion/state-issues/article84846817.html

What sites are these million players using? Liquidity must be great.

Pappas pulling figures out of the air again and he still obviously hasn´t read the bill because there is nothing in it to protect players funds from another Lock Poker scenario.

Although the bill stipulates that player deposits must be kept separate from service providers´ funds (§19990.506 (j)), there is no mention within the bill on how player deposits will be safeguarded. Consequently the possibility exists that an online poker operator could disappear with players´ deposits overnight and the players have no recourse against the operator or any regulatory body.

If the PPA was seriously interested in players´ concerns, they would campaign for shared liquidity, fair tax rates and for the scrapping of this ridiculous felony charge for playing offshore when there is no regulated alternative..

I can see legislation in California mirroring what happened in Spain. All the decent poker players relocate, leaving a dwindling market dominated by one company that screws its players.

Furthermore, as has been seen in Spain (credible source), players will continue to use unregulated gambling sites through choice. This will probably occur on a larger scale in California because of the legislation being poker only.

Why do some posts start with this type of nonsense opening? If PPA didn't care about players, there wouldn't be a PPA.

I don't know how you'd ever get mandated shared liquidity. Just because you want something doesn't mean the state or the operators would agree.

PPA has openly called for elimination of any player penalties for playing offshore sites and are lobbying for its removal.

PPA wants tax fairness. I don't know that this bill is the vehicle for that, though, but we do think it's important.

My apologies for a lack of originality but, if the PPA is lobbying for the things that players want (i.e. the removal of the felony clause), why don´t we hear about it instead of an Internet Consumer Protection Act that is lacking in consumer protection.

Claiming that "millions of players" are risking their bankrolls at unregulated sites does not help the credibility of the organization and I would respectfully suggest that irrespective of whether the state and the operators want shared liquidity, it is something that the players want and something that the PPA should be campaigning for.

I understand that Assemblyman Gray is reluctant to include shared liquidity in his bill because of UIGEA but, if states along the East Coast and Nevada are happy to consider it, shouldn´t it get some discussion in California before being written off?.

Although I wouldn't want to see the PPA marginalize their acceptance by the political machine through unwelcome demands, I generally agree with the sentiment. The PPA has never published a white paper, including sample legislative language, which presents legislators and other interested parties with a perspective of what should be in any Internet poker legislation to protect poker players and provide them with a robust playing experience, including:

1. Protection of player funds.
2. Methods of and limitations on taxation.
3. "Bad actor" clauses that protect players from actual bad actors (those with a history of actual criminal activity or moral turpitude).
4. Future expansion to cross-border player pools.
5. Transition to a regulated market. (Including no criminalization of play on unlicensed sites, only of the sites themselves.)
6. Protections from bots, cheating, fraud and theft.
7. Self-limitations and self-exclusion options for responsible gaming.

IMO, such a document should be created and distributed to every federal and state lawmaker across the country.

So legalized online poker is close to becoming reality for California?

I see a lot of debate, but no clear answers

California is the 7th largest GDP provider isn't it? It would be huge in the US for the movement to continue there, allowing it to steamroll into many other states

No real timeline, last vote was delayed; not close.

How closely do you follow the issue? If you read the PPA updates and social media, you'll see what we do. OTOH, if you just hear things in passing, you may not.

If you're upset that PPA isn't bigger and that you don't simply get the information without looking, then you should help us grow.

Interstate sites is a nonstarter in CA right now. It's likely best to get this bill done and then campaign for shared liquidity...something that will become more apparent to the state once NJ and NV expand their offerings. Of course, some group could get together to torpedo the bill until it happens, but I don't think the CA players would seek that.

It won't be written off. It will simply be something to be revisited.