6 months later, Why dont WE take control and get our poker back - Page 2 - Poker Legislation

DonkeyQuixote · 11-02-2011, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grasshopp3r

The PPA needs to set up a poker site for its members.

We need to have an alternative to the existing model, which are for-profit sites that serve players. There are plenty of platforms and tech that would be able to be licensed. There are plenty of ways to fund the admin of the site, including subscriptions or raking each pot.

Deposits and cash outs would be handled by a PPA credit union.

If sent to the members, I am confident that they would support it.

LOL I think they could get a skin on Cake.

**ChicagoRy** · 11-03-2011, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grasshopp3r

The PPA needs to set up a poker site for its members.

Now here's an interesting idea.

Block risky states, only keep clear games of skill offered and push the "we already have safe, legal online poker" political angle.

Question: Who pays for this?

IDKMyBFFJill · 11-03-2011, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicagoRy

Now here's an interesting idea.

Block risky states, only keep clear games of skill offered and push the "we already have safe, legal online poker" political angle.

Question: Who pays for this?

Very surprised you asked that question. No matter what, it will always be the players. It may not be for 1 day or a month or a year, but sooner or later, that players will pay for it. Whether that is through sign up fees, processing fees, rake, or any other way people can think of charging for the service of setting something like this up, the player will always pay for it.

Grasshopp3r · 11-04-2011, 05:13 PM

Do we pay for membership in the PPA? That money should be spent on a solution, which is a platform that can be used to host games.

What is the actual cost of a platform? I don't know, but I can tell you that it would be less than the current industry model for the players.

This is a heads we win, tails we win, too strategy. If regulation can not be achieved, we play. If regulation gets done and it expands the market, the PPA can compete, as well. If the DoJ prosecutes the PPA for running a site, we get standing in court.

**PokerXanadu** · 11-05-2011, 07:11 AM

I would love to see someone try this, but not the PPA. We need the PPA as a political lobbying organization to represent players' interests on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures. Taking on this project would be risking a complete shutdown of the PPA, or at least a complete alienation of our political allies, who could see such a project as an affront to current US laws and/or law enforcement.

**TheEngineer** · 11-05-2011, 02:39 PM

+1 PX. We'd be done on the Hill if we tried this.

Jah Onion · 11-06-2011, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Do we pay for membership in the PPA? That money should be spent on a solution, which is a platform that can be used to host games.

you're an idiot

Bene Gesserit · 11-06-2011, 09:32 AM

Relax , pal, the "suits" in DC and Las Vegas are working to get this done to get their major cuts of the USA poker dollars! Money talks, BS walks, to quote Angus and Malcom!

Poker Clif · 11-07-2011, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grasshopp3r

The PPA needs to set up a poker site for its members.

We need to have an alternative to the existing model, which are for-profit sites that serve players. There are plenty of platforms and tech that would be able to be licensed. There are plenty of ways to fund the admin of the site, including subscriptions or raking each pot.

Deposits and cash outs would be handled by a PPA credit union.

If sent to the members, I am confident that they would support it.

First, the PPA isn't in that business. Lobbying for a special interest is much different than running a business for profit.

Second, who says that PokerStars wasn't serving the players? In countries other than the US, it still is.

spew4u · 11-07-2011, 03:53 AM

OP needs to stop being so lazy and hit spell check

**TheEngineer** · 11-07-2011, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bene Gesserit

Relax , pal, the "suits" in DC and Las Vegas are working to get this done to get their major cuts of the USA poker dollars! Money talks, BS walks, to quote Angus and Malcom!

If it were that easy, they'd have done it already. However, it takes real work, public pressure, and a decent lawmaker educational effort to move contentious issues such as ours. After all, lawmakers have to know backing online poker legislation will help them overall in the next election (or at least not hurt them).

Part of our fight is just tipping the scales. If casino interests think it's unlikely that legislation can pass, some would prefer prohibition for everyone than prohibition just for them. We saw this in 2006 with UIGEA, when it appeared to all that there was NO chance of pro-poker legislation every passing Congress.

OTOH, if gaming interests think something can pass, they may prefer that path. A lot of what we're doing is simply tilting the scales in our favor a bit by making it more likely that legislation can pass if we were doing nothing.

Another thing tipping the scales will do is help with momentum. We've obviously seen huge changes in momentum since UIGEA passed in 2006.

Pauky · 11-07-2011, 04:53 PM

So after this time there are only 8,000 people who signed that WH petition? Well, 8,000 poker players out of the 1.2Million members that the PPA claim is only .7%. Poker players either are that lazy or there really isn't 1.2 Million PPA members.

**TheEngineer** · 11-07-2011, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pauky

So after this time there are only 8,000 people who signed that WH petition? Well, 8,000 poker players out of the 1.2Million members that the PPA claim is only .7%. Poker players either are that lazy or there really isn't 1.2 Million PPA members.

The petition simply hasn't proven as popular as other initiatives. Our biggest effort has been emails to Congress, where we are in the six figures for letters sent for this year alone.

Still, these are additive. 8K signatures are better than zero, so it's great that we did this.

LetsGambool · 11-10-2011, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pauky

So after this time there are only 8,000 people who signed that WH petition? Well, 8,000 poker players out of the 1.2Million members that the PPA claim is only .7%. Poker players either are that lazy or there really isn't 1.2 Million PPA members.

The 1.2 Million uses a very loosely defined definition of member and is useful to use for propaganda on the Hill.

Paid membership is waaaaaaaaay lower.

**sajeffe** · 11-11-2011, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grasshopp3r

Do we pay for membership in the PPA? That money should be spent on a solution, which is a platform that can be used to host games.

What is the actual cost of a platform? I don't know, but I can tell you that it would be less than the current industry model for the players.

This is a heads we win, tails we win, too strategy. If regulation can not be achieved, we play. If regulation gets done and it expands the market, the PPA can compete, as well. If the DoJ prosecutes the PPA for running a site, we get standing in court.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

I would love to see someone try this, but not the PPA. We need the PPA as a political lobbying organization to represent players' interests on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures. Taking on this project would be risking a complete shutdown of the PPA, or at least a complete alienation of our political allies, who could see such a project as an affront to current US laws and/or law enforcement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

+1 PX. We'd be done on the Hill if we tried this.

I'd love for somebody with the money (and guts) to do this, do it.