FairPlayUSA discussion

[alphamike]

Originally Posted by Greg (FossilMan)

Sorry all, I have no news for you. I haven't heard from Marisa or anybody else from FPUSA for several weeks. Don't know what's happening now, if anything.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

Aren't you on the board? Shouldn't you have a sense of what is happening with this organization?


Looks like they have realized a federal bill is not going to happen in the United States of America.

[LetsGambool]

Its not like a company's Board of Directors, its not like Greg has a fiduciary responsibility or anything. He's an advisor.

That said, if Greg's out of the loop I hope Fairplay is currently doing nothing.

[sajeffe]

Originally Posted by vicnice

What has Fairplay been upto? Any updates since March?

Hmmmm. Middle Coast got a better offer? Maybe Sheldon Adelson bought them out?

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

I'm sure this appeals to some in the broader poker community, but I cannot see players ever thinking a federal solution would be inferior to a state-by-state one.

The realistic choice has always been between working on feasible progress at the State level or toiling away, year after year, at some quixotic quest for a "federal solution" by Capitol Hill.

There is not a real "federal solution", never has been, and never will be, at least without first getting States to pass bills.

Bluntly put, the PPAs DC-centric paid advisors were selling federal "hope", a magic bullet. They sold a "federal solution" to the PPA, they sold it to Fulltilt, they sold it to the IGC-funders, and they sold it to anyone with a couple of $ million to spend.

They described a "castle in the sky" solution, and began collecting rent in advance of its being built. No one was ever going to get to play online poker in it.

Would a magic bullet have been "superior" to a State-by-State roll-out of the industry ? Sure, except no one had a magic gun.

The irony is that if so many years hadn't wasted on passing an exclusive "federal solution", players would have been that much closer to playing online, with a tangible prospect of a federal blessing for State-by-State compacts.

[TheEngineer]

DQ,

No one "sold" me anything. No DC-centric advisors met with me to push an agenda. Nothing like that happened at all. Rather, I analyzed the landscape and arrived at an independent conclusion relative to strategizing this fight.

I hope the lottery-based poker you're seeking works out to be as player-friendly as you say, but I do think PPA's strategy has been optimal for the resources available.

[LetsGambool]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

The irony is that if so many years hadn't wasted on passing an exclusive "federal solution", players would have been that much closer to playing online, with a tangible prospect of a federal blessing for State-by-State compacts.

I dont know how much time has been wasted. State level support has only really picked up in the last couple of years and the Wire Act opinion is only like six months old. Without fighting at the Federal level initially states might have just been given the banhammer.

That said, occassionally someone comes into the forum pissing and moaning about why the PPA isnt fighting for a full Wire Act repeal or no state optouts in a Federal bill and TE gives a reasoned explanation about why, even if that would be a better outcome for players, it is politically impossible.

If we dont pass a bill this session, I think that same argument about political reality applies to the Federal route in general. Its unfortunate, the Federal route would be better, but reality is reality.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

DQ,

No one "sold" me anything. No DC-centric advisors met with me to push an agenda. Nothing like that happened at all. Rather, I analyzed the landscape and arrived at an independent conclusion relative to strategizing this fight.

I hope the lottery-based poker you're seeking works out to be as player-friendly as you say, but I do think PPA's strategy has been optimal for the resources available.

TE, no one, least of all me, thinks you are anything other than a bright, dedicated guy who works very hard at getting online poker expressly legalized on behalf of poker players. So, I'll take and bold the key portion of your answer;

optimal for the resources available

There is no doubt at all that the resources available to implement whatever strategy came with "Federal Solution Only" strings attached. (The motivation behind such past financial backers as FTP was just as clearly not driven by "player-friendly" altruism.)

You've been playing the hand you were dealt, in the only game available, financially.

You know I'd like to help improve your cards for the next hand, to allow you a better game selection strategy as well.

(LOL, as for the "lottery poker" angle, I just don't see the "socialist" boogeyman you do. If poker is going to come at the State level, and through multi-state compacts, the quickest way to its legalization may well reside in a lottery-backed effort in some States. I would deal with that "devil" you perceive, you won't. So we differ on strategy, no disrespect.)

FWIW, I've been told a bit about "what happened", and who/how/when/why, and unequivocally state that your selection and joining the game-already-in-progress was a HUGE plus for poker players.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

I dont know how much time has been wasted. State level support has only really picked up in the last couple of years and the Wire Act opinion is only like six months old. Without fighting at the Federal level initially states might have just been given the banhammer.

That said, occassionally someone comes into the forum pissing and moaning about why the PPA isnt fighting for a full Wire Act repeal or no state optouts in a Federal bill and TE gives a reasoned explanation about why, even if that would be a better outcome for players, it is politically impossible.

If we dont pass a bill this session, I think that same argument about political reality applies to the Federal route in general. Its unfortunate, the Federal route would be better, but reality is reality.

I agree that a defense in DC was, and IS still, necessary. I just never accepted that the offense, i.e. actually passing any pro-poker legislation, should have been fought on Capitol Hill. (After a few States pass bills, and multi-state/international play looks likely, then you might see a "blessing" bill authorizing compacts, but I don't expect any other "good" to emanate from Capitol Hill.)

Some "poker partners" from the Hill effort even actively fought against State level legislation, and not for 'player-friendly" motives.

[LastLife]

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

I agree that a defense in DC was, and IS still, necessary. I just never accepted that the offense, i.e. actually passing any pro-poker legislation, should have been fought on Capitol Hill. (After a few States pass bills, and multi-state/international play looks likely, then you might see a "blessing" bill authorizing compacts, but I don't expect any other "good" to emanate from Capitol Hill.)

Some "poker partners" from the Hill effort even actively fought against State level legislation, and not for 'player-friendly" motives.

Why hasn't the lottery expanded internationally?

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Donkey:

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

There is no doubt at all that the resources available to implement whatever strategy came with "Federal Solution Only" strings attached. (The motivation behind such past financial backers as FTP was just as clearly not driven by "player-friendly" altruism.)

I don't think free markets work this way. Usually there are profit motivated companies that have to compete. and it is this competition that allows the consumer to benefit, not '"player friendly" altruism.'

You've been playing the hand you were dealt, in the only game available, financially.

You know I'd like to help improve your cards for the next hand, to allow you a better game selection strategy as well.

It's now my opinion that the FTP route which dominated the PPA approach was wrong. For those who don't know this approach seemed to rely heavily on Democratic politicians and that's probably why the PPA website use to be full of pictures of Howard Leaderer and Senator Reid, and also why we got, in my opinion, Annie Duke testifying in front of Congress with the PPA Executive Director sitting behind her with a PPA sign.

Of course hindsight is a wonderful thing, and at the time, starting in 2006, it probably was difficult to see any other way. But as DQ seems to be saying, it didn't work, or at least hasn't worked well enough.

But this doesn't mean the PPA should quit. In my opinion they should now be following a two-track approach. Still be working at the Federal level, but putting most of the resources into those states, like California, where there is potential but also some stumbling blocks.

(LOL, as for the "lottery poker" angle, I just don't see the "socialist" boogeyman you do. If poker is going to come at the State level, and through multi-state compacts, the quickest way to its legalization may well reside in a lottery-backed effort in some States. I would deal with that "devil" you perceive, you won't. So we differ on strategy, no disrespect.)

My problem with this statement is that a poorly conceived poker bill, whether at the state or federal lever, can assure failure. Poker is a very different animal from lotteries or other casino games, and if knowledgeable people relative to poker aren't in there talking to the lottery people it can be really messed up.

For example, if you go to a casino, bets that have large returns usually have a higher house edge. An example would be betting the double sixes at craps as opposed to betting the pass line. But the high house edge is not as outrageous as it seems because to get the same return on the pass line you would have to make multiple bets, perhaps doubling your money each time until you reached the same 30-to-1 payoff as the double sixes. Notice that when you add these bets together it's similar to having a higher house edge on your initial bet with a 30-to-1 payoff.

This may partly explain why lotteries with their huge house edge are successful, but this sort of thing won't work for poker. However, I can certainly see lottery people arguing that the house take for poker can be much higher than it should be.

So this is an example where the PPA can be helpful and should play an important role. Hopefully this is happening.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Doc T River]

I respectfully disagree because if nothing changes on the federal level, but things have changed on the state level those changes can be undone or impeded by federal action. So I think most of the efforts/resources need to be at the federal level.

[txbarbarossa]

Originally Posted by Skallagrim

Never say never.

IMHO Federal legislation is inevitable, the only open question is how long it takes Congress to act.

I say this because I believe one of two things will happen: Congress will pass something this session via a Reid/Kyl compromise or Congress will pass nothing this session and state by state online gambling will begin. Eventually enough states will have passed enough different laws creating such a mess of what should be a national/international market that every single political player in this process, including those who oppose all online gaming, will agree that there has to be a Federal baseline for the industry.

The second possibility could take a very, very long time to manifest though.

Skallagrim

Would you agree that our shot for a bill is a compromise that bans casino games with a poker carve out? Also I think NV has to get some real money stuff online before the Feds will act.

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by txbarbarossa

Would you agree that our shot for a bill is a compromise that bans casino games with a poker carve out? Also I think NV has to get some real money stuff online before the Feds will act.

Yes, essentially. The broad outline of the Reid/Kyl compromise is to outright ban most other online gambling at the Federal level while carving out online poker as an exception. Other interests will have concerns reflected too: horse racing will retain its carve out as will fantasy sports; State lotteries will be able to sell online lottery tickets and packages of tickets, but not online scratch tickets. Tribes will have access to the online market outside of state licensing. Getting all of the players a piece of the pie while making most of the pie (online casino games) illegal is the basic framework being discussed.

I do not think NV MUST have live games going for the Feds to act. It would help.

I actually think what would help more would be NJ putting slots online or the Illinois lottery putting scratch tickets online (effectively slots). Either would scare a lot of folks into demanding Federal action fast.

Skallagrim

[sajeffe]

Marisa?

[KingKongGrinder]

Originally Posted by sajeffe

Marisa?

Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.

Subject: FairPlayUSA discussion
Sent: 07/26/2012 4:49PM EST.

The following recipient(s) cannot be reached

FairPlayUSA